101阅读33篇艺术雕刻文章里的一句话

onelittlemajiaUID: 3795546

最后一段
The ingenuity of Renaissance architects extended beyond merely using a material in a way not suggested by its outward natural appearance. If they conceived a design that called for a certain material either too expensive or difficult to work with, they made no scruple about imitating that material. Their marbles and their stones are often actually painted stucco. When the blocks of masonry with which they built were not in scale with the projected scheme, the real joints were concealed and false ones introduced. Nor were these practices confined, as some scholars insist, to the later and supposedly decadent phases of the art. Material, then, was utterly subservient to style.

4. The passage suggests which of the following about the cited “scholars”?
A. They believe that a decadent phase is characteristic of any significant artistic movement.
B. They reject the popular view of the Renaissance as the apex of architectural achievement.
C. They believe that a vigorous and healthy architecture would not usually employ false surfaces or imitation building materials.
D. They represent the mainstream in critical and historical thought about the Florentine Renaissance.
E. They have focused on such technical matters as the cost of building materials rather than on artistic concerns.

Nor were these practices confined, as some scholars insist, to the later and supposedly decadent phases of the art.
这句话用了倒装，插入语。还原
These practices were not confined，as some scholars insist , to the later and supposedly decadent phases of the art.
但是到底 scholars insist 什么内容？
学者认为“改变材料属性不好，建筑应该复合材料属性”
还是 认为"这种违背材料属性的实践并不局限于后来的颓废艺术"
scholars insist 包含整个句子， 还是 not confine 包含整个句子。

类似的疑问也包括这样的句子
I don't think he will agree with me and he will fight against me.
到底是 I don't think (1. he will agree with and 2 he will fight against me)
还是 1.I don't think he will agree with me , 2.and he will fight against me.
这种情况我一般是根据上下文，时态语气自行判断。但是单从语法上说这种句子是可能有歧义吧。

onelittlemajiaUID: 3795546

完整全文
A primary value in early twentieth-century Modernist architectural theory was that of "truth to materials”, that is, it was essential that a building's design express the "natural” character of the building materials. This emphasis would have puzzled the architects of the Italian Renaissance (sixteenth century), a period widely regarded as the apex of architectural achievement, for Renaissance architects' designs were determined only minimally by the materials employed. The diversity of Italy's natural resources provided Renaissance architects with a wide variety of building materials. The builders of the Pitti Palace (1558-1570) used great blocks of Tuscan stone, just as Etruscans living in the same part of Italy had done some twenty centuries earlier. Had the Florentine Renaissance builders aped the Etruscan style, it might be said that their materials determined their style, since Etruscan style matched the massive, stark, solid character of the stone. But these same materials, which so suited the massive Etruscan style, were effectively used by the Florentine Renaissance to create the most delicate and graceful of styles.

A similar example of identical materials used in contrasting styles characterizes the treatment of Roman travertine marble. When Baroque architects of seventeenth-century Rome desired a massive and solid monumental effect, they turned to travertine marble, whose "natural effect” is, indeed, that of spacious breadth and lofty, smoothly rounded surfaces. Yet during the Renaissance, this same material had been used against its "nature,” in the Florentine tradition of sharply carved detail. Italian Renaissance architecture was shaped less by the "nature” of the materials at hand than by the artistic milieu of Renaissance Italy, which included painting and sculpture as well as architecture. While Roman travertine marble may have lent itself to fine carving, the Florentine passion for fine detail is no less marked in Florentine Renaissance painting than in Florentine Renaissance architecture. Similarly, in the next century, the emphasis on shading and corporeal density in Baroque painting mirrored the use of Roman travertine marble in Baroque architecture to create broad shadow and powerful masses.

The ingenuity of Renaissance architects extended beyond merely using a material in a way not suggested by its outward natural appearance. If they conceived a design that called for a certain material either too expensive or difficult to work with, they made no scruple about imitating that material. Their marbles and their stones are often actually painted stucco. When the blocks of masonry with which they built were not in scale with the projected scheme, the real joints were concealed and false ones introduced. Nor were these practices confined, as somescholars insist, to the later and supposedly decadent phases of the art. Material, then, was utterly subservient to style.

onelittlemajiaUID: 3795546

在网上看到这样的解答
https://www.italki.com/discussion/117940#!

1. Nor were these practices confined, as some scholars insist, to the later and supposedly decadent phases of the art.

* Nor were/was XX: XX was not ("nor ..." adds the sense of "either", in the same vein, etc.
* be confined to: be limited to ; not present out side of; be exclusive to; be specific to.
* supposedly decadent phases: the phases that people consider to be decadent phases.
 
=-> Even though some scholars argue that the aforementioned practices existed only in the later phases of the art, which are the phases people consider to be the time the art became decadent, they in fact existed in earlier phases too.

2. Material, then, was utterly subservient to style.

* subservient:  not independent but submissively adhering to.

==> Given the above, it is clear that in art the style completely dominates what material is used how.

From what I read in the text, it appears that the scholars in general have negative opinions on such unorthodox use of the materials.  They don't believe in making false surfaces or using imitation building materials as you mention, and think this deviation from the norm happened only in the later phase of the Renaissance architecture, which was a period of decadence in their opinion.  In other words, that is the scholars' opinion, but the author of the text is disagreeing with them.

As for using "even though", I just used it to make a point, not to mean that "as" has any such meaning.  "as" in this text was used in the sense of "the way some fact is borne out by something else", not as a contradiction.  What I meant is, "[even though] the scholars have a certain opinion, the author is saying it is not true".  So "as" in the text is about "consistence" between the cited opinion and the scholars agreeing with it, while "even though" is what I used to point out the contradiction the author is making against the the scholars.

Any I hope it helps.  And I recommend using the Answers page for this kind of a question - you'll get more answers there.

我也是看了这个人的解答后，才反应过来 专家的观点包含在整句的否定里面。
否则我以为是 As scholars insist ， practices not confine...