2. 职称英语
  3. Artists routinely deride businesspeople as money-obsessed bores. Or worse. Ev

Artists routinely deride businesspeople as money-obsessed bores. Or worse. Ev

游客2024-11-08  14
问题    Artists routinely deride businesspeople as money-obsessed bores. Or worse. Every time Hollywood depicts an industry, it depicts a conspiracy of knaves. Think of "Wall Street" (which damned finance), "The Constant Gardener" (drug firms), "Super Size Me" (fast food), "The Social Network" (Facebook) or "The Player" (Hollywood itself). Artistic critiques of business are sometimes precise and well-targeted, as in Lucy Prebble’s play "Enron". But often they are not, as those who endured Michael Moore’s "Capitalism: A Love Story" can attest.
   Many businesspeople, for their part, assume that artists are a bunch of pretentious wastrels. Bosses may stick a few modernist daubs on their boardroom walls. They may go on corporate jollies to the opera. They may even write the odd cheque to support their wives’ bearded friends. But they seldom take the arts seriously as a source of inspiration.
   The bias starts at business school, where "hard" things such as numbers and case studies rule. It is reinforced by everyday experience. Bosses constantly remind their underlings that if you can’t count it, it doesn’t count. Quarterly results impress the stock market; little else does.
   Managers’ reading habits often reflect this no-nonsense attitude. Few read deeply about art. "The Art of the DeaV by Donald Trump does not count; nor does Sun Tzu’s "The Art of War". Some popular business books rejoice in their barbarism: consider Wess Robert’s "Leadership Secrets of Attila the Hun" ("The principles are timeless, " says Ross Perot) or Rob Adams’s "A Good Hard Kick in the Ass: the Real Rules for Business".
   But lately there are welcome signs of a thaw on the business side of the great cultural divide. Business presses are publishing a series of luvvie-hugging books such as "The Fine Art of Success", by Jamie Anderson, Jorg Reckhenrich and Martin Kupp, and "Artistry Unleashed" by Hilary Austen. Business schools such as the Rotman School of Management at the University of Toronto are trying to learn from the arts. New consultancies teach businesses how to profit from the arts. Ms. Austen, for example, runs one named after her book.
   All this unleashing naturally produces some nonsense. Madonna has already received too much attention without being hailed as a prophet of "organizational renewal". Bosses have enough on their plates without being told that they need to unleash their inner Laurence Oliviers. But businesspeople nevertheless have a lot to learn by taking the arts more seriously.
   Mr. Anderson & co point out that many artists have also been superb entrepreneurs. Tintoretto upended a Venetian arts establishment that was completely controlled by Titian. He did this by identifying a new set of customers (people who were less grand than the grandees who supported Titian) and by changing the way that art was produced (working much faster than other artists and painting frescoes and furniture as well as portraits). Damien Hirst was even more audacious. He not only realised that nouveau-riche collectors would pay extraordinary sums for dead cows and jewel-encrusted skulls. He upturned the art world by selling his work directly through Sotheby’s, an auction house. Whatever they think of his work, businesspeople cannot help admiring a man who parted art-lovers from ￡70.5m ($126.5m) on the day that Lehman Brothers collapsed.
   Studying the arts can help businesspeople communicate more eloquently. Most bosses spend a huge amount of time "messaging" and "reaching out", yet few are much good at it. Their prose is larded with cliches and garbled with gobbledegook. Half an hour with George Orwell’s "Why I Write" would work wonders. Many of the world’s most successful businesses are triumphs of story-telling more than anything else. Marlboro and Jack Daniels have tapped into the myth of the frontier. Ben & Jerry’s, an ice-cream maker, wraps itself in the tie-dyed robes of the counter-culture. But business schools devote far more energy to teaching people how to produce and position their products rather than how to infuse them with meaning.
   Studying the arts can also help companies learn how to manage bright people. Rob Goffee and Gareth Jones of the London Business School point out that today’s most productive companies are dominated by what they call "clevers", who are the devil to manage. They hate being told what to do by managers, whom they regard as dullards. They refuse to submit to performance reviews. In short, they are prima donnas. The arts world has centuries of experience in managing such difficult people. Publishers coax books out of tardy authors. Directors persuade actresses to lock lips with actors they hate. Their tips might be worth hearing. [br] In the first paragraph, the movie______is NOT a precise and well-targeted depict of businesspeople.
选项 A、The Social Network
B、Capitalism: A Love Story
C、The Player
D、Wall Street
答案 B
解析 在第一段中，哪部电影没有准确并且有针对性地刻画商人形象?该题为理解题。文章第一段中说，对商业的艺术批评有时候可以说是一针见血，就像露西-普瑞贝尔的戏剧《Enron》描述的那样；但更多时候影片的描述并非事实，比如迈克尔-摩尔的电影《Capitalism：A Love Story》使很多人抓狂，他们对这种“冤屈”深有体会。由此可见，正是这部电影没有准确并且有针对性地刻画商人的形象。故此题答案为B。
转载请注明原文地址:https://tihaiku.com/zcyy/3836327.html
相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)