Skip to main contentSkip to solution

The Chinese have two different concepts of a copy. Fangzhipin are imitations where the difference from the original is obvious. These are small models or copies that can be purchased in a museum shop, for example. The second concept for a copy is fuzhipin. They are exact reproductions of the original, which, for the Chinese, are of equal value to the original. It has absolutely no negative connotations. The discrepancy with regard to the understanding of what a copy is has often led to misunderstandings and arguments between China and Western museums. The Chinese often send copies abroad instead of originals, in the firm belief that they are not essentially different from the originals. The rejection that then comes from the Western museums is perceived by the Chinese as an insult.

The Far Eastern notion of identity is also very confusing to the Western observer. The Ise Grand Shrine in Japan is 1,300 years old for the millions of Japanese people who go there on pilgrimage every year. But in reality this temple complex is completely rebuilt from scratch every 20 years.

The cathedral of Freiburg Minster in southwest Germany is covered in scaffolding almost all year round. The sandstone from which it is built is a very soft, porous material that does not withstand natural erosion by rain and wind. After a while, it crumbles. As a result, the cathedral is continually being examined for damage, and eroded stones are replaced. And in the cathedral's dedicated workshop, copies of the damaged sandstone figures are constantly being produced. Of course, attempts are made to preserve the stones from the Middle Ages for as long as possible. But at some point they, too, are removed and replaced with new stones.

Fundamentally, this is the same operation as with the Japanese shrine, except in this case the production of a replica takes place very slowly and over long periods of time. In the field of art as well, the idea of an unassailable original developed historically in the Western world. Back in the 17th century in the West, excavated artworks from antiquity were treated quite differently from today. They were not restored in a way that was faithful to the original. Instead, there was massive intervention in these works, changing their appearance.

It is probably this intellectual position that explains why Asians have far fewer scruples about cloning than Europeans. The South Korean cloning researcher Hwang Woo-suk, who attracted worldwide attention with his cloning experiments in 2004, is a Buddhist. He found a great deal of support and followers among Buddhists, while Christians called for a ban on human cloning. Hwang legitimised his cloning experiments with his religious affiliation: 'I am Buddhist, and I have no philosophical problem with cloning. And as you know, the basis of Buddhism is that life is recycled through reincarnation. In some ways, I think, therapeutic cloning restarts the circle of life.'

The value that the modern West assigns to "an unassailable original" has resulted in all of the following EXCEPT:

Solution

āœ… Correct Option: 4

We need to find what does NOT result from the Western idea of "unassailable original" in art.


Let us trace through the passage to understand what "unassailable original" means. The passage says this concept developed in Western art history.

From passage: "In the field of art as well, the idea of an unassailable original developed historically in the Western world. Back in the 17th century in the West, excavated artworks from antiquity were treated quite differently from today. They were not restored in a way that was faithful to the original. Instead, there was massive intervention in these works, changing their appearance."

This tells me -> Before this concept: massive changes to old art -> After this concept: treat originals as untouchable

The cathedral example shows -> constant careful repair work -> keeping original stones as long as possible -> replacing only when necessary


Now let's check each option against the "unassailable original" concept:

🟠 Option 1 -> partial-truth -> If originals are sacred, then displaying multiple copies would cheapen the original's value. This makes sense from the concept.

🟠 Option 2 -> logical connection -> The passage shows 17th century had "massive intervention" but now we avoid changes to preserve originality. This directly follows from the concept.

🟠 Option 3 -> direct example -> Cathedral workers constantly replace damaged stones to preserve the structure. This careful maintenance work comes from respecting the original.

🟢 Option 4 -> context-shift -> The cloning discussion is about religious beliefs (Buddhist vs Christian views), not about art restoration concepts. The passage says "It is probably this intellectual position that explains why Asians have far fewer scruples about cloning than Europeans" but connects it to Buddhist reincarnation beliefs, not art theory.

The cloning opposition comes from Christian religious views -> not from art preservation ideas -> completely different topic

Keyboard Shortcuts

  • Left arrow: Previous question
  • Right arrow: Next question
  • S key: Jump to solution
  • Q key: Jump to question