大学四级-16及答案解析.doc
《大学四级-16及答案解析.doc》由会员分享,可在线阅读,更多相关《大学四级-16及答案解析.doc(59页珍藏版)》请在麦多课文档分享上搜索。
1、大学四级-16 及答案解析(总分:712.00,做题时间:90 分钟)一、BPart Writing(总题数:1,分数:106.00)1.1现在火车票贩子倒卖车票猖獗 2这种现象有何影响 3我的观点 BMy View on Train Ticket Scalper/B(分数:106.00)_二、BPart Reading (总题数:1,分数:70.00)BDirections:/BI In this part, you will have 15 minutes to go over the passage quickly and answer the questions on Answer S
2、heet 1. For questions 1 - 7, choose the best answer from the four choices marked A), B), C) and D). For questions 8- 10, complete the sentences with the information given in the passage./IBWhen, If Ever, Can Museums Sell Their Works?/BThe director of the art-rich yet cash-poor National Academy Museu
3、m in New York expected strong opposition when its board decided to sell two Hudson River School paintings for around 15 million.The director, Carmine Branagan, had already approached leaders of two groups to which the academy belonged about the prospect. She knew that both the American Association o
4、f Museums (AAM) and Association of Art Museum Directors (AAMD) had firm policies against museums selling off artworks because of financial hardship and were not going to make an exception.Even so, she said, she was not prepared for the directors groups immediate response to the sale. In an e-mail me
5、ssage on Dec. 5 to its 190 members, it condemned the academy, founded in 1825, for “breaching one of the most basic and important AAMDs principles“ and called on members “to suspend any loans of works of art to and any collaboration on exhibitions with the National Academy.“Branagan, who had by that
6、 time withdrawn her membership from both groups, said she “was shocked by the tone of the letter, like we had committed some crimes.“ She called the withdrawal of loans “a death knell (丧钟声)“ for the museum, adding, “What the AAMD have done is basically shoot us while were wounded.“Beyond shaping the
7、 fate of any one museum, this exchange has sparked larger questions over a principle that has long seemed sacred. Why, several experts ask, is it so wrong for a museum to sell art from its collection to raise badly-needed funds and now that many institutions are facing financial hardship, should the
8、 ban on selling art to cover operating costs be eased?Lending urgency to the discussion are the efforts of the Museum of Contemporary Art in Los Angeles, which has one of the worlds best collections of contemporary art but whose funds is said to have shriveled(萎缩) to 6 million from more than 40 mill
9、ion over the last nine years. Wouldnt it be preferable, some people asked this month, to sell a Mark Rothko painting or a couple of Robert Rauschenbergs legendary “combines“ - the museum owns 11 - than to risk closing its doors. Finally, the museum announced 30 million donations by the billionaire E
10、li Broad last week that would prevent the sales of any artworks.Yet defenders of the prohibition warn that such sales can irreparably (不能挽回地) damage an institution. “Selling an object is a knee-jerk (下意识的)act, and it undermines core principles of a museum,“ said Michael Conforti, president of the di
11、rectors association and director of the Clark Art Institute in Williams-town, Massachusetts. “There are always other options.“The sale of artwork from a museums permanent collection, known as deaccessioning(博物馆收藏品等出售), is not illegal in the United States, provided that any terms accompanying the ori
12、ginal donation of artwork are respected. In Europe, by contrast, many museums are state-financed and prevented by national law from deaccessioning.But under the code of ethics of the American Association of Museums, the proceeds should be “used only for the acquisition, preservation, protection or c
13、are of collections.“ The code of the Association of Art Museum Directors is even stricter, specifying that funds should not be used “for purposes other than acquisitions of works of art for the collection.“Dorm Zaretsky, a New York lawyer who specializes in art cases, has sympathized with the Nation
14、al Academy, asking why a museum can sell art to buy more art but not to cover overhead costs or a much-needed education center. “Why should we automatically assume that buying art always justifies a deaccessioning, but that no other use of proceeds - no matter how important to an institutions missio
15、n-ever can“ he wrote.Even Patty Gerstenblith, a law professor at DePaul University in Chicago known for her strong standpoint on protecting cultural patrimony (祖传的财物), said her position had softened over the years. “If its really a life-or-death situation, if its a choice between selling a Rauschenb
16、erg and keeping the museum doors open, I think theres some justification for selling the painting,“ she said.But several directors drew a much harder line, noting that museums get tax-deductible donations of art and cash to safeguard art collections for the public. Selling off any holdings for profi
17、t would thus betray that trust, they say, not to mention robbing a community of art, so no exceptions for financial hardships should be allowed.Its a classic slippery slope. This thinking goes: letting one museum sell off two paintings paves the way for dozens of museums to sell off thousands of art
18、works, perhaps routinely.Deaccessioning has proven thorny for museums even when the money is directed into accepted channels like acquisitions.Sometimes the controversy centers on the irreplaceable nature of the object for sale, when Thomas Hoving, then the director of the Metropolitan Museum of Art
19、, began aggressively sorting out its collection in the early 1970s, selling high-profile paintings like Van Goghs “Olive Pickers“ and Rousseaus “Tropics“. The Metropolitan owned only one other painting by Rousseau, and the resistance was fierce.Yet critics of strict deaccessioning rules make a publi
20、c-access argument as well. “Most big museums cant show 90 percent of the objects they own - its all in storage,“ said Michael OHare, a cultural policy professor at the University of California, Berkeley. “Whats wrong with selling these objects to smaller museums or even private collectors, who are m
21、ore likely to put them on display?“At the National Academy, Branagan called deaccessinning an act of last resort, one that she would not have considered without a “long-range financial and programmatic“ plan. Branagan said she told her members as much before they voted for the sale - 181 to 2 in fav
22、or - in November:“I remember saying: unless you believe you can support sweeping change, then do not vote for deaccessioning,“ she said. “The tragedy isnt that were going to sell these four pieces. Thats not a tragedy. The tragedy would be if in 10 or 15 years we were back here having the same conve
23、rsation.“(分数:70.00)(1).From the first paragraph we know that the National Academy Museum is _. A. abundant in artworks B. expecting strong resistance C. abundant in money D. selling three paintings(分数:7.00)A.B.C.D.(2).According to Branngan, which of the following is fatal to the National Academy Mus
24、eum? A. AAMD expressed disapproval of the National Academy Museum. B. The National Academy Museum breached one of the most important AAMDs principles. C. AAMD stopped any collaboration on exhibitions with the National Academy. D. AAMD withdrew any loans of works of art.(分数:7.00)A.B.C.D.(3).What do w
- 1.请仔细阅读文档,确保文档完整性,对于不预览、不比对内容而直接下载带来的问题本站不予受理。
- 2.下载的文档,不会出现我们的网址水印。
- 3、该文档所得收入(下载+内容+预览)归上传者、原创作者;如果您是本文档原作者,请点此认领!既往收益都归您。
下载文档到电脑,查找使用更方便
2000 积分 0人已下载
下载 | 加入VIP,交流精品资源 |
- 配套讲稿:
如PPT文件的首页显示word图标,表示该PPT已包含配套word讲稿。双击word图标可打开word文档。
- 特殊限制:
部分文档作品中含有的国旗、国徽等图片,仅作为作品整体效果示例展示,禁止商用。设计者仅对作品中独创性部分享有著作权。
- 关 键 词:
- 大学 16 答案 解析 DOC
