Author: Aqib Patwary

What is your research question/rhetorical situation?

How has technology changed competitive chess/has technology ruined competitive chess?

What is your connection to your rhetorical situation and why are you uniquely placed to write about it?

As a moderate chess player living in the technological age I have first hand experience on how computers have impacted the game and the progression to get better. 

Where do you imagine your writing “existing”? (newspaper, magazine, youtube, personal blog)

I can see my piece on an online news outlet.

Who is your target audience?

Around people my age but anyone who has a passing interest in chess to moderate players

What form will your writing take? (Research paper, narrative, letter, script.)

News article.

Why is this form the most effective way to communicate to your target audience?

I think that a news article is the best way to communicate to my target audience because my target audience aren’t people who are extremely interested in chess to read a research paper on it. I want my writing to be accessible and be able to be enjoyed by anyone with a passing interest. 

What is the value you’re trying to impart on your audience?

The value I am trying to impart on my audience is sparking an interest in  a topic I believe a lot of people are missing out on. Chess has become so accessible that I believe everyone can play it if they choose to, so I want to push people to make that choice. I want people to understand the state of chess right now and gain more interest in it.

“Three Women” by Fernand Leger was made in 1921-1922, as part of the “The New Spirit in Paris” Collection. This exhibit aimed to integrate French traditions into the new, violent, post-World War 1 world. Fernand Leger himself was an experienced combat engineer in the French Military during World War 1.

A common trope especially in French art is painting naked women. Hence the phrase “paint me as your french girls.” “Three Women” is a subversion of this cliche. I think what makes the art piece contemporary is that it is reactionary to modernism, in this specific case, modern technology. The painting doesn’t look manmade, but instead machine-made. There are no human-like strokes in the piece but instead precise curves made to look as if it was machine-precision. The women stare at the viewer directly, but without expression, they look cold and emotionless, robotic. The colors are bright, yet nothing stands out. The background and foreground blend together, as if a human didn’t design both separately, instead a machine generated the image all in one, such as our AI does today. In summary, the painting blends together traditional french art with the new technology driven world of the early 20th century.

In a world that’s more interconnected than ever before we are in an age of global tribal mentality. Groups of individuals all across the world can band together due to like-minded ideas and beliefs. However, this makes it easier than ever before to spread ideas of hate and ignorance. This is evident in the wide-spread negative stigma of modern art. Terry Smith, author of “The State of Art History: Contemporary Art” touches on ideas of how modern art is presented in today’s society and “Feasibility and Admissibility of Mob Mentality Defenses” written by the Harvard Law Review Association speaks on the psychology behind hive-minded groups. Both articles’ arguments rely on logical arguments,  but differ in their writing styles.

Both articles use logos to show the influence of ignorance of the state of Contemporary art and the feasibility of mob mentality defenses respectively. For example, in “The State of Art History: Contemporary Art” Terry Smith discusses the reluctance of the Metropolitan Museum of Art to accept modern art. This ignorance of contemporary art that wasn’t shared by other museums such as the Luxembourg Gallery in Paris, the Tate Gallery in London and the Stedelijk Museum in Amsterdam, allowed these museums to house priceless art pieces that the Metropolitan couldn’t obtain. This shows logos by giving historical based evidence to prove the impact of ignorance on the history of modern art. While in “Feasibility and Admissibility of Mob Mentality Defenses” the Harvard Law Review breaks down the argument of pleading ignorance as a defense when associated with mob mentality. In the article it states how ignorance is used as a reasoning to not be guilty of an action committed, discussing how by this logic, ignorance is taking out the choice element of the action, which is the only way to not be guilty but also have committed an illegal act. The article goes on to prove how ignorance isn’t enough of a disability in the context of mob mentality to disable an individual’s ability to make a choice. This shows logos by the Harvard Law Review using reasoning and logic to dismantle an argument. 

The styles are different as “Feasibility and Admissibility of Mob Mentality Defenses” takes a more argumentative approach and gives evidence to support the argument while “The State of Art History: Contemporary Art” is more of a retelling of events in a linear path. For example, in the latter, Terry Smith talks about the origins of contemporary art, in which he explains how french artists wanted to move away from impressionism and create more relatable pieces that symbolize everyday life in abstract forms.  This shows how he is retelling events chronologically by him starting from the very beginning of the subject matter. Conversely, the Harvard review board would bring up an opposing argument, and refute it using evidence. For example, in “Feasibility and Admissibility of Mob Mentality Defenses” an argument was given of innocence of a crime due to the defendant suffering from mental illnesses. The rebuttal against this was that the defendant was intoxicated, which from the case had a much more noticeable impact on the crime than any mental illness. This shows the argumentative nature of the article and how it used the defendants intoxication as evidence of its claims. 

Both articles rely on deduction by presenting events and details. For example in “The State of Art History: Contemporary Art” Terry Smith discusses how there is nothing inherently wrong with contemporary art, but instead it is a known pattern in history to have a disdain towards new art forms. This shows deduction by deducing there is nothing wrong with the art, but noticing a theme in history that was being presented again. “Feasibility and Admissibility of Mob Mentality Defenses” also relies on deduction.  For example, in the article it speaks of a case in which the defendant believed they were completely in the right due to the environment they were in. The Harvard Review Team deduced that this was a case of mob mentality. This shows deduction by the use of past cases to support their argument.

In conclusion, both “The State of Art History: Contemporary Art” by Terry Smith and “Feasibility and Admissibility of Mob Mentality Defenses” by the Harvard Law Review Association utilize logos and deduction in their articles. They differ in their structure and how they present new information. 

In a world that’s more interconnected than ever before we are in an age of global tribal mentality. Groups of individuals all across the world can band together due to like-minded ideas and beliefs. However, this makes it easier than ever before to spread ideas of hate and ignorance. This is evident in the wide-spread negative stigma of modern art.

Terry Smith, author of “The State of Art History: Contemporary Art” touches on ideas of how modern art is presented in today’s society and “Feasibility and Admissibility of Mob Mentality Defenses” written by the Harvard Law Review Association speaks on the psychology behind hive-minded groups. Both articles’ arguments rely on statistics, deductive reasoning but differ in their writing styles.

Majority of their claims on the role of ignorance in public perception both rely on statistics. Both articles rely on deduction by presenting events and lack convention and use of pathos. “simply put, neither the defense’s nor the prosecution’s theory of mob psychology will assist fact-finders who have no way of choosing between the theories other than to consult their own ideas of how people behave in mobs

The styles are different as “Feasibility and Admissibility of Mob Mentality Defenses” takes a more argumentative approach and gives evidence to support the argument while “The State of Art History: Contemporary Art” is more of a retelling of events in a linear path. 

1. Give a brief outline of the plot (action) of the film. (<50 words)

The story takes place in feudal Japan. A criminal named Tajomaru who is accused of murder and rape. He is caught and is on trial for his crimes. We hear his version of events, alongside the woman, the samurai who speaks through a medium, and the woodcutter’s version of events. Each version of events is different. In the end, we find out that the woodcutter lied for his own sake, and in his guilt promises to raise an abandoned baby.

2. What are the main symbols in the film, what do they represent? (<50 words)

The forest represents uncertainty. It is where the contradictory stories take place.

Rain represents destruction and deceivory.

The baby at the end represents redemption. 

3. How is the structure of the film important to the telling of this story? (<50 words)

The structure of the film makes the real event unclear. It allows the watcher to figure out the real facts and the lies with the characters of the movie. 

4. What are the main philosophical idea raised by this film is called ‘The Rashomon effect’, which refers to the phenomenon where different individuals provide contradictory interpretations of the same event or phenomenon. The phrase has since been widely used in various fields, including psychology, sociology, journalism, and philosophy, to describe situations where subjective perceptions and biases lead to divergent accounts of the same event. This effect highlights the complex nature of truth and the unreliability of eyewitness testimony. In 250 – 300 words, please answer one of the following prompts: 

• In what ways does social media exacerbate the Rashomon effect by allowing for the rapid spread of conflicting narratives and perspectives on current events? Give examples.
• How does the Rashomon effect manifest in politics, especially regarding the interpretation of political speeches, actions, and policies by different factions and media outlets? Give examples. 
• Consider where you have seen examples of the Rashomon effect in journalism. Do you think that the Rashomon effect can be mitigated in your news event, and if so, what strategies can journalists employ to present more objective and accurate portrayals of the event in the face of conflicting accounts?

Social media exacerbates the Rashomon effect by allowing uncredited and unproven sources to have a platform to speak about events/facts. This is even more exacerbated by social media giving more accessible information a platform rather than correct or reliable information.

This can be seen in health education. It is very easy to find a speaker on a tik tok video confidently speaking misleading or outright wrong information to the audience. It is much harder to find a peer-reviewed well articulated scientific study on the same topic. And even if both are both readily accessible, the vast majority of the public will just watch the tik tok and skip the study due to convenience.

I went to the Wednesday morning performance of the Tempest. My favorite part of the play was the acting ability of the actors. They performed in an exaggerated manner and it made the play easier to understand. Even though they were exaggerated it never became corny, which is something I feel often with exaggerated acting. The play was a smaller production than I expected, but that wasn’t a bad thing. It added a charm to the play and it highlighted the actor’s acting ability and the director’s creativity. My least favorite part was the play itself. It being a 400 year old Shakespeare play made it really hard to keep up with the story. The dialogue is very hard to understand and the actor’s performances made it easier but still not easy to understand what was going on. In the playwrite, Prospero was a man while in the play she was a woman. It changed the dynamic with the daughter and I liked it more by making Prospero more relatable. Again, following along with the story was difficult due to the source material, but from what I could understand Prospero’s relationship with her daughter felt very real. It’s difficult finding connection in older stories due to relationship dynamics changing throughout time, but Prospero’s relationship with her daughter was so well played that it shocked me it was different in the original. 

story

I have an appreciation for art and learning more about art. Then I find out about modern art and get upset over the “lack of skill” needed to make modern art. I have a resentment until I learn about the art made by Martin Margiela. I become more open minded towards modern art and lose my resentment.

Situation:

Themes of personal insecurity, mob mentality, aggression stemming from ignorance, personal growth through learning. 

Question:

The narrative and situations can make several questions. One being, “how much does ignorance contribute to anger?”

Aqib Patwary

3/1/24

For as long as I can remember, before I started talking to girls, before I could ride a bike, and even before I could read, I would be bored in class. I would draw in the margins of my wide-ruled notebook. First they were circle-headed people with lines for bodies and dots for eyes. I started getting older, slowly learning and becoming accustomed with shading, hatching, composing. This put into perspective how little I knew art. Then I saw it. A wall painted in midnight blue with one white stripe going down the middle. “Onement VI” by Barnett Newman, a shotty paint job done in the 50s sold for 43 million U.S. dollars. 

This was not a rare occurrence. Swirls drawn on a chalkboard, squares in different shapes and colors arranged on a canvas, a banana taped to a wall. All accepted and praised by the art world. Art done with no skill, no talent, reminiscent of child-like projects that we all strived to move forward from and leave behind. Like the majority of the public, I was confused,  and that confusion led to frustration and resentment. Why was this valued? Where is the talent? What makes this special? What am I missing?

The year is 1996. The world of fashion is booming. The models are stunning, the runway shows are bombastic and the clothes are glamorous; this is the “fashion” that comes to our mind at first thought. Designers such as Tom Ford at Gucci and Donatella Versace were making new and innovative ways to accentuate curves, flatter the body, make our heights taller and our shoulders broader. At its core, the goal of fashion was to sell a new look to the public. Aallowing them to stand out, turn heads, and get looks of envy. A goal to everyone, but a sheltered designer named Martin Margiela. 

With the budget of a major fashion house, Margiela created his new clothing line out of ragged thrifted garments, covered the models’ faces, and choreographed a runway show in a public park of a rundown neighborhood in Paris. Critics thought he was talentless, doing outlandish and eccentric projects just for the sake of being different. Solely being popular by getting outlash from the public. 

I think my resentment for modern art came from insecurity. I would never pursue art. Why would I? I’ll master perspective, perfect lighting, and imagine scenes that would make the Sistine16th chapel look like a highschool art gallery, but my art would still be behind squiggles drawn by a pretentious twenty-three year old  with rich parents.  

I nearly shut it out of my mind. As if it was a failed project that I wouldn’t sink anymore time into. I reached a point of confusion and frustration that it was maybe better to just close my mind to it and move on. Accept that modern art is valueless and at best rich people being bored with their lives and at worst a tool for money laundering. Thankfully a love for fashion meant an indirect study for modern art. My failed project still wasn’t hopeless.

At this point in 1996, the company had been running for seven years strong. Throughout numerous successful seasons, one garment had risen above the others and had become a staple of the Maison: the Tabi boot. Based on traditional Japanese footwear, the Tabi boot, with its iconic block heel and split-toe design, has become world renowned even to this day. The Tabi boots’ fame allows the house to make new iterations almost annually. It became a constant source of income for the company and one of its most valued assets. This year the Maison chose to go a different direction with their revered design. 

“The shoulder gives you a certain attitude and the shoes, of course, give you a certain movement. And when the silhouette moves in a certain way, I’m very happy.” – Martin Margiela

For this season, Margiela deconstructs the old boots from previous seasons by cutting off the tops of the shoes, leaving black leather soles of the block heel. Martin, known for his world class skill in couture and tailoring, then takes these cut-out heels and attaches them to the models’ feet with loops of wide, clear tape. I can’t help but think of a child tying a blanket around his neck pretending to be Batman. 

When the models then walked down the runway with their new arts and craft shoes, they moved as if they were wearing the Margiela Tabi Boots, but without any real footwear. They are given the “certain movement” Margiela previously mentions, without the actual branded boot. Easy to be seen as purely theatrical, Martin had taken his notorious shoe which had made the Maison millions and said “You don’t need this. You don’t need to buy a new look from us. We accept you now, you’re perfect just the way you are.” However, for many of the critics, it really was just a broken shoe and some clear tape. 

I was done. Done defining what art should and shouldn’t be, done being mad about how things not being the way I wanted them to be and done festering in ignorance. I’ve become the cranky old man complaining about the younger generation at the ripe age of eighteen, confused in his own dementia. I let myself get off the blackfoot and have an open-mind. It took a broken shoe and some tape to calm my resentment, enjoy my passions, and let me draw in the margins of my notebook again.