1
READING PRACTICE
PART 1
Exercise 1. Cross-text multiple matching.
You are going to read four reviews of a book about a work of art. For
questions 1–4, choose from the reviews A–D. The reviews may be
chosen more than once.
Review of a work of art
Olafur Eliasson’s installation at the museum of Modern Art PS1 in New
York, Your Waste of Time, consists of broken chunks of Iceland’s
Vatnajökull, Europe’s largest glacier. The museum had to turn one of
their main galleries into a walk-in freezer to be able to display them, a
costly exercise but one that is justifiable in terms of its powerful impact.
According to the museum, the pieces of ice chosen for the project are
about 800 years old. That sounds about right to Ted Scambos, lead
scientist at the National Snow and Ice Data Center. Scambos speculates
that the ice came from the ‘Little Ice Age’, the period between the 16th
and 19th centuries during which glaciers grew larger than they ever have
since – and advanced quickly. ‘These glaciers bear testimony to our
history – being suspended and frozen for thousands of years – and now
they are melting away, as if our whole history is fading,’ said Eliasson.
Stunning to look at, sad message.
Deep in the basement of MoMA PS1, there’s a freezing cold room. This
contains a number of large chunks of bluish-white ice brought together
by the controversial artist Olafur Eliasson. The installation is called
Your Waste of Time and its lesson would appear to be that global
warming is having a devastating impact on our world. But that’s hardly
news. Ironically, the piece is itself contributing not inconsiderably to
the problem, as an extraordinary amount of electricity is required to stop
the installation from melting over the floor of the basement gallery. It’s
a curious piece with a carbon footprint that seems hard to justify on
artistic grounds. It lacks beauty, and the skills involved in the
2
installation’s creation would seem to be less those of the artist whose
name is on the gallery wall than of the technical staff who transported
the ice blocks from the Arctic to New York. Are they in fact the people
who have been wasting their time?
More and more artists are beginning to tackle the causes and
consequences of global warming, particularly the rapidly retreating
polar ice caps. Thus, when the artist Olafur Eliasson produced his latest
installation, Your Waste of Time, his Icelandic background (notable, of
course, for having numerous glaciers) may have contributed to the
sense of irony conveyed by this thought-provoking, infuriating, but at
the same time elegantly crafted exposé on the dangers of glacial
extinction. He even brought some of that background with him for the
installation itself, constructed using Icelandic glacial ice which must be
kept below freezing for the duration of the exhibition, at a cost of,
arguably, a little of that Icelandic background in years to come in terms
of the power needed to maintain such an icy temperature for four weeks.
Despite Eliasson’s positive environmental message, the irony of the
manner of this installation’s construction is not lost on the observer.
The very notion of a glacier is one of an unmoving edifice against the
sands of time, a frozen state standing firm against the fluidity and pace
of the modern world. Yet, through our best (or worst) efforts, the reality
of the impact of global warming on these last remnants of the ancient
world is now regularly beginning to feature in the art of those who live
in the shadow of such edifices, a shadow that Eliasson is surely aware
is getting smaller by the day. While his portfolio contains a variety of
photographs and other works focused on this appealing icy subject,
when regarding his new installation, Your Waste of Time, it then begs
the question that if preserving the ice in this installation at temperatures
below freezing for four weeks is not of the utmost irony, then how does
he reconcile the power needed to preserve his installation at the cost of
preserving his own cultural and environmental heritage? Whose time
has been wasted here?
3
Which reviewer
1. shares reviewer A’s view that Your Waste of Time is visually
attractive?
2. shares reviewer D’s interest in reflecting on the title of the
installation?
3. has the same opinion as reviewer D about the attraction that glaciers
possess for artists?
4. has a different opinion from other reviewers on the environmental
contradictions of the installation?
Exercise 2. Multiple choice.
You are going to read a review by Carl Truman of the book about birds
by Glenda Hurst. For questions 1–6, choose the answer (A, B, C or D)
which you think fits best according to the text.
Birdlife, by Glenda Hurst, reviewed by Carl Truman
Birds are present in our lives in so many ways – as pets, as part of many
people’s diet, even as a source of inspiration – that Glenda Hurst’s
Birdlife is, in some respects, a welcome miscellany of fact and fiction.
Her previous book, Gold, was a best-seller, and Hurst has,
understandably, chosen to repeat a winning formula. In that book, each
chapter focused on a different aspect of the metal, from its financial use
to edible leaf, but the apparently random order of chapters meant Gold
lacked continuity: there was no sense of the author presenting a case
and leading us through the steps of her argument. While each chapter
was interesting enough in itself, overall the book seemed lightweight, a
series of magazine articles. Nevertheless, Gold sold in large numbers,
and I see no reason why Birdlife should not repeat that success.
Birds have played a role in myths for millennia, from ancient China to
Egypt to Central America, and birds are often used as symbols: the dove
to represent peace, the eagle for power and so on. In her chapter on
mythology, Hurst takes the reader on a world tour at breakneck speed,
but the lack of comparison and cross-referencing means that readers are
often left to their own devices if they wish to interpret the information
or identity similarities between cultures. Furthermore, this approach
4
means that a fair amount of potentially tedious repetition is
unavoidable. There is a great deal of detail and not enough synthesis,
leaving the reader wondering what point, if any, is being made.
I enjoyed the chapter on birds working with human beings. It gives me
the familiar example of taking canaries into mines so that if methane or
carbon dioxide is present, its effect on the bird gives the miners early
warning of danger. However, I suspect I am not alone in being
unfamiliar with the East African honeyguide, a wild bird which leads
people to bee colonies. The men searching for honeycomb make
specific noises, and when the honeyguide hears them, it replies, with a
particular call that it restricts to that one situation. The people smoke
out the bees and take the honeycomb, leaving a little as a reward for the
bird – which in this way avoids having to tackle the bees itself. This is
thought to be the only instance of birds in the wild deliberately
communicating with human beings to the advantage of both parties.
An area that has seen a great deal of research in recent years is bird
migration, a phenomenon that used to be totally misunderstood: a
couple of centuries ago, it was thought that birds that disappeared for
the winter were hiding in mud. We now know a great deal about
migration. The Arctic tern, for instance, breeds in the Arctic, flies south
to the Antarctic in August or September, arriving back in May or June
– a round trip of over 70,000 kilometres. And the bird appears to be
determined to reach its destination: even if fish are caught below it, and
birds that are not migrating dive down to steal some, the Arctic tern
cannot be deflected from its journey. Although the Arctic tern holds the
record, feats on this scale are far from rare.
Birdlife ends with a short epilogue in which Hurst lays out her vision of
an ideal future: restoring habitats that have been transformed by
drainage or by grubbing up hedges, in both cases to improve
agriculture; from the bird’s point of view, their habitat is damaged or
even destroyed. It is here that Hurst reveals her true colours, as food
production comes a poor second to protecting an environment in which
birds can thrive. Reverting to the farming methods of the past is a
forlorn hope, however: she can hardly expect us to sacrifice the
5
enormous increase in agricultural output that we have achieved, when
even that is not enough to feed the world’s population.
While Birdlife has little to say to serious ornithologists, professional or
amateur, if picked up in an airport bookshop or given as a present, it
might well broaden the horizons of others.
1. The reviewer mentions Gold in order to
A emphasise the wide range of topics that Hurst covers in each book.
B explain what he sees as a weakness in Hurst’s approach.
C support his opinion that Birdlife deserves to be very popular.
D express his disappointment with Birdlife in comparison with
Gold.
2. The reviewer suggests that in the chapter on birds in mythology,
Hurst
A misses opportunities to draw conclusions from the information
she presents
B misunderstands the significance of some of the myths she mentions
C uses repetition rather than discussion to support her interpretations.
D tries to cover too wide a range of cultures.
3. The reviewer refers to the honeyguide tu suggest that birds
A and human beings can co-operate to their mutual benefit.
B can be trained to assist human beings.
C could be exploited by human beings to a greater extent.
D are not as useful to human beings as is sometimes claimed.
6
4. The phrase ‘feats on this scale’ refers to the ability of some birds to
A avoid getting distracted.
B survive without eating.
C live in cold climates.
D fly long distances.
5. What does the reviewer say about the epilogue?
A It overestimates the damage done to birds by changes in
agriculture.
B It reveals Hurst’s lack of understanding of certain subjects.
C It is unlikely to have the effect that Hurst would like.
D It convinced him that Hurst’s concern for birds is justified.
6. In the text as a whole, the reviewer gives the impression of thinking
that Birdlife
A reveals how much more there is to discover about its subject.
B is readable without providing new insights into the subject.
C provides a clear overview of a subject with many facets.
D is unusual in bringing together diverse aspects of the subject.
