Isaacson's opinion is that Kota art is "powerful," even if we do not know much about the Kota people. Which evidence does he use to support this opinion? Our imagination tells us that we are looking at a human figure. Its triangles, cylinders, and parts of circles remind us of eyes, a neck, and hair. It can reach across a hundred years and a language we don't understand to touch our lives. It excites our imagination, and our imagination turns the Kota figure into a person.

Isaacson's opinion is that Kota art is "powerful," even if we do not know much about the Kota people. Which evidence does he use to support this opinion?

It can reach across a hundred years and a language we don't understand to touch our lives.

Explanation:

If we knew more about the old customs of the Kota, our experience would be richer, but whatever its original meaning, the Kota funerary figure is still a powerful work of art. It can reach across a hundred years and a language we don't understand to touch our lives. We recognize the figure as a person, although it doesn't look like one. Instead of copying the human body— and many African tribes could do that perfectly—it only suggests the human body. It excites our imagination, and our imagination turns the Kota figure into a person. Its triangles, cylinders, and parts of circles remind us of eyes, a neck, and hair, and our imagination tells us that we are looking at a human figure. The figure is an example of abstract art, an art that doesn't intend things to look real. If we searched, we could find examples of abstract art the world over.

yh it is right

explanation:

the narrator is saying that the old lady made her feel uncomfortable. you know this because they say "i found that rather irksome", "perhaps it was her being so upright and trim", and "i don't think it was that, because i thought that quaintly pleasant." hope this !