Passage Discussion

[deedubbew]

Maybe I'm missing the big picture here which makes it difficult for me to understand question 1. The answer choice D doesn't make sense to me since it seems to me that the founders were not to blame but it may also be true that they believed that proaction issues should supersede aesthetic concerns. Is it not possible based on the wording that both conditions could be true simultaneously? When I think about the gist of the entire passage, I think the main idea has to do with Wagner, his book, and his ideas of Modern Architecture, not about how his book is specifically indicating that the practical issues should not supersede aesthetic concerns. Please help clarify! Thanks!!!

[christine.defenbaugh]

Thanks so much for posting deedubbew!

What you're struggling with here is exactly why it is so critical to have a clear sense of the scale of the passage and a well-contructed passage map!

The scale of the passage, or central tension, is introduced in the first paragraph. Here we have modern architecture of the 1960s and 1970s criticized for valuing function over form, and that idea does not seem to be in any dispute at all. But the author pushes on to claim that Wagner's Modern Architecture reveals that that valuation cannot be tied to "the ideals of [modern architecture's founders."

This is tension, or scale of the passage - we know that recent modern architecture values practicality over aesthetics, but can the same be said of the founders' ideals? The author, in lines 10-12, clearly indicates that the answer is NO!

Paragraph 2, however, lays out some evidence that could support the other side of the scale. The entire paragraph is dedicated to the practical, functional, and technological bases for modern architecture. And lines 25-30 say that all this "would indeed seem to be the basis of a purely materialist definition of architecture, a prototype for the simplistic form-follows-function dogma." However, the key word in that quote is "seem", which suggests that what appears to be the case from this evidence is not the reality!

And indeed, in Paragraph 3, the author turns it around, claiming that the "picture was more complex." The author describes a far more balanced relationship between art and engineering here, but although the relationship is "symbiotic", the critical element is that "art was to exercise the controlling influence." That means that the founders' ideals did not prioritize functionality over aesthetics. On the contrary, art was in the driver's seat!

The final paragraph continues to explore this symbiotic tension in Wagner, with examples of how Wagner married art and engineering, but emphasizing how the "true inspiration" always came from art first.
*******************************************


It seems like you may have misunderstood the function of paragraph 2, when you say that " but it may also be true that they believed that proaction issues should supersede aesthetic concerns." Paragraph 2 sets up the importance of engineering, technical innovation, etc, but it never lays out that these things supercede aesthetic concerns, and in fact, the final sentence of Paragraph 3 contradicts that idea, when the author explicitly notes that art is the controlling influence.

Additionally, while most of the real estate of the passage is dedicated to Wagner, Modern architecture, and modern architecture, the primary thing being discussed about all of those things is the tension between aesthetics and practicality. And all of that is being discussed as an attempt to answer the implicit question raised in line 10-12 about whether the failures of recent modern architecture (prioritizing function over form) can be tied to the founders' ideals (Wagner's ideals).

This is why the idea of scale, or tension in the passage is so critical! This isn't just a recitation of some stuff in some old guy's book. It's an analysis of the old guy's book that is meant to convincingly persuade a reader that the author's side of the scale is the correct one!

Does that help a bit?

[PhoebeL747]

Thanks so much for posting deedubbew!

What you're struggling with here is exactly why it is so critical to have a clear sense of the scale of the passage and a well-contructed passage map!

The scale of the passage, or central tension, is introduced in the first paragraph. Here we have modern architecture of the 1960s and 1970s criticized for valuing function over form, and that idea does not seem to be in any dispute at all. But the author pushes on to claim that Wagner's Modern Architecture reveals that that valuation cannot be tied to "the ideals of [modern architecture's founders."

This is tension, or scale of the passage - we know that recent modern architecture values practicality over aesthetics, but can the same be said of the founders' ideals? The author, in lines 10-12, clearly indicates that the answer is NO!

Paragraph 2, however, lays out some evidence that could support the other side of the scale. The entire paragraph is dedicated to the practical, functional, and technological bases for modern architecture. And lines 25-30 say that all this "would indeed seem to be the basis of a purely materialist definition of architecture, a prototype for the simplistic form-follows-function dogma." However, the key word in that quote is "seem", which suggests that what appears to be the case from this evidence is not the reality!

And indeed, in Paragraph 3, the author turns it around, claiming that the "picture was more complex." The author describes a far more balanced relationship between art and engineering here, but although the relationship is "symbiotic", the critical element is that "art was to exercise the controlling influence." That means that the founders' ideals did not prioritize functionality over aesthetics. On the contrary, art was in the driver's seat!

The final paragraph continues to explore this symbiotic tension in Wagner, with examples of how Wagner married art and engineering, but emphasizing how the "true inspiration" always came from art first.
*******************************************


It seems like you may have misunderstood the function of paragraph 2, when you say that " but it may also be true that they believed that proaction issues should supersede aesthetic concerns." Paragraph 2 sets up the importance of engineering, technical innovation, etc, but it never lays out that these things supercede aesthetic concerns, and in fact, the final sentence of Paragraph 3 contradicts that idea, when the author explicitly notes that art is the controlling influence.

Additionally, while most of the real estate of the passage is dedicated to Wagner, Modern architecture, and modern architecture, the primary thing being discussed about all of those things is the tension between aesthetics and practicality. And all of that is being discussed as an attempt to answer the implicit question raised in line 10-12 about whether the failures of recent modern architecture (prioritizing function over form) can be tied to the founders' ideals (Wagner's ideals).

This is why the idea of scale, or tension in the passage is so critical! This isn't just a recitation of some stuff in some old guy's book. It's an analysis of the old guy's book that is meant to convincingly persuade a reader that the author's side of the scale is the correct one!

Does that help a bit?

I agree with all that but how do you know Wagner's ideals=Modernism founder's ideals?
It seems to me no where in the passage says that Wagner is one of the founders of Modernism.