Author Response:
Rough Cut Excerpt-
Art historians use writing as a way to inform others of the information they have uncovered, studied, or find interesting. Becky Black, a doctoral student at the University of Arizona, uses writing to produce articles in hopes of getting published. Art historians like Ms. Black write articles on a array of topics from current art to early pieces that are believed to be created before the first century. They use writing as their own form of creation as a way to insert their own opinions and interests into pieces that have already been formed by someone else. Ms. Black has had articles published on the topic of art history with a focus on gender issues in modern art. In an interview with Ms. Black the art historian said:
“When writing an article you have to be conscious of who you’re writing for but you also have to be conscious of what you want people to get from it. If you write to please everybody you will get the attention of nobody, people like to be challenged and encouraged to think.”
Ms. Black claimed that writing an article is a great way to express your own thoughts and receive feedback from a large array of people.
Edited Excerpt-
Art historians use writing as a way to inform others of the information they have uncovered, studied, or find interesting and a large part of this writing is governed by the ability to study and observe art and conduct further research. Becky Black, a doctoral student at the University of Arizona, claims that in order to learn more about art and art history one has to obtain funding for their research through the writing of grant proposals (Black, Personal Interrview). A grant proposal by definition is “a formal proposal submitted to a government or civilian entity that outlines a proposed project and shows budgetary requirements and requests monetary assistance in the form of a grant” meaning that the author is proposing a research opportunity and requesting funding at the same time (“Grant Proposals”). Writing a good proposal is difficult as the author, the art historian, must not only convince the potential donor that their idea is valid and worthwhile but must also assure that the money will be well spent and worth spending. Writing a proposal, because of these two purposes must appeal to the reader, the donor, in two key ways: appeal to the donor’s logical side as the author explains why the money is needed and convince the donor that the author is a credible source who can be trusted and believed in. When an art historian uses logos they are relying on facts and numbers, analytical information, to persuade the reader (Jacobsen, Pawlowski, and Miller 183-184). In the case of a grant proposal logos is used to explain the purpose of the project as well as who it will effect and where the money will go. In a sample grant proposal that outlines the “Read to Succeed!” plan logic based appeals are used vividly to explain why the plan needs to be enacted as well as what will happen and how much each individual portion will cost (Hazelton, “Sample Grant Proposal”). The proposal causes the reader think analytically and provides the potential donor with the necessary facts. The other appeal, ethos, the appeal to credibility, is how the author gains the donors trust without ever directly meeting them. After all of the logical numbers and plans are established the author must still gain the trust of the donor by proving their credibility and character (Jacobsen, Pawlowski, and Miller 181-182). In the sample grant proposal ethos is used in the cover letter as well as in the project abstract section. In the cover letter the author appeals to the humanity of the donor as the writer talks about herself as a professional who has studied her craft for some time and is interested in pursuing new research that she can call her own (Hazelton). After establishing her prominence and experience in her field she explains why her project is different and groundbreaking and references her knowledge of the field in order to produce a convincing proposal. Art historians writing in this genre focus on making themselves appear credible, worthy and knowledgeable in order to obtain the resources needed to share their discoveries with the greater public.
Audience Questions:
1. How did the content change (even slightly - details matter!) when you re-edited it? Why do you think the content is being communicated more effectively in the re-edited version?
Well the most obvious change is the length. Not that longer is better but in this case it is. Before seeing the rubric I believed that the rhetorical devices were to be conveyed not directly addressed, I was wrong. I really think that the most major difference between the edited and unedited versions is that the edited version follows the assignment while the first draft doesn't.
2. How did the form change (even slightly - details matter!) when you re-edited it? Why do you think the form is presenting the content more effectively in the re-edited version?
My form is now lengthy but actually includes the genres that we were asked to present. In the first draft I was so distracted by trying to just focus on my interviewee that the genre conventions of a SCE got lost. I now have the in text citations and Works Cited page that the first draft was lacking.
No comments:
Post a Comment