9月GMAT閱讀機(jī)經(jīng):法國(guó)印刷術(shù).

　　9月GMAT機(jī)經(jīng)換庫了，現(xiàn)在就由小編來為大家整理九月份的GMAT閱讀機(jī)經(jīng)整理，下面是關(guān)于GMAT閱讀機(jī)經(jīng)的相關(guān)問題，分享給大家，希望對(duì)大家有所幫助，文中觀點(diǎn)僅供參考。

　　本月原始V1 【By 搖曳的葉子】

　　將illustrate在19世紀(jì)被引入Franch的時(shí)候，有some critics 說了一大堆。

　　第二段有一個(gè)叫Maryer的人follow了上面一個(gè)人的觀點(diǎn)，覺得有一種industrial作畫顏料(好像叫什么chemical fingerprint)既便宜又比較好，具體說了一些優(yōu)點(diǎn)(這里有題目，問Maryer為什么appreciate這種顏料)。但是這種染料后來逐漸變得unpopular了，說明原因....(沒有題目)

　　考古 【By 元叔】

　　For artists and writers alike, book illustration’s threat was double: it challenged the fine arts via their shared visual medium, and literature through the shared pages of the book. As such, critics needed a way to invalidate illustration’s artistic claims on both fronts. They did so by codifying the genre as industrial and mercantile, a lethal combination. The landscape painter Raoul de Croy (1802-79) led the charge, chastising the press for its use of what he described as ‘‘crude wood engravings’’ that transform ‘‘beautiful vignettes’’ into ‘‘black ink stains.’’ Here de Croy sets up a polarity between wood and metal engraving: the former being ‘‘crude’’ and ‘‘mechanical,’’ the latter representative of ‘‘this art so perfect, so difficult, so worthy of encouragement.’’ De Mercey followed suit, noting the ‘‘difficulty’’ and ‘‘length of work’’ involved with copper and steel engraving, as well as etching. Lithography and wood engraving, on the other hand, were ‘‘much less difficult to produce and much less expensive.’’

　　Although the Romantics, and de Croy himself, championed lithography as a spontaneous, emotive medium that captured the visible traces of the artist’s pencil— metonymic rerences to the artist’s thoughts and emotions the lithography of the 1840s fell on the side of ‘‘popular’’ art more often than not, as it was primarily used in the press and for low-end prints, with subject matter ranging from political and social caricature to licentious images. Accordingly, the medium took on the attributes of its publication venues and content: mechanical, commercial, destined for a popular audience.De Mercey’s and de Croy’s distinction between lithography/wood en- graving and metal engraving/etching establishes a series of dichotomies— mechanical versus hand-produced, mass-reproduced versus limited reproduction, industrial versus individual creation—which correspond to Bourdieu’s breakdown of the cultural field. These distinctions also testify to the very real nature of image reproduction in the nineteenth century: metal engraving was a lengthy and costly procedure where the bulk of the work was often done by one engraver, while wood engraving and lithography were much less expensive and easier to produce, with individual authorship giving way to the collaborative process of publishing illustrated newspapers and books. These differences fuel de Mercey’s and de Croy’s attacks on book illustration in that each critic attributes value to time, cost of production, and individual workmanship: thus metal engraving and etching are placed at the high end of the aesthetic scale, while lithography and especially wood engraving fall to the bottom. Yet ironically, by placing illustration within the academic hierarchy of mediums, de Mercey and de Croy suggest that it is gaining not only economic but also cultural capital. Despite its ‘‘crude’’ and ‘‘mechanical’’ nature, it has earned a place on the artistic ladder, albeit the lowest rung.

　　Critics reinforced the high-versus-low art dichotomy by adding commercialism, what Bourdieu qualifies as the ‘‘generative principle’’ of the field of cultural production. According to de Mercey, publishers turn to book illustration because they want ‘‘to produce bargains, common goods.’’Il- lustration is a step backwards towards ‘‘the mercantile civilization of America’’; ‘‘no other century has pushed as far as ours this debauchery of illustrations commercially conceived’’; ‘‘literature has become a counter, a boutique open on the street, with display windows and a sign.’’ In short, illustration is not art; it is simply a means to ‘‘build a fortune.’’

　　De Mercey plays on a related fear when he protests that both wood en- graving and lithography ‘‘largely contributed . . . to the democratization of minds [esprits].’’ De Croy grants that one may applaud the press’s forts to ‘‘bring the taste for the arts to the poor person’s home,’’ but this must not be done by way of ‘‘a(chǎn)ssassinating the fine arts’’: ‘‘Where, thus, will good taste find ruge if we inundate the poor public in such a manner?’’ De Croy’s metaphor of a flood or wave of images signals the growing anxiety that illustration will eventually drown out or homogenize the visual arts. De Mercey and de Croy fear not wood engraving and lithography per se, but rather their infiltration and subversion of high art. And in many ways book illustration did just that, for as Philippe Kaenel notes, the majority of visual artists from 1830 to 1880 sold images to newspapers and booksellers at one time or another, blurring the boundaries between painting, engraving, caricature, and illustration. As Kaenel points out, the entry for the

　　letter ‘‘d’’ in Marcus Osterwalder’s Dictionnaire des illustrateurs (1983) in- cludes ‘‘Dargent, Daubigny, Daumier, Debucourt, Decamps, Delacroix, Denis, Derain, Deve ?ria, Dore ?, Durf, Du Maurier, etc.’’66 When such a varied collection of painters, caricaturists, and engravers illustrate books, how does one distinguish between the artist and the commercial hack?

　　The same question arises in the context of literature, for as de Mercey and fellow critics argue, book illustration’s attack on the artistic field targets both visual and literary aesthetics. The critic Elias Regnault warns that in order to maintain literature’s integrity, ‘‘the publisher must bring to this new path sureness in judgment, a purity of taste, which raises him to the ranks of an artist, if he doesn’t want to descend to the role of sketch sales- man.’’ Regnault cites a number of cases where the publisher fills books with too many images, poor quality images, or images that do not correspond to the text. Worst of all is the publisher who ‘‘brazenly changes the first words of a paragraph in order to offer hospitality to his illuminated letters.’’ Here Regnault targets publishers as the instrument behind illustration’s degradation of literature: ‘‘their most common error is to take on the airs of an artist vis-a`-vis the public and to reserve their merchant ways for the writer.’’ The publisher’s true crime is that he usurps the writer, taking over the book via illustration, all under the guise of ‘‘a(chǎn)rt’’ although he is in fact a salesman in artist’s clothing.

　　For de Mercey, illustration’s threat to literature is even greater as it not only corrupts aesthetics but, more importantly, it distorts the reading process by substituting image for word. As he explains, there is a certain ‘‘vague- ness’’ inherent to ‘‘verbal painting’’: ‘‘Nothing is precise, the reader’s mind is constantly required to call forth its reminiscences and its personal emotions in order to interpret, as it were, the poet’s idea.’’ But illustration makes this kind of creative individual reading impossible. The reader be- comes lazy, the mind weakened from the passive viewing of images: ‘‘When the illustrator gives precise forms to the writer’s reveries, his stories, it necessarily happens that the mind is no longer accustomed to understanding these stories, these reveries, unless in the clothes that the painter has dressed them. The illustrator thus substitutes himself for the poet; he imposes his personal interpretation in place of that multiple and living interpretation that each person can create according to his imagination or his nature.’’

　　Yet despite the critics’ attempts to discredit illustration, de Mercey, de Croy, and Regnault actually attest to its success, in that their articles amass a body of critical discourse devoted to wood engraving and lithography. By making book illustration a topic of discussion and interpretation, the critics actually validate its entry into the cultural field. What is more, the critics’ fervent attacks suggest that illustration succeeded at destabilizing, however temporarily, the cultural field. The threat to aesthetic hierarchies was real.

　　V1關(guān)鍵詞wood engraving, artistic...France... 　　有一問是說第二段提一個(gè)人(De Mocoy貌似)是為了干嘛? V2閱讀有一篇講什么graphic illustration....里面提到了什么印刷在wood 或metal上的 然后法國(guó)有個(gè)人叫什么re.xxxx的 反正講來講去沒看懂多少。

　　V3不確定是不是這里的)貌似一種印刷和出版相關(guān)的

　　P1.講了貌似法國(guó)的一種印刷在publication中的應(yīng)用, 初始遭到critics的不認(rèn)同(好像是artistic不是上非常有價(jià)值之類)云云.這里有個(gè)對(duì)比部分和金屬蝕刻(etching)相關(guān)的對(duì)比. 然后藝術(shù)家怎么怎么了(總之是正態(tài)度)

　　V4：講法國(guó)有關(guān)什麼art的,是book illustration被criticize, 兩段文, 後段關(guān)鍵字lithography 幾乎整篇都在講printed art 還有各種印刷方法(木工..鐵工...有說明鐵工耗時(shí)所以lithography好使的樣子..)

　　V5: wood那道我怎么記得看到過 說17century france的 一個(gè)藝術(shù)家用這種方法 第二段說的是另外個(gè)高等社會(huì)bourgeois的另外個(gè)人說的話好像說這種比較省錢 報(bào)紙還是神馬的反正用的范圍廣 還說對(duì)政治有幫助咩 還說了個(gè)silver還是什么的很復(fù)雜的engraving

　　V6: illustrations受到critics的批評(píng)，artists怎么怎么，提到了一個(gè)具體藝術(shù)家(名字很長(zhǎng)貌似法文名字)說wood和mental 的engraving，wood的不好，后者好。第二段還說這個(gè)engraving，什么lithography什么，說steer的less dufficult.....最后說lithograpgy應(yīng)用到popular side，用于publish newspapers，ranging from political issues to social issues。

　　V7: Book illustration. 還有講印刷啥的東西。

　　第一段：某個(gè)鳥人很支持Copper Engrave啥的

　　第二段：另一個(gè)人提出一些不同觀點(diǎn)，說木頭什么比金屬的好。因?yàn)楸容^便宜，且好做。

　　V8： 法國(guó)關(guān)于illustration 其中有類型應(yīng)用(主要應(yīng)用于newspaper的politics 和

　　Social issues類?)

　　V10: 第2段 法國(guó)的什么人講 STEEL WOOD 這些方法沒有很難 而且花費(fèi)小 然后還說印刷是一直持續(xù)怎么著的,還有第2段開頭提到很長(zhǎng)的法國(guó)名字 問那人的觀點(diǎn)

　　V11： 法國(guó)的藝術(shù)家，book illustration。。。。一個(gè)人創(chuàng)造了一個(gè)新的方法，然后另一個(gè)人跟著學(xué)，然后這種方法就成了popular，導(dǎo)致了本來的一種方法淪落到報(bào)紙印刷才用的

　　V12: (700 v36)還有那個(gè)etching 第一段是說de croy?覺得wood engraving不好，XX技術(shù)好，具有藝術(shù)性。 第二段是說 某派人覺得wood 挺好的好像。但是浪漫派和de croy喜歡的litography 最后還是變成low-end 用來傳播政治阿社會(huì)啊的主觀事情(這里有題)

　　整理分析 【By 元叔】

　　※ 主題思路：

　　金屬etching法(腐蝕)和木頭雕刻哪個(gè)更加受歡迎

　　金屬好：技術(shù)好，有藝術(shù)性;

　　木頭好：操作小，花費(fèi)小;

　　※ 段落大意：

　　第一段：金屬腐蝕法好：

　　Book illustration的出現(xiàn)引來了批評(píng)critics。 其中典型的就是一位叫DE M (DC)的人對(duì)此持負(fù)面態(tài)度。(這里搞清楚DC是批評(píng)的還是對(duì)批評(píng)持負(fù)面態(tài)度的),這個(gè)人認(rèn)為metal etching 法 與wood engraving 雕刻法 (這里應(yīng)該有減少兩者的一致性，因?yàn)楹竺嬗殖鰧?duì)兩者一致性的題)，這兩者相比，wood engraving簡(jiǎn)直就是污垢(就是不好就對(duì)了)而metal etching“好完美”，因?yàn)榧夹g(shù)好，又具有藝術(shù)性

　　第二段：木頭雕刻法好：

　　又出來一派人說wood好，同litography一樣經(jīng)濟(jì)方便。因?yàn)閣ood engraving的操作less difficult，而且花費(fèi)小，中間貌似穿插了與copper的對(duì)比(有題)，wood & lithography are both less difficult in use and less expensive. Lithography was initiated for taking artists’ pencil works(這句意思如此，語言不是很準(zhǔn)全)。然后舉例說wood印刷在當(dāng)時(shí)的應(yīng)用應(yīng)該是廣泛的，因?yàn)橥琹ithography(平板印刷術(shù))一樣經(jīng)濟(jì)又方便，最后說lithography應(yīng)用到popular side，用于publish newspapers，ranging from political issues to social issues，然后又問DC的觀點(diǎn)，浪漫派和DC竟然也喜歡lithography，認(rèn)為各種美好，盡管最后還是淪為傳播政治等話題的載體。Although DC championed lithography in the artistic and emotive domain, it ultimately fell to the low-end serving for political and social blabla.(不是domain這個(gè)詞，但就這意思，注意體會(huì)championed的意思)

　　※ 可能變體版本：

　　閱讀考了法國(guó)印刷那篇，印象很深刻。文章很短，但是有些晦澀。

　　第一段講了19世紀(jì)illustration的出現(xiàn)引來了很多的cirtics。然后講一個(gè)人認(rèn)為用木頭(lithography)比用metalengraving的方法好。注意這一段有道題問，19世紀(jì)大多數(shù)人對(duì)illusration 的看法，大家注意認(rèn)真讀開頭的兩句話。答案就在那兩句話里，句子有些不好懂。

　　第二段開頭說，后來的人還是人為metal engraving的方法更好，但是lithography開始越來越流行普及了，因?yàn)榈土脑靸r(jià)，和方便使用。最后一句是lithograpgy應(yīng)用到popular side，用于publish newspapers，ranging from political issues to social issues。)

　　※ 題目：

　　1)主旨題

　　我選了介紹不同的方法。

　　2)有一問是說第二段提一個(gè)人(De Mocoy貌似)是為了干嘛?

　　3)最后還是變成low-end 用來傳播政治阿 社會(huì)啊的主觀事情(這里有題)

　　4)這里有個(gè)題目比較糾結(jié)，就是關(guān)于第二段的那個(gè)人的觀點(diǎn)的，那個(gè)人認(rèn)為金屬的印刷不好，又貴，而木頭的比較好。 下面那個(gè)不是他支持的

　　其中三個(gè)選項(xiàng)文章很明顯提到，但還有兩個(gè)不知道選哪個(gè)，一個(gè)是賣的貴，還有一個(gè)是用此種方法做出來的venue。我選了后一種，文章里沒看到。

　　5)說通過文章,可以推斷出哪個(gè)是正確的?

　　好像選LI那個(gè)印刷術(shù)很盛行 之類的

　　6)還有第2段開頭提到很長(zhǎng)的法國(guó)名字問那人的觀點(diǎn)

　　7)問19世紀(jì)lif方法被人如何看待?

　　8) book illustration在當(dāng)時(shí)怎么樣?/第一題問你第一段book illustration能infer出啥?

　　V1我選了被批評(píng)家認(rèn)為for 工業(yè)。

　　V2 (by 往屆狗主760 V42)

　　選項(xiàng)有

　　A) book illustration was used for industrial publication

　　B) it is not made of metal

　　C) used for social and political publication

　　D) critics ignore illustration

　　E) can be easily created byartists

　　大概選項(xiàng)就是這個(gè)意思，順序不確定，總之我覺得所有選項(xiàng)都不靠譜，jj里有人選了for industrial publication，但是我也覺得不對(duì)啊，原文貌似說的是criticizeit as industrial and xx反正我理解的是批評(píng)家覺得這種方方過于工業(yè)化和簡(jiǎn)陋，可能我理解錯(cuò)了吧，最后糾結(jié)了半天我選了不是made of metal的那個(gè)好像。。。

　　9) 還有一個(gè)問到浪漫派的觀點(diǎn)什么的

　　我沒太多時(shí)間看，就選了那個(gè)artist可以spontaneously create他們作品的那個(gè).

　　10)有個(gè)問題是關(guān)于lithography的細(xì)節(jié)題

　　我記得答案好像是lithography開始的時(shí)候應(yīng)用沒有那么廣，因?yàn)樽詈笠痪湔f到了后來lithography才得到了廣泛的應(yīng)用。這是我遇到的最坑爹的一篇閱讀，文章不長(zhǎng)，但是浪費(fèi)很多時(shí)間在上面。

　　※ 備注

　　題目不難，文章跳躍度有點(diǎn)高，我就問了三題。

　　以上就是對(duì)于9月GMAT閱讀機(jī)經(jīng)的相關(guān)介紹，希望對(duì)大家備考GMAT考試有所幫助，文中觀點(diǎn)僅供參考。