Labor Log #1
Revision Task #1: Write a cohesive essay with a clear central claim. The artifacts that you choose need to be connected in some way. Perhaps they offer two different commentaries on a particular facet or kind of civil unrest. Perhaps they represent two different modes of a specific kind of “resistance”. Whatever it may be you need to offer a clear sense of focus. Your essay should not be a summary but an analysis. Are you suggesting that “The Purge” and this poster image are both commentaries on… fears of violence beyond individual control? Or…that they are both commentaries on using violence to resolve…something? Give your essay a clear point.
1) The main problems with my essay as I now see it was that it needed a strong central claim. Although I thought I did make it clear with the idea that both artifacts are going against the government. The new thesis that I wrote in my introduction is “Although their mediums are different, their messages of fighting against government ideas are the main reason for their creation especially since their message is still relevant in today’s world”. I kept this idea consistent throughout my essay by changing most of the paragraphs completely. I connected the artifacts as I was describing them, to the idea that people should go against the government’s action or ideas. Another point that I tried to get across in my revised essay is that not everything the government does is beneficial to society and it can sometimes hurt them, yet they don’t see that. I did this by including the problems of today’s world and connected them with the artifacts to show that these problems are still occurring because of the government. However, I did reduce the amount of times I talked about today’s world since you also told me to do that. I reduced it just enough to get the sense of what is going on and connect it back to the main idea of opposing government action with the cultural works.
Revision Task #2: Analyze your works. You do not spend very much time at talk actually talking about the composition of either artifact. You spend most of your time meandering pretty far away from the texts instead of presenting and commenting on individual moments of detail.
1) The way I laid out my new essay is first the introduction with a description of both pieces of artifacts, then analyzing them, and then connecting them together. I hope that it becomes clearer with the new formatting of it. I felt that the previous formatting confused the reader, which is also probably why the central claim did not get across the essay. I redid the paragraphs with the analysis of the pieces and included more detail into what happened in each artifact. For example I described the image of anti-nuclear war into more detail and broke down what each part of the image could represent and how it ties with the central claim of opposing government actions/ideas. Also, I analyzed the important parts of the movie Purge to help the reader get the sense of what the movie is actually about. If the reader is able to understand the movie more, then he can understand what I am trying to describe and how I try to connect it to the central claim. I focused more on part by part instead of generalizing the whole movie since not everyone has seen it or understand the point of the movie. Additionally, I have also cut out parts of where I talked about the current world, since I noticed that it did take much of the paragraphs. However, I did keep the important parts of our society today in order to connect it to the movie and show how the problems are still relevant today and how the viewers should go against these types of actions. Also the last paragraph is mainly focusing on connecting both of these cultural works and how they have the same meaning behind it even though they are both through different modes of production. With one being through artistic works and one being through film production they still show problems that the government has started and how society should oppose that.
Revision Task #3: Have a clear sense in why you have written this. Your paper should have a sense of ‘exigency” or a “so what”. What’s the value of the discussion you are offering in this essay? You think through this a little bit, but are very unclear in your presentation.
1) I included the sense of exigency more in the introduction and concluding paragraphs in how the public in today’s world needs to see these reoccurring problems in our world. Even though the Cold War occurred decades ago, there is a new problem with another country, which is North Korea. It seems imminent that another cold war could begin; however since people aren’t doing anything about it, it becomes more dangerous. That’s why people such as Peter Kennard are around to go against these crazy actions by the governments just to maintain their superpowers in the world. Also with the movie Purge, even though it is a film that takes place in future America with an exaggerated story of killing minorities, it seems that our world is leading into that. There have been many minorities ethnic groups such as black people or Hispanics that have been getting killed recently by police and the problem keeps occurring. The movie helps bring awareness to that since in the movie, the government is allowing for such murder and dangerous crimes to be committed without repercussions. As people see this movie in extreme measures it brings fear into the audience on that possibly happening in our world. Both of these artifacts bring fear into the eyes of the reader/viewer and make them realize that the government takes a big part in all of these bad things happening. Thus, the “so what’ sense is mostly that we should be aware that these problems exist rather than just ignoring it like we have been doing so far.
Final Notes:
-Addressing a claim.
I have made a new central claim or thesis for my paper and it is “Although their mediums are different, their messages of fighting against government ideas are the main reason for their creation especially since their message is still relevant in today’s world”. I did notice that I did not have an actual claim but this one definitely describes what I am talking about in my paper and the message that I am trying to get across. I also connected both artifacts by saying how they both try to let the reader/viewer see how governments have been performing actions or ideas for their own favor. And that’s something the public should go against since it is not beneficial to them. They both describe the central claim in similar ways by addressing problems and applying fear into their cultural works. However the difference is in the medium in how they present their pieces of works. With the new central claim, the essay becomes clearer as I put that idea consistently throughout the essay to not confuse the reader. I also formatted my essay differently in order to get the message across as I stated before.
-Make clear and concretely support claims for both artifacts.
For both pieces I went into more depth in describing them further. For example the anti nuclear image I described the small images that were placed in the artwork and talked about what they symbolize and how they set the mood for the piece. Furthermore, I connected it to the real world example of what is going on in our current era and how this artwork could still be used today. Also talking about how new organization has borrowed ideas from Peter Kennard to represent their own fight against nuclear war. I also talked more in depth about what the movie was about in order to help the reader get a sense of the main idea and purpose behind the movie. Additionally, I felt that if people get a clear idea of what the movie is, especially if they did not see it, then they could further understand the symbolism that I am trying to convey as well we understand the central idea that I am talking about. I also connected both these ideas together in how they present the same message behind them just in different ways of production. Also I described the reason as to why I am writing this essay. Its purpose is to bring awareness to the public to know what these problems are and how they have been relevant all this time. Even though they’re present, doesn’t mean they have to listen to these crazy government actions.
-Apply specific analytical ways.
In order to help the reader understand what I am trying to say, I completely adjusted the format of the essay so that it begins with describing each artifact individually then analyzing, then connecting them together and how they both support the similar claim. I hope you can see that now since the new format seems to flow smoothly. Like I said before, I broke down each piece further down so that I can analyze them better, and make them connect to each other on how the people should not always listen to what the government has to say or do. Additionally, I decided to cut out a big part of our current world related to North Korea and American since I think I went completely off topic. Although I did keep the major points of the dilemma in my essay in order to adequately connect the pieces to our modern day world.
-Write in a way that is logically clear.
My essay missing its central point made it very confusing for the reader, however, now that the point is there, the reader should be able to follow along on how the pieces are connected through one single claim. Also by analyzing more of the artifacts it becomes clearer on what they are and how they bring problems into our society. Everything is clearer now.
The way I worked on this paper was first looking at the revision tasks you assigned then looking at each comment that you wrote on my paper. I worked with the comments first just to realize that it was better to change almost every paragraph, which I did and it took several hours. Also what I did is completely take out big parts of my essay, which you said I did not need. However, when it was the peer-review session with my group and yourself, I remember asking you if we need to connect these artifacts to our world and you said that that was the point of the essay. But when I did that, you stated in the comments that it was too much or that I was not supposed to do that which confused me. So I decided to just listen to the comments and take out a large portion of it. I think with the central claim being clear, the essay is now more understandable than before.