one paper needs your peer review

[jungfrau]

Hello everyone here, I'm holding a brand new ID and really appreciate your urgent help. I'm an international student of an AHIS program( bachelor level but half of the regular credits of normal bachelor degree) in a local Canadian University and I was feeling probably my paper got an unfair grade but I'm not that professional insider and English is not my first language, consequently I cannot say that for sure. Would you just take a look and make a decision what the grade you would like to give for that?

Thank you very very much!!!

 

requirement

Choose one of the major works illustrated in your textbook.  Now, pretend to be a 19th C art critic and write a short newspaper article that attacks the image viciously --- explain why you hate the style and subject matter given your views of what art should be.  For example, if you are an admirer of Neo-Classicism, you will critique Rococo for certain reasons, or if you are an adherent of Romanticism, you will critique Neo-Classicism for certain reasons.  Both sides of the debate should become evident.  Why does the work not live up to your value system?  How has the artist failed the public?  What should he/she be doing instead?

Remember, writing styles were formal in the 19th C, and you want the readers of the newspaper to note your learnedness when it comes to art and to be impressed by your articulate argument.  Write "I cannot" rather than "I can't" for example.  Be critical without being rude.  Using sophisticated arguments and wit as your weapons.

This piece should be no longer than 2 pages typed and double-spaced. 
 

 

 

　

When the Revolution Fades Away

 

  Imagine living in a world 200 years from now, when the debate on the French Revolution issues could be few, and the chance of printing them as top headlines seems even slimmer, since the impact of that distant movement continues fading away. Standing in front of what we call, Neoclassical paintings, The Oath of the Horatii, for instance, with its heavily reliance on specific historical context, viewers from the 21st century with little background knowledge of ancient Roman cultural must have difficulties reading the dramatic moment David planned to convey. The border dispute between Rome and Alba, the scene showing a tradition of champion determined through warrior dual, and their very stylized but unfamiliar architectural elements set in the background might probably bring about estrangement. Combined with the social trends in France during the period David dedicated himself to creating, the real intention underlying can be reached only through a more essential interpretation. The painting depicts the three sons of Horatius give the Roman salute, and swear on their swords to protect Rome to the death. As a propaganda, the French government actually intended to promote a sense of nationalism among their people as well as build intense duty, pride and loyalty to the country. As a political tool, the propagandized art purposely imposes on the masses, regardless to what extent it has achieved its mission, does it deviate from the essence of art ?

  People living in the new era will be enjoying a dramatically different political and social environment where plausibly monarchy no longer exists, wars could be avoided through tactful diplomacy and an efficient operation of an exemplifiable egalitarian society should be expected, on the other hand, the essential elements within human nature, must remain consistent. Joy, anger, sadness, fear, disgust, ecstasy… all play together for creating an unparalleled epic symphony of humanity, in some chapters, the theme is all about salvation, the climax is witnessed exactly at the moment of Crucifix and from then on all sins cleared as God send his own son to do so, and what noteworthy here the tale of father and son is a conventional as well as symbolic depiction expressed throughout the history of art. Still the same group of spectators who admirably living in the modern world, when being presented the Romanticism masterpiece, Saturn Devouring One of His Children, by Francisco Goya, their evoking interior terrors must have got them totally involved in, not only being as viewers, but anticipate an spiritual journey about the fear, bitterness and defeat of a common people plus the intricacy among family members. What connects viewers is utterly fundamental human emotion, for understanding it nothing historical or social contexts required any longer, people then unite regardless the period of time, the social system, the language, or the distinct taste of art. When the Revolution fades away, the true art, the essential human emotion and the universal value still remain and lead us to a more humanitarian, unified and brighter future.

 

Actually my paper got C-, and the maximum degree is A+,  thoughI can recognize some grammer mistakes like "heavily reliance on" should be replaced with "heavy reliance on"blabla,  I thought it probably worth a little better like B level? Consider it a bachelor level associate degree not a graduate school paper.

Thank you very much!

 

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

[fuzzylogician]

Maybe others in this forum will have more to say but it seems to me from a quick read of the prompt and then your essay that you completely missed the point of the exercise. You were supposed to write a snarky critique of a painting of your choice based on an alternative set of values (the painter comes from tradition A, you believe in tradition B, and therefore see faults in this work). You were supposed to pretend you are writing for a 19th newspaper and use language and style appropriate for that time period. Instead, here you are writing about what people in the future might interpret your chosen painting like, but it's not a witty criticism and it's not clearly a newspaper article either. I just think it really didn't deal with the issues that the prompt asks for. 

[jungfrau]

Maybe others in this forum will have more to say but it seems to me from a quick read of the prompt and then your essay that you completely missed the point of the exercise. You were supposed to write a snarky critique of a painting of your choice based on an alternative set of values (the painter comes from tradition A, you believe in tradition B, and therefore see faults in this work). You were supposed to pretend you are writing for a 19th newspaper and use language and style appropriate for that time period. Instead, here you are writing about what people in the future might interpret your chosen painting like, but it's not a witty criticism and it's not clearly a newspaper article either. I just think it really didn't deal with the issues that the prompt asks for. 

Thank you friend, what you pointed is exactly something I thought the low grade due to, however, is exactly something I believe worth a debate on.

The world is quite large and waits more explorations, why a 19th century article shown on newspapers has to be ironic? has to label some specific style according to a British taste?

why cannot it represent an abstract style and philosophical thought? I mean since the theme of the article is about discussions and comparisons between different painting styles, why not for an article also?

[fuzzylogician]

I'm just reading the instructions you got, not debating the larger points of why things should be the way they are or couldn't they be some other way. Seems to me that you just didn't do what you were asked to, and the grade reflects precisely that. 

[jungfrau]

I'm just reading the instructions you got, not debating the larger points of why things should be the way they are or couldn't they be some other way. Seems to me that you just didn't do what you were asked to, and the grade reflects precisely that. 

I cant see any details instructing me to do anything beyond my existing words. I was criticizing neo-classism because its heavy reliance on the specifically historical contexts while the romanticism conveys a universal and foundamental human emotions remain throughout the time. why did you think something fault with it?

[acanthus]

Yikes. The TA in me is cringing and I didn't even read your paper. Go speak with your professor or Teaching Assistant about the grade (in a respectful and non-confrontational way). Ask him or her to identify a weak point in your paper, and if you can try modeling an alternative approach together. Or ask if you might be able to read an anonymous example of an A paper--I hand similar examples to my students occasionally and I find it clears up the "why did I get a B+ instead of an A?" confusion in a flash. If you can understand the weaknesses in your writing, you can avoid those patterns in the future. 

[fuzzylogician]

I suggest you have this discussion with your teacher. I told you how I understood the assignment and your interpretation of it. 

[jungfrau]

Yikes. The TA in me is cringing and I didn't even read your paper. Go speak with your professor or Teaching Assistant about the grade (in a respectful and non-confrontational way). Ask him or her to identify a weak point in your paper, and if you can try modeling an alternative approach together. Or ask if you might be able to read an anonymous example of an A paper--I hand similar examples to my students occasionally and I find it clears up the "why did I get a B+ instead of an A?" confusion in a flash. If you can understand the weaknesses in your writing, you can avoid those patterns in the future. 

thank you acathus, the paper got a comment which indicating the reason for c-, " you must make a case based on stylistic (visual) differences, not abstract arguments." which confused me coz I have no idea where it was asked for being like a "style based" article as well as why cannot it be "abstract"?

Edited October 25, 2013 by jungfrau

[condivi]

Sorry, but this paper definitely merits a c-. I might have given it something lower. The prompt clearly asks you talk about the style of the painting you choose. You mention neoclassicism, but don't characterize it or make a case why you, writing as a 19th-c. critic, think it fails. This assignment is clearly an effort at testing your skills at formal description while contextualizing those descriptions in your knowledge of 19th-century art criticism. This paper shows neither: you were no doubt supposed to demonstrate what you've learned in class in this paper, but this demonstrates no knowledge of the art or the period. Also, some sentences are almost incomprehensible: if English is your second language, then seek extra-help. 

[jungfrau]

Sorry, but this paper definitely merits a c-. I might have given it something lower. The prompt clearly asks you talk about the style of the painting you choose. You mention neoclassicism, but don't characterize it or make a case why you, writing as a 19th-c. critic, think it fails. This assignment is clearly an effort at testing your skills at formal description while contextualizing those descriptions in your knowledge of 19th-century art criticism. This paper shows neither: you were no doubt supposed to demonstrate what you've learned in class in this paper, but this demonstrates no knowledge of the art or the period. Also, some sentences are almost incomprehensible: if English is your second language, then seek extra-help. 

thanks your response anyway, but I tried a two-pages words for explaining why neo-classicism is inferior to romanticism in my view and I concluded also in my previous post , " I was criticizing neo-classism because its heavy reliance on the specifically historical contexts while the romanticism conveys a universal and foundamental human emotions remain throughout the time." I mean there is no any clue of telling one which kind of style or focus is expected, why a representation of skills at formal description is supposed to be a sth one should responsible for?

[condivi]

I recommend you talk to your professor about your paper. But go in with an open mind and don't be defensive. You seem to have misunderstood the assignment. Try to improve for the next paper by having a better idea of what's expected. 

[jungfrau]

I recommend you talk to your professor about your paper. But go in with an open mind and don't be defensive. You seem to have misunderstood the assignment. Try to improve for the next paper by having a better idea of what's expected. 

thank you so much for sharing your suggestion!! probably there's a big gap between different cultures and their ways for conveying thoughts. and as you said, I'd better talk to instructor and see if anything can be changed positively. thank you!

[Borden]

Honestly, if I had been handed this paper when I was a TA, you'd have been lucky to get your C-. It reads like you didn't even look at the assignment, and that you didn't proof it at all.