According to the reading passage, some of the Jackson Pollock’s works which were recently founded recently is are just imitation. However, the points made in the article totally disagree with the lecturer’s claim that it is genuine, not imitation.
l 앞에 reading의 내용이 나왔기 때문에 however 뒤에는 lecture의 이야기가 먼저오는게 좋습니다.
First and foremost, the reading passage says that the pigment that was used in some of painting was not available during the Pollock’s time. However, the professor expresses doubt on this by asserting that Pollock had a friend from Switzerland who supported painting materials to him. Consequently, he could use the painting materials such as pigments which were not in USA painting market.
l Pollock의 시대에 pigment 자체가 없었다는 뜻이 됩니다. 제가 원본 지문을 모르기 때문에 정확하지는 않지만 그 그림에 쓰인 특정 pigment만 없던 것 이라면 그냥 such as pigments라고 쓰면 안돼요.
Besides, the article says that those paintings don’t show the Pollock’s own painting features that is such as fractals pattern, and even similar to other recurring patterns. (문장의 의미가 명확하지 않아요. that절이 붙기 위해서는 완전한 문장을 쓰셔야 하고, don’t show에 붙으려면 동사가 있어야 하고, pattern두개가 보이지 않는다고 하려면 similar이란 부분이 어색해 집니다. 다시한번 확인 해 주세요.) In contrast, this perspective is challenged by the lecturer’s claim that not all his painting expresses only same characteristic, and his many other his works don’t show fractals pattern. He says that only his later work has this technique and recently founded work was made on his early stage.
The last point made in the article is that his close friend Mercedes Matter painted the highly resembled painting. The lecturer, however, contradicts this point by asserting that none of her works was completed by dripped pattern. It is true that they were close, but she never imitates his painting style.
전반적으로 passage와 lecture을 잘 비교한 것 같습니다. 하지만 정확한 정보가 전달이 안되는 경우가 있고, 수일치 문법 실수가 조금 많습니다. 에세이를 쓰고 다시한번 읽으면서 문법실수를 줄이는 것이 좋을 것 같아요.
수고하셨습니다 ^^ |