Questões para Concursos

We do not know how art began any more than we know how language started. If we take art to mean such activities as building temples and houses, making pictures and sculptures, or weaving patterns, there is no people in all the world without art. If, on the other hand, we mean by art some kind of beautiful luxury, something to enjoy in museums and exhibitions or something special to use as a precious decoration in the best parlour, we must realize that this use of the word is a very recent development. We can best understand this difference if we think of architecture. There is scarcely any building in the world which was not erected for a particular purpose. Those who use these buildings as places of worship or entertainment, or as dwellings, judge them first and foremost by standards of utility. But apart from this, they may like or dislike the design or the proportions of the structure, and appreciate the efforts of the good architect to make it not only practical but right. In the past the attitude to paintings and statues was often similar. They were not thought of as mere works of art but as objects which had a definite function. Similarly, we are not likely to understand the art of the past if we are quite ignorant of the aims it had to serve. The further we go back in history, the more definite but also the more strange are the aims which art was supposed to serve. The same applies if we leave towns and cities and go to the peasants or, better still, if we travel to the peoples whose ways of life still resemble the conditions in which our remote ancestors lived. Among them there is no difference between building and image-making as far as usefulness is concerned. Their huts are there to shelter them from rain, wind and sunshine and the spirits which produce them; images are made to protect them against other powers which are, to them, as real as the forces of nature. Pictures and statues, in other words, are used to work magic. E. H. Gombrich. The story of art . New York, Phaidon, 2024. 16th ed. p. 9-10 (adapted).

We do not know how art began any more than we know how language started. If we take art to mean such activities as building temples and houses, making pictures and sculptures, or weaving patterns, there is no people in all the world without art. If, on the other hand, we mean by art some kind of beautiful luxury, something to enjoy in museums and exhibitions or something special to use as a precious decoration in the best parlour, we must realize that this use of the word is a very recent development. We can best understand this difference if we think of architecture. There is scarcely any building in the world which was not erected for a particular purpose. Those who use these buildings as places of worship or entertainment, or as dwellings, judge them first and foremost by standards of utility. But apart from this, they may like or dislike the design or the proportions of the structure, and appreciate the efforts of the good architect to make it not only practical but right. In the past the attitude to paintings and statues was often similar. They were not thought of as mere works of art but as objects which had a definite function. Similarly, we are not likely to understand the art of the past if we are quite ignorant of the aims it had to serve. The further we go back in history, the more definite but also the more strange are the aims which art was supposed to serve. The same applies if we leave towns and cities and go to the peasants or, better still, if we travel to the peoples whose ways of life still resemble the conditions in which our remote ancestors lived. Among them there is no difference between building and image-making as far as usefulness is concerned. Their huts are there to shelter them from rain, wind and sunshine and the spirits which produce them; images are made to protect them against other powers which are, to them, as real as the forces of nature. Pictures and statues, in other words, are used to work magic. E. H. Gombrich. The story of art . New York, Phaidon, 2024. 16th ed. p. 9-10 (adapted).

We do not know how art began any more than we know how language started. If we take art to mean such activities as building temples and houses, making pictures and sculptures, or weaving patterns, there is no people in all the world without art. If, on the other hand, we mean by art some kind of beautiful luxury, something to enjoy in museums and exhibitions or something special to use as a precious decoration in the best parlour, we must realize that this use of the word is a very recent development. We can best understand this difference if we think of architecture. There is scarcely any building in the world which was not erected for a particular purpose. Those who use these buildings as places of worship or entertainment, or as dwellings, judge them first and foremost by standards of utility. But apart from this, they may like or dislike the design or the proportions of the structure, and appreciate the efforts of the good architect to make it not only practical but right. In the past the attitude to paintings and statues was often similar. They were not thought of as mere works of art but as objects which had a definite function. Similarly, we are not likely to understand the art of the past if we are quite ignorant of the aims it had to serve. The further we go back in history, the more definite but also the more strange are the aims which art was supposed to serve. The same applies if we leave towns and cities and go to the peasants or, better still, if we travel to the peoples whose ways of life still resemble the conditions in which our remote ancestors lived. Among them there is no difference between building and image-making as far as usefulness is concerned. Their huts are there to shelter them from rain, wind and sunshine and the spirits which produce them; images are made to protect them against other powers which are, to them, as real as the forces of nature. Pictures and statues, in other words, are used to work magic. E. H. Gombrich. The story of art . New York, Phaidon, 2024. 16th ed. p. 9-10 (adapted).

We do not know how art began any more than we know how language started. If we take art to mean such activities as building temples and houses, making pictures and sculptures, or weaving patterns, there is no people in all the world without art. If, on the other hand, we mean by art some kind of beautiful luxury, something to enjoy in museums and exhibitions or something special to use as a precious decoration in the best parlour, we must realize that this use of the word is a very recent development. We can best understand this difference if we think of architecture. There is scarcely any building in the world which was not erected for a particular purpose. Those who use these buildings as places of worship or entertainment, or as dwellings, judge them first and foremost by standards of utility. But apart from this, they may like or dislike the design or the proportions of the structure, and appreciate the efforts of the good architect to make it not only practical but right. In the past the attitude to paintings and statues was often similar. They were not thought of as mere works of art but as objects which had a definite function. Similarly, we are not likely to understand the art of the past if we are quite ignorant of the aims it had to serve. The further we go back in history, the more definite but also the more strange are the aims which art was supposed to serve. The same applies if we leave towns and cities and go to the peasants or, better still, if we travel to the peoples whose ways of life still resemble the conditions in which our remote ancestors lived. Among them there is no difference between building and image-making as far as usefulness is concerned. Their huts are there to shelter them from rain, wind and sunshine and the spirits which produce them; images are made to protect them against other powers which are, to them, as real as the forces of nature. Pictures and statues, in other words, are used to work magic. E. H. Gombrich. The story of art . New York, Phaidon, 2024. 16th ed. p. 9-10 (adapted).

We do not know how art began any more than we know how language started. If we take art to mean such activities as building temples and houses, making pictures and sculptures, or weaving patterns, there is no people in all the world without art. If, on the other hand, we mean by art some kind of beautiful luxury, something to enjoy in museums and exhibitions or something special to use as a precious decoration in the best parlour, we must realize that this use of the word is a very recent development. We can best understand this difference if we think of architecture. There is scarcely any building in the world which was not erected for a particular purpose. Those who use these buildings as places of worship or entertainment, or as dwellings, judge them first and foremost by standards of utility. But apart from this, they may like or dislike the design or the proportions of the structure, and appreciate the efforts of the good architect to make it not only practical but right. In the past the attitude to paintings and statues was often similar. They were not thought of as mere works of art but as objects which had a definite function. Similarly, we are not likely to understand the art of the past if we are quite ignorant of the aims it had to serve. The further we go back in history, the more definite but also the more strange are the aims which art was supposed to serve. The same applies if we leave towns and cities and go to the peasants or, better still, if we travel to the peoples whose ways of life still resemble the conditions in which our remote ancestors lived. Among them there is no difference between building and image-making as far as usefulness is concerned. Their huts are there to shelter them from rain, wind and sunshine and the spirits which produce them; images are made to protect them against other powers which are, to them, as real as the forces of nature. Pictures and statues, in other words, are used to work magic. E. H. Gombrich. The story of art . New York, Phaidon, 2024. 16th ed. p. 9-10 (adapted).

We do not know how art began any more than we know how language started. If we take art to mean such activities as building temples and houses, making pictures and sculptures, or weaving patterns, there is no people in all the world without art. If, on the other hand, we mean by art some kind of beautiful luxury, something to enjoy in museums and exhibitions or something special to use as a precious decoration in the best parlour, we must realize that this use of the word is a very recent development. We can best understand this difference if we think of architecture. There is scarcely any building in the world which was not erected for a particular purpose. Those who use these buildings as places of worship or entertainment, or as dwellings, judge them first and foremost by standards of utility. But apart from this, they may like or dislike the design or the proportions of the structure, and appreciate the efforts of the good architect to make it not only practical but right. In the past the attitude to paintings and statues was often similar. They were not thought of as mere works of art but as objects which had a definite function. Similarly, we are not likely to understand the art of the past if we are quite ignorant of the aims it had to serve. The further we go back in history, the more definite but also the more strange are the aims which art was supposed to serve. The same applies if we leave towns and cities and go to the peasants or, better still, if we travel to the peoples whose ways of life still resemble the conditions in which our remote ancestors lived. Among them there is no difference between building and image-making as far as usefulness is concerned. Their huts are there to shelter them from rain, wind and sunshine and the spirits which produce them; images are made to protect them against other powers which are, to them, as real as the forces of nature. Pictures and statues, in other words, are used to work magic. E. H. Gombrich. The story of art . New York, Phaidon, 2024. 16th ed. p. 9-10 (adapted).

A majority of remote workers would quit their jobs if forced to return to the office, according to a new study. In FlexJobs’ recent report, 57 percent of remote workers surveyed said they would absolutely look for a new job if they were not allowed to continue working remotely. “Obviously, an employer has the right to call employees back to the office from remote or hybrid positions at any time, but for many who have had these jobs since the early days of the pandemic, working from home during all or part of the week has become a way of life, and they’ve scheduled virtually all other priorities around it,” says Alex Beene, a financial literacy instructor at the University of Tennessee. The numbers could indicate a significant turnover issue as companies continue to look for ways to be fully in-person again, as just under 25 percent of workers said their employer had already instituted a return-to-office mandate. The report is based on a poll of 3,000 American professionals between August 5 and August 18. Overall, Americans were eager to leave their jobs in pursuit of higher wages or more flexible work, as 67 percent said they planned to change jobs in the next six months. But key things like a promotion, remote work and a better company culture could convince some workers to stay, according to the survey. Between 33 percent and 38 percent of workers said these factors could convince them to stay in their current roles. Working remotely continues to be a huge draw when it comes to attracting talent, and it can even convince some employees to accept lower salaries. In the report, 58 percent of workers said they’d accept a salary decrease if it meant they could work from home. “We have a generation of employees that live in locations far removed from their actual employer due to work-from-home policies,” Beene said. “For many, hours of commuting may either not be feasible or not add up financially to make sense given their current role.” And because many remote workers don’t feel a productivity loss, companies are still “vying for talent and willing to accommodate,” said Kevin Thompson, a finance expert and founder and CEO of 9i Capital Group. As a result, workers still largely have the power over their employers, Thompson said. “The only reason they would not is if businesses began to collude and mandated everyone return to work,” Thompson told Newsweek. “As long as the market remains free and fair, the ability to find remote work should actually continue.” Putting productivity aside, Thompson said the main loss from remote work has been in corporate culture. “I don’t believe you can build a culture through Zoom, but that does not mean it is not possible,” Thompson said. “The consequences of remote work won’t be felt for a number of years.” Internet: (adapted).

A majority of remote workers would quit their jobs if forced to return to the office, according to a new study. In FlexJobs’ recent report, 57 percent of remote workers surveyed said they would absolutely look for a new job if they were not allowed to continue working remotely. “Obviously, an employer has the right to call employees back to the office from remote or hybrid positions at any time, but for many who have had these jobs since the early days of the pandemic, working from home during all or part of the week has become a way of life, and they’ve scheduled virtually all other priorities around it,” says Alex Beene, a financial literacy instructor at the University of Tennessee. The numbers could indicate a significant turnover issue as companies continue to look for ways to be fully in-person again, as just under 25 percent of workers said their employer had already instituted a return-to-office mandate. The report is based on a poll of 3,000 American professionals between August 5 and August 18. Overall, Americans were eager to leave their jobs in pursuit of higher wages or more flexible work, as 67 percent said they planned to change jobs in the next six months. But key things like a promotion, remote work and a better company culture could convince some workers to stay, according to the survey. Between 33 percent and 38 percent of workers said these factors could convince them to stay in their current roles. Working remotely continues to be a huge draw when it comes to attracting talent, and it can even convince some employees to accept lower salaries. In the report, 58 percent of workers said they’d accept a salary decrease if it meant they could work from home. “We have a generation of employees that live in locations far removed from their actual employer due to work-from-home policies,” Beene said. “For many, hours of commuting may either not be feasible or not add up financially to make sense given their current role.” And because many remote workers don’t feel a productivity loss, companies are still “vying for talent and willing to accommodate,” said Kevin Thompson, a finance expert and founder and CEO of 9i Capital Group. As a result, workers still largely have the power over their employers, Thompson said. “The only reason they would not is if businesses began to collude and mandated everyone return to work,” Thompson told Newsweek. “As long as the market remains free and fair, the ability to find remote work should actually continue.” Putting productivity aside, Thompson said the main loss from remote work has been in corporate culture. “I don’t believe you can build a culture through Zoom, but that does not mean it is not possible,” Thompson said. “The consequences of remote work won’t be felt for a number of years.” Internet: (adapted).

A majority of remote workers would quit their jobs if forced to return to the office, according to a new study. In FlexJobs’ recent report, 57 percent of remote workers surveyed said they would absolutely look for a new job if they were not allowed to continue working remotely. “Obviously, an employer has the right to call employees back to the office from remote or hybrid positions at any time, but for many who have had these jobs since the early days of the pandemic, working from home during all or part of the week has become a way of life, and they’ve scheduled virtually all other priorities around it,” says Alex Beene, a financial literacy instructor at the University of Tennessee. The numbers could indicate a significant turnover issue as companies continue to look for ways to be fully in-person again, as just under 25 percent of workers said their employer had already instituted a return-to-office mandate. The report is based on a poll of 3,000 American professionals between August 5 and August 18. Overall, Americans were eager to leave their jobs in pursuit of higher wages or more flexible work, as 67 percent said they planned to change jobs in the next six months. But key things like a promotion, remote work and a better company culture could convince some workers to stay, according to the survey. Between 33 percent and 38 percent of workers said these factors could convince them to stay in their current roles. Working remotely continues to be a huge draw when it comes to attracting talent, and it can even convince some employees to accept lower salaries. In the report, 58 percent of workers said they’d accept a salary decrease if it meant they could work from home. “We have a generation of employees that live in locations far removed from their actual employer due to work-from-home policies,” Beene said. “For many, hours of commuting may either not be feasible or not add up financially to make sense given their current role.” And because many remote workers don’t feel a productivity loss, companies are still “vying for talent and willing to accommodate,” said Kevin Thompson, a finance expert and founder and CEO of 9i Capital Group. As a result, workers still largely have the power over their employers, Thompson said. “The only reason they would not is if businesses began to collude and mandated everyone return to work,” Thompson told Newsweek. “As long as the market remains free and fair, the ability to find remote work should actually continue.” Putting productivity aside, Thompson said the main loss from remote work has been in corporate culture. “I don’t believe you can build a culture through Zoom, but that does not mean it is not possible,” Thompson said. “The consequences of remote work won’t be felt for a number of years.” Internet: (adapted).

A majority of remote workers would quit their jobs if forced to return to the office, according to a new study. In FlexJobs’ recent report, 57 percent of remote workers surveyed said they would absolutely look for a new job if they were not allowed to continue working remotely. “Obviously, an employer has the right to call employees back to the office from remote or hybrid positions at any time, but for many who have had these jobs since the early days of the pandemic, working from home during all or part of the week has become a way of life, and they’ve scheduled virtually all other priorities around it,” says Alex Beene, a financial literacy instructor at the University of Tennessee. The numbers could indicate a significant turnover issue as companies continue to look for ways to be fully in-person again, as just under 25 percent of workers said their employer had already instituted a return-to-office mandate. The report is based on a poll of 3,000 American professionals between August 5 and August 18. Overall, Americans were eager to leave their jobs in pursuit of higher wages or more flexible work, as 67 percent said they planned to change jobs in the next six months. But key things like a promotion, remote work and a better company culture could convince some workers to stay, according to the survey. Between 33 percent and 38 percent of workers said these factors could convince them to stay in their current roles. Working remotely continues to be a huge draw when it comes to attracting talent, and it can even convince some employees to accept lower salaries. In the report, 58 percent of workers said they’d accept a salary decrease if it meant they could work from home. “We have a generation of employees that live in locations far removed from their actual employer due to work-from-home policies,” Beene said. “For many, hours of commuting may either not be feasible or not add up financially to make sense given their current role.” And because many remote workers don’t feel a productivity loss, companies are still “vying for talent and willing to accommodate,” said Kevin Thompson, a finance expert and founder and CEO of 9i Capital Group. As a result, workers still largely have the power over their employers, Thompson said. “The only reason they would not is if businesses began to collude and mandated everyone return to work,” Thompson told Newsweek. “As long as the market remains free and fair, the ability to find remote work should actually continue.” Putting productivity aside, Thompson said the main loss from remote work has been in corporate culture. “I don’t believe you can build a culture through Zoom, but that does not mean it is not possible,” Thompson said. “The consequences of remote work won’t be felt for a number of years.” Internet: (adapted).