閱讀理解
Two related paradoxes also emerge from the same basic conception of the aesthetic experience. The first was given extended consideration by Hegel, who argued roughly as follows: our sensuous attention and that gives to the work of art its peculiar individuality. Because it addresses itself to our sensory appreciation, the work of art is essentially concrete, to be understood by an act of perception rather than by a process of discursive thought.
At the same time, our understanding of the work of art is in part intellectual; we seek in it a conceptual content, which it presents to us in the form of an idea. One purpose of critical interpretation is to expound this idea in discursive form—to give the equivalent of the content of the work of art in another, nonsensuous idiom. But criticism can never succeed in this task, for, by separating the content from the particular form, it abolishes its individuality. The content presented then ceases to be the exact content of that work of art. In losing its individuality, the content loses its aesthetic reality; it thus ceases to be a reason for attending to the particular work and that first attracted our critical attention. It cannot be this that we saw in the original work and that explained its power over us.
For this content, displayed in the discursive idiom of the critical intellect, is no more than a husk, a discarded relic of a meaning that eluded us in the act of seizing it. If the content is to be the true object of aesthetic interest, it must remain wedded to its individuality: it cannot be detached from its “sensuous embodiment” without being detached from itself. Content is, therefore, inseparable from form and form in turn inseparable from content. (It is the form that it is only by virtue of the content that it embodies.)
Hegel’s argument is the archetype of many, all aimed at showing that it is both necessary to distinguish form from content and also impossible to do so. This paradox may be resolved by rejecting either of its premises, but, as with Kant’s antinomy, neither premise seems dispensable. To suppose that content and form are inseparable is, in effect, to dismiss both ideas as illusory, since no two works of art can then share either a content or a form-the form being definitive of each work’s individuality.
In this case, no one could ever justify his interest in a work of art by reference to its meaning. The intensity of aesthetic interest becomes a puzzling, and ultimately inexplicable, feature of our mental life. If, on the other hand, we insist that content and form are separable, we shall never be able to find, through a study of content, the reason for attending to the particular work of art that intrigues us. Every work of art stands proxy for its paraphrase. An impassable gap then opens between aesthetic experience and its ground, and the claim that aesthetic experience is intrinsically valuable is thrown in doubt.
1. Hegel argued that .
A. it is our sensuous appreciation that gives peculiar individuality to the work of art
B. it is the content of the work of art that holds our attention
C. the work of art cannot be understood without a process of logical thinking
D. the form of the work of art is what our sensuous appreciation concentrates on
2. It can be inferred from this passage that .
A. the paradox that it is both necessary to distinguish form content and also impossible to do so cannot be resolved by rejecting its premises
B. both content and form of the work of art are illusory
C. the content and form of the work of art are separable
D. aesthetic experience is not intrinsically valuable
3. Which of the following is NOT what Hegel believed?
A. The content and form of the work of art cannot be separated from each other.
B. The content of the work of art is always the true object of aesthetic interest.
C. The content presented without any individuality is not the content of the work of art.
D. The content understood by means of a process of discursive thought is no more than a husk.
4. Premises that are related to each other seems to be dispensable because .
A. Kant thinks they are indispensable
B. either of them can resolve the paradox
C. the premises are separated
D. the premises can account for the theory
5. This passage is mainly about .
A. the sensuous appreciation of art
B. the basic conception of the aesthetic experience
C. how to appreciate the work of art
D. the relationship between form and content of the work of art
單項選擇
6. The two presidents came to the negotiating table due to the ______ over the international boundary.
A. quarrel
B. dispute
C. challenge
D. competition
7. A major concern for photographers traveling by plane is possible ______ to their film caused by X-ray machines.
A. harm
B. injury
C. ruin
D. damage
8. We must prevent that kind of disaster at all ______.
A. chances
B. expenses
C. costs
D. risks
9．The student was told to ______ for being rude to his teacher.
A. excuse
B. apologize
C. pardon
D. forgive
10. Beginning in the late 1970s, the economy of Alaska underwent a rapid change since oil was discovered and ______.
A. adopted
B. utilized
C. employed
D. Exploited
參考答案；
1.D本題的答案線索可以在第一段的最后一句話中找到。A項應(yīng)該是sensuous attention. B項沒有提到，C項正是黑格爾所反對的。
2.A根據(jù)第四段的內(nèi)容，康德對開始兩句話的否定，表明對兩個前提中的一個予以否定是不可能的，這與A項的內(nèi)容相符合。
3.B本項可以根據(jù)第二段中的內(nèi)容得到答案，第二句話開始人們試圖對藝術(shù)品找到一個實在東西表達其含義，但是失敗了。所以B項的內(nèi)容是錯誤的。
4.B因為二者對解決這個paradox沒有作用，所以他們是可有可無的。
5.D通讀全文即可知道，主要是黑格爾對藝術(shù)的內(nèi)容和形式之間的關(guān)系進行的論述。所以很明顯正確答案為D。
單項選擇
6--10: BDCBD