Answer:
Given that none of the four voices can be attributed to Cavendish herself, the obvious inference is that Cavendish held views and possessed abilities that enabled her to eloquently express all of these divergent views. She was aware of widely ranging positions, and she was herself an educated woman. Therefore, it is hard to believe that she would hold the views of Speaker III, for example, who disparages women. Most clearly, perhaps, the orations show that Cavendish values wide, open discourse. In that sense she seems to agree with Speaker I. The act of putting these orations together, in itself, implies that Cavendish must have believed in the value of female perceptions and of women taking active intellectual roles. The fact that all the orations are so skillfully presented is a clear and convincing demonstration that such values are valid.
Explanation:
Here is my strategy, put Alex Danvers in charge and never question her decisions.
or
Here is my strategy: Put Alex Danvers in charge, and never question her decisions.
Answer:
To answer the question, one must define who the market is to the artist.
The fourth paragraph gives us a clue:
"...critics, dealers, gallery owners and museum curators whom they depend on for their livelihood."
Very clear isn't it?
So to the artist the market is made up of:
- Critics: an endorsement by a critic or a poisonous remark (if flipped) can give an artist the break they have been looking for;
- dealers: these category are more like brokers. Buying, selling and consulting on art works for a fee;
- owners of art works: These are direct 'consumers' for the artists products.
- museum curators: this category manage collections of works of art and artifacts in museums. They have sound knowledge of each art work and can also influence decisions during an auction by the museum.
Regardless of their dependence on the above categories of people, the text shows that the artist have a disdain for them.
A possible reason may be found in paragraph 5 :
<em>'In shredding “Girl With Balloon,” Banksy seems to be pointing to a central absurdity of his graffiti art being treated as fine art. When it appears on city streets, anyone can vandalize it; now that the same images are in galleries and auction houses, they must be handled with white gloves.'</em>
In simple terms, Banksy is saying that majority if not all artists don't have a complete say over how their work is valued. There is a system that decides this. And this lack of power or inability to insist on the true worth of their work is annoying.
Cheers!
Answer:
The claim is the main argument of the essay. This isnthe statement that the rest of the essay will support.
Answer: it’s A
Explanation: because Mr Kraler thinks the guy he works with was the robber that tried to rob the secret annex
