2024年12月六级第2套仔细阅读 Passage 2 原文翻译及答案解析

Statements, like "beauty is in the eye of the beholder (观看者)," are rarely questioned. They've become so embedded in our consciousness that people think it's absurd to think otherwise. It might be useful, however, to at least push back on this assumption because people evaluate environment, situations, and people aesthetically. We may find that we still believe it is correct, but we may also find that there is a lot more to the situation than you suppose.

陈述，如“美在观看者眼中”，很少受到质疑。它们已深深嵌入我们的意识中，以至于人们认为否则的想法是荒谬的。然而，至少反驳这一假设可能是有用的，因为人们会从审美角度评估环境、情境和人物。我们可能发现我们仍然相信它是正确的，但也可能发现情况比你想象的要复杂得多。

A recent study exploring aesthetic taste was published in Cognition. The results from this study show that people agree very much in their aesthetic evaluation of natural objects, but they disagree more about artifacts, or human-made objects.

最近一项探索审美品味的研究发表在《Cognition》杂志上。该研究结果表明，人们对自然物体的审美评价非常一致，但对人工制品或人造物体的分歧更大。

The study found that shared taste was most common for faces and natural landscapes, but least common among works of architecture and art. The hypothesis is the commonly pleasing features, like proportion or symmetry, are at work.

研究发现，共享品味在面部和自然景观中最为常见，但在建筑和艺术作品中最不常见。假说是常见的愉悦特征，如比例或对称性，在起作用。

Preferences for natural scenes might be learned through life experiences. Factors like habitability, safety, and openness might be preferred as people develop. Some of the details of landscapes change, but the basics are more common, e.g., water, open spaces, and signs of care.

对自然场景的偏好可能通过生活经验习得。随着人们成长，可能更倾向于宜居性、安全性和开放性等因素。景观的细节会变化，但基础更常见，例如水、开放空间和关怀的迹象。

Art and architecture, unlike natural spaces, do not have the same level of exposure. So, people do not have the same level of shared taste.

艺术和建筑，不同于自然空间，没有相同的接触程度。因此，人们没有相同水平的共享品味。

It's possible that the lower amount of agreement in the shared taste of artifacts has to do more with elements of style, rather than 'behavioral consequences.'

人工制品共享品味中较低的共识程度可能更多地与风格元素有关，而不是“行为后果”。

All of the consequences seem reasonable (or at least possible), but I think there might be an interesting philosophical conclusion that they did not draw. It seems that there is an objective ground to our aesthetic preferences or evaluations. I am not saying this would mean beauty is completely objective, just that there could possibly be general objective principles at work, i.e., beauty is not simply in the eye of the beholder.

所有后果似乎都合理（或至少可能），但我认为可能有一个有趣的哲学结论他们没有得出。似乎我们的审美偏好或评价存在客观基础。我并不是说这意味着美是完全客观的，只是可能存在一般客观原则在起作用，即美不仅仅在观看者眼中。

Nature exhibits some of the universal aesthetic features, such as radiance, in a common way throughout the world. It's not exactly the same everywhere, but it is common. For example, a sunset is similar enough in different places to warrant almost universal appeal.

自然以一种常见的方式在世界各地展现出一些普遍的审美特征，如光辉。它并非完全相同，但很常见。例如，不同地方的日落足够相似，几乎具有普遍吸引力。

Possible universal principles of beauty—such as proportion, fittingness, radiance, and others—are general categories, which allow for a wide array of embodiments. When people get involved in making artifacts in architecture or art, they apply these very general concepts in unique ways. But the way they applied the principle may not have universal appeal.

可能的美之普遍原则——如比例、适宜性、光辉等——是宽泛的类别，允许各种体现方式。当人们参与建筑或艺术中的人工制品制作时，他们以独特的方式应用这些非常普遍的概念。但他们应用原则的方式可能不具有普遍吸引力。

This is why it's important to experience diverse cultures and their artifacts because it opens us up to different ways of approaching or constructing beauty. And it is always good to question our assumptions.

这就是为什么体验不同文化及其人工制品很重要，因为它使我们能够接触或构建美的不同方式。而且质疑我们的假设总是好的。