PriyankaPalit7 wrote:
We ought to pay attention only to the intrinsic properties of a work of art. Its other, extrinsic properties are irrelevant to our aesthetic interactions with it. For example, when we look at a painting we should consider only what is directly presented in our experience of it. What is really aesthetically relevant, therefore, is not what a painting symbolizes, but what it directly presents to experience.
The conclusion follows logically if which one of the following is added to the premises?
Conclusion: What is really aesthetically relevant, therefore, is not what a painting symbolizes, but what it directly presents to experience.
A. What an art work symbolizes involves only extrinsic properties of that work.
Correct. Helps us arrive us at the conclusion by filling a gap in the argument.
"extrinsic properties are irrelevant to our aesthetic interactions with it" --> The gap in the argument being filled by statement in option A -->
What an art work symbolizes involves only extrinsic properties of that work."What is really aesthetically relevant, therefore, is not what a painting symbolizes"B. There are certain properties of
our experiences of artworks that can be distinguished as
symbolic properties.
'our experiences' make the painting aesthetically relevant- which is being referred to the 'intrinsic properties' (not 'extrinsic')
C. Only an artwork’s intrinsic properties are relevant to our aesthetic interactions with it.
The biggest drawback with option C is that it
does not help us reach the conclusion as option A does. Moreover, it can be argued that what option C states is already given in the argument.
D. It is possible in theory for an artwork to symbolize nothing.
May be, may be not. Can't comment based on the info provided.
Out of scope.E. An intrinsic property of an artwork is one that related the work to
itself.The argument defines intrinsic property as 'what it directly presents
to us' (not
'itself')