<p>It’s unbelievable how some people misinterpret questions.</p>
<p>As for the simplistic/frustration question:</p>
<p>It asked how the scientists that Guthrie references would view HIS take on the grand theory. Guthrie critiques the view of the scientists he references (saying that it’s absurd how they view cave painting as a product of accomplished artists and how they have a defined understanding and meaning of cave painting). The grand theory is a concrete explanation of the purpose of cave artwork. The scientists would view Guthrie’s take on the grand theory with obvious frustration, as they believe that it has already been deduced and is clear cut.</p>
<p>As for the evocative/moving question:</p>
<p>I’m still fairly certain it asked how both authors would view the artwork (obviously if this is the case then it would be simplistic, as they both recognize how basic the paintings were. I don’t remember the first passage 100%, so correct me if I’m wrong, but about half the passage discussed how simple and basic the patterns of the artwork was. I don’t remember the reference to the lion’s eyes/stuff like that, but it seems even author one recognizes the simplicity in the artwork (for some reason you view simplicity as having negative connotations; it merely describes how the painting is-simplicity can be a very good thing). To call a 5000 BCE painting “moving” first just makes no sense in any context, but in the passage in particular, it’s very clear how the author appreciated the simplicity within each painting. NOTHING within the passage warrants how the painting is “moving”.</p>
<p>In response to the above posts,</p>
<p>grow thicker skin and calm down.</p>
<p>One more thing,</p>
<p>it seems that the question did ask for the opinions of both authors for the evocative/simplistic question. If this is the case (as ■■■■ says it is) then there is NO WAY for the answer to be evocative. Yes, both highlight the significance of the paintings and appreciate the art, but both nonetheless highlight how basic the paintings were (idk where this idea that simplicity is bad comes from). Moreover, it sounds kind of weird for you to say that because of the “defined line” the painting is moving. A line is straight, so the piece is moving, evokes emotion, etc?</p>
<p>Again Crosby, you’re being extremely arrogant. You have misinterpreted the question about frustration. It asked what the scientists (in line reference xx passage 2) thought of scientists (line ref xx passage 1) pursuing the “grand theory”. It was late in the question set and it’s understandable to misread questions. Happens to everyone (in my idealized world lol). For that cheerful highschool question for example, I thought it was asking about Delia’s feelings…<em>sigh</em></p>
<p>And for simplistic vs evocative: I personally put simplistic for your reasons, but there have been many strong arguments that better support evocative. I think I may have misinterpreted simplistic for repetitive. These are not clear cut answers. We are all trying to work towards a common goal to find the correct answers so there are no (bad) surprises on results day. </p>
<p>AND please don’t deride these posters. You have done nothing but provoke this situation that never should have been blown so far out of proportion.</p>
<p>^^ I’m pretty sure that passage two said that Guthrie had been working with cave paintings for 40 years, if this was the case im pretty sure he wouldnt think of them as simplistic.</p>
<p>Does anyone remember the second word in the “simplistic” answer cause that’s probably where the error lies.</p>
<p>^ simplistic was the only word.</p>
<p>@ crosby
I have been an ardent contributor of this thread for literally, 60+ pages. Although I understand your indignation at the “compiled list” we have put on, I would like to point out that:
- I absolutely agree with @lord’s fact about the scientists in passage 1 and passage 2. In several previous posts, there was debate around delight or sympathy, as the answer most definitely contains positive connotations as both kinds of scientists agree on finding a common goal, but it definitely would not be frustration.
- evocative and moving is, in my opinion, the most clear answer to the question. I do NOT remember anything in passage 2 that mentions the paintings as “simplistic”; unskilled perhaps, but not simplistic. And at the end of the passages, it was mutually agreed by the two authors that it does not matter WHO did the paintings but the EFFECT they have on us. </p>
<p>and trust me when I said all the questions on the compiled list have been debated a gazillion billion times by many users.</p>
<p>@lord
yeah i agree the second word would hold the key</p>
<p>@business
im pretty positive it also had a second word after simplistic??</p>
<p>@crosby
once again, it wasn’t asking for guthrie’s take whatsover. it was asking for how the scientists referenced in passage two would view the pursuit of the grand theory by scholars in passage 1, just like lord said
and also once again, the scientists NEVER believed that they had ANYTHING clear cut, the passage specifically said that they believed the paintings to hold they KEY to UNLOCKING the mysteries… hint hint, implying that they currently don’t know </p>
<p>also, once again, passage 1 NEVER mentioned anything simplistic about the art. the closest you can get is that they claimed it was repetitive, and again, that is not the definition of simplistic. i doubt you actually looked up the word, so here it is:</p>
<p>“1. characterized by extreme simplicity; naive
2. oversimplifying complex problems; making unrealistically simple judgments or analyses”</p>
<p>nothing in the passage supports that definition of simplistic
i also never had a negative connotation of simplistic, merely that you interpreted the tone and focus of passage 1 wrongly
finally, you translated my “quoting” of the passage too literally, i did not mean that “straight lines and precision” meant that the painting was moving
i merely meant that the tone which the author took was one of reverence.
i also do believe that “reverent” was an answer choice to one of the questions to the cave painting passage, and although it might not mean anything, i think it makes it clear that the author of passage 1 views the paintings with reverence, and therefore views the paintings as “moving and evocative”</p>
<p>im glad i have the support of the members of this thread and that i’m not the only one who thought that crosby was being unnecessarily intrusive and aggressive</p>
<p>I believe this will solidify the debate both on the evocative/moving and the sympathy debate</p>
<p>page 228
[The</a> Cave Painters: Probing the … - Google Books](<a href=“The Cave Painters: Probing the Mysteries of the World's First Artists - Gregory Curtis - Google Books”>The Cave Painters: Probing the Mysteries of the World's First Artists - Gregory Curtis - Google Books)</p>
<p>he cites that the scientists in passage 1 are frustrated because they cannot figure out the grand theory, and since the scientists of passage 2 don’t know the answer either, they would be sympathetic</p>
<p>he also uses words like “that beauty if amplified” and “powerfully affects everyone that sees them” and “the paintings speak to us so directly”
probably means its moving and evocative</p>
<p>ugh Canada won’t let me preview the book. arghh. oh well. </p>
<p>business: I’m absolutely sure there was a second word. all the answers contained two words. I think that the artwork itself was simplistic; however, it is not the BEST answer. Evocative and moving is the most clear cut after hearing these quotes and arguments. </p>
<p>Anybody taking subject tests in June? I like this discussion group :)</p>
<p>lollz, ill just type it out for you, i got nothing better to do =P
yeah i am also taking subjects tests in june… sadly haha</p>
<p>"There is still no grand theory of what the cave paintings mean. That is frustrating for scientists and amateurs alike, since the works of art the paintings communicate directly and supremely well. Whatever cultural reasons prompted the ancient hunters to paint in caves, the great artists among them - and there were many - took the trouble to create paintings that had graceful lines, subtle color, precise perspective, and a physical sense of volume. Te cave painters may or may not have had the idea of art as we understand it, but when they chose to draw an appealing line instead of an awkward one, they were thinking and acting like artists trying to create art in our sense of the world. That’s why it’s valid for us to respond to the cave paintings as art and not merely as archaelogical evidence, although they are certainly that as well. And that beauty if amplified because, against all logic, the paintings seem familiar as well, close to us in time despite being as far from us in time as any art could possibly be. How is it that they could be locked away in caves, unknown or misunderstood, for eons and yet, once discovered, fit naturally in the Western cultural tradition? the art historian Max Raphael is the only major thinker about the caves who seems much concerned with this question even though the immediacy of the paintings despite their great antiquity and mysteriousness powerfully affects everyone who sees them. The paintings speak to us so directly across the millennia because they are the conservative art of a stable society, because they have a comic rather than a tragic view of life, and because they are part of a classical tradition. In fact, they are the triumph of the first classical civilization in the world. After their beauty, the first thing everyone notices about the cave paintings is that they are repetitive. The same animals in the same or similar poses appear again and again in cave after cave regardless of the date of the paintings. Each species is painted according to convention. The conventions change somewhat over time, but they are still there. This consistency means that the art in the caves is fundamentally conservative. In modern times we almost demand that art attack the social order or mock it or undermine it in some way, and our art changes as the times change. Cave art, which is unvarying, could not have done that. It must have been a stalwart support for the social order. It sustained the society’s beliefs by painting there as unfailing, constant, ever and always the same. And in its role as protector of society and its institutions, the art was spectacularly successful.</p>
<p>Those were the two answers I got as well, for the same reasons.</p>
<p>But for the one about the high schooler in the black girl going to DC passage, is there still consensus that the answer is exuberant? I put perplexed (something) for that one.</p>
<p>i do believe it was exuberant
cheerful perplexity would not really make sense… because she wasn’t happy confusion? i don’t think she was all to confused
i posted this passage somewhere back, idk what page number though… sorry =P</p>
<p>@■■■■ ahhhh thanks so much!!!. yup theres no simplicity of any sort there. question debunked!</p>
<p>I’m talking math ii, physics and bio. what are you takin?</p>
<p>anyone cancelling scores?</p>
<p>Ohh so that’s what the second word was. It makes sense to me 
I thought that because she was a high school dropout, and because she was smiling and trying to get other people’s attention, which the narrator states that everyone yearns to find, she was cheerful, yet not in the best of conditions and therefore confused. Exuberant just doesn’t really make sense to me in that context since she was alone and searching for acceptance.</p>
<p>Nope a minus 9 raw on medium scales is a 700, and if I’m missing one more for a 690 I’m satisfied. As an “international” student, top schools need a reason to accept me, and an SAT score is not going to be that reason. As long as I find that happy 25-75 percent of the class range and have 730+ subject tests, I’m not eliminating myself from the applicant pool.</p>
<p>@fluffy
yeah thats what i thought too, but it also said something like “she was giving a look of delivery, a look that has been sought after for many generations”
that “delivery” was the sort of freedom and liberation that she felt from this event, and although she was a high school dropout, that comment was more of a side note, not something that said she was aggressive or bitter.</p>
<p>@lord
im also taking math ii and bio, but then us history.
i took bio freshman year but only got a 650 =/ so im retaking it
i took chem last year though and got a 760 though… yay!</p>
<p>@lord gotta warn you you probably wont get your 700/690… i got 4 wrong and had a 730 in march. my friend had 7 wrong and got 680. i know this exam is slightly harder but max 30 points difference.
not trying to put you down though… D=</p>