The Venus de Milo is one of the most famous examples of ancient
Greek art. The statue depicts Aphrodite, Greek goddess of love and
beauty and enjoys nearly universal recognition. Its origins remain
controversial—many historians argue that the Venus de Milo is a
copy of an earlier work.
These historians believe the sculpture is a copy primarily because
of its resemblance to older classical works. Upon its discovery in
1820, the Venus de Milo was first credited to Greek artist Praxiteles
because it strongly resembles the classical style of this earlier artist,
who lived during the fourth century BC. When Alexandros of
Antioch was correctly credited with creating the Venus de Milo
between 100 and 190 BC, art historians pointed out that he may
have taken the idea from classical artists.
The idea that the Venus de Milo could be a re-creation is further
supported by its resemblance to the Aphrodite of Capua in Naples.
Both statues represent the goddess Aphrodite (called Venus by
Romans) in a twisting posture, with her robe falling from her hips.
The Aphrodite of Capua is a Roman work and is itself a replica of an
earlier Greek sculpture.
Finally, historians point to the artist's cultural context as an
indication that the Venus de Milo was most likely copied from
another statue. Alexandros of Antioch lived during the Hellenistic
period, a period of decline for Greek art after the more productive
classical era. Many other works from the Hellenistic period were
copied from classical art Historians believe that the popularity of
re-creations during the Hellenistic period makes it likely that the
Venus de Milo was also a replica.
A Greek masterpiece - the Venus de Milo is discussed in both the reading passage and the lecture. The writer
argues that the sculpture is a copy of another work from classical era, however, the lecturer disagrees with this
opinion. She claims that the Venus de Milo is an original work from Hellenistic period. Both opinions are
supported by evidence which will be discussed in details below.
Firstly, the author avers that because the Venus de Milo resembles works of an artist from classical era, it should be a copy. The resemblance is so strong that initially the Venus de Milo was prescribed to a master from classical era - Praxiteles. At the same time, the lecturer argues against this opinion. She told us that similarity of styles can be explained by a short period of time between two eras, in fact, Hellenistic era followed immidiately after classical era. Therefore those similarities are understandable. Moreover, she points out on the fact that the Venus de Milo has characteristics of Hellenistic style: realism in depicting of details, shape of body etc.
Secondly, the writer claims that the Venus de Milo strongly resembles another masterpiece - the Aphrodite of Capua in Naples. The woman argues against this statement. She says that many sculptures which are devoted to the godness of love and beauty were created during classical era, so many that some statues might have some similarities.
Finally, we have read in the text that in the Hellenistic period a widespread practice of making copies from classical works existed. The lecturer disagrees with this argument because many works of art were made in that era. Moreover, she deeply believes that this era is underestimated and that many unique works of art were created in the Hellenistic period as well.
In conclusion, although the writer tends to believe that the Venus de Milo is a copy of an earlier work, the lecturer has her viewpoint on the issue, she gives as three pieces of evidence which support her stance and undermine the opinion of the author.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2016-10-17 | EugeneDubinchuk | 82 | view |
- Teachers' salaries should be based on their students' academic performance.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim. In developing and supporting your position, be sure to address the most compelling r 60
- Claim: Major policy decisions should always be left to politicians and other government experts.Reason: Politicians and other government experts are more informed and thus have better judgment and perspective than do members of the general public.Write a 80
- 01/11/2017Write a letter to an airline manager to find out about something you forgot on the plane during your travel. In your letter– give details about your flight– describe the item you forgot– explain why it is important that you get it back 70
- 02/10/2017With an increasing population communicating via the internet and text messaging, face to face communication will become a thing of the past. To what extent do you agree? 76
- Many criminals commit further crimes as soon as they released from prison.What do you think are the causes of this?What possible solutions can you suggest? 79
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Sentence: She told us that similarity of styles can be explained by a short period of time between two eras, in fact, Hellenistic era followed immidiately after classical era.
Error: immidiately Suggestion: immediately
flaws:
No. of Words: 340 250
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
Number of Paragraphs: 5 4
better to have 4 paragraphs:
para 1: introduction
para 2: doubt 1
para 3: doubt 2
para 4: doubt 3
Read sample essays from ETS:
http://www.testbig.com/users/toeflwritingmaster
----------------------
All TPO topics can be found here:
http://www.testbig.com/toefl
Don't need to type the topic.
----------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 24 in 30
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 1 2
No. of Sentences: 17 12
No. of Words: 340 250
No. of Characters: 1655 1200
No. of Different Words: 158 150
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.294 4.2
Average Word Length: 4.868 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.673 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 116 80
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 87 60
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 59 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 42 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.462 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.647 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.354 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.563 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.153 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 4
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 109, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ding passage and the lecture. The writer argues that the sculpture is a copy of a...
^^^
Line 2, column 114, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...owever, the lecturer disagrees with this opinion. She claims that the Venus de Mi...
^^^
Line 3, column 106, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...om Hellenistic period. Both opinions are supported by evidence which will be disc...
^^^
Line 6, column 376, Rule ID: PERIOD_OF_TIME[1]
Message: Use simply 'period'.
Suggestion: period
...y of styles can be explained by a short period of time between two eras, in fact, Hellenistic ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 6, column 476, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Therefore,
...llowed immidiately after classical era. Therefore those similarities are understandable. ...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 197, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...statement. She says that many sculptures which are devoted to the godness of love...
^^
Discourse Markers used:
['finally', 'first', 'firstly', 'however', 'moreover', 'second', 'secondly', 'so', 'therefore', 'well', 'in conclusion', 'in fact']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.273209549072 0.261695866417 104% => OK
Verbs: 0.135278514589 0.158904122519 85% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0610079575597 0.0723426182421 84% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0318302387268 0.0435111971325 73% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0291777188329 0.0277247811725 105% => OK
Prepositions: 0.159151193634 0.128828473217 124% => OK
Participles: 0.0291777188329 0.0370669169778 79% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.75232247527 2.5805825403 107% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0079575596817 0.0208969081088 38% => Some infinitives wanted.
Particles: 0.0026525198939 0.00154638098197 172% => OK
Determiners: 0.140583554377 0.128158765124 110% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0106100795756 0.0158828679856 67% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0132625994695 0.0114777025283 116% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2061.0 1645.83664459 125% => OK
No of words: 343.0 271.125827815 127% => OK
Chars per words: 6.00874635569 6.08160592843 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.30351707066 4.04852973271 106% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.34693877551 0.374372842146 93% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.262390670554 0.287516216867 91% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.195335276968 0.187439937562 104% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.131195335277 0.113142543107 116% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.75232247527 2.5805825403 107% => OK
Unique words: 165.0 145.348785872 114% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.481049562682 0.539623497131 89% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
Word variations: 49.4312496919 53.8517498576 92% => OK
How many sentences: 17.0 13.0529801325 130% => OK
Sentence length: 20.1764705882 21.7502111507 93% => OK
Sentence length SD: 51.3246671035 49.3711431718 104% => OK
Chars per sentence: 121.235294118 132.220823453 92% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.1764705882 21.7502111507 93% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.705882352941 0.878197800319 80% => OK
Paragraphs: 8.0 4.09492273731 195% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 3.39072847682 177% => OK
Readability: 46.4155376436 50.5018328374 92% => OK
Elegance: 2.35135135135 1.90840788429 123% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.502222295789 0.549887131256 91% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.118900200164 0.142949733639 83% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.103821032479 0.0787303798458 132% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.616165393277 0.631733273073 98% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.261730303448 0.139662658121 187% => Sentences are changing often in a paragraphs.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.227704767941 0.266732575781 85% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.128917324348 0.103435571967 125% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.240528311452 0.414875509568 58% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.157685574257 0.0530846634433 297% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.295238029622 0.40443939384 73% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.138242596176 0.0528353158467 262% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 4.33554083885 185% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.26048565121 117% => OK
Positive topic words: 6.0 3.49668874172 172% => OK
Negative topic words: 3.0 3.62251655629 83% => OK
Neutral topic words: 4.0 3.1766004415 126% => OK
Total topic words: 13.0 10.2958057395 126% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Not in a correct format.
The correct pattern:
para 1: introduction
para 2: doubt 1
para 3: doubt 2
para 4: doubt 3
Less contents wanted from the reading passages(25%) but more content wanted from the lecture (75%).
Don't need a conclusion paragraph.
Read sample essays from ETS:
http://www.testbig.com/users/toeflwritingmaster
Rates: 76.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 23.0 Out of 30
---------------------
Note: This is not the final score. The e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.