Art Theory and Visual Communication

Over the years many architects have been appreciated as artists. But since buildings must be useable, architects must pursue their calling with a focus on the practical utility of the end product. For this reason, architecture cannot be classified as an art. Which of the following is an assumption that supports drawing the conclusion above from the reason given for that conclusion?

What, according to the passage, renders form so important?

Directions: Answer the given question based on the following passage:

The human animal is distinguished by its constant creation of forms. Rarely expressing its emotions directly, it gives them form through language or through socially acceptable rituals. We cannot communicate our emotions without a form.
The forms that we create, however, change constantly—in fashion, in style, in all those human phenomena representing the mood of the moment. We are constantly altering the forms we have inherited from previous generations, and these changes are signs of life and vitality. Indeed, the things that don’t change, the forms that rigidify, come to look to us like death, and we destroy them. The young show this most clearly. Uncomfortable with the forms that society imposes upon them, having no set identity, they play with their own characters, trying, on a variety of masks and poses to express themselves. This is the vitality that drives the motor of form, creating constant changes in style.
Human creations evolve towards abstraction, towards being more mental and less material. This evolution is clear in art, which, in this century, made the great discovery of abstraction and conceptualism; it can also be seen in politics, which over the time have become less overtly violent, more complicated, indirect and cerebral. Warfare and strategy too have followed this pattern. Strategy began in the manipulation of armies on land, positioning them in ordered formations; on land, strategy is relatively two dimensional, and controlled by topography. But all the great powers have eventually taken to the sea, for commerce and colonization. And to protect their trading lanes they have had to learn how to fight at sea. Maritime warfare requires tremendous creativity and abstract thinking, since the lines are constantly shifting. Naval captains distinguish themselves by their ability to adapt to the literal fluidity of the terrain and to confuse the enemy with an abstract, hard-to-anticipate form. They are operating in a third dimension: the mind.
Back on land, guerilla warfare too demonstrates this evolution towards abstraction. T.E. Lawrence was perhaps the first modern strategist to develop the theory behind this kind of warfare, and to put it into practice. His ideas influenced Mao, who found in his writings an uncanny western equivalent to wei-chi. Lawrence was working with Arabs fighting for their territory against the Turks. His idea was to make the Arabs blend into the vast desert, never providing a target, never collecting together in one place. As the Turks scrambled to fight this vaporous army, they spread themselves thin, wasting energy in moving from place to place. They had the superior firepower but the Arabs kept the initiative by playing cat and mouse, giving the Turks nothing to hold on to, destroying their morale. “Most wars were wars of contact, ours should be a war of detachment,” Lawrence wrote. “We were to contain the enemy by the silent threat of a vast unknown desert, not disclosing ourselves till we attacked.”
This is the ultimate form of strategy. The war of engagement has become far too dangerous and costly; indirection and elusiveness yield far better results at a much lower cost. The main cost, in fact, is mental—the thinking it takes to align forces in scattered patterns, and to undermine the minds and psychology of the opponents. And nothing will infuriate and disorient them more than formlessness. In a world where wars of detachment are the order of the day, formlessness is crucial.

Human creations these days are moving more towards abstractions because

Directions: Answer the given question based on the following passage:

The human animal is distinguished by its constant creation of forms. Rarely expressing its emotions directly, it gives them form through language or through socially acceptable rituals. We cannot communicate our emotions without a form.
The forms that we create, however, change constantly—in fashion, in style, in all those human phenomena representing the mood of the moment. We are constantly altering the forms we have inherited from previous generations, and these changes are signs of life and vitality. Indeed, the things that don’t change, the forms that rigidify, come to look to us like death, and we destroy them. The young show this most clearly. Uncomfortable with the forms that society imposes upon them, having no set identity, they play with their own characters, trying, on a variety of masks and poses to express themselves. This is the vitality that drives the motor of form, creating constant changes in style.
Human creations evolve towards abstraction, towards being more mental and less material. This evolution is clear in art, which, in this century, made the great discovery of abstraction and conceptualism; it can also be seen in politics, which over the time have become less overtly violent, more complicated, indirect and cerebral. Warfare and strategy too have followed this pattern. Strategy began in the manipulation of armies on land, positioning them in ordered formations; on land, strategy is relatively two dimensional, and controlled by topography. But all the great powers have eventually taken to the sea, for commerce and colonization. And to protect their trading lanes they have had to learn how to fight at sea. Maritime warfare requires tremendous creativity and abstract thinking, since the lines are constantly shifting. Naval captains distinguish themselves by their ability to adapt to the literal fluidity of the terrain and to confuse the enemy with an abstract, hard-to-anticipate form. They are operating in a third dimension: the mind.
Back on land, guerilla warfare too demonstrates this evolution towards abstraction. T.E. Lawrence was perhaps the first modern strategist to develop the theory behind this kind of warfare, and to put it into practice. His ideas influenced Mao, who found in his writings an uncanny western equivalent to wei-chi. Lawrence was working with Arabs fighting for their territory against the Turks. His idea was to make the Arabs blend into the vast desert, never providing a target, never collecting together in one place. As the Turks scrambled to fight this vaporous army, they spread themselves thin, wasting energy in moving from place to place. They had the superior firepower but the Arabs kept the initiative by playing cat and mouse, giving the Turks nothing to hold on to, destroying their morale. “Most wars were wars of contact, ours should be a war of detachment,” Lawrence wrote. “We were to contain the enemy by the silent threat of a vast unknown desert, not disclosing ourselves till we attacked.”
This is the ultimate form of strategy. The war of engagement has become far too dangerous and costly; indirection and elusiveness yield far better results at a much lower cost. The main cost, in fact, is mental—the thinking it takes to align forces in scattered patterns, and to undermine the minds and psychology of the opponents. And nothing will infuriate and disorient them more than formlessness. In a world where wars of detachment are the order of the day, formlessness is crucial.

Directions: The question below shows a set of four statements, followed by some answer options to categorize these statements as facts, inferences and judgments. Consider the statements and decide which of the choices is true.

F: Fact: If it relates to a known matter of direct observation, or an existing reality or something known to be true. J: Judgment: If it is an opinion or estimate or anticipation of common sense or intention. I: Inference: If it is a logical conclusion or deduction about something, based on the knowledge of facts.

1. Cubism was a new movement in art that revolutionized European painting and sculpture. Its emergence in France led to new movements in music and literature.
2. George Braque developed Cubic art with Pablo Picasso, and his paintings 'Violence and Candlestick' and 'Women with a Guitar' give abstract reality. Objects look broken up, as the artist depicts the subject from multi-dimensional perspective.
3. Cubic art originated in the works of Paul Cezanne who treated the forms of nature as if they were cones, spheres and cylinders.
4. The Cubists were experimenters. They disintegrated the subject and depicted a new vision of reality in broken form. The evolution of Czech Cubism has to be understood in this perspective.

In respect to primitive works we may distinguish four steps in the acquisition of aesthetic features of form, three of which are normal, the fourth abnormal: First, we have that in which functional characters alone are considered, any element of beauty, whether due to the artist's hand or to the accidents of material, construction, or model, being purely adventitious; second, that in which the necessary features of the utensil appear to have experienced the supervision of taste, edges being rounded, curves refined, and symmetry perfected; third, that in which the functionally perfect object, just described, undergoes further variations of contour, adding to variety and unity, thus enhancing beauty without interfering with serviceability; and, fourth, that in which, under abnormal influences, beauty is sought at the sacrifice of functional and constructive perfection.

What is the underlying theme of the passage?

Directions: The following passage is followed by a question with five options. Choose the best option.

Nineteenth-century art critics judged art by the realism of its method of representation. It was assumed that the realistic method developed from primitive beginnings to the perfection of formal realism. It is one of the permanent gains of the aesthetic revolution of the twentieth century that we are rid of this type of aesthetics.

It can be inferred from the above passage that the artistic revolution of the twentieth century had which of the following effects?

What is the central idea of the passage?

Answer the question is based on the following passage.

            Life would have existed without fine arts such as architecture,
            sculpture, painting, poetry and music, but would have not
            been as pleasant an experience as it is with enjoying these
            art forms. Take for example, pictures. How much more easily
(5)        do we understand the subject we are studying through the
            help we get from pictures of objects or places which we have
            not seen and we wish to know about. Egyptian paintings were
            not only used to adorn the temple walls, tombs, columns,
            cornices etc but they were also intended to be useful in telling
(10)      the history of the various countries, their wars, conquests,
            triumphs. Lives of kings and stories are as distinctly told by
            pictures as by Egyptian writings. The Greek paintings and
            those of ancient Romans are almost alike. The art of ancient
            Rome was almost transplanted from Greece. Romans imitated
(15)      Greece so that Roman painting of the pre-Christian era must
           be considered together with that of Greece.