PrepTest 141 - Section 1 - Passage 2 - Question 10

Hide analysis

From a critical discussion of the work of Victorian photographer Julia Margaret Cameron.

What Cameron called her "fancy-subject" pictures—photographs in which two or more costumed sitters enacted, under Cameron's direction, scenes from the Bible, mythology, Shakespeare, or Tennyson—bear unmistakable traces of the often comical conditions under which they were taken. In many respects they have more connection to the family album pictures of recalcitrant relatives who have been herded together for the obligatory group picture than they do to the masterpieces of Western painting. In Raphael and Giotto there are no infant Christs whose faces are blurred because they moved, or who are looking at the viewer with frank hatred. These traces, of course, are what give the photographs their life and charm. If Cameron had succeeded in her project of making seamless works of illustrative art, her work would be among the curiosities of Victorian photography—like Oscar Gustave Rejlander's extravagantly awful The Two Ways of Life—rather than among its most vital images.

It is precisely the camera's realism—its stubborn obsession with the surface of things—that has given Cameron's theatricality and artificiality its atmosphere of truth. …

Intro to Topic · Cameron’s "fancy-subject" picture

Picture of people in costume enacting scenes from the bible, mythology, or literature.

It is the truth of the sitting, rather than the fiction which all the dressing up was in aid of, that wafts out of these wonderful and strange, not-quite-in-focus photographs. They are what they are: pictures of housemaids and nieces and husbands and village children who are dressed up as Mary Madonnas and infant Jesuses and John the Baptists and Lancelots and Guineveres and trying desperately hard to sit still. …

Details · Photos more like family album than masterpieces of art

The way each sitter endures his or her ordeal is the collective action of the photograph, its "plot" so to speak. When we look at a narrative painting we can suspend our disbelief; when we look at a narrative photograph we cannot. We are always aware of the photograph's doubleness—of each figure's imaginary and real personas. Theater can transcend its doubleness, can make us believe (for at least some of the time) that we are seeing only Lear or Medea. Still photographs of theatrical scenes can never escape being pictures of actors.

Main Point · But these details are what makes Cameron's photos important

I'm guessing this is the main point and the rest of the passage will support this.

What gives Cameron's pictures of actors their special quality—their status as treasures of photography of an unfathomably peculiar sort—is their singular combination of amateurism and artistry. …

Premise · Cameron's photos capture truth

In The Passing of Arthur, for example, the mast and oar of the makeshift boat representing a royal barge are obviously broomsticks and the water is white muslin drapery. But these details are insignificant. For once, the homely truth of the sitting gives right of place to the romantic fantasy of its director. …

Premise · The truth is in the taking of the photos

Housemaids and family members playing dress up and trying to get through the ordeal of posing for the photoshoot. That's the truth that Cameron's photos captured.

The picture, a night scene, is magical and mysterious. While Cameron's fancy-subject pictures have been compared to poor amateur theatricals, The Passing of Arthur puts one in mind of good amateur theatricals one has seen, and recalls with shameless delight.

Premise · Cameron's photos unlike painting or theater

In painting and theater, we can suspend disbelief thinking we're only seeing, for example, Jesus or King Lear

Passage Style

Single position

Spotlight

10.

Which one of the following, if true, would most help to explain the claim about suspension of disbelief (near the middle of the second paragraph)?

Question Type

Miscellaneous (RC)

What helps explain why we can suspend our disbelief when we look at a narrative painting, but we cannot suspend our disbelief when we look at a narrative photograph? This has something to do with our being aware of the photograph’s doubleness — of each person’s imaginary and real personas in the photograph. Whereas theater can make us think that we’re only seeing one person, with a photograph, we’re always aware we’re seeing both personas. Given what the author says about theater, what could explain why in a painting we can suspend disbelief? Probably because in a painting we can be convinced we’re seeing only one persona rather than both.

Sitting for a painting typically takes much longer than sitting for a photograph.

We have no reason to think the length of time spent sitting for a painting helps a viewer of a painting suspend disbelief concerning the contents of the narrative painting.

Paintings, unlike photographs, can depict obviously impossible situations.

It’s not clear how the ability to depict impossible situations can explain why we are able to suspend disbelief with a painting. Notice how in explaining why photographs are different from theater, the author mentions only the idea of being aware of the double personas of individuals in photographs, but not being aware of those personas in theater. This means the correct answer should relate to the idea of these personas; depiction of impossible situations doesn’t clearly relate.

23%

All of the sitters for a painting do not have to be present at the same time.

It’s not clear why the fact all sitters don’t need to be present at the same time can explain why we are able to suspend disbelief with a painting.

A painter can suppress details about a sitter that are at odds with an imaginary persona.

This is the best answer. If (D) were true, it provides a reason to think that an aspect of painting can help us avoid seeing the double personas of the people in the painting. This might be why we can suspend disbelief when looking at a narrative painting.

74%

Paintings typically bear the stylistic imprint of an artist, school, or period.

It’s not clear why bearing the stylistic imprint of an artist/school/period could explain why we’re able to suspend disbelief when looking at a painting.

PrepTest 141 - Section 1 - Passage 2 - Question 10

Passage explanation

Question explanation

Ask a tutor

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Answer five questions and we'll estimate your score.

Confirm action