WP3: Guidelines

Option 1:

For your final writing project, you will be required to write a rhetorical analysis of the sculpture you were assigned. The specific requirements for this analysis are the same as WP1 and WP2, so please re-read over those project guidelines for a refresher as to what needs to be accomplished so as to produced a proper WP3. Obviously, the key difference between the final project and the previous projects is the primary text. To this extent, ask yourself: what visual, tactile, and contextual elements does your sculpture, and the art-form of sculpture in general, evince that art-forms such as photography and comics do not? For example, choice of materials and the space of presentation are two noticeable differences; of course, these are not the only aspects that differ, but it is a good place to start (you will be expected to generate additional avenues of inquiry, so do not limit yourself to the two I provided).

Furthermore, there will be a new point distribution as well. Your Statement of Purpose and Author's Note will both count toward your weekly blog posts, leaving the WP3 grade to parse out as follows:

Attribution of Points (20 total):

Peer-Reviews: 4 points
Final Draft: 16 points

As with previous projects, the minimum requirements for WP3 are 1200-1500 words, 5 multi-media elements, and 7 relevant hyperlinks. DUE: Tuesday, April 27th @ 11:00AM.

Option 2:

You will write a 1000 word letter addressed to your sculpture. In the letter, you will need to write a) descriptive observations about the sculpture, b) reflections, meditations, and insights that the aforementioned observations stimulate, and c) filter both the observations and reflections through a specific aesthetic-conceptual paradigm (i.e. negativity or intensification). It may also be beneficial to incorporate some contextual material regarding the piece.

The second portion of the assignment will require you to a) read the letter out loud to your sculpture, then after the reading b) imitate your sculpture for 5 minutes. The imitation necessitates that you strike a pose similar to your sculpture and, as motionless as possible, remain that way for the full 5 minutes. When you have completed these steps, thank your sculpture and give it a hug.

If you would like to go with Option 2, speak with me to schedule a specific time during finals week for your reading and imitation. Scheduling a time for this performance is not optional.

Attribution of Points (20 total):

Peer-Reviews: 4 points
Performance: 6 points
Final Draft: 10 points

Before the reading/imitation, you will post a version of the letter onto your blog; in addition to the word count, it will contain 3 multi-media elements, and 4 relevant hyperlinks. DUE: Tuesday, April 27th @ 11:00AM.

UPDATE: 04.13.10

For your third pre-writing assignment, I would like you to write another, brief analysis of your sculpture, using rhetorical appeals, strategies, concepts, and terms that you did not cover in your previous analysis. Perhaps in your first analysis, you did not cover choice of materials. To wit, ask yourself: "If my sculpture is made of bronze, how does that rhetorically affect the audience?" Likewise: "What physical, chemical, and visually properties does bronze consists of? How do those properties alter within particular contexts (such as environmental conditions)? And how can these properties be considered rhetorically?" Posts must be 300-500 words, contain two hyperlinks, and 1 multi-media element. DUE: Thursday, April 15th @ 11:00AM.

For your fourth pre-writing assignment, I would like you to do some research on the historical and aesthetic context of your sculpture. DO NOT limit your research to background information on the artist who created the piece. While some of this informationm may be pertinent, art-objects, even moreso than the texts we have studied heretofore, tend to escape the control (i.e. purpose) of the creator's original intent, due in large part to the fundamental nature of what constitutes art. Attempt to pursue contexts that both support and challenge your understanding of the piece. Posts must be 300-500 words, contain two hyperlinks, and 1 multi-media element. DUE: Sunday, April 18th @ 11:00AM.

Finally, your statement of purpose for this project will be DUE on Tuesday, April 20th @ 11:00AM. Keep in mind that most of you will not be writing rhetorical analysis, per se, but letters to your sculptures with corresponding performances. You will want to consider this when writing this document, as your purpose will be different for this assignment. SoP should be 500-600 words, include 3 relevant hyperlinks, and two multimedia elements.

Also, here is a link to photographs of some of your sculptures. Please read the directions on how to properly capture these images. I believe 12 of you have one image here. I will take photographs your the other four today and send them to you tonight. Furthermore, I will send additional photographs to each of you so yhou can have additional images in your final project.

UPDATE: 06 April 2010

Since I will be at the AWP conference in Denver, CO, Thursday's class session will be canceled. In lieu of meeting at our regularly scheduled time period, I would like you all to re-visit your sculpture sometime before next Tuesday and commune with it, writing your ruminations, analysis, sketches, etc. in your notebook. Next Tuesday, we will meet in front of the Sheldon Art Museum and continue to observe and reflect upon the outdoor sculpture that will be your primary text for WP3. Your assignments are as follows:

Sarah: SANDY in Defined Space; Hannah: Woman Lying Down (II); Ellie: Fragment X-O; Joey: Variable Wedge; Nina: Torso; Ben S: Superstructure on 4; Ben H: Serenity; John: Story; Jamie: Daimaru XV; Cara: Birth of Venus; Amberley: Pieta; James: Bather; Bryan: Fallen Dreamer; Blake: Arch Falls; Kelli: Arietta II; Erin: Stairway Balusters. So that you may locate your primary source easier, here is a map of the sculpture garden.

For your first pre-writing assignment for WP3, you will need to write a 300-500 post on your previous experience with art-objects (you may interpret this as liberally as you would like). If you don't have any, or have very limited experience, you might want to address reasons for this absence, or apprehensions you might have with regard to writing a rhetorical analysis about an art-object. In addition to the word count, you will need to incorporate 1 multi-media element and 2 relevant hyperlinks. DUE: Thursday, April 8th @ 11:00AM.

For your second pre-writing assignment for WP3, you will need to write a 500 word, cursory analysis of your sculpture, recording any salient information about it. Specifically, what rhetorical techniques, strategies, concepts, and appeals do you think the art-object evinces? Look through chapter 9 in CDA if you feel that you need a refresher on some of the rhetorical terminology we use for visual compositions. DUE: Tuesday, April 13th @ 11:00AM.

WP2: Peer-Review Questions

Introduction: Does the author develop a specific context that situates the comic historically, culturally, aesthetically, etc? Does the author clearly state her/his argument? In other words, does the author articulate the argument the comic fosters and briefly outline the rhetorical techniques/appeals that aid in its transmission? Are the context and the argument commiserate? Stated differently, does the context the author presents clearly and directly relate to the stated argument? What questions do you still have about the context, argument, or their mutual relationship? Suggest alternative approaches for the introduction. Also, does the introduction account for the manner in which the genre complicates, situates, or aides in the construction of the argument?

Body: Does the author address all the rhetorical techniques/appeals (s)he addresses in the introduction's argument? Are their any (s)he doesn't mention, but employs within the body? Given the comic the author selected, are these the most important concepts for her/him to be focusing on? Or stated differently, do the rhetorical concepts addressed by the author directly related to the argument the comic constructs? What rhetorical terms are not addressed? Should they be? Does the author provide specific examples from the text to support their claims? Provide alternative approaches for the author's analysis; specifically, offer suggestions as to where different concepts can be employed using evidence from the text for support. Are the transitions between ideas and concepts fluid and do they relate to one another in an evident manner?

Conclusion: Does the author address the "So what?" question, as opposed to merely summarizing their essay? To this extent, does the author inform us, as audience members, why we should care or be interested in the argument the comic constructs? If employed, does the "So what?" question connect to the introduction's context in a relevant and meaningful manner? Offer commentary and alternative approaches to how the author could formulate their conclusion differently and more appropriately.

General: What specific aspects of the essay worked best? What specific aspects of the essay functioned least well?

Multimedia: Did the author incorporate the appropriate amount of multimedia elements into their essay? Did they integrate the multimedia elements into the fabric of the text in a logical and aesthetically pleasing manner? In other words, do the images/videos engage the text by which it is placed? Are they relevant? Furthermore, does the placement of the multimedia elements disrupt the alignment of the text making difficult to read? Suggest alternatives.

Hyperlinks/Citation: Are there the appropriate amount of hyperlinks embedded into the text? Do they connect to reputable sites that provide additional background information that is interesting and heightens your understanding of the subject matter? Suggest alternatives for linked-words and possible sites. Is all secondary information cited properly, both in-line and in the works cited section? Is there material in the essay that was obviously taken from a secondary source (stats, dates, background information, etc.) but not cited? Finally, are there aspects of the essay that would benefit from research? Stated differently, do certain portions of the essay read as generalizations or unsubstantiated opinions when specific/cited information would function better?

WP2: Statement of Purpose

As CDA mentions, a statement of purpose offers a “clearer and more concrete…sense of purpose, and it explains your purpose by referring to audience and context…[it] should be detailed and specific enough to guide you through the steps of choosing a medium or mix of media, deciding strategies, and then arranging, producing, and testing what you compose” (40). For more information on composing a statement of purpose, reread pages 40-41 and 76-77 in CDA. Furthermore, you might want to reread and think through the statement of purpose model I provided you earlier this semester. Roughly speaking, these documents should be 500-600 words in length. When writing your statement of purpose, please keep in mind the feedback I sent you earlier in the semester. Now that you have all written in this genre at least once, I will grade these documents much more rigorously than last time around. If any of the feedback I offered you last project cycle does not seem clear, do not hesitate to ask for clarification. In addition to the word count, please include 3 relevant hyperlinks and two multimedia elements. DUE: Saturday, March 27th @ 7PM.