#20 - Must Be True

[emilysnoddon]

Hello,

For this question, I was debating between answer C and answer choice E and eventually chose C. Can you please point to parts of the text that support answer choice E, rather than C. I thought that the analogy of the plane landing on water might lend itself to answer choice C.

Thank you,

Emily

[Nikki Siclunov]

Hi Emily,

Thanks for your question, and sorry for the late response.

Answer choice (C) is incorrect, because the author states that the invisible sculpture becomes easier to see when objects are reflected in it, but it doesn’t necessarily take the shape of those objects. Thus, it would be incorrect to infer that the "invisible sculpture" takes the shape of the surrounding objects.

By contrast, we can easily infer that the perception of the shape and dimensions of a negative-light sculpture does not depend on its reflection of objects from the environment around it. This is because negative light sculptures (i.e. that use shadows) do not need to be seen or perceived via reflections of the objects around them.

Hope this helps! Let me know

[Rita]

Hi Nikki,

I don't fully understand this reasoning. Since a negative light sculpture is dependent on shadows for "conceptual communication" (lines 23-25) and shadows necessarily require objects to throw them, how does the perception of of a negative light sculpture not depend on the "reflection of objects from the environment around it"? Is the issue here just that the word reflection was used, instead of of shadow?

Similarly, since the passage went into such detail about how completely reflective surfaces literally cannot be seen unless objects are reflected in them (42-44), why is it not reasonable to assume the same would be true of an "invisible" sculpture whose presence is derived "only secondarily," and choose answer C?

Thanks,
Rita

Thanks,
Rita

[Adam Tyson]

Thanks for the question, Rita. I think you are right in part here about the use of the word "reflection" rather than "shadow" making answer C less attractive than E, but there is more to it than that.

For one thing, the passage doesn't suggest that negative light sculptures depend on the shadows of other objects for their conceptual communication, but only that they depend upon shadows. They implication could be simply that they depend on a light source playing over their surfaces, which would not likely be two-dimensional and featureless but rather irregular and taking some form, recognizable or not, that would create their own shadows that reveal their shape and nature. For example, a realistic human figure would cast shadows around the nose, eye sockets, under the chin, etc., that would give it shape and could communicate the sculptor's ideas even in the complete absence of any other objects.

Secondly, the passage does not suggest that a positive light sculpture appears to have no shape or dimensions of its own, but instead tells us that its shape and dimensions are only revealed when it reflects another object. When that happens, we don't see the shape of the other object, but the shape of the sculpture itself, revealed by the reflected and distorted images of other objects. The sculpture does not take on the shape of those other objects, but has its own shape and dimensions which are hidden or invisible until it reflects those other objects.

Think of the bust of Fuller that Noguchi did, and imagine it catching the reflection of a passing horse. The bust would be revealed to have the shape and dimensions of Fuller's head and shoulders, not the shape of the horse. The horse's reflection would simply allow us to discern the shape of the bust a shape that it always had but was hidden until the horse walked by.

I hope my explanation cast a little more light on the subject for you and allowed you to see what had previously been hidden!

[Rita]

Thank you Adam, for the helpful and witty response!

[blade21cn]

Why is (B) incorrect? Isn't it true that use of industrial materials (i.e., chrome-nickel steel, which Henry Ford had just made commercially available) to create sculptures would make the sculptures more commercially viable (compared with expensive gold)? Isn't that what Noguchi did to create his positive light reflection sculpture?

[James Finch]

Hi Blade,

(B) is describing Noguchi's belief, but there's nothing in the passage that suggests that Noguchi was motivated by commercial factors, nor attempting to make sculpture more commercially viable. The only stated reason for his interest in the chrome-nickel steel was artistic, as he wanted to create a reflective sculpture that contrasted with the traditional shadow-based designs. Gold was too expensive for him to use, but the steel allowed a reflective sculpture to be built within his means. The passage doesn't describe any intent to make sculpture in general more affordable to make. So Ford's steel enabled Noguchi to make his artistic vision reality, rather than making sculpture more commercially viable.

Hope this clears things up!

[ashpine17]

What is wrong with D? if the sculpture gets oxidized or tarnished wouldn't it stop looking realistic?

[Adam Tyson]

Not necessarily, ashpine. It could still be completely recognizable as whatever it was intended to represent, even if it was covered in rust. Just do a Google search for "rusty sculpture images" and you'll see plenty of completely realistic likenesses that are tarnished and oxidized! Or just think of any sculpture you have ever seen out in public, subject to the elements. Aren't they still recognizable, and often very realistic, despite their tarnish and rust?