Przeczytaj dwa teksty związane ze sztuką. Z podanych odpowiedzi wybierz właściwą,
zgodną z treścią tekstu. Zakreśl jedną z liter: A, B, C albo D.

Tekst 1.
THINGS HAPPEN IN A GALLERY
Pat arrived at the gallery early the next morning to find that the postman had already delivered
post and there was a letter on the floor. She opened it and saw that it was an invitation to an
opening at a gallery further down the street. They were always getting this sort of thing, and it
struck her as depressing that there was a lot of this business in the city: one gallery sells its
works to another, round and round in a circle, each producing just a slight profit. Eventually,
a genuine customer would have to buy a picture, but where were they? Nobody seemed to
notice them and the only person who had shown the slightest interest in buying something in
her gallery this week had been determined to obtain a bargain.
She was holding the gallery invitation and was about to sit at her desk, when she stopped.
Usually, when she came in in the morning, she would hear the alarm beeping signal and have
to key in the security number to stop it. This had not happened this morning, or had it? It was
perfectly possible to go through the motions of a familiar action and not remember that one
had done it. Pat tried to remember who had been last to leave the gallery last night. Matthew
had gone off to meet his father shortly after four and she had stayed at work until five. Then
she recalled activating the alarm before locking the gallery door. She glanced towards the
control box, across the semi-darkened gallery. Two small red lights blinked regular pulses back
at her. That was strange. Normally, when she came in a single red light flashed. She knew that
the two blinking red lights indicated that the alarm was inactive. But who turned it off? Pat
looked about her to spot someone who might have arrived at the gallery before her but there
was nobody there. She suddenly felt uneasy when she saw that the door in the corridor that
led to Matthew’s office was open.
Now she felt frightened and ran across the room to switch on the lights. Not all the lights went
on but the spotlights worked. Relieved that nothing was missing, she found the courage to
enter Matthew’s office. Inside she saw that the burglar had managed to raise the lower panel
of the back window about eighteen inches. The glass was not smashed, but the catch had
been forced and there were bits of wood on the floor – she saw those immediately. She walked
back to Matthew’s desk, picked up the telephone and dialed the emergency code.

adapted from 44 Scotland Street by Alexander McCall Smith

6.1. The invitation Pat picked up made her reflect on
A. business matters connected with art galleries.
B. customers’ different motivations for buying art.
C. a profitable business that went bankrupt.
D. the reasons for other galleries’ success.

6.2. When Pat arrived at the gallery, she
A. noticed that the alarm was beeping despite being inactive.
B. discovered that she had not set the alarm the previous evening.
C. realized that somebody must have deactivated the alarm.
D. recalled Matthew being the last one to leave the gallery the night before.

6.3. What made Pat dial the emergency number?
A. One of the paintings in the gallery had disappeared.
B. She noticed shattered glass on the floor.
C. Somebody had cut off the electricity in the building.
D. She spotted some traces of a burglary.

Tekst 2.
HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE TO APPRECIATE ART?
There are many answers to this question. As long as you like, is one. Longer than you think,
is another. Everyone has their own opinion about it. Kenneth Clark, famous for the BBC
documentary series Civilisation, has his own theory. He claims that the time it takes to look at
a picture properly is roughly the time it takes to peel and eat an orange.
There is some evidence of what most people actually do in practice. In summary, if museum goers are eating oranges, they’re eating them really fast. The Louvre found that although an art lover can spend much more than 30 minutes in front of the Mona Lisa, an ordinary visitor
looks at it for about 15 seconds. New York’s Metropolitan Museum of Art found that on average
people look at each work for 29.5 seconds. Another study, conducted by Rutgers University,
found that the average time spent on each work of art was 17 seconds. On the universal
fruit-attention scale, this is less than dealing with an orange but a little more than the time taken
to eat a grape.
There’s another point, too: it’s not just a question of how long we look at a painting, but of the
quality of that attention. This is, of course, much harder to quantify. But there’s a profound
belief that over the past decade this has changed for the worse.
It is technology that mainly gets the blame. The rise of social networks and the smartphone
have allegedly made us fatally incapable of concentration. Nowadays we are more interested
in telling people what we are doing than doing it. So, we share our dinner with others on the
Internet, instead of with our date. Our novels go unfinished as we flip through 140-character
tweets. And when we go to a gallery, we don’t look at the art: we take a selfie with it. Even if
art leaves you cold, this argument matters, because if it is true, then so is the broader claim
that the 21st century is leaving us incapable of deep engagement with anything.

adapted from https://www.independent.co.uk

6.4. Which of the following is stated in the text as a fact, not an opinion?
A. The time people need to appreciate a work of art has shortened over the years.
B. The quality of attention given to art has fallen over the past decade.
C. It takes as much time to appreciate a work of art as it does to peel and eat an orange.
D. Museum visitors tend to spend less than half a minute looking at a painting.

6.5. In the last paragraph the author argues that
A. museums should make use of modern technologies more often.
B. modern technology has deeply impacted our attention span.
C. modern technology has made it easier for us to interact with art.
D. the influence of modern technology on museum-goers is exaggerated.