Completely threw me. I picked three possible answers to this. None of them make sense. The answer is E, however, I can eliminate all of them.
A. Lich's paintings looked like comics, not real life. Interpretation
B. Lich's paintings had nothing to do with stick figures or parodies of humans' appearances. Scope
C. Nothing about inner turmoil. Scope
D. The type of art Lich criticized employed vague shapes. Interpretation: Reversal.
E. I eliminated this one, too, because the author states Lich's art was a reflection of the culture, not a commentary on it, and its main purpose in depicting ordinary objects was to criticize other types of art, not anything in the culture: "Lich's work exuded not a jaded cynicism about consumer culture, but a kind of deliberate naivete [sic]" Thought it was out of scope (?).
I skipped this question to come back to and never made it back. So no idea which answer I would have ultimately picked under timed conditions.
3 posts • Page 1 of 1
- Posts: 62
- Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2010 11:36 pm
First sentence of the passage gives a definition of pop art, "the movement that incorporated commonplace objects and commercial-art techniques into paintings." I think the key to the question is noticing the "pop art" in the stimulus. E is the only one that fits the definition given in the passage. In order to be pop art it has to use commonplace objects AND commercial art technqiques. E does both. So even though Lichenstein isn't exactly "commenting on society's values," E is still the "most in keeping." It isnt a perfect analogy but its the closest.