PrepTest 107

Topic: Humanities

Paragraph 1

• Paragraph note
  • Before World War I, a number of European painters developed new artistic techniques that some said were prophetic of political and social changes.
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • These painters came up with new ways of depicting the world (first sentence)
    • Some said these new ways made the paintings prophetic of a different future (first sentence)
    • New ways of making art broke with traditional representational art (second sentence)
  • Author’s attitude: “some have described as prophetic” (first sentence; “challenging” (first sentence); “anticipate a future world” (first sentence); “common” (second sentence); “very important break” (second sentence)

Paragraph 2

• Paragraph note
  • Old approach: some say these artists prophesied political and social disruptions that would take place during the war and afterwards
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • Particular painters: Picasso, Braque, Kandinsky, Malevich (first sentence)
  • One art critic: the greatest value of these painters’ works is their prophetic quality, not their artistic innovation (second sentence)
  • Author’s attitude: “fundamental” (first sentence); “often credited” (first sentence); “goes so far” (second sentence)

Paragraph 3

• Paragraph note
  • New approach/author’s thesis: the prophetic quality of these artists’ works should be credited to their artistic innovations, not to any interest in political or social developments.
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • Artists not necessarily interested in predicting political or social upheavals (first-second sentences)
  • Picasso and Braque: contemporaries’ accounts and their own later statements show they were solely interested in showing a non-visual reality, not with making political or social predictions (third-fourth sentences)
  • Author’s attitude: “forward-looking quality” (second sentence); “should instead be credited to” (second sentence); “exceptional aesthetic innovations” (second sentence); “clear impression” (third sentence); “primarily concerned” (third sentence); “no interest” (fourth sentence)

Paragraph 4

• Paragraph note
  • Not all artistic innovations are followed by political and social upheaval.
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • Example: Delacroix’s work is stylistically innovative, but it was a response to political upheavals that had already taken place (second-third sentences)
  • Author’s attitude: “important to remember” (first sentence); “startled” (second sentence); “most art historians” (second sentence); “adjusted himself” (second sentence); “already coming into being” (second sentence); “supposedly” (third sentence)

Main Point: Although a group of artists active in Europe before World War I are often credited with artistically predicting upcoming political and social upheavals, the true value of their forward-looking output proceeds from its aesthetic innovations rather than from any interest in political or social conditions.

Paragraph 1, Sentence 2 (P1 S2): Group of painters all broke with representational art

P2 S1: Old approach to artists’ work

P3 S2: New approach to artists’ work

P3 S3: Evidence of Picasso and Braque

P4 S2: Evidence of Delacroix

Old Approach/New Approach: This passage uses an Old Approach/New Approach Meta-Structure.* The author begins by introducing one view of the work of the innovative European painters who broke with traditional representational art and began to experiment with other methods of showing reality. The view that these artists were predicting future social and political upheavals is what the author characterizes as a mistaken perspective and what we may think of as the old approach (P2 S1-2). The rest of the passage is devoted to proving that the old approach is wrong and that the artists were merely innovating artistically with no goals of predicting the future (P3 S2). This contention is the new approach. The evidence the author uses to back up this claim is contemporary accounts of and by Picasso and Braque and the example of Delacroix, all of whom were either indifferent to political and social conditions (P3 S3-4) or were responding to political developments that had already taken place (P4 S3).

The minor Meta-Structure in this passage is Comparison. The author’s introduction of the topic lays out the old understanding of the work of the artists in question, and the author spends the rest of the passage criticizing that understanding and comparing it unfavorably with the new understanding of the artists’ work. In this way, the author defines their own argument using comparisons with the old viewpoint.

*You could also make a solid case that this passage uses a Criticizing a Viewpoint Meta-Structure. However, in this passage, the author offers a new way of looking at the work of the artists in question: depictions of a reality that moves beyond mere representation and that is remarkable for its aesthetic innovations rather than its prophetic power. Because the author offers this alternative view, the passage is better characterized as an Old Approach/New Approach passage. 

The author’s viewpoint is paramount in this passage. Not only does the author criticize the traditional/old approach to interpreting the work of the painters in question, but they come up with a new approach to that interpretation that is simpler and less florid. The author then backs up their new approach with the evidence of three painters whose work was informed not by political and social developments yet to come, but by purely aesthetic ambitions. There are no obscure inferences necessary to figure out where this author stands on the issue under discussion, which makes for a more straightforward reading experience.