Question Description
Directions for Questions: The passage given below is followed by a set of questions. Choose the most appropriate answer to each question.PASSAGEScheibitz’s paintings are often difficult to read, though most contain human presences, and many are titled as if they are portraits: Portrait Tracy Berglund; Henry Stand; Ret Marut. The names sound as invented as the shapes that make and unmake the figures in the paintings. Look long enough and Tracy Berglund appears to resolve into a female figure in a long skirt and grey jacket, holding a slice of watermelon. Or it could be cheese. Or a megaphone.Everything looks deliberate and calculated, but at some point things stop making sense – or rather, start making a kind of sense that is all Scheibitz’s own. Flat planes drift into emptiness; distracted brushstrokes wander away like someone getting lost on a walk.Perspectives warp, geometries fall apart. The spaces between things become more insistent than the things themselves. These are very unreasonable paintings.That’s part of the pleasure. Scheibitz’s work has been called “conceptual painting”. I have always thought painting is a conceptual as well as a physical activity. Using fragments of graphic symbols, compound forms and motifs whose origins are often impossible to trace, the artist arrives at a kind of figuration that is at odds with itself. “I can’t invent anything and I can’t use what I find as it is,” he recently told one interviewer. He also told me, as we looked around his show, that everything connects to everything else.Part of Scheibitz’s collection of source materials is laid out on tables at Baltic – not that they’re much help. Here is a gift pack of multicoloured Harrods golf tees, then two patterned cigarette lighters, some dice, a walnut and several stones with naturally occurring right angles. How odd. And now, he has painted various objects yellow: a plaster tortoise, a paintbrush stiff with pigment, a toy car.Among all these things, traces of the shapes and contours in his paintings might be found, like lines of a song or a bit of a tune that goes round your head. There are dozens of these objects. How they are translated into elements in his paintings is anybody’s guess.The overall impression is that nothing is random. There are affinities here. Scheibitz has a good eye for an ambiguous but characterful shape. One “portrait”, called John Held, is painted on a small, asymmetrically carved gravestone that sits on a plinth. It looks a bit like a face but has no features.(2013)Q.Which of the following options best explains why the author terms Scheibitz’s paintings as unreasonable?a)The paintings serve to confuse more than to illuminateb)The paintings are not what they seem at first and need further ponderingc)The paintings do not depend on the interpretation of the onlooker but on that of their artistd)The paintings require an understanding of art and its related philosophyCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? for CAT 2024 is part of CAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CAT exam syllabus. Information about Directions for Questions: The passage given below is followed by a set of questions. Choose the most appropriate answer to each question.PASSAGEScheibitz’s paintings are often difficult to read, though most contain human presences, and many are titled as if they are portraits: Portrait Tracy Berglund; Henry Stand; Ret Marut. The names sound as invented as the shapes that make and unmake the figures in the paintings. Look long enough and Tracy Berglund appears to resolve into a female figure in a long skirt and grey jacket, holding a slice of watermelon. Or it could be cheese. Or a megaphone.Everything looks deliberate and calculated, but at some point things stop making sense – or rather, start making a kind of sense that is all Scheibitz’s own. Flat planes drift into emptiness; distracted brushstrokes wander away like someone getting lost on a walk.Perspectives warp, geometries fall apart. The spaces between things become more insistent than the things themselves. These are very unreasonable paintings.That’s part of the pleasure. Scheibitz’s work has been called “conceptual painting”. I have always thought painting is a conceptual as well as a physical activity. Using fragments of graphic symbols, compound forms and motifs whose origins are often impossible to trace, the artist arrives at a kind of figuration that is at odds with itself. “I can’t invent anything and I can’t use what I find as it is,” he recently told one interviewer. He also told me, as we looked around his show, that everything connects to everything else.Part of Scheibitz’s collection of source materials is laid out on tables at Baltic – not that they’re much help. Here is a gift pack of multicoloured Harrods golf tees, then two patterned cigarette lighters, some dice, a walnut and several stones with naturally occurring right angles. How odd. And now, he has painted various objects yellow: a plaster tortoise, a paintbrush stiff with pigment, a toy car.Among all these things, traces of the shapes and contours in his paintings might be found, like lines of a song or a bit of a tune that goes round your head. There are dozens of these objects. How they are translated into elements in his paintings is anybody’s guess.The overall impression is that nothing is random. There are affinities here. Scheibitz has a good eye for an ambiguous but characterful shape. One “portrait”, called John Held, is painted on a small, asymmetrically carved gravestone that sits on a plinth. It looks a bit like a face but has no features.(2013)Q.Which of the following options best explains why the author terms Scheibitz’s paintings as unreasonable?a)The paintings serve to confuse more than to illuminateb)The paintings are not what they seem at first and need further ponderingc)The paintings do not depend on the interpretation of the onlooker but on that of their artistd)The paintings require an understanding of art and its related philosophyCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Directions for Questions: The passage given below is followed by a set of questions. Choose the most appropriate answer to each question.PASSAGEScheibitz’s paintings are often difficult to read, though most contain human presences, and many are titled as if they are portraits: Portrait Tracy Berglund; Henry Stand; Ret Marut. The names sound as invented as the shapes that make and unmake the figures in the paintings. Look long enough and Tracy Berglund appears to resolve into a female figure in a long skirt and grey jacket, holding a slice of watermelon. Or it could be cheese. Or a megaphone.Everything looks deliberate and calculated, but at some point things stop making sense – or rather, start making a kind of sense that is all Scheibitz’s own. Flat planes drift into emptiness; distracted brushstrokes wander away like someone getting lost on a walk.Perspectives warp, geometries fall apart. The spaces between things become more insistent than the things themselves. These are very unreasonable paintings.That’s part of the pleasure. Scheibitz’s work has been called “conceptual painting”. I have always thought painting is a conceptual as well as a physical activity. Using fragments of graphic symbols, compound forms and motifs whose origins are often impossible to trace, the artist arrives at a kind of figuration that is at odds with itself. “I can’t invent anything and I can’t use what I find as it is,” he recently told one interviewer. He also told me, as we looked around his show, that everything connects to everything else.Part of Scheibitz’s collection of source materials is laid out on tables at Baltic – not that they’re much help. Here is a gift pack of multicoloured Harrods golf tees, then two patterned cigarette lighters, some dice, a walnut and several stones with naturally occurring right angles. How odd. And now, he has painted various objects yellow: a plaster tortoise, a paintbrush stiff with pigment, a toy car.Among all these things, traces of the shapes and contours in his paintings might be found, like lines of a song or a bit of a tune that goes round your head. There are dozens of these objects. How they are translated into elements in his paintings is anybody’s guess.The overall impression is that nothing is random. There are affinities here. Scheibitz has a good eye for an ambiguous but characterful shape. One “portrait”, called John Held, is painted on a small, asymmetrically carved gravestone that sits on a plinth. It looks a bit like a face but has no features.(2013)Q.Which of the following options best explains why the author terms Scheibitz’s paintings as unreasonable?a)The paintings serve to confuse more than to illuminateb)The paintings are not what they seem at first and need further ponderingc)The paintings do not depend on the interpretation of the onlooker but on that of their artistd)The paintings require an understanding of art and its related philosophyCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Directions for Questions: The passage given below is followed by a set of questions. Choose the most appropriate answer to each question.PASSAGEScheibitz’s paintings are often difficult to read, though most contain human presences, and many are titled as if they are portraits: Portrait Tracy Berglund; Henry Stand; Ret Marut. The names sound as invented as the shapes that make and unmake the figures in the paintings. Look long enough and Tracy Berglund appears to resolve into a female figure in a long skirt and grey jacket, holding a slice of watermelon. Or it could be cheese. Or a megaphone.Everything looks deliberate and calculated, but at some point things stop making sense – or rather, start making a kind of sense that is all Scheibitz’s own. Flat planes drift into emptiness; distracted brushstrokes wander away like someone getting lost on a walk.Perspectives warp, geometries fall apart. The spaces between things become more insistent than the things themselves. These are very unreasonable paintings.That’s part of the pleasure. Scheibitz’s work has been called “conceptual painting”. I have always thought painting is a conceptual as well as a physical activity. Using fragments of graphic symbols, compound forms and motifs whose origins are often impossible to trace, the artist arrives at a kind of figuration that is at odds with itself. “I can’t invent anything and I can’t use what I find as it is,” he recently told one interviewer. He also told me, as we looked around his show, that everything connects to everything else.Part of Scheibitz’s collection of source materials is laid out on tables at Baltic – not that they’re much help. Here is a gift pack of multicoloured Harrods golf tees, then two patterned cigarette lighters, some dice, a walnut and several stones with naturally occurring right angles. How odd. And now, he has painted various objects yellow: a plaster tortoise, a paintbrush stiff with pigment, a toy car.Among all these things, traces of the shapes and contours in his paintings might be found, like lines of a song or a bit of a tune that goes round your head. There are dozens of these objects. How they are translated into elements in his paintings is anybody’s guess.The overall impression is that nothing is random. There are affinities here. Scheibitz has a good eye for an ambiguous but characterful shape. One “portrait”, called John Held, is painted on a small, asymmetrically carved gravestone that sits on a plinth. It looks a bit like a face but has no features.(2013)Q.Which of the following options best explains why the author terms Scheibitz’s paintings as unreasonable?a)The paintings serve to confuse more than to illuminateb)The paintings are not what they seem at first and need further ponderingc)The paintings do not depend on the interpretation of the onlooker but on that of their artistd)The paintings require an understanding of art and its related philosophyCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of Directions for Questions: The passage given below is followed by a set of questions. Choose the most appropriate answer to each question.PASSAGEScheibitz’s paintings are often difficult to read, though most contain human presences, and many are titled as if they are portraits: Portrait Tracy Berglund; Henry Stand; Ret Marut. The names sound as invented as the shapes that make and unmake the figures in the paintings. Look long enough and Tracy Berglund appears to resolve into a female figure in a long skirt and grey jacket, holding a slice of watermelon. Or it could be cheese. Or a megaphone.Everything looks deliberate and calculated, but at some point things stop making sense – or rather, start making a kind of sense that is all Scheibitz’s own. Flat planes drift into emptiness; distracted brushstrokes wander away like someone getting lost on a walk.Perspectives warp, geometries fall apart. The spaces between things become more insistent than the things themselves. These are very unreasonable paintings.That’s part of the pleasure. Scheibitz’s work has been called “conceptual painting”. I have always thought painting is a conceptual as well as a physical activity. Using fragments of graphic symbols, compound forms and motifs whose origins are often impossible to trace, the artist arrives at a kind of figuration that is at odds with itself. “I can’t invent anything and I can’t use what I find as it is,” he recently told one interviewer. He also told me, as we looked around his show, that everything connects to everything else.Part of Scheibitz’s collection of source materials is laid out on tables at Baltic – not that they’re much help. Here is a gift pack of multicoloured Harrods golf tees, then two patterned cigarette lighters, some dice, a walnut and several stones with naturally occurring right angles. How odd. And now, he has painted various objects yellow: a plaster tortoise, a paintbrush stiff with pigment, a toy car.Among all these things, traces of the shapes and contours in his paintings might be found, like lines of a song or a bit of a tune that goes round your head. There are dozens of these objects. How they are translated into elements in his paintings is anybody’s guess.The overall impression is that nothing is random. There are affinities here. Scheibitz has a good eye for an ambiguous but characterful shape. One “portrait”, called John Held, is painted on a small, asymmetrically carved gravestone that sits on a plinth. It looks a bit like a face but has no features.(2013)Q.Which of the following options best explains why the author terms Scheibitz’s paintings as unreasonable?a)The paintings serve to confuse more than to illuminateb)The paintings are not what they seem at first and need further ponderingc)The paintings do not depend on the interpretation of the onlooker but on that of their artistd)The paintings require an understanding of art and its related philosophyCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Directions for Questions: The passage given below is followed by a set of questions. Choose the most appropriate answer to each question.PASSAGEScheibitz’s paintings are often difficult to read, though most contain human presences, and many are titled as if they are portraits: Portrait Tracy Berglund; Henry Stand; Ret Marut. The names sound as invented as the shapes that make and unmake the figures in the paintings. Look long enough and Tracy Berglund appears to resolve into a female figure in a long skirt and grey jacket, holding a slice of watermelon. Or it could be cheese. Or a megaphone.Everything looks deliberate and calculated, but at some point things stop making sense – or rather, start making a kind of sense that is all Scheibitz’s own. Flat planes drift into emptiness; distracted brushstrokes wander away like someone getting lost on a walk.Perspectives warp, geometries fall apart. The spaces between things become more insistent than the things themselves. These are very unreasonable paintings.That’s part of the pleasure. Scheibitz’s work has been called “conceptual painting”. I have always thought painting is a conceptual as well as a physical activity. Using fragments of graphic symbols, compound forms and motifs whose origins are often impossible to trace, the artist arrives at a kind of figuration that is at odds with itself. “I can’t invent anything and I can’t use what I find as it is,” he recently told one interviewer. He also told me, as we looked around his show, that everything connects to everything else.Part of Scheibitz’s collection of source materials is laid out on tables at Baltic – not that they’re much help. Here is a gift pack of multicoloured Harrods golf tees, then two patterned cigarette lighters, some dice, a walnut and several stones with naturally occurring right angles. How odd. And now, he has painted various objects yellow: a plaster tortoise, a paintbrush stiff with pigment, a toy car.Among all these things, traces of the shapes and contours in his paintings might be found, like lines of a song or a bit of a tune that goes round your head. There are dozens of these objects. How they are translated into elements in his paintings is anybody’s guess.The overall impression is that nothing is random. There are affinities here. Scheibitz has a good eye for an ambiguous but characterful shape. One “portrait”, called John Held, is painted on a small, asymmetrically carved gravestone that sits on a plinth. It looks a bit like a face but has no features.(2013)Q.Which of the following options best explains why the author terms Scheibitz’s paintings as unreasonable?a)The paintings serve to confuse more than to illuminateb)The paintings are not what they seem at first and need further ponderingc)The paintings do not depend on the interpretation of the onlooker but on that of their artistd)The paintings require an understanding of art and its related philosophyCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Directions for Questions: The passage given below is followed by a set of questions. Choose the most appropriate answer to each question.PASSAGEScheibitz’s paintings are often difficult to read, though most contain human presences, and many are titled as if they are portraits: Portrait Tracy Berglund; Henry Stand; Ret Marut. The names sound as invented as the shapes that make and unmake the figures in the paintings. Look long enough and Tracy Berglund appears to resolve into a female figure in a long skirt and grey jacket, holding a slice of watermelon. Or it could be cheese. Or a megaphone.Everything looks deliberate and calculated, but at some point things stop making sense – or rather, start making a kind of sense that is all Scheibitz’s own. Flat planes drift into emptiness; distracted brushstrokes wander away like someone getting lost on a walk.Perspectives warp, geometries fall apart. The spaces between things become more insistent than the things themselves. These are very unreasonable paintings.That’s part of the pleasure. Scheibitz’s work has been called “conceptual painting”. I have always thought painting is a conceptual as well as a physical activity. Using fragments of graphic symbols, compound forms and motifs whose origins are often impossible to trace, the artist arrives at a kind of figuration that is at odds with itself. “I can’t invent anything and I can’t use what I find as it is,” he recently told one interviewer. He also told me, as we looked around his show, that everything connects to everything else.Part of Scheibitz’s collection of source materials is laid out on tables at Baltic – not that they’re much help. Here is a gift pack of multicoloured Harrods golf tees, then two patterned cigarette lighters, some dice, a walnut and several stones with naturally occurring right angles. How odd. And now, he has painted various objects yellow: a plaster tortoise, a paintbrush stiff with pigment, a toy car.Among all these things, traces of the shapes and contours in his paintings might be found, like lines of a song or a bit of a tune that goes round your head. There are dozens of these objects. How they are translated into elements in his paintings is anybody’s guess.The overall impression is that nothing is random. There are affinities here. Scheibitz has a good eye for an ambiguous but characterful shape. One “portrait”, called John Held, is painted on a small, asymmetrically carved gravestone that sits on a plinth. It looks a bit like a face but has no features.(2013)Q.Which of the following options best explains why the author terms Scheibitz’s paintings as unreasonable?a)The paintings serve to confuse more than to illuminateb)The paintings are not what they seem at first and need further ponderingc)The paintings do not depend on the interpretation of the onlooker but on that of their artistd)The paintings require an understanding of art and its related philosophyCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Directions for Questions: The passage given below is followed by a set of questions. Choose the most appropriate answer to each question.PASSAGEScheibitz’s paintings are often difficult to read, though most contain human presences, and many are titled as if they are portraits: Portrait Tracy Berglund; Henry Stand; Ret Marut. The names sound as invented as the shapes that make and unmake the figures in the paintings. Look long enough and Tracy Berglund appears to resolve into a female figure in a long skirt and grey jacket, holding a slice of watermelon. Or it could be cheese. Or a megaphone.Everything looks deliberate and calculated, but at some point things stop making sense – or rather, start making a kind of sense that is all Scheibitz’s own. Flat planes drift into emptiness; distracted brushstrokes wander away like someone getting lost on a walk.Perspectives warp, geometries fall apart. The spaces between things become more insistent than the things themselves. These are very unreasonable paintings.That’s part of the pleasure. Scheibitz’s work has been called “conceptual painting”. I have always thought painting is a conceptual as well as a physical activity. Using fragments of graphic symbols, compound forms and motifs whose origins are often impossible to trace, the artist arrives at a kind of figuration that is at odds with itself. “I can’t invent anything and I can’t use what I find as it is,” he recently told one interviewer. He also told me, as we looked around his show, that everything connects to everything else.Part of Scheibitz’s collection of source materials is laid out on tables at Baltic – not that they’re much help. Here is a gift pack of multicoloured Harrods golf tees, then two patterned cigarette lighters, some dice, a walnut and several stones with naturally occurring right angles. How odd. And now, he has painted various objects yellow: a plaster tortoise, a paintbrush stiff with pigment, a toy car.Among all these things, traces of the shapes and contours in his paintings might be found, like lines of a song or a bit of a tune that goes round your head. There are dozens of these objects. How they are translated into elements in his paintings is anybody’s guess.The overall impression is that nothing is random. There are affinities here. Scheibitz has a good eye for an ambiguous but characterful shape. One “portrait”, called John Held, is painted on a small, asymmetrically carved gravestone that sits on a plinth. It looks a bit like a face but has no features.(2013)Q.Which of the following options best explains why the author terms Scheibitz’s paintings as unreasonable?a)The paintings serve to confuse more than to illuminateb)The paintings are not what they seem at first and need further ponderingc)The paintings do not depend on the interpretation of the onlooker but on that of their artistd)The paintings require an understanding of art and its related philosophyCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Directions for Questions: The passage given below is followed by a set of questions. Choose the most appropriate answer to each question.PASSAGEScheibitz’s paintings are often difficult to read, though most contain human presences, and many are titled as if they are portraits: Portrait Tracy Berglund; Henry Stand; Ret Marut. The names sound as invented as the shapes that make and unmake the figures in the paintings. Look long enough and Tracy Berglund appears to resolve into a female figure in a long skirt and grey jacket, holding a slice of watermelon. Or it could be cheese. Or a megaphone.Everything looks deliberate and calculated, but at some point things stop making sense – or rather, start making a kind of sense that is all Scheibitz’s own. Flat planes drift into emptiness; distracted brushstrokes wander away like someone getting lost on a walk.Perspectives warp, geometries fall apart. The spaces between things become more insistent than the things themselves. These are very unreasonable paintings.That’s part of the pleasure. Scheibitz’s work has been called “conceptual painting”. I have always thought painting is a conceptual as well as a physical activity. Using fragments of graphic symbols, compound forms and motifs whose origins are often impossible to trace, the artist arrives at a kind of figuration that is at odds with itself. “I can’t invent anything and I can’t use what I find as it is,” he recently told one interviewer. He also told me, as we looked around his show, that everything connects to everything else.Part of Scheibitz’s collection of source materials is laid out on tables at Baltic – not that they’re much help. Here is a gift pack of multicoloured Harrods golf tees, then two patterned cigarette lighters, some dice, a walnut and several stones with naturally occurring right angles. How odd. And now, he has painted various objects yellow: a plaster tortoise, a paintbrush stiff with pigment, a toy car.Among all these things, traces of the shapes and contours in his paintings might be found, like lines of a song or a bit of a tune that goes round your head. There are dozens of these objects. How they are translated into elements in his paintings is anybody’s guess.The overall impression is that nothing is random. There are affinities here. Scheibitz has a good eye for an ambiguous but characterful shape. One “portrait”, called John Held, is painted on a small, asymmetrically carved gravestone that sits on a plinth. It looks a bit like a face but has no features.(2013)Q.Which of the following options best explains why the author terms Scheibitz’s paintings as unreasonable?a)The paintings serve to confuse more than to illuminateb)The paintings are not what they seem at first and need further ponderingc)The paintings do not depend on the interpretation of the onlooker but on that of their artistd)The paintings require an understanding of art and its related philosophyCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CAT tests.