（中略） ［3］ Before seeing the show. Iʼd had misgivings about the august Metʼs hosting of what boded to be cynically corny corporate artifice. These faded, so engaging is the installation̶and far be it from me to snoot a dreamy concept rendering, by the designer Mary Blair, of Cinderellaʼs pumpkin carriage̶but the qualms reinfected me in the end. ［4］ While we have grown used to crossovers of “high” and “low” in contemporary taste, the difference isnʼt meaningless when any use of the past not only sterilizes its original import but makes a fetish of doing so. The payoff is diverting and may seem funny. But it lacks fundamental humor, which canʼt do without at least a whisper of irony. ［5］ We arenʼt party to the Disney creative sorcery but only passive consumers of it. More humanly complex long-form animation arrived with the ongoing triumphs of Pixar, which the Walt Disney Company had the timely wit, in 2006, to acquire from Steve Jobs as a subsidiary. ［1］ How we think metaphorically matters. It can determine questions of war and peace, economic policy, and legal decisions, as well as the mundane choices of everyday life. Is a military attack a “rape,” “a threat to our security,” or “the defense of a population against terrorism”? The same attack can be conceptualized in any of these ways with very different military consequences.Is your marriage a partnership, a journey through life together, a haven from the outside world, a means for growth, or a union of two people into a third entity? ［2］ The choice among such common ways of conceptualizing marriage can determine what your marriage becomes. Drastic metaphorical differences can result in marital conflict. Take for example the case where one spouse views marriage as a partnership, and the other spouse views it as a haven. The responsibilities of a partnership may well be at odds with the relief from responsibilities characteristic of a haven.著作権保護のため ［3］ Metaphorical thought is normal and ubiquitous in our mental life, both conscious and unconscious. The same mechanisms of metaphorical thought used throughout poetry are present in our most common concepts: time, events, causation, emotion, ethics, and business, to name but a few. Conceptual metaphors even lie behind the building of computer interfaces (e.g., the desktop metaphor) and the structuring of the Internet into “information highways,” “department stores,” “chat rooms,” “auction houses,” “amusement parks,” and so on. ［4］ It is the systematicity of metaphorical thought that permits such applications.The heart of metaphor is inference. Conceptual metaphor allows inferences in sensory-motor domains (e.g., domains of space and objects) to be used to draw inferences about other domains (e.g., domains of subjective judgment, with concepts like intimacy, emotions, justice, and so on). ［5］ Because we reason in terms of metaphor, the metaphors we use determine a great deal about how we live our lives.158When Pop Culture Raids Art̶and the Reverse by Peter Schjeldahl, The New Yorker © Condé NastRepublished with permission of University of Chicago Press, from Metaphors We Live By, George Lakoff, Mark Johnson, 1980;permission conveyed through Copyright Clearance Center,Inc.注:この本（改訂版）の紹介文は以下の通りです。今や名著となった『Metaphors We Live By』は、言語と心（mind）におけるメタファーの役割について、私たちの理解を大きく変えました。著者らは、メタファーは心の基本的なメカニズムであり、私たちが身体的、社会的な経験で得られたことを利用して、他の無数のものごとを理解していることを説明しています。このメタファーは、私たちの経験における、最も基本的な理解を構成しているため、「私たちはメタファーによって生きている（Metaphors We Live By）」のであり、気づかないうちに、メタファーが私たちの認識や行動を形成しているのです。改訂版のあとがきでは、このメタファー理論が認知科学の分野でどのように発展し、それがいかにして、私たちのものごとの考え方やその言語表現に関する理解の中心になったかを説明しています。Disney steered his studio to exploit rococoʼs gratuitous swank, emulating the feckless hedonism of the court of Louis XV while chastely suppressing its frequent eroticism. ［1］ The language of antic curlicues, increasingly abstracted from film to film, blended smoothly into the insouciance of Disneyʼs fairyland fantasies: escapist worlds, complete in themselves. Though thoroughly secular, like his nostalgic evocations of circa-1900 America, the pastiche has something churchy about it. Under the pretense of entertaining children (if childless, borrow one), I have enjoyed visits to the consummately engineered Disneyland and Walt Disney World while noting a peculiar solemnity in their transports of innocence. The impunity of a justly doomed French regime (not our problem!) translated perfectly to fabricated realms that are carefully alien to anyoneʼs troubling reality. ［2］ Cinderellaʼs castle, at Disney World, is modelled on Versailles, among other French châteaux. Centering Disneyland is a materialization of a related, crowning folly, the mad German king Ludwig IIʼs fantastical Neuschwanstein Castle (1868–92), which Disney adopted as the template for his 著作権保護のためstudioʼs logo. Nightly, Tinker Bell descends on a wire from its peak.掲載を控えております掲載を控えております2022年1月20日（木）実施問題 1 ｜ 次の文章は、The New Yorkerの2021年12月27日号に掲載された、美術評論家 Peter Schjeldahlによる「When Pop Culture Raids Art ̶ and the Reverse」という記事の、The Met（メトロポリタン美術館）で2021年の12月10日から2022年の3月6日まで開催されている展覧会『Inspiring Walt Disney: The Animation of French Decorative Arts』について論じている部分です。この文書を読んで、下線部［1］〜［5］を和訳してください。問題 2 ｜ 次の文章は、言語学者のGeroge Lakoffと哲学者のMark Johnsonによる『Metaphor We Live By』という本の、2003年の改訂版あとがきの一部です。この文書を読んで、下線部［1］〜［5］を和訳してください。美術専攻大学院美術研究科 博士後期課程入学試験問題 ［2022年度入学試験参考］語学／英語 ［90分］ 【日本人】
元のページ ../index.html#160