Questões de Inglês

Instrução: A questão está relacionada ao texto abaixo.

There really is no such thing as Art. There are
only artists. Once these were men who took
coloured earth and roughed out the forms of
a bison on the wall of a cave; today some buy
[5] their paints, and design posters for hoardings;
they did and do many other things. There is
no harm in calling all these activities art ……..
we keep in mind that such a word may mean
very different things in different times and
[10] places, and as long as we realize that Art with
a capital A has no existence. ……… Art with a
capital A has come to be something of a
bogey and a fetish. You may crush an artist
by telling him that what he has just done may
[15] be quite good in its own way, only it is not
'Art'. And you may confound anyone enjoying
a picture by declaring that what he liked in it
was not the Art ……… something different.
Actually I do not think that there are any
[20] wrong reasons for liking a statue or a picture.
Someone may like a landscape painting
because it reminds him of home, or a portrait
because it reminds him of a friend. There is
nothing wrong with that. All of us, when we
[25] see a painting, are bound to be reminded of a
hundred-and-one things which influence our
likes and dislikes. As long as these memories
help us to enjoy what we see, we need not
worry. It is only when some irrelevant
[30] memory makes us prejudiced, when we
instinctively turn away from a magnificent
picture of an alpine scene because we dislike
climbing, that we should search our mind for
the reason for the aversion which spoils a
[35] pleasure we might otherwise have had. There
are wrong reasons for disliking a work of art.
Most people like to see in pictures what they
would also like to see in reality. This is quite a
natural preference. We all like beauty in
[40] nature, and are grateful to the artists who
have preserved it in their works. Nor would
these artists themselves have rebuffed us for
our taste. When the great Flemish painter
Rubens made a drawing of his little boy, he
[45] was surely proud of his good looks. He
wanted us, too, to admire the child. But this
bias for the pretty and engaging subject is apt
to become a stumbling-block if it leads us to
reject works which represent a less appealing
[50] subject. The great German painter Albrecht
Dürer certainly drew his aging mother with as
much devotion and love as Rubens felt for his
chubby child. His truthful study of careworn
old age may give us a shock which makes us
[55] turn away from it — and yet, if we fight
against our first repugnance we may be richly
rewarded, for Dürer's drawing in its
tremendous sincerity is a great work. In fact,
we shall soon discover that the beauty of a
[60] picture does not really lie in the beauty of its
subject-matter.

Adaptado de: GOMBRICH, E. H. The Story of Art. London / New York: Phaidon, 2007. p. 15-18.

Instrução: A questão está relacionada ao texto abaixo.

There really is no such thing as Art. There are
only artists. Once these were men who took
coloured earth and roughed out the forms of
a bison on the wall of a cave; today some buy
[5] their paints, and design posters for hoardings;
they did and do many other things. There is
no harm in calling all these activities art ……..
we keep in mind that such a word may mean
very different things in different times and
[10] places, and as long as we realize that Art with
a capital A has no existence. ……… Art with a
capital A has come to be something of a
bogey and a fetish. You may crush an artist
by telling him that what he has just done may
[15] be quite good in its own way, only it is not
'Art'. And you may confound anyone enjoying
a picture by declaring that what he liked in it
was not the Art ……… something different.
Actually I do not think that there are any
[20] wrong reasons for liking a statue or a picture.
Someone may like a landscape painting
because it reminds him of home, or a portrait
because it reminds him of a friend. There is
nothing wrong with that. All of us, when we
[25] see a painting, are bound to be reminded of a
hundred-and-one things which influence our
likes and dislikes. As long as these memories
help us to enjoy what we see, we need not
worry. It is only when some irrelevant
[30] memory makes us prejudiced, when we
instinctively turn away from a magnificent
picture of an alpine scene because we dislike
climbing, that we should search our mind for
the reason for the aversion which spoils a
[35] pleasure we might otherwise have had. There
are wrong reasons for disliking a work of art.
Most people like to see in pictures what they
would also like to see in reality. This is quite a
natural preference. We all like beauty in
[40] nature, and are grateful to the artists who
have preserved it in their works. Nor would
these artists themselves have rebuffed us for
our taste. When the great Flemish painter
Rubens made a drawing of his little boy, he
[45] was surely proud of his good looks. He
wanted us, too, to admire the child. But this
bias for the pretty and engaging subject is apt
to become a stumbling-block if it leads us to
reject works which represent a less appealing
[50] subject. The great German painter Albrecht
Dürer certainly drew his aging mother with as
much devotion and love as Rubens felt for his
chubby child. His truthful study of careworn
old age may give us a shock which makes us
[55] turn away from it — and yet, if we fight
against our first repugnance we may be richly
rewarded, for Dürer's drawing in its
tremendous sincerity is a great work. In fact,
we shall soon discover that the beauty of a
[60] picture does not really lie in the beauty of its
subject-matter.

Adaptado de: GOMBRICH, E. H. The Story of Art. London / New York: Phaidon, 2007. p. 15-18.

Instrução: A questão está relacionada ao texto abaixo.

There really is no such thing as Art. There are
only artists. Once these were men who took
coloured earth and roughed out the forms of
a bison on the wall of a cave; today some buy
[5] their paints, and design posters for hoardings;
they did and do many other things. There is
no harm in calling all these activities art ……..
we keep in mind that such a word may mean
very different things in different times and
[10] places, and as long as we realize that Art with
a capital A has no existence. ……… Art with a
capital A has come to be something of a
bogey and a fetish. You may crush an artist
by telling him that what he has just done may
[15] be quite good in its own way, only it is not
'Art'. And you may confound anyone enjoying
a picture by declaring that what he liked in it
was not the Art ……… something different.
Actually I do not think that there are any
[20] wrong reasons for liking a statue or a picture.
Someone may like a landscape painting
because it reminds him of home, or a portrait
because it reminds him of a friend. There is
nothing wrong with that. All of us, when we
[25] see a painting, are bound to be reminded of a
hundred-and-one things which influence our
likes and dislikes. As long as these memories
help us to enjoy what we see, we need not
worry. It is only when some irrelevant
[30] memory makes us prejudiced, when we
instinctively turn away from a magnificent
picture of an alpine scene because we dislike
climbing, that we should search our mind for
the reason for the aversion which spoils a
[35] pleasure we might otherwise have had. There
are wrong reasons for disliking a work of art.
Most people like to see in pictures what they
would also like to see in reality. This is quite a
natural preference. We all like beauty in
[40] nature, and are grateful to the artists who
have preserved it in their works. Nor would
these artists themselves have rebuffed us for
our taste. When the great Flemish painter
Rubens made a drawing of his little boy, he
[45] was surely proud of his good looks. He
wanted us, too, to admire the child. But this
bias for the pretty and engaging subject is apt
to become a stumbling-block if it leads us to
reject works which represent a less appealing
[50] subject. The great German painter Albrecht
Dürer certainly drew his aging mother with as
much devotion and love as Rubens felt for his
chubby child. His truthful study of careworn
old age may give us a shock which makes us
[55] turn away from it — and yet, if we fight
against our first repugnance we may be richly
rewarded, for Dürer's drawing in its
tremendous sincerity is a great work. In fact,
we shall soon discover that the beauty of a
[60] picture does not really lie in the beauty of its
subject-matter.

Adaptado de: GOMBRICH, E. H. The Story of Art. London / New York: Phaidon, 2007. p. 15-18.

Instrução: A questão está relacionada ao texto abaixo.

The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and
Sciences has announced a new category in
time for next February’s awards ceremony:
“achievement in popular film”. The idea is
[5] that, alongside the time-honoured “Best
Picture” category, there will be another for
films which have a broader appeal:
blockbusters, in other words. Ironically, the
announcement has been anything but
[10] popular. On social media, responses to this
idea have ranged from hostile to very hostile
indeed. Many feel that the once-prestigious
Oscars are dumbing down to the level of the
MTV Awards. What’s next—Best kiss? Loudest
[15] shoot-out? Most skyscrapers flattened by
aliens in a single action sequence?
The concept of the “Hit Oscar” or the
“Popcorn Oscar”, as it has been nicknamed,
raises other questions, too. To start with, who
[20] decides whether or not a film is popular?
What are the criteria or thresholds? And isn’t
it an insult to nominees, the implicit
suggestion being that hit films can’t be artistic
(and vice versa)?
[25] The timing, too, is off. “Black Panther”,
Marvel’s Afrofuturist superhero blockbuster,
could well have been nominated for best
picture in 2019. Indeed, it could well have
won, ……… acknowledging the superhero
[30] boom as well as emphasising just how
successful films with black casts and creative
teams can be. But it is now likely that “Black
Panther” will be shoved into the “popular”
ghetto, and that the best-picture prize will go
[35] to an indie drama. If so, the introduction of a
new category will have helped maintain the
status quo, rather than upending it.
It is understandable that the Oscars’
organisers should want to shake up the
[40] ceremony’s format, bearing in mind how low
its television ratings have fallen. One reason
for this decline, the theory goes, is that best-

picture winners are no longer the films that
the great American public is queuing up to
[45] see.
But if hugely profitable, crowd-pleasing films
aren’t winning best picture these days, it is
not because the Academy’s voters are
becoming more snobbish or sophisticated in
[50] their tastes. It is because Hollywood has
stopped making middlebrow historical epics
that used to be a shoo-in. What the
introduction of the popular category
acknowledges is that there are now hardly
[55] any studio films in the chasm between shiny
comic-book movies and quirky indie
experiments. The industry is producing
nothing for grown-up viewers who want more
scale and spectacle than they can get from a
[60] low-key drama, but who don’t fancy seeing
people in colourful costumes firing laser
beams at each other.
The new division between best picture and
popular picture may be ill-judged, but it
[65] reflects a pre-existing dichotomy between
arthouse and multiplex fare. So have pity on
the poor Academy. If Hollywood studios
weren’t quite so obsessed with superhero
franchises, the Oscars might not be in this
[70] mess in the first place.

Adaptado de: https://www.economist.com/prospero/2018/08 /11/the-academy-announces-a-misguided-newcategory. Acesso em: 08 ago. 2018.

Instrução: A questão está relacionada ao texto abaixo.

The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and
Sciences has announced a new category in
time for next February’s awards ceremony:
“achievement in popular film”. The idea is
[5] that, alongside the time-honoured “Best
Picture” category, there will be another for
films which have a broader appeal:
blockbusters, in other words. Ironically, the
announcement has been anything but
[10] popular. On social media, responses to this
idea have ranged from hostile to very hostile
indeed. Many feel that the once-prestigious
Oscars are dumbing down to the level of the
MTV Awards. What’s next—Best kiss? Loudest
[15] shoot-out? Most skyscrapers flattened by
aliens in a single action sequence?
The concept of the “Hit Oscar” or the
“Popcorn Oscar”, as it has been nicknamed,
raises other questions, too. To start with, who
[20] decides whether or not a film is popular?
What are the criteria or thresholds? And isn’t
it an insult to nominees, the implicit
suggestion being that hit films can’t be artistic
(and vice versa)?
[25] The timing, too, is off. “Black Panther”,
Marvel’s Afrofuturist superhero blockbuster,
could well have been nominated for best
picture in 2019. Indeed, it could well have
won, ……… acknowledging the superhero
[30] boom as well as emphasising just how
successful films with black casts and creative
teams can be. But it is now likely that “Black
Panther” will be shoved into the “popular”
ghetto, and that the best-picture prize will go
[35] to an indie drama. If so, the introduction of a
new category will have helped maintain the
status quo, rather than upending it.
It is understandable that the Oscars’
organisers should want to shake up the
[40] ceremony’s format, bearing in mind how low
its television ratings have fallen. One reason
for this decline, the theory goes, is that best-

picture winners are no longer the films that
the great American public is queuing up to
[45] see.
But if hugely profitable, crowd-pleasing films
aren’t winning best picture these days, it is
not because the Academy’s voters are
becoming more snobbish or sophisticated in
[50] their tastes. It is because Hollywood has
stopped making middlebrow historical epics
that used to be a shoo-in. What the
introduction of the popular category
acknowledges is that there are now hardly
[55] any studio films in the chasm between shiny
comic-book movies and quirky indie
experiments. The industry is producing
nothing for grown-up viewers who want more
scale and spectacle than they can get from a
[60] low-key drama, but who don’t fancy seeing
people in colourful costumes firing laser
beams at each other.
The new division between best picture and
popular picture may be ill-judged, but it
[65] reflects a pre-existing dichotomy between
arthouse and multiplex fare. So have pity on
the poor Academy. If Hollywood studios
weren’t quite so obsessed with superhero
franchises, the Oscars might not be in this
[70] mess in the first place.

Adaptado de: https://www.economist.com/prospero/2018/08 /11/the-academy-announces-a-misguided-newcategory. Acesso em: 08 ago. 2018.

Instrução: A questão está relacionada ao texto abaixo.

The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and
Sciences has announced a new category in
time for next February’s awards ceremony:
“achievement in popular film”. The idea is
[5] that, alongside the time-honoured “Best
Picture” category, there will be another for
films which have a broader appeal:
blockbusters, in other words. Ironically, the
announcement has been anything but
[10] popular. On social media, responses to this
idea have ranged from hostile to very hostile
indeed. Many feel that the once-prestigious
Oscars are dumbing down to the level of the
MTV Awards. What’s next—Best kiss? Loudest
[15] shoot-out? Most skyscrapers flattened by
aliens in a single action sequence?
The concept of the “Hit Oscar” or the
“Popcorn Oscar”, as it has been nicknamed,
raises other questions, too. To start with, who
[20] decides whether or not a film is popular?
What are the criteria or thresholds? And isn’t
it an insult to nominees, the implicit
suggestion being that hit films can’t be artistic
(and vice versa)?
[25] The timing, too, is off. “Black Panther”,
Marvel’s Afrofuturist superhero blockbuster,
could well have been nominated for best
picture in 2019. Indeed, it could well have
won, ……… acknowledging the superhero
[30] boom as well as emphasising just how
successful films with black casts and creative
teams can be. But it is now likely that “Black
Panther” will be shoved into the “popular”
ghetto, and that the best-picture prize will go
[35] to an indie drama. If so, the introduction of a
new category will have helped maintain the
status quo, rather than upending it.
It is understandable that the Oscars’
organisers should want to shake up the
[40] ceremony’s format, bearing in mind how low
its television ratings have fallen. One reason
for this decline, the theory goes, is that best-

picture winners are no longer the films that
the great American public is queuing up to
[45] see.
But if hugely profitable, crowd-pleasing films
aren’t winning best picture these days, it is
not because the Academy’s voters are
becoming more snobbish or sophisticated in
[50] their tastes. It is because Hollywood has
stopped making middlebrow historical epics
that used to be a shoo-in. What the
introduction of the popular category
acknowledges is that there are now hardly
[55] any studio films in the chasm between shiny
comic-book movies and quirky indie
experiments. The industry is producing
nothing for grown-up viewers who want more
scale and spectacle than they can get from a
[60] low-key drama, but who don’t fancy seeing
people in colourful costumes firing laser
beams at each other.
The new division between best picture and
popular picture may be ill-judged, but it
[65] reflects a pre-existing dichotomy between
arthouse and multiplex fare. So have pity on
the poor Academy. If Hollywood studios
weren’t quite so obsessed with superhero
franchises, the Oscars might not be in this
[70] mess in the first place.

Adaptado de: https://www.economist.com/prospero/2018/08 /11/the-academy-announces-a-misguided-newcategory. Acesso em: 08 ago. 2018.