Paintings are static. The uniqueness of the experience of looking at a painting repeatedly—over a period of days or years—is that, in the midst of flux, the image remains changeless. Of course the significance of the image may change, as a result of either historical or personal developments, but depicted is unchanging the same milk flowing from the same jug, the waves on the sea with exactly the same formation unbroken, the smile and the face which have not altered.

One might be tempted to say that paintings preserve a moment. Yet on reflection this is obviously untrue. For the moment of a painting, unlike a moment photographed, never existed as such. And so a painting cannot be said to preserve it.

If a painting "stops", time, it is not, like a photograph, preserving a moment of the past from the supersession of succeeding moments. I am thinking of the image within the frame, the scene which is depicted. Clearly if one considers an artists life-work or the history of art, one is treating paintings as being, partly, records of the past, evidence of what has been. Yet this historical view, whether used within a Marxist or idealist tradition, has prevented most art experts from considering—or even noticing―the problem of how time exists (or does not) within painting.

In early Renaissance art, in paintings from non-European cultures, in certain modem works, the image implies a passage of time. Looking at it, the spectator sees before, during and after. The Chinese sage takes a walk from one tree to another, the carriage runs over the child, the nude descends the staircase. And this of course has been analyzed and commented upon. Yet the ensuing image is still static whilst referring to the dynamic world beyond its edges, and this poses the problem of what is the meaning of that strange contrast between static and dynamic. Strange because it is both so flagrant and so taken for granted.

Painters themselves practise a partial answer, even if it remains unformulated in words. When is a painting finished? Not when it finally corresponds to something already existing—like the second shoe of a pair—but when the foreseen ideal moment of it being looked at is filled as the painter feels or calculates it should be filled. The long or short process of painting a picture is the process of constructing the future moments when it will be looked at In reality, despite the painters ideal, these moments cannot be entirely determined. They can never be entirely filled by the painting. Nevertheless the painting is entirely addressed to these moments.

Whether the painter is a hack or a master makes no difference to the "address" of the painting. The difference is in what a painting delivers; in how closely the moment of its being looked at, as foreseen by the painter, corresponds to the interests of the actual moments of its being looked at later by other people, when the circumstances surrounding its production (patronage, fashion, ideology) have changed.

题目：

It can be inferred from the text that .

[A]images in some Renaissance paintings may hot necessarily be static

[B]paintings by a hack or by a master are the same in that they address the same people

[C]whether a painting is static or dynamic is determined not by the painter but by those who look at it

[D]unlike a painting, a photograph can preserve a moment

各位这个题是不是选D，我看第二段“For the moment of a painting, unlike a moment photographed, never existed as such.”可以推出照片可以保留时光。