阅读理解
December 21 marked an epoch. Psy, the stage name of 34-year-old Park Jae-sang, became the first artist to get 1 billion views on YouTube with Gangnam Style. But global blockbuster hits, in whatever genre, have come to seem a US niche market. It was Michael Jackson's popularity in the 1980s that started this global style in pop culture. In contrast to, say, The Beaties, who had an unmistakably English style that became globally popular, Jackson's music, an ingenious collection of disco rhythms and nonsense phrases, didn't seem to come from any culture.
Why have Americans so dominated the globalised part of popular culture up till now? The US has little in the way of cultural infrastructure abroad, like Germany's Goethe Institutes or the British Council. And that should not matter.
The US has benefited from intangible advantages. It uses the lingua franca, the cultural equivalent of printing a reserve currency. Their home audience may be the pivotal advantage US artists have. As the writer Todd Gitlin put it years ago: "By the time it leaves our shores, US popular culture has been ' pretested' in a heterogeneous public—a huge internal market with hybrid tastes and a tradition of juxtaposition and recombining disparate elements, melting them down into a Hollywood melange."
But you could as easily say "dumbing down" as "melting down" . Culturally speaking, the diverse US audience gives and it takes away. An American artist who wants to appeal to a variety of US cultural communities does so not by mastering the cultures of others but by stripping away those elements of his own that might require explanation. US society is indeed diverse, but for that very reason American popular culture is homogeneous.
Americans understand this poorly. What the US has is not a national genius but wealth, prestige and glamour. The world is always curious about how wealthy, prestigious and glamorous people dance, fight and fall in love. Obviously, the producers and venture capitalists who drive the entertainment industry will happily turn their focus towards any country that can produce blockbusters.
But the heart of the problem is elsewhere. Should the US reputation for mismanagement, profligacy and trillion-dollar government deficits continue to grow, non-US corporate executives would at some point ask why they are paying an architect to design a conference room like those in Manhattan. Culture follows wealth, prestige and glamour. As the US share of these declines, the world's viewers may come to prefer Sleepless in Seoul to Sleepless in Seattle.
Why have Americans so dominated the globalised part of popular culture up till now? The US has little in the way of cultural infrastructure abroad, like Germany's Goethe Institutes or the British Council. And that should not matter.
The US has benefited from intangible advantages. It uses the lingua franca, the cultural equivalent of printing a reserve currency. Their home audience may be the pivotal advantage US artists have. As the writer Todd Gitlin put it years ago: "By the time it leaves our shores, US popular culture has been ' pretested' in a heterogeneous public—a huge internal market with hybrid tastes and a tradition of juxtaposition and recombining disparate elements, melting them down into a Hollywood melange."
But you could as easily say "dumbing down" as "melting down" . Culturally speaking, the diverse US audience gives and it takes away. An American artist who wants to appeal to a variety of US cultural communities does so not by mastering the cultures of others but by stripping away those elements of his own that might require explanation. US society is indeed diverse, but for that very reason American popular culture is homogeneous.
Americans understand this poorly. What the US has is not a national genius but wealth, prestige and glamour. The world is always curious about how wealthy, prestigious and glamorous people dance, fight and fall in love. Obviously, the producers and venture capitalists who drive the entertainment industry will happily turn their focus towards any country that can produce blockbusters.
But the heart of the problem is elsewhere. Should the US reputation for mismanagement, profligacy and trillion-dollar government deficits continue to grow, non-US corporate executives would at some point ask why they are paying an architect to design a conference room like those in Manhattan. Culture follows wealth, prestige and glamour. As the US share of these declines, the world's viewers may come to prefer Sleepless in Seoul to Sleepless in Seattle.
单选题
6.It can be learned from the first paragraph that____.
【正确答案】
C
【答案解析】细节题。第一段最后一句指出，迈克尔-杰克逊与披头士不同，披头士的音乐因其特色鲜明的英伦风范闻名世界，而迈克尔-杰克逊的音乐融合了迪斯科节奏以及无内在含义的词句，无法看出任何文化背景。所以C项正确。
单选题
7.Todd Gitlin's words are cited to illustrate that American artists____.
【正确答案】
B
【答案解析】推断题。根据题干定位到第三段第三句。作者指出美国艺术家因其本国观众群而受益匪浅；第四句指出美国文化在走出国门之前，就已经接受过多元文化的考验，已经融合了多种文化元素。所以B项正确。
单选题
8.The author suggests that the effect of the diverse US audience in American popular culture is____.
【正确答案】
D
【答案解析】态度题。文章第三段阐述了美国多元化观众群对美国文化的有利影响即经受多元文化的考验，更有可能符合全球观众口味；第四段介绍了它的不利影响：为了迎合多元化观众群的口味，艺术家可能舍弃自己所属的文化的因素，从而导致文化的高度同质化，最终导致文化的无特色。由此可见，作者认为多元化观众群对美国文化起着双刃剑的作用。所以D项正确。
单选题
9.It's implied in Paragraph 5 that Americans____.
【正确答案】
A
【答案解析】推断题。第五段指出美国人并不知道海外人士购买其产品(接受其文化)只是因为人们好奇有钱、有想象力、有魅力人士的文化生活而已，而美国目前的财富、影响力、魅力地位决定了全世界人们对其文化的关注。由此可见，美国人没能正确判断海外人士购买本土产品的意图。所以A项正确。
单选题
10.The last sentence of the text actually means that____.
【正确答案】
C
【答案解析】推断题。文章第五段明确指出，美国文化在全球的领导地位在于其财富、影响力及魅力的领导地位；第六段指出美国财富、影响力及魅力因其企业管理不善、挥霍浪费等重重问题而招致全球质疑，导致美国文化受到直接影响，使得《西雅图不眠夜》直接让位于《首尔不眠夜》。言外之意为，美国文化的领导地位正在弱化。注意此处的《西雅图不眠夜》指代美国文化，而《首尔不眠夜》实则指代其他国家文化，并不一定特指韩国文化。所以C项正确。