The mistake has been on the teacher’s side . Here the mistake refers to ?->(Show Answer!)

1. The mistake has been on the teacher’s side . Here the mistake refers to

Write Comment

Comments

Tags

Show Similar Question And Answers

QA->In a class of 20 students the average age is 16 years.If the age of the class teacher is added to that of students,the average age of the class becomes 17 years.What is the age of the teacher?....

QA->In which part of the sentence is the mistake? The few money (a)/he inherited (b)/has already (c)/been wasted(d) ....

QA->Noted poet, scholar and teacher who has been selected for the Ezhuthachan Puraskaram for 2015?....

QA->In which part of the sentence is the mistake? John(a)/has sold. (b)/his old (c)/furnitures (d) ....

QA->Where one of the parties under a mistake as to matter of fact, the contract is?....

MCQ-> Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it. Certain words have been printed in bold to help you locate them while answering some of the questions. Keshava, the washerman had a donkey. They worked together all day, and Keshava would pour out his heart to the donkey. One day, Keshava was walking home with the donkey when he felt tired. He tied the donkey te=a tree and sat down to rest fora while, near a school. A window was open, and through it, a teacher could be heard scolding the students. “Here I am, trying to turn you donkeys into human beings, but you just won’t study!” As soon as Keshava heard these words, his ears pricked up. A man who could actually turn, donkeys into humans! This was the answer to his prayers. Impatiently, he waited for school to be over that day. When everyone had gone home, and only the teacher remained behind to check some papers, Keshava entered the classroom. “How can I help you?” asked the teacher. Keshava scratched his head and said. “I heard what you said to the children. This donkey is my companion. If you made it human, we could have such good times together.” The teacher decided to trick Keshava. He pretended to think for a while and then said, “Give me six months and it will cost you a thousand rupees.” The washerman agreed and rushed home to get the money. He then left the donkey in the teacher’s care. After the six months were up, Keshava went to the teacher. The teacher had been using the donkey for his own work. Not wanting to give it up, he said, “Oh, your doilkey became so clever that it ran away. He is the headman of the next village. “When Keshava reached the next village he found the village elders sitting under a -tree, discussing serious problems: How surprised they were when Keshava marched up to the headman, grabbed his arm and said. “How dare you? You think you are so clever that you ran away? Come home at once!” The headman understood someone had played a trick on Keshava. “I am not your donkey!” he said. “Go find the sage in the forest. “Keshava found the sage sitting under a tree with his eyes closed, deep in meditation: He crept up and grabbed the sage’s beard.”Come back home now!” he shouted. The startled sage somehow calmed Keshava. When he heard what had happened, he had a good laugh. Then he told the washerman kindly, “The teacher made a fool of you. Your donkey must be still with him. Go and take it back from him. Try to make some real friends, who will talk with you and share your troubles. A donkey will never be able to do that!” Keshava returned home later that day with his donkey, sadder and wiser.Which of the following can be said about the teacher?
....

MCQ-> YOU HAVE ONE BRIEF PASSAGE WITH LIVE QUESTIONS. READ THE PASSAGE CAREFULLY AND CHOOSE THE BEST ANSWER TO EACH QUESTION OUT OF THE FOUR ALTERNATIVES. A reason why people at school read books is to please their teacher. The teacher has said that this that or the other is a good book and that it is a sign of good taste to enjoy it. So a number of boys and girls anxious to please their teacher get the book and read it. Two or three of them may genuinely like it for their own sake and be grateful to the teacher for putting it in their way. But many will not honestly like it or will persuade themselves that they like it. And that does a great deal of harm. The people who cannot like the book run the risk of two things happening to them either they are put off the idea of the book-let us suppose the book was David Copperfield-either they are put off the idea of classical novels or they take a dislike to Dickens and decide firmly never to waste their time on anything of the sort again or they get a guilty conscience about the whole thing they feel that they do not like what they ought to like and that therefore there is something wrong with them. They are quite mistaken of course. There is nothing wrong with them. The mistake has all been on the teacher s side. What has happened is that they have been shoved up against a book before they were ready for it. It is like giving a young child food only suitable for an adult Result indigestion violent stomach-ache and a rooted dislike of that article of food evermore.The passage is about what ?
....

MCQ->The mistake has been on the teacher’s side . Here the mistake refers to....

MCQ-> Keshava, the washerman had a donkey. They worked together all day, and Keshava would pour out his heart to the donkey. One day, Keshava was walking home with thedonkey when he felt tired. He tied the donkey to a tree and sat down to rest for a while, near a school. A window was open, and through it, a teacher could be heard scolding the students. “Here I am, trying to turn you donkeys into human beings, but you just won’t study! As soon as Keshava heard these words, his ears pricked up. A man who could actually turn donkeys into humans! This was the answer to his prayers. Impatiently, he waited for school to be over that day. When everyone had gone home, and only the teacher remained behind to check some papers, Keshava entered the classroom. “How can I help you?” asked the teacher. Keshava scratched his head and said, “I heard what you said to the children. This donkey is my companion. If you made it human, we could have such good times together.” The teacher decided to trick Keshava. He pretended to think for a while and then said, “Give me six months and it will cost you a thousand rupees.” The washerman agreed and rushed home to get the money. He then left the donkey in the teacher’s care.....

MCQ-> One of the criteria by which we judge the vitality of a style of painting is its ability to renew itself- its responsiveness to the changing nature and quality of experience, the degree of conceptual and formal innovation that it exhibits. By this criterion, it would appear that the practice of abstractionism has failed to engage creatively with the radical change in human experience in recent decades. it has, seemingly, been unwilling to re-invent itself in relation to the systems of artistic expression and viewers’ expectations that have developed under the impact of the mass media. The judgement that abstractionism has slipped into ‘inertia gear’ is gaining endorsement, not only among discerning viewers and practitioners of other art forms, but also among abstract painters themselves. Like their companions elsewhere in the world, abstraction lists in India are asking themselves an overwhelming question today: Does abstractionism have a future? The major- crisis that abstractionists face is that of revitalising their picture surface; few have improvised any solutions beyond the ones that were exhausted by the I 970s. Like all revolutions, whether in politics or in art, abstractionism must now confront its moment of truth: having begun life as a new and radical pictorial approach to experience, it has become an entrenched orthodoxy itself. Indeed, when viewed against a historical situation in which a variety of subversive, interactive and richly hybrid forms are available to the art practitioner, abstractionism assumes the remote and defiant air of an aristocracy that has outlived its age; trammelled by formulaic conventions yet buttressed by a rhetoric of sacred mystery, it seems condemned to being the last citadel of the self-regarding ‘fine art’ tradition, the last hurrah of painting for painting’s sake. The situation is further complicated in India by the circumstances in which an indigenous abstractionism came into prominence here during the 1960s. From the beginning it was propelled by the dialectic between two motives, one revolutionary and the other conservative-it was inaugurated as an act of emancipation from the dogmas of the nascent Indian nation state, when an’ was officially viewed as an indulgence at worst, and at best, as an instrument for the celebration of the republic’s hopes and aspirations. Having rejected these dogmas, the pioneering abstractionists also went on to reject the various figurative styles associated with the Santiniketan circle and others. In such a situation, abstractionism was a revolutionary move, It led art towards the exploration of the s 3onsc)ous mind, the spiritual quest and the possible expansion of consciousness. Indian painting entered into a phase of self-inquiry, a meditative inner space where cosmic symbols and non-representational images ruled. Often, the transition from figurative idioms to abstractionist ones took place within the same artist. At the same time, Indian abstractionists have rarely committed themselves wholeheartedly to a nonrepresentational idiom. They have been preoccupied with the fundamentally metaphysical project of aspiring to the mystical- holy without altogether renouncing the symbolic) This has been sustained by a hereditary reluctance to give up the murti, the inviolable iconic form, which explains why abstractionism is marked by the conservative tendency to operate with images from the sacred repertoire of the past. Abstractionism thus entered India as a double-edged device in a complex cultural transaction. ideologically, it served as an internationalist legitimisation the emerging revolutionary local trends. However, on entry; it was conscripted to serve local artistic preoccupations a survey of indigenous abstractionism will show that its most obvious points of affinity with European and American abstract art were with the more mystically oriented of the major sources of abstractionist philosophy and practice, for instance the Kandinsky-Klee school. There have been no takers for Malevich’s Suprematism, which militantly rejected both the artistic forms of the past and the world of appearances, privileging the new- minted geometric symbol as an autonomous sign of the desire for infinity. Against this backdrop, we can identify three major abstractionist idioms in Indian art. The first develops from a love of the earth, and assumes the form of a celebration of the self’s dissolution in the cosmic panorama; the landscape is no longer a realistic, transcription of the scene, but is transformed into a visionary occasion for contemplating the cycles of decay and regeneration. The second idiom phrases its departures from symbolic and archetypal devices as invitations to heightened planes of awareness. Abstractionism begins with the establishment or dissolution of the motif, which can be drawn from diverse sources, including the hieroglyphic tablet, the Sufi meditation dance or the Tantrie diagram. The third- idiom is based on the lyric play of forms guided by gesture or allied with formal improvisations like the assemblage. Here, sometimes, the line dividing abstract image from patterned design or quasi-random expressive marking may blur. The flux of forms can also be regimented through the poetics of pure colour arrangements, vector-diagrammatic spaces anti gestural design. In this genealogy, some pure lines of descent follow their logic to the inevitable point of extinction, others engage in cross-fertilisation and yet others undergo mutation to maintain their energy. However, this genealogical survey demonstrates the wave at its crests, those points where the metaphysical and the painterly have been fused in images of abiding potency, ideas sensuously ordained rather than fabricated programmatically to a concept. It is equally possible to enumerate the troughs where the two principles do not come together, thus arriving at a very different account. Uncharitable as it may sound, the history of Indian abstractionism records a series of attempts to avoid the risks of abstraction by resorting to an overt and near-generic symbolism which many Indian abstractionists embrace when they find themselves bereft of the imaginative energy to negotiate the union of metaphysics and painterliness. Such symbolism falls into a dual trap: it succumbs to the pompous vacuity of pure metaphysics when the burden of intention is passed off as justification; or then it is desiccated by the arid formalism of pure painterliness, with delight in the measure of chance or pattern guiding the execution of a painting. The ensuing conflict of purpose stalls the progress of abstractionism in an impasse. The remarkable Indian abstractionists are precisely those who have overcome this and addressed themselves to the basic elements of their art with a decisive sense of independence from prior models. In their recent work, we see the logic of Indian abstractionism pushed almost to the furthest it can be taken. Beyond such artists stands a lost generation of abstractionists whose work invokes a wistful, delicate beauty but stops there. Abstractionism is not a universal language; it is an art that points up the loss of a shared language of signs in society. And yet, it affirms the possibility of its recovery through the effort of awareness. While its rhetoric has always emphasised a call for new forms of attention, abstractionist practice has tended to fall into a complacent pride in its own incomprehensibility; a complacency fatal in an ethos where vibrant new idioms compete for the viewers’ attention. Indian abstractionists ought to really return to basics, to reformulate and replenish their understanding of the nature of the relationship between the painted image and the world around it. But will they abandon their favourite conceptual habits and formal conventions, if this becomes necessary?Which one of the following is not stated by the author as a reason for abstractionism losing its vitality?
....