c1 Reading Task

TASK 4.
(0–8)
Read two texts about paintings. Do tasks 4.1.–4.8.
Text 1.
VIEW OF SCHEVENINGEN SANDS
In 1873 the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge, received a number of Dutch landscape

paintings from a benefactor. Among them was View of Scheveningen Sands painted by
Hendrick van Anthonissen in the 17th century.
For at least 150 years this seemingly unremarkable work of art harboured a secret.
A cleaning of the painting has now revealed a beached whale, which explains the hitherto
slightly baffling presence of groups of people on the beach, and atop the cliffs, on what
appears to be a blustery winter’s day. It is now clear that the people had gathered on the
beach to witness a spectacle rather than simply stare out at the empty sea.
The hulking shape of the stranded whale was discovered by Shan Kuang, a postgraduate
student at the world-renowned Hamilton Kerr Institute. Kuang was tasked with removing a
coat of resin varnish, which is typically used on oil paintings, but yellows over time and has to
be periodically replaced. As she worked across the surface a man appeared – and then next
to him a shape that looked like a sail. “By this time I could also make out an area of the sea
which had been painted more crudely than the rest of the ocean. It was a thick layer of
repaint covering a large section of original artwork.” Kuang remembers. “When I started to
meticulously remove the overpaint with a scalpel and solvent, little by little it dawned on me
that the man who had seemed to be standing next to a sail was actually balanced on top of a
whale’s back and what at first had looked like the sail of a boat was actually the whale’s fin.”
The decision to remove the overpaint was made in conjunction with the museum’s curators.
The consensus was that the repaint was not of good quality and affected the aesthetic
appreciation of the picture. It was obvious that the artist’s original intentions should take
precedence over retaining the alteration.
Removing paint has its uncertainties: you don’t always know how easily it can be removed or
the condition of the original painting beneath the overpaint. Fortunately, the whale only had a
small amount of damage and was in good overall condition. Kuang had to proceed very
gently and often work under the microscope so as to ensure no damage was done to the
painting itself. Kuang suggested that the man standing on top of the whale might be
measuring its length. Records show that there were many reported instances of whale
beaching in the Netherlands in the first half of the 17th century, so it’s entirely possible that
the scene portrayed by van Anthonissen was actually authentic.
According to the documentation, no-one had any idea that the painting featured a whale
when it was donated to the Fitzwilliam Museum. “An analysis of the paint indicates the
alteration is very old, but not contemporary to when the picture was painted in 1641 or
thereabouts. The whale was likely overpainted in the 18th or 19th century, before the painting
was given to the Fitzwilliam in 1873,” Kuang said.
No-one knows why the whale was painted out of the picture. “Today we treat works of art as
entities, but in previous centuries, paintings were often elements of interior design that were
adapted to fit certain spaces – or adjusted to suit changing tastes. It’s possible that the whale
Strona 6 z 20 MJAA-D0-100
was removed because the presence of a dead animal was considered offensive – or perhaps
without the whale the picture was more marketable,” said Kuang.
Adapted from: www.cam.ac.uk
For questions 4.1.–4.4., choose the answer that best matches the text and circle
the appropriate letter (A, B, C or D).
4.1. In 1873, the scene visible on the painting entitled View of Scheveningen Sands
A. showed a stranded whale on a beach.
B. turned out to have been copied from another painting.
C. contained elements which seemed incongruous.
D. included a creature whose presence baffled the art world.
4.2. During her work on the painting, Shan Kuang

A. had to put on a new layer of resin varnish.
B. was at some point required to put the overpaint back on.
C. discovered that the image of the whale was not damaged in any way.
D. initially made a wrong assumption about an image she was uncovering.
4.3. Based on the text, we can conclude that removing the overpaint
A. did more harm than good.
B. restored the integrity of the painting.
C. was made with financial gain in mind.
D. raised concerns among specialists in the field.
4.4. Which of the following is stated in the text as an OPINION, and not a fact?
A. The Fitzwilliam Museum was not aware that the donated painting had been
overpainted.
B. The alteration was not made in the 17th century.
C. The incident depicted on the painting was not extraordinary in the Netherlands in the
17th century.
D. The whale was overpainted in order to make the painting more appealing to potential
buyers.
TRANSFER YOUR ANSWERS TO THE ANSWER SHEET!
MJAA-D0-100 Strona 7 z 20
Text 2.
A REMARKABLE PAINTING
Cornelius Engelbrecht was a mild-mannered acquaintance to all rather than a friend to
anybody, a person anxious to become invisible. However, that exterior blandness masked
a burning centre which became clear when Cornelius Engelbrecht revealed to me the secret
obsession that lay beneath his orderly, controlled design.
One evening he insisted that I come to his home, which was entirely out of character.
I’d never seen him insist on anything. It would draw attention to himself. Why he picked me
I couldn’t tell, unless it was simply that I was the only artist or art teacher he knew.
He took me into a spacious study piled with books. He directed me to sit in the one easy
chair next to the fireplace and opposite a painting. A most extraordinary painting in which
a young girl wearing a short blue smock over a rust-coloured skirt sat in profile at a table by
an open window.
“My God,” I said. It must have been what he’d wanted to hear.
“Look. Look at her eye. Like a pearl. Pearls were favourite items of Vermeer. The longing in
her expression. And look at that Delft light spilling onto her forehead from the window.”
“Remarkable,” I said. “Certainly done in the style of Vermeer. A beguiling imitation.”
“It is a Vermeer,” he whispered.
I sputtered at the thought. “The art world is full of copyists.”
“It is a Vermeer,” he said again. The solemnity of his tone drew my eyes from the painting to
him. “Why could this not be? It’s his same window opening inward at the left that he used so
often, the same splash of pale yellow light. Take a look at the figures in the tapestry on the
table. Same as in nine other paintings.”
“Subject matter alone does not prove authenticity.”
“Granted, but I take you to be a man of keen observation. You are an artist, Richard. Surely
you can see that the floor suffers the same distortion of tiles he had in his earlier work, for
example, The Music Lesson or Girl with the Wineglass. I can see you still doubt. Study, if you
will, the varying depths of field. Take a look at the sewing basket placed forward on the table.
Its weave is diffused, slightly out of focus, yet the girl’s face is sharply in focus. He did the
same in The Lacemaker, 1669. Which leads me to surmise this was done between 1665 and
1668.”
I felt his eyes boring into me as I examined the painting. “Is there a signature?”
“No, no signature. But signatures are not definite evidence. Look at the direction of the
brush's stroke, those tiny grooves of the brush hairs. They have their lighted and their
shaded side. You’ll also find overlapping layers of paint no thicker than silk thread that give
a minute difference in shade. That’s what makes it a Vermeer.”
I walked toward the painting to see that up close, and it was as he had said. If I moved my
head to the right or left, certain brush strokes subtly changed their tint. How difficult it was to
achieve that. I suddenly found myself breathing fast. “Haven’t you had it appraised? I know
an art history professor who could come and have a look.”
Adapted from: https://archive.nytimes.com
Strona 8 z 20 MJAA-D0-100
Based on the text, complete sentences 4.5.–4.8.
4.5. Cornelius’ invitation came _________________________________________________

to the narrator.
4.6. To prove the painting’s authenticity Cornelius used arguments based on the subject
matter and _____________________________________________________________
the painter used.
4.7. Based on the Lacemaker, Cornelius made an estimate of ________________________

______________________________________________.
4.8. From the final part of the text, we can conclude that the narrator began to ___________
__________________________________________________________.
MJAA-D0-100 Strona 9 z 20

c1 Reading Task

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

c1 Reading Task

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

c1 Reading Task

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TASK 4.

VIEW OF SCHEVENINGEN SANDS

In 1873 the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge, received a number of Dutch landscape

4.2. During her work on the painting, Shan Kuang

TRANSFER YOUR ANSWERS TO THE ANSWER SHEET!

4.5. Cornelius’ invitation came _________________________________________________

4.7. Based on the Lacemaker, Cornelius made an estimate of ________________________

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.