by tommywallach Thu Oct 17, 2013 5:23 pm
Hey All,
Looks like the discussion here has already been fruitful, but I'll weigh in with a full discussion of the answer choices.
(A) The passage never says that the Venetians actually apprenticed in Tuscany (though it would be fair to assume that, if they had, it would have improved their drawing skills).
(B) It's actually the Tuscans who painted frescoes that would have been seen from a distance.
(C) This gets the cause and effect wrong. The historical paintings were seen as the model for painting narrative stuff in Venice, not the other way around. (See the last sentence of the second paragraph).
(D) This is tricky. We know that the Venetians didn't make frescoes, but it was because the climate didn't lend itself to the making of frescoes, not because they lacked the skills (they would have developed the skills if the climate had lent itself to frescoes).
(E) This is supported by lines 55-64. We know that "In Venice...this kind of skill [drawing the human form] was acquired and appreciated much later [than 1500, which is the 16th century]" and that there was an "emphasis on architecture" that "local painters obviously prized" because it was seen "as a particular test of the Venetian painter's skill."
Hope that helps!
-t