Extraordinary creative activity has been characterized as revolutionary, flying in the face of what is established and producing not what is acceptable but what will become accepted. According to this formulation, highly creative activity transcends the limits of an existing form and establishes a new principle of organization. However, the idea that extraordinary creativity transcends established limits is misleading when it is applied to the arts, even though it may be valid for the sciences. Difference between highly creative art and highly creative science arise in part from a difference in their goals. For the sciences, a new theory is the goal and end result of the creative act. Innovative science produces new propositions in terms of which diverse phenomena can be related to one another in more coherent ways. Such phenomena as a brilliant diamond or a nesting bird are relegated to the role of data, serving as the means for formulating or testing a new theory. The goal of highly creative art is very different: the phenomenon itself becomes the direct product of the creative act. Shakespeare‘s Hamlet is not a tract about the behavior of indecisive princes or the uses of political power; nor is Picasso‘s painting Guernica primarily a propositional statement about the Spanish Civil War or the evils of fascism. What highly creative artistic activity produces is not a new generalization that transcends established limits, but rather an aesthetic particular. Aesthetic particulars produced by the highly creative artist extend or exploit, in an innovative way, the limits of an existing form, rather than transcend that form.

 

This is not to deny that a highly creative artist sometimes establishes a new principle of organization in the history of an artistic field; the composer Monteverdi, who created music of the highest aesthetic value, comes to mind. More generally, however, whether or not a composition establishes a new principle in the history of music has little bearing on its aesthetic worth. Because they embody a new principle of organization, some musical works, such as the operas of the Florentine Camerata, are of signal historical importance, but few listeners or musicologists would include these among the great works of music. On the other hand, Mozart‘s The Marriage of Figaro is surely among the masterpieces of music even though its modest innovations are confined to extending existing means. It has been said of Beethoven that he toppled the rules and freed music from the stifling confines of convention. But a close study of his compositions reveals that Beethoven overturned no fundamental rules. Rather, he was an incomparable strategist who exploited limits—the rules, forms, and conventions that he inherited from predecessors such as Haydn and Mozart, Handel and Bach—in strikingly original ways.

 

For the following question, consider each of the choices separately and select all that apply

1. The passage supplies information for answering which of the following questions?

(A) Has unusual creative activity been characterized as revolutionary?

(B) Did Beethoven work within a musical tradition that also included Handel and Bach?

(C) Who besides Monteverdi wrote music that the author would consider to embody new principles of organization and to be of high aesthetic value?

  

2. The author regards the idea that all highly creative artistic activity transcends limits with

(A) deep skepticism

(B) strong indignation

(C) marked indifference

(D) moderate amusement

(E) sharp derision

  

3. The author implies that an innovative scientific contribution is one that

(A) is cited with high frequency in the publications of other scientists

(B) is accepted immediately by the scientific community

(C) does not relegate particulars to the role of data

(D) presents the discovery of a new scientific fact

(E) introduces a new valid generalization

  

4. Which of the following statements would most logically concluded the last paragraph of the passage?

(A) Unlike Beethoven, however, even the greatest of modern composers, such as Stravinsky, did not transcend existing musical forms.

(B) In similar fashion, existing musical forms were even further exploited by the next generation of great European composers.

(C) Thus, many of the great composers displayed the same combination of talents exhibited by Monteverdi.

(D) By contrast, the view that creativity in the arts exploits but does not transcend limits is supported in the field of literature.

(E) Actually, Beethoven‘s most original works were largely unappreciated at the time that they were first performed.

 

結構分析:

本篇不難,就難在是否有耐心靜下心來思考這麼長的文章她重點在哪,老樣子題目還沒看到之前先來看第一句話,就好比老司機在看價目表一樣,這是必做的第一件事。

Extraordinary creative activity has been characterized as revolutionary, flying in the face of what is established and producing not what is acceptable but what will become accepted.這句話裡面有個flying in the face of 這個記『取反』就對了,所以這句話就創意=革命=反對以建立的東西=生出一些東西是以後被人接受的,四個內容三個等號。往下看下一句看到According to this formulation.....這就暗示你別在看了,因為『代名詞』出現囉,這句話請跳過,截下來快速掃過看到了however,這個重點來了。

 

However, the idea that extraordinary creativity transcends established limits is misleading when it is applied to the arts, even though it may be valid for the sciences。但是老大啊,這是誤解啊,藝術方面你不能這麼說革新,科學是可以這麼說的,喔喔所以角色我抓到了,等等八成會往art VS. science去發展,但我不確定所以往下喵看看有沒有講殺小,哈哈往下看第一個字就有端倪了,Difference這個不同實在是太棒了,證明至少在這個段落裡頭是用對比文體藝術比較科學,請注意看到difference接下來就別再看了,抓方向即可,在看下去是跟你的時間過不去。

『 ....For the sciences, a new theory is the goal and end result of the creative act. Innovative science produces new propositions in terms of which diverse phenomena can be related to one another in more coherent ways. Such phenomena as a brilliant diamond or a nesting bird are relegated to the role of data, serving as the means for formulating or testing a new theory. The goal of highly creative art is very different: the phenomenon itself becomes the direct product of the creative act. Shakespeare‘s Hamlet is not a tract about the behavior of indecisive princes or the uses of political power; nor is Picasso‘s painting Guernica primarily a propositional statement about the Spanish Civil War or the evils of fascism. ...』

接下來上面For the sciences....全都是人名,基本上已經在舉例說明了,所以更是不需要繼續看下去,這以下都沒轉折,一下說科學方面如何,一下說藝術怎樣,這只是在加深對比的力度而已,好的第一段工作結束。

 

What highly creative artistic activity produces is not a new generalization that transcends established limits, but rather an aesthetic particular. Aesthetic particulars produced by the highly creative artist extend or exploit, in an innovative way, the limits of an existing form, rather than transcend that form.這兩句話前面就是兩類藝術和科學的比較,接下來有個句內轉折就看個人意願是否看了,但是我是不看拉,因為我知道文章主架構即可,而且剛剛舉例專有名詞方一堆,這裡再出現兩句話,就表示他舉例結束了,接下來要為這一段做結尾,並且為下一段鋪陳,如果硬要看就看最後一句:總結就是藝術這東西沒有突破,只有老艮新用

 

下一段我光看到this就不想看下去了,這麼早代名詞就出現了,所以延續上一段的主軸繼續下去,但是為了表示架構清楚,還是把大一句話主幹抓一下:This is not to deny that a highly creative artist sometimes establishes a new principle of organization in the history of an artistic field; the composer Monteverdi, who created music of the highest aesthetic value, comes to mind這裡盡然是讓步句not to deny,看來下面一句話勢必展現出重點,那這裡就不理會了,尤其『分號』之後再看下去這就真的不用考試了,別看內容注意轉折。

 

往下看還好來個however幫我解惑。

 

More generally, however, whether or not a composition establishes a new principle in the history of music has little bearing on its aesthetic worth美學價值和使用原則無關。大億就是說『新的』不等於『值錢的』往下看because出來就是解釋了,這個就沒屁用了,只要知道結果就好,考試的時候請保持想像自己是老闆,就是那種會說:阿結果勒,所以勒,的那種老闆,不要去過問過程。然後看看還有沒有轉折,就可以來做題了,雖然我打了一堆字,但是實際上,這些內容在腦子裡大概一分半鐘就結束了,想對方向的話,腦子的思考是很快的。

 

But a close study of his compositions reveals that Beethoven overturned no fundamental rules. Rather, he was an incomparable strategist who exploited limits—the rules, forms, and conventions that he inherited from predecessors such as Haydn and Mozart, Handel and Bach—in strikingly original ways.這結尾舉出貝哥哥其實也是老艮新用。好結束。

 

 

第一題:

多選題,這只能一個一個看

(A) Has unusual creative activity been characterized as revolutionary?

這個完全就是開頭第一句話,不選對不起自己

 

(B) Did Beethoven work within a musical tradition that also included Handel and Bach?

included就是跟著以前的限制走,那也就是剛剛看完的最後一句話

 

(C) Who besides Monteverdi wrote music that the author would consider to embody new principles of organization and to be of high aesthetic value?

第二段開頭的第二句話就解釋了,既然兩者沒有關係,所以就不會有對應的發生對象

選(A)(B)

 

第二題:

author認為藝術創新的想法如何,這個從結構直接看最後一句話的那個『BUT』用貝多芬當做例子來陳述作者認為是有規則的,所以言下之意就是根本沒創新,那就選(A)

作者投以深深懷疑在心中。

 

第三題:

第三題作者暗示科學怎麼了,這個剛剛跳過去,但是就結構上來看能夠找到答案的話其實可以單就difference去解題,因為藝術和科學不同的,然後剛剛藝術講了一多就是老艮新用,都是有依據的,所以可以反推出科學其實是新的,所以選項中只有(D)(E)可行,接下來看個別的選項主幹去挑答案,先看

(D) presents the discovery of a new scientific fact,新的科學事實,

(E) introduces a new valid generalization新的有價值的一代,就是迭代更新,

沒辦法我兩個都不知道,所以只能回看剛剛刻意略的那句話For the sciences, a new theory is the goal and end result of the creative act.新理論出來,還要有結果,那就選(E)

 

第四題:

問到最後一段結論是啥,那主要還是在考剛剛貝多芬的那一段內容,主幹就是保持藝術沒有創新這樣下去選,

 

(A)Unlike Beethoven...看到不像貝多芬就掰掰了,這個月光製作人應該是要當主角啊怎麼把它晾一邊出了,沒關係往後看到Stravinsky這個絕對要刪除,在批判性思維當中,所謂要找到結論,可以簡單的歸納出兩點,其一是跟著正確的前提描述走,其二是選項當作結論的話,帶入搭配前方的內容,兩者考慮之後,這個被你加上去的結論是必須沒有『反例』出現的,這樣才能符合結論描述是對的情況,而本題問到結論哪個最棒,就是說前提必須是對的,而且跟前提有連貫性跟著前提往下推,再來絕對不會有反例,然而看到之前的幾句話,

But a close study of his compositions reveals that Beethoven overturned no fundamental rules. Rather, he was an incomparable strategist who exploited limits—the rules, forms, and conventions that he inherited from predecessors such as Haydn and Mozart, Handel and Bach—in strikingly original ways.

如果看到這兩句話,(A)確定在自打嘴巴不能選了,不僅沒跟著前提,還反對前提,其二多出來的內容不能保證他絕對正確modern composers, such as Stravinsky, did not transcend existing musical forms,不能保證S大大作品的創新度,因為前提沒說,沒連貫性。

 

(B) In similar fashion, existing musical forms were even further exploited by the next generation of great European composers.

這個就合理了,前方給條件:In similar fashion以相似的方法考慮下,就角色上來說他叫表示認同前提,有個著前提的要求,這個具有依照古法釀製的音樂,是會一樣依照古法沿用下去,沒有連貫性的問題,這是歸納法特徵,由過去推現在,假設條件相同也可以推測未來結果相同,這牽涉到歸納法的 the uniformity of nature .然後不放心在找反例,看看可否成立,it is not the case that In similar fashion, existing musical forms were even further exploited by the next generation of great European composers.這句話看樣子加了not之後不成立了,因為按照舊方法,然後又要遵守前提,所以只能得到一個結論就是以前的東西都會拿來沿用到新作品。再來,理由二,文章到貝多芬當結尾,所以不能應為選項當中的內容而改變原文章的中指,忠旨,因此這個選項要你找的結論其實已經被限定住了,就是找跟『follow the rule』有關的東西,假設在結尾跑出跟原本結為不同的元素當作結論,這會造成文章的扭曲。

 


補充:

(C) Thus, many of the great composers displayed the same combination of talents exhibited by Monteverdi.

同樣的是『規則』『形式』不是天資,多了這個就沒連慣了,前提沒提到的不能隨便加

(D) By contrast, the view that creativity in the arts exploits but does not transcend limits is supported in the field of literature

(E) Actually, Beethoven‘s most original works were largely unappreciated at the time that they were first performed.

(C)(D)(E)綠色部分是沒連貫性的部分,以上就不多贅述了,有興趣了解更多批叛性思維的考題,再煩請參考批判性推理的分類

選(B)

 

 

以上個人筆記希望有幫助到大家,有誤再請指教!!  


arrow
arrow

    老莊雜記 發表在 痞客邦 留言(0) 人氣()