Hello All,
I had an objection regarding one summary question in VARC section of slot 1.
The question is as follows:
The passage given below is followed by four summaries. Choose the option that best captures the author’s position.
The conceptualization of landscape as a geometric object first occurred in Europe and is historically related to the European conceptualization of the organism, particularly the human body, as a geometric object with parts having a rational, three-dimensional organization and integration. The European idea of landscape appeared before the science of landscape emerged, and it is no coincidence that Renaissance artists such as Leonardo da Vinci, who studied the structure of the human body, also facilitated an understanding of the structure of landscape. Landscape which had been a subordinate background to religious or historical narratives, became an independent genre or subject of art by the end of sixteenth century or the beginning of the seventeenth century.
Options
1. The study of landscape as an independent genre was aided by the Renaissance artists.
2. The three-dimensional understanding of the organism in Europe led to a similar approach towards the understanding of landscape.
3. The Renaissance artists were responsible for the study of landscape as a subject of art.
4. Landscape became a major subject of art at the turn of the sixteenth century.
OA: Option 1
My response: Option 2
TIME Key: Option 2
I was pretty sure for my answer choice and wanted to raise an objection. But before that, I thought, I will reach to the actual author of the passage and ask him/her some clarification.
I was taken aback from his reply. Though he too believes answer is Option 1, his reply is worth sharing. So here is the response I received from the author:
Email 1:
Dear Rishi Rathi:
My first thought upon reading your email is that the education system in India is to be lauded by requiring a student to read and comprehend a challenging passage in his non-native language, especially when the subject is secondary to his interests. However, I have heard that another MBA program from an eastern US university also took interest, so perhaps there is interest in your field because accounting practices such as double entry bookkeeping also were developed beginning with the assistance of Renaissance artists such as Leonardo (see my paper, and Foucault's book, "The Order of Things" (English title).
But that is a digression.
The four choices you were offered on your exam had subtle, but important differences.
i would after some thought have to agree with your examiners. The three other options can be falsified with some consideration.
Option 2, the one you chose, suggests that the 3-dimensional understanding of the organism was itself directly influential to the establishment of the concept of landscape. Indeed, you state that "[My passage] implies that the landscape concept was DERIVED FROM the concept of the organism." (My capitalization.) That is too strong of a cause and effect statement. Both the concept of the human organism as a 3-dimensional body greater than the sum of its parts arranged in a coherent, geometrical way, and landscape as a 3-dimensional object or body greater than the sum of its parts arranged in a coherent, geometrical way are consequences of understanding and applying geometry at least intuitively to the description of nature. This option suggests that the model of the human body served as a model or template for that of the landscape which is too strong of a statement. In other words, a direct cause of the concept of the landscape, which is not correct.
Your objection to Option 1 projects a false meaning onto the option that really is not there. The Option does not assert that landscape art or the study of it was an independent genre during the Renaissance only that Renaissance artists aided the study with no definitive statement of when that independence occurred. So, it is correct as written.
Option 4 has a couple of problems. The phrase "at the turn of the sixteenth century" is ambiguous. (Look up "turn of the century" on Wikipedia, for example.) It could mean the transition from the sixteenth to the seventeenth century (e.g around 1590--1610) or from the seventeenth to the eighteenth century (e.g. around 1690--1710). I have a feeling your examiners were not thinking of that ambiguity and that they have settled on one or the other intervals. If that is the case, and let us assume for the sake of argument that your examiners meant the time around 1590--1600, then your objection to landscape as becoming a major subject but favoring instead an"independent subject" at that turn fails to understand that in this case "independent" and "major" are synonymous. In fact, that transition to landscape as an independent subject, which culminated in Holland, also made it a major subject. In art history it is arguably one of the most important developments and landscape art became "all the rage" (extraordinarily popular and one of the most important) beginning in Holland around 1600 when the word "landscape" also became integrated into the European vernacular (certainly in Germanic languages). If we knew how "at the turn of the century" is defined in your part of India with your instructors, and if it is as I suggested for the sake of argument 1590-1610, one might have a case that Option 4 is also correct. But that is not the Option you chose.
Option 3 is false for the reason you suggest. yes, that Option gives Renaissance too much credit for the study of landscape as a subject of art. Really it was Dutch artists who culminated that development.
Let me reinforce my earlier statements. I am impressed that the Indian educational system should engage students in such rigorous discussions of foreign publications and that Indian students such as yourself should take them so seriously and strive to master them.
That is the important point here. It doesn't matter so much if you erred in understanding. You have excelled in your concern and hard work and if you and your fellow students persevere with the same resolve, you will all achieve much success. Kudos to India! Please thank your teachers and your parents who obviously are encouraging you and facilitating high standards.
Sincerely,
Gary D. Rosenberg
[email protected]
Emeritus Associate Professor, Earth Sciences, IUPUI
Adjunct Curator in Geology, Milwaukee Public Museum
Fellow and Mary C. Rabbitt Honoree, Geological Society of America.
Email 2:
Dear Rishi Rathi:
I see now that I made a mistake! The turn of the sixteenth century could mean either the period from 1490--1510 (the beginning of the sixteenth century) or the period from 1590--1610 (the end of the sixteenth century). The latter would be correct, not the interval 1690--1700 as I mistakenly wrote earlier. I got wound up in detail. It is something we all do!
Gary D. Rosenberg