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.