Evaluation of Rhetorical Situations

This blog post will consist of several examples of opinionated speech acts by people in my discipline and brief analysis of the texts.


1) Censhorship: Graphic Novel About Holocaust 'Maus' Banned in Russia For It's Cover

Becker, Hallye. Screenshot from my computer, September 24th, 2015. Accessed via NPR.org

Author/ Speaker

Art Spiegelman is a cartoonist, editor, teacher at the School of Visual Arts, and comics advocate. He was born in Stockholm, Sweden but is of American nationality. His father was Holocaust survivor and 'Maus' is his father's story. He did art for the New Yorker and has been known for some controversial covers. 

Audience

 Since this was an interview on NPR, the audience would be whoever was interested in listening. Generally, listeners of NPR tend to be fairly educated and range from ages 25-54. (Source) Spiegelman is mostly talking about his own opinions and experiences, but talks with somewhat elevated language that suits his college-graduate audience. 

Context

Obviously, the display and discussion of swastikas is highly contentious. It has a dark history behind it, and is actually banned from being shown at all in ten or more countries. The book obviously does not promote Nazism, as Spiegelman and his father are Jewish, but the book was removed none the less. This interview came out in April of 2015, so it is fairly recent. This book being removed from shelves has been an issue before, so Spiegelman is quite well versed in the controversy. 

2) Reliable Conservation: The Importance of Art Conservation: An Artist's Perspective 

Becker, Hallye. Screenshot from my computer, September 24th, 2015. Accessed via huffingtonpost.com

Author/ Speaker

Barbara Ernst Prey is a prominent watercolor artist and is a member on the National Council on the Arts. To become a member, you need to be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. She seems to frequently write for the Huffington post, has a "Women of Distinction" award given by the Senate, is nationally recognized for her talent, and has several studios in the United States. 

Audience

This was a post written by Ernst herself in which she discusses her own eye for watercolor preservation while also sitting in on watching conservators at work. Demographic data for the Huffington post has not been given, but it is generally regarded as a credible website. Most readers would be assumed to be interested in arts and conservation, and she talks about it like an educated artist would. 

Context

As Prey admits herself, conservation is an often ignored topic. This was published in 2013, so it may be a little dated, but her expertise was still relevant at the time of publication. As someone well-versed in the art world, Prey has a keen interest in this topic. 

3. More on Conservation Techniques: "Lasers & Art Conservation" 

Becker, Hallye. Screenshot from my computer, September 24th, 2015. Accessed via huffingtonpost.com

Author/ Speaker

Martha Waggoner is a member of the Associated Press, is President of the News Media Guild, and is known for writing and editing. Very little of her personal information is accessible, so I couldn't find much more than other writings of hers. She seems prolific and fairly well known, but would not be considered an expert in the field of art conservation. I would be more interested in looking into people she quoted than the author herself.

Audience

This is again, a post on the Huffington Post's website. It would garner interest from those curious about the art world and conservation. Most readers would be assumed to be interested in arts and conservation, and she talks about it like with a professional and educated tone. 

Context

This was a post written by Ernst herself in which she discusses her own eye for watercolor preservation while also sitting in on watching conservators at work. Demographic data for the Huffington post has not been given, but it is generally regarded as a credible website. Most readers would be assumed to be interested in arts and conservation, and she talks as an educated outsider would. It was posted in 2013, so research methods may be more updated since then .

REFLECTION

 I read Victoria and Swati's evaluations as well. Looking at their blog posts, it seems that I could have put a little more effort into the analysis of my three sources.
Swati's was more in-depth than my own, and was more precise in deciding who the audience would be for her writing. Being able to decide clearly who the audience for a piece is makes it easier to get to the heart of rhetorical analysis.  A good piece of rhetorical speech will not only be cohesive and well-written, it will be well written for it's specific audience, so understanding who the author writes for makes it easy to break apart analysis.
 I also feel as though Victoria did a better job than me in explaining contextual details. She describes the breakdown of the article's composition and details. Being able to look past just place of publication and author is crucial to being able to understand credibility and types of arguments used in a document to make a point. She did a good job of breaking things down.

Developing a Research Question

This blog post will begin to set up the basis for our next project on controversy and rhetoric. While researching this current debate, I came up with some extra questions that I found interesting. Below are some questions I'd be interested in pursuing further.

To tie in with art history, here is one of my favorite engravings by 15th century artist Albrecht Dürer. 

dangreen2012, "Knight Death and The Devil (1513)" engraving by Albrecht Dürer
Accessed via Flickr 

Where should "censorship" factor in with the display of art?

Beginning Project 1, I read an interesting article discussing censorship of art. It was specifically over a piece of art that had offended a group of people, but it had me thinking. When, if ever, should censorship affect art? For those who argue "never", what about when people may be placed at risk? What if it's extremely offensive to an entire sect of people? (For example the Charlie Hebdo shootings and offense to the people of Islam). I'd be curious to see what's being said in this area.

How are we saving art from bad preservation techniques?

For Pompeii, I read about how conservators were racing against time to save frescos that were compromised by poor technique. There was mention of the use of lasers, solvents, imaging techniques. Seeing as this is a field I hope to enter after college, I'd be very interested to learn more about what's happening in this field. 

How reliable are current conservation techniques?

This very clearly ties into the question above. As conservators discussed how old techniques were actually increasing the rate of degradation in works of art, I began to wonder. What if our techniques today are wrong too? What are the risks associated with modern conservation? Could we be potentially making things worse by trying to make things better, just like conservators in the past? I'd like to know more about this. 

What role should government play in conservation?

Much of Pompeii's failings was placed on the Italian government. In fact, private companies and organizations often had to step in to fix mistakes. Yet I heard some concerns about the privatization of historical sites. At what point does private funding conflict with private interest? Even if big-name companies like Coca-Cola could afford to fund a site, what risks come with that? I'd be curious to read about the arguments for and against private investments. 

Reflection on Project 1

I will be addressing specific issues about my QRG and the challenges associated with it.

I'm sure we're all relieved we survived project one, so here's a happy looking deer.

McCaffery, Jamie "One Relieved Deer" July 17th, 2014
Generic license 

• What challenges did you face during the Quick Reference Guide project and how did you deal with them?

I initially did struggle with this project, because narrowing down a topic was a little bit of a challenge. Once I did focus on a controversy that interested me, I realized it was a teeny bit too narrow. It made it a little hard to find contrasting opinions and scholarly information, but doing additional research helped make up for the gaps. 

• What successes did you experience on the project and how did they happen?

I feel that once I found some beginning sources of information, it was easier for me to dig up articles that were related and reliable. I feel as though my writing was pretty strong too, since this is a topic that I grew more and more invested and interested in as I continued to do research. 

• What kinds of arguments, rhetorical strategies, design choices and writing practices did you find the most effective for your project? Why?

As I've said before, I'm a heavy revisor. Reading, writing, and  re-writing over and over again was very helpful. It was especially helpful to have the voices of other writers leave input on places that seemed weak. I tried to stay away from personal arguments and rhetoric and use a more professional input when discussing my controversy, and I feel as though that helped it read fairly well. 

• What kinds of arguments, rhetorical strategies, design choices and writing practices did you find were not effective for your project? Why?

Personal arguments, the use of personal pronouns made arguments seemed weaker. I also needed to cut down and break apart a lot of my paragraphs, as I tend to be a little wordy. Wordy paragraphs tend to look a little overwhelming in a more casual setting, so keeping things short and sweet was needed. Even paragraphs I thought were short enough I was told I needed to cut down because they looked too long. 

• How was the writing process for this project similar to other school writing experiences you’ve had in the past?

I've written some research papers in a similar format, though this project was less formal. I've had other writing assignments where I needed a certain amount of scholarly papers to contrast less reliable sites, and have needed to use online libraries before. I have had to write on controversies previously, and had to write quite a few short papers on art history topics. 

• How was the writing process for this project different from other school writing experiences you’ve had in the past?

 I'd never really been given an assignment where I could choose to research something of my own choosing, so I struggled with that at first. Where would I begin? What sort of topic would I choose? Normally this had been all decided for me. I've written papers in a research format that had a very strict topic. "Write a paper on the US's dependency on foreign oil," "write a research paper on your predictions for the next congressional election," "write a research paper from this philosophy's view point discussing 'Heart of Darkness'", things such as that. It was a change to decide for myself. 

• Would any of the skills you practiced for this project be useful in your other coursework? Why or why not?

I would say that some skills I used in this project would be useful. It helped me write to a broader audience (aka readable to more people than just my teacher), helped me learn how to cut down sentences, and helped me be better about reflecting on my own writing. Not only that, it's made me more aware of how I should look at the credibility of my sources when doing research. 


EDIT:

After looking over Alex and Evan's blogs, I felt a little more reassured in how I felt about this project. It seems like quite a few of us struggled with this at the beginning, but started to find our way more once we looked at the rubric. I didn't get a chance to look at Alex's QRG and only read a rough draft of Evan's, so I hope my writing ended up coming across as strongly as theirs might. I will probably read over a few other papers to compare and if I have to, tinker a little with my QRG before the absolute end due date.

Publishing Project 1

This will be the final blog post for Project One. You can access my QRG about Pompeii right HERE or HERE or maybe even....

HERE

Clarity, Part 2

This blog post will be a continuation on the topics in the "clarity" section of the Rules for Writers book. It's important to look at a lot of helpful tips and rules to continue to better your writing. Below are four topics I chose.

normalityrelief, "Clarity" March 5, 2011 via Flickr
Attribution Sharealike 

Balance Parallel Ideas 

Consecutive ideas should appear in a parallel grammatical form. If the train of thought suddenly changes, it makes the sentence awkward. Parallel ideas should have parallel sentence structures to make their connection more clear. Conjunctions such as "and" or "but" can work well with pairs of ideas, as well as words such as  "than" or "as".  If the ideas don't match up in a grammatical way, it may leave the reader feeling confused.

Make the Point of View Consistent

It can be easy to shift away from a third person perspective into a first person one, especially in a paper that requires your own ideas and input. While "I" may emphasize the opinion of the writer, it doesn't sit well with a paper that has been written in a third person point of view. Third person point of view is much more professional an academic. Keep the tone, verbs tenses, and mood consistent throughout.

Provide some Variety

After doing the previous blog post, it can be easy to see why variety is important. Using varying sentence structures and openings keeps your paper from sounding too repetitive and, therefore, boring. It should also be used with caution. Don't sacrifice clarity for variety. Try to invert some sentences ("the cheese fridge is opposite the produce section" could change to "opposite the produce section is a fridge full of cheese") if you can get it to sound natural, and don't be afraid to play with your sentences.

Emphasize Key Ideas

Putting importance on the point of a sentence can be very beneficial to a paper like a QRG. Keep ideas that are equal coordinated when combining sentences, and use subordination on ideas that aren't key. Short sentences are short and demand attention. If an idea isn't important enough for this sort of emphasis, get rid of choppy sentences by combining them with sentences that are equally unimportant. Keep major ideas in the foreground and complement them with less important ideas.


Draft Examples 

While reading back through my own draft, I noticed some issues with unclear sentences. Many need some more variety, some need to be combined, a few pronouns need to be changed, and there could be some more emphasis on key ideas. For example, this sentence:

"Vatican correspondent for The Wall Street journal, Francis X. Rocca states..."

I put the modifier before the subject, which takes away from his importance and they key idea of the sentence. I should place Rocca's name first and then his title, as that will improve the flow of the sentence and better emphasize the key idea. Another example is actually two sentences:

" Visitors will wander into boarded off areas, either for curiosity’s sake or because broken barriers simply don’t scream “off limits” to them. Not only are tourists often unaware, the enforcement is scarce. "

The second sentence feels awkward and choppy next to the first one. I believe I should combine these two sentences but possibly keep the ideas in them parallel, seeing as they are both important. I could even make the second sentence subordinate, as I've mentioned that concept before in a previous paragraph.

Identifying Basic Grammar Patterns

This blog post will look at one of the longest paragraphs in my QRG and a basic analysis of it's structure. I found this assignment really helpful as we prepare to submit our QRG. It made me realize that the shortened paragraph style of the QRG sort of inhibits allowing a lot of variation that can be found in more lengthy writings. This means you have to be very aware of the grammatical composition of your paragraphs to avoid them becoming too boring. It mad me realize I should probably go back in and add some more variety to my writings. 

There were no photos I liked for "grammar" so here's a rat in a cup. I think he's pretty cute. 

Bulyonkova, Tatiana "Baby Ratties" June 22nd, 2010 via Flickr
 Generic NonCommercial Sharealike 

Analysis of my paragraph can be viewed here

Paragraph Analysis

This post revolves around my paragraph analysis of my QRG. I found it to be especially helpful for me to narrow down which areas needed the most work and why. It gave me a few extra ideas on what I could add or subtract from the document that would help it flow better overall. It can be really helpful to be your own worst critic, as well as having feedback from other writers as well.

My paragraph analysis can be found here

Reflection on Project 1 Draft

As we begin to draw to a close on project 1 of this class, it's increasingly important to read over my own draft and other drafts as well. I read and gave suggestions on Evan and Namratha's quick reference guides, and know I need to work on mine a bit more. I will briefly address some audience and context questions.

Audience 

Scoble, Robert "Audience listens at start up school" October 29, 2011 accessed via Flickr
Generic license 

• Who will be reading my document? Who am I trying to reach?

The majority of people reading my QRG will be other students in my english class, and my instructor as well. 

• What are their values and expectations? Am I meeting those?

Most readers are expecting a well-written QRG that is informative and meets the requirements given to us in a rubric. I'm still working to perfect my document, but thus so far I'm on my way to meet expectations. 

• How much information do I need to give? How much context/background should I provide?

Most college students would know the story of Pompeii. Therefore, I added a little bit of background to act more like a brief refresher on the site rather than an in-depth explanation. The other information I give should be more complex and in-depth, because that is the point of the QRG. 

• What kind of language is suitable for this audience

 Since this is written for a college course, more professional and formal language should be used. It is just a QRG so it doesn't have to be written like a research paper, but it should have a professional tone. 

• What tone should I use? Am I consistent with it?

As I said, the tone should be mostly professional and formal. I should sound knowledgable about my topic. I feel as though my tone is pretty consistent, but I do like to revise several times to adjust my tone. 

Context 

• What are the formatting requirements? Do I meet them?

We were given a specific rubric for the QRG as well as given examples of QRG for reference. I would say I currently meet the "C" formatting requirement, and am working towards a B right now. 

• What are the content requirements? Do I meet them?

The content of my QRG should address my controversy. This includes what it is, who is talking about it, different points of view, and where I think the controversy is going. I plan to add an extra paragraph or two of information, but I believe I have made most of the content requirements. 

• Does my draft reflect gained knowledge or skills in addition to my own voice?

I believe my draft is a good combination of grammatical skills we have discussed in class and my own personal form of writing. 

• Have I addressed any grammatical issues highlighted in my class or previous assignments?

 I haven't really had to turn in an assignment for this class before so I'm unsure if I have addressed any grammatical issues that I have, but I asked for feedback like this on my first draft of my QRG so hopefully any issues will be pointed out and I can correct them. 

Clarity, Part 1

This blog post will address four topics from the "Rules for Writers" in the Clarity section. It's very important to have clear and understandable writing. Below I will be discussing four topic points in the writing process.

Chiroleu, Gilles "L'écrivain" December 21st, 2008 accessed via Flickr
Attribution-Noncommercial-2.0 Generic license

Active Voice

It's important to use active voice over passive voice in writers. You want a sentence to flow and make sense, so you want to drive the subject of the article in a clear and simple way. I agree on this. Sentences with passive voice tend to sound awkward, and it can be unclear as to who exactly did what and when. The subject should be the driving force of a sentence, and if it falls back the sentence fails to have direction.

Make comparisons logical

Comparisons can be a risky business. They can come across as cliche or insightful, depending on their execution. I personally tend to make a lot of comparisons in my writing. It can helpful to break down a complicated subject into more understandable pieces using comparison. Sometimes, however, my comparisons can be a little unclear and can make the explanation more complicated. Being precise with my comparisons can help the clarity of the paper.

Avoid is when, is where, reason, and is because

These words are considered "dead words", because they can kill a natural flow. It will draw the reader away from the main focus of the sentence. I'm guilty of using these at times. They're easy to throw into a sentence without any real thought in a time crunch. Avoiding them does make my writing more smooth and cohesive, so it's better to take the extra few minutes .

Awkward modifiers

Awkward writing has always been a glaring error for me, especially because my father is an editor and always corrected awkward writing. It's very important to word sentences correctly. An awkwardly phrased sentence will immediately stand out to a reader. As I've noted before in an earlier post, I'm a "heavy revisor" and tend to go back and re-write my sentences over and over again until I like the flow.


Reflection:

I read both Evan's and Namratha's quick reference guides and there were little to no issues with clarity for either. For example, Evan's QRG had a sentence that read "The CEO released a statement apologizing for what he and his coworkers had done to the company and for tarnishing its name." This sentence is clear, straight to the point, and makes sense. He followed the conventions perfectly. Namratha performed similarly. "They support the government’s decision, maintaining that the government should have access to the data necessary to protect itself and its citizens" is a well-written sentence that follows all the clarity conventions. I can see issues with clarity and flow in some areas in my paper, so I can use these conventions to improve my writing.

Thoughts on Drafting

As we begin to compose and finalize our Quick Reference Guide, we'll need to be able to understand different components of drafting. I will address questions about drafting essays. 

1. What parts of the book’s advice on the above bulleted topics are helpful for writing in this genre?

A lot of the information in the book was pretty helpful. It says the thesis statement should be interesting, concise, and specific. QRG's don't necessarily need thesis statements, but the concept is still good for introductory paragraphs.Then the Point-Illustration-Explanation paragraphs which allow for concise and specific paragraphs and offer good descriptions to the reader. All of these attention-grabbing techniques fit into the conventions of the QRG. It allows the reader to skim over it quickly and efficiently. 

1. What parts of the book’s advice on these topics might not be so helpful, considering the genre you’re writing in?

There was nothing I found in the book that was unhelpful. The thesis part can be applied to other pieces of the QRG. They're pretty much all beneficial for helping the QRG be concise and to the point. 

EDIT:

After reading two other Thoughts on Drafting, I noticed Evan's post was really similar to mine. We agreed with all of the same points in the book and didn't find anything really unhelpful in the guide. Alex and I disagreed a little, but only on the thesis. He said it was more useful for research papers, while I said that it could still be applied to QRG's in a helpful way. Other than that we generally agreed on everything. 

Draft of Quick Reference Guide

This blog post will provide a link to my QRG and ask for help with comments and critiques.

My draft addresses the controversy of the mismanagement of Pompeii and the different arguments discussing the best way to try and mend the endangered site. It has several different topic points about Pompeii, including issues with tourism, funding, corruption, and poor restoration. I followed the "C" rubric to begin with. I tend to be a bit wordy when I write so please let me know if you find anything to be too long or if you feel it has unimportant information! Also please let me know about general spelling errors, sentences that sound weird, if you feel additional information is needed, or really anything in general that you feel would benefit my QRG.

Thank you!

My QRG can be found here 

Practicing Quoting

This post shows my practicing at quoting for the upcoming QRG. Below are screenshots of my quotes, and I will include a link to a readable full version.

Legend:

Signal phrase

Establishing authority

Ellipses and/or brackets

Contextualization

Becker, Hallye. Screenshot from my computer, September 12th, 2015.

Becker, Hallye. Screenshot from my computer, September 12th, 2015.

Link to full document HERE

QRGs: The Genre

For this post, I will be evaluating Quick Reference Guides and their conventions. I will be looking at 5 sources to find similarities and differences.

Anonymous account, "Blogging?" January 10th, 2010 via Flickr
Attribution 2.0 Generic

What do the conventions of this genre seem to be? 

There seem to be five basic conventions.

1. Informative titles, additional subheadings 
2. Short introduction that expands upon the title
3. Use of (properly cited) images or graphics related to the topic
4. Concise text in the body paragraphs; text is not overly wordy
5. Links to additional informattion

How are the conventions defined by the the author's formatting and design choices?

The title introduces the article as a whole, is backed by the short introduction, and subheadings are used to further break up information into readable chunks. The text, images, and links provide additional information that the reader can chose to look at if they want to learn more. I myself chose to read additional posts after reading one article. All of these create a readable article that's not too overwhelming to readers.

What does the purpose of these QRGs seem to be?

The main function of these seems to be informative. The article cuts down the information and  presents it in an easy to read fashion. This makes it easy for readers to get the basic facts, and continue reading other related links if they so chose. 

Who is the intended audience for these different QRGs? Are they all intended for similar audiences? Or different? How & why?

The intended audience is likely the general public who may have an interest in the content of the article. For example, the Gamergate article narrows down the focus of the Gamergate controversy and breaks it down into small sub-sections that explain each issue (albeit with some noticeable bias). This would be for people interested in discovering the beginnings and reasons for the social issue. Contrastingly, the one on Greece's economy might be for the more globally inclined. If they wanted to know more about the issues with Greece's economic collapse. They have slightly different audiences, but are still just for those who are randomly interested in learning. 

How do the QRGs use imagery or visuals? Why do you think they use them in this way?

Images do a couple different things. They can add a "human" element to the post. By showing the people actually involved in this issue, it can add a relatable moment to the post. These extra visuals make the wonder what happened to the smiling girl who was attacked over twitter, why the numbers of the graph decline so rapidly, why a little girl looks mournful beyond her years. Images make the post more interesting and can help the readers relate a little better to the post.  


EDIT: 

After reading Mike's and Bri's posts about QRGs, it's pretty clear most of us wrote very similar things. We all had generally similar definitions and understandings of the QRG. I noticed that my post was a bit wordy in some places, and theirs were a little more concise usually. I tend to have a problem with being overly wordy, so I'll have to keep that in mind for the actual QRG.

Cluster of My Controversy

My blog post details out what I did with my cluster.

I broke down the main points into small chunks that highlighted the main issues and points. Within the major groups of the issue,  I highlighted the bigger speakers and branched off into how they discuss the issue and their values. I only pointed out the major speakers that I encountered, since there are a lot of speakers on each side.

My cluster


EDIT:

After looking at Casey Frantz's post and cluster, I felt as though my cluster was a bit too disorganized. His cluster was broken down into major chunks with basic ideas easily legible and understandable, while mine ended up looking a little all over the place. The arguments and ideas, while given in greater detail than Casey's, look confused and criss-crossed.
Alex Segovia's post and cluster  made me feel the same way. Seeing his neatly organized into pros and cons was very helpful and informative, and having a separate cluster chain for major speakers and where the debate occurred probably made his look less confusing. Even the pros and cons were split up into three easy to follow sections, and I liked how informative his cluster was.
I will probably go back and clean up how my cluster looks a bit, just based on a comparison to these other clusters.

Annotated Bibliography in Chicago Citation Style

This post will have my annotated bibliography in Chicago citation style. Annotations for the Chicago style require a brief, paragraph long summary about the writing.

 "Alarm as Pompeii Keeps Crumbling." The Herald, March 3, 2014, 1st ed., HS - NEWS sec. Accessed September 10th, 2015 via LexisNexis Academic Database. 
     Discusses more recent collapses in Pompeii, namely in the acropolis of Porta Nocera where a supporting arch and a piece of a wall collapsed due to heavy rains. It names the new cultural director and his efforts to gain reports on the maintenance at Pompeii as well as a mention of a resoration project funded by the European Union. Mentions a contrast in Italian media about Pompeii's handling compared to other ancient Roman sites. I would use this to show that Pompeii's issues are ongoing, even despite more funding and a hopefully less corrupt cultural director.

Banyasz, Malin; Lobell, Jarrett A; Swaminathan, Nikhil. "From the Trenches". Archaeology, Vol. 64, No. 2 (March/April 2011), pp. 9-11
     A short excerpt from a scholastic journal about the 2011 collapse of the School of Gladiators in Pompeii. It addresses researchers looking more into what caused the collapse exactly, and that Pompeii has been in a state of decline since about 2010. It is a short article, and is mostly a brief summation rather than a full exclamation. I would use this article as a reference of how even well funded programs can damage history.

 Hammer, Joshua. "The Fall and Rise and Fall of Pompeii." Smithsonian. July 1, 2015. Accessed September 2, 2015.

    Hammer's article discusses, in depth, the concerns of Pompeii's collapses and the simultaneously excellent restoration of her neighboring site Herculaneum. It heavily discusses  the state of Pompeii's ruins and how inappropriate restoration methods and staff that doesn't have the correct training have seriously affected Pompeii's reconstruction. It then contrasts this to Herculaneum's  large amount of success in restoration of it's scrolls and murals. There are many inserted images to show the state of Pompeii. I would use this article to further discuss how historical sites can fall to ruin if not taken care of properly.

"Italy's heritage 'under threat' after Pompeii collapse," YouTube video, 2:08, posted by "AFP News Agency", December 16th, 2010.  https://youtu.be/DsjXq-f9f3g
    This video discusses the collapses over the past years in Pompeii, and addresses the shrinking budget for conservation and Italy's economic struggles. It has a couple short interviews and discusses how other monuments are at risk. I would use this as a video link in a QRG, just to offer a little bit more information on the topic and what important locals in Italy have to say about the collapses.  

MacDonald-Korth, Emily; Rainer, Leslie. "The Getty Conservation Institute Project to Conserve David Alfaro Siquiero's Mural América Tropical". Getty Research Journal, No. 6 (2014), pp. 103-114

     Rainer and MacDonald-Korth's journal offers an in-depth explanation of the restoration of a famous mural after it was neglected for eighty years. It discusses the condition of the work, how the process was documented, the actual conservation treatment, how they chose their approach, and more. It has many citations, some images, and notes to conclude. I would use this article to discuss important conservation techniques.

 Poggioli, Sylvia. "A Collapse In Pompeii Highlights Neglect In Italy." NPR. December 2, 2010. Accessed September 10, 2015. 

   This article discusses the criticism Italy has faced after several structural collapses in Pompeii. Pompeii is constantly in danger of collapse, and the government has been blamed for turning Pompeii into a "Disneyland" instead of a center to learn about human tragedy. This article helps add extra depth and information about the failings of the Italian government, and I would use it to back an argument for properly funding archaeological sites. 

 Povoledo, Elisabetta. "E.U. Pledges Large Sum for Protection of Pompeii." ArtsBeat EU Pledges Large Sum for Protection of Pompeii Comments. October 27, 2011. Accessed September 10, 2015.

     This article discusses the sum of money the European Union pledged to help protect Pompeii in 2011, as well as how the E.U. plans to counteract corruption and misuse of funds. The four year plan (up in 2015) plans to use $148 million to defend the fragile site. I would use this as an argument for what can and is being done to protect fragile history.  

Rocca, Francis X. "While Pompeii Crumbles." WSJ. January 12, 2011. Accessed September 2, 2015.
     Rocca's article provides a summary of the outrage at the concept that Italy is too inept to care for it's cultural heritage. It heavily discusses the idea of "decentralizing" Pompeii, meaning that more of the site's control would be moved to investors. It's argued that directors are paralyzed because of arguments between the site and the government, but corporate influence is something many directors want to avoid. It includes many quotations and some images. I would use this as a discussion point on the best way to fund conservation programs.

 Tillio, Samantha. "Really People? "Ancient Rock #Art in Utah Is Being Destroyed by Target Shooters" via @hyperallergic #preservation Http://t.co/gGUyWUwrz3." Twitter. September 1, 2015. Accessed September 5, 2015.

     Tillio's tweet addressed an article written by Laura C. Mallonee about gun enthusiasts in Utah who have been destroying ancient rock art in Utah. Rock art is incredibly fragile because of it's exposure to the elements, but catching people in the act has been near impossible. The article hopes to plan a specific target-shooting area and use county land for that purpose, because educating the public has proved to be difficult. I would use this as an argument for conservation, because delicate history is being permanently erased.

 Wallace, Alia. "Papers from the Institute of Archaeology." Presenting Pompeii: Steps towards Reconciling Conservation and Tourism at an Ancient Site. February 14, 2013. Accessed September 11, 2015.

     Alia Wallace's research paper addresses the effects of mass tourism on Pompeii. It begins with a historical overview and goes on to present her research, which has observations on visitor interaction with the site and movement throughout the site. It has in-depth interviews to help better understand the "Pompeii experience". It has several images and sources to further information. I would use this as one of the arguments about how to handle the poor conservation of Pompeii. 

 Whalen, Timothy P.. "The Online Magazine of the Getty | The Getty Iris." The Getty Iris. January 8, 2015. Accessed September 5, 2015. 

     Whalen's article looks over thirty years of conservation work that the Getty has done. It is full of images with supporting text  describing the conservation project and talks about their successes over the years. It is not very in-depth, but still has information content. I would use this as an example of how conservation is a success. 

EDIT:

Unfortunately, I couldn't find anyone else who had the same citation style as my own, so I chose two citation styles at random. One was Laurence's post in ASME style and Michael's in IEEE-SA style. Reading the other two citation styles made me realize there are a lot of citation styles out there, and I was unfamiliar with these two. I feel as though my annotations could have been longer and more detailed compared to other's posts. I will probably have to go back through and flesh them out more before the QRG is due. For the bibliographies I looked at, they didn't seem too drastically different than mine.  However, I'm sure that there is a need for the slight distinctions between the styles.

Ideology in My Controversy

This blog post will discuss the information I've gathered about my controversy. It addresses basic discussion topics and gives the reader a more over-arching sense of the major groups in my controversy.


Who is involved in this controversy?

 A wide range of people are involved with the issue of conserving and protecting art. The most identifiable groups are conservators/those actively involved in the art world and people who don't understand the importance and will even actively destroy art (See Samantha De Tillio's tweet again).

Who are some of the major speakers within these groups? 

It seems as though the major figure heads of conservation tend to be associations and scholarly journals, like the Getty, the Archaeological Association, the Smithsonian, and other important associations. Most tend to focus on discussing further research to find better ways to protect art, especially art in the open that can be tampered with. 

The other group, those who are generally indifferent about art, is a good amount of the general public. There are not really any lead speakers against preserving art and architecture.

What kind of social/cultural/economic/political power does each group hold?

Museums can actually have a large amount of social and cultural sway. Those who tend to be invested in museums and art are often influential and wealthy people in society. Museums and scholarly groups are respected and listened to, because they are understood to be "intellectual", and therefore knowledgable.

However, the other group is much larger. It's easy to not grasp the importance of saving art, especially if you don't believe it relates to your daily life. Indifference can be a huge problem, and they have the economic power in numbers. Museum attendance helps fund conservation projects, and helps with the continuous and careful treatment of art. Low attendance means high risk for history not getting the care it deserves (Pompeii is a prime example).

What resources are available to each group?

Museums tend to have fundraisers, appeal to sponsors, social media outlets, etc. However, as I stated before, indifference from the general public hurts funding. The other group has some of the same resources. They can go to museums, read articles online, decide if they believe art is important (though they often don't think about it until something is destroyed). Museums are dependent on the general public, who has the large pool of funds that museums need.

What does each group value?

Museums and archaeological groups value saving art in the best way possible. Some of the general public absolutely supports this, but it's hard to give a general estimation of how the public feels. 

What counts as evidence for each group?

Conservators run tests, practice new methods, have strong guidelines for restoration, and can present a restored piece to the public in all it's "new" glory. The public could argue "the past is the past", "who cares about some art a dead guy painted years ago", "it doesn't affect me daily so I don't feel the need to donate to museums."

Is there a power differential?

Museums technically would have more "power", since there is a political implication with museums as they look for senators and people in power who can help put aside additional funds for programs. However, as I have stated before, museums still need regular attendance to cover day-to-day expenses as well. 

Is there any acknowledged common ground?

Art enthusiasts not directly affiliated with museums, and most people do understand that history is important and seeing art destroyed tends to upset everyone.

Is there any unacknowledged common ground?

It could be assumed that neither group really wants the destruction of art or historical sites. However it's the feeling that it's not a prominent issue for most people is a dividing factor.

Do the various groups listen to each other? Do they respond to direct claims made by each other? Or do they only talk to people who already hold the same position? 

I believe there is a large amount of listening and interaction between the two groups, even if it's not immediately recognizable. Museums tend to rotate and trade artifacts and collections, trying to raise interest. When structures collapsed in Pompeii, government officials even were involved in trying to get people to care and visit before it would be "too late". They have active campaigns, try to designate themselves as an important tourist spot, have fundraisers and do everything they can to interest people. A museum hosts an exhibit people like, it gains interest and they try to do similar exhibits. Even controversial exhibits tend to draw a large crowd (look at my "Eggs Benedict" post for example; it drew hundreds of extra guests). There has to be interaction, otherwise a museum won't survive. 

Evaluation of Social Media Sources

In this blog post I will look at the credibility of social media sources that discuss my controversy of the difficulties of good historical conservation, advances over the past 30 years, and how carelessness can destroy art.

Becker, Hallye "Screenshot of Samantha De Tillio's tweet" 09/05/15 via Twitter

Samantha De Tillio, anger over ancient rock art in Utah

• Credibility: This Twitter account belongs to Samantha De Tillio, a historian and curatorial assistant for Museum of Art and Design in New York. This increases her standing in understanding the art world. 
• Location: Tillio currently lives in New York City, which is quite a distance from Utah. However I don't think this discredits her, as she cites her distaste from a linked article about Utah. 
• Network: The account is followed by several curators and conservators, which shows her link to the art world. However, her account is unverified. 
• Content: This post refers to an article on hyperallergic.com. I'm unsure of the reliability of hyperallergic.com, and the author of the article is  Laura C. Mallonee, a M.A. in Cultural Reporting and Criticism from NYU and a B.F.A. in painting from Missouri State University.
• Contextual Updates: This Twitter account posts primarily about other historical advances and social issues. She clearly has a strong interest in these topics, but it is important to note that she doesn't have a strong standing in the field. 
• Age: This account was started in April of 2014. It hasn't been around for a very long time, which takes away some of it's reliability. 
• Reliability: Overall, I would say this source is moderately reliable at best. Samantha De Tillio is a fairly active participant in the art world, but her account is unverified. Her tweet links to an article on a website where the credibility could be questionable, though a little more research could determine it's reliability a little better. 

The Getty Iris's Google+ post, "Thirty Years of Advancing Conservation"

Becker, Hallye. "Screenshot of The Getty Iris", 9/05/15v via Google+

• Credibility: The blog belongs to the Getty, and the post is written by Timothy P. Whalen, the director of the Getty Conservation Institute. This is someone leading in the field of conservation, which adds a lot to his credibility. 
• Location: Whalen currently lives in California, and writes about the Getty which is also in California. His proximity and close relationship with his article does increase his and his writing's credibility. 
• Network: Whalen is the director of the Conservation Institute, so it can be assumed that he is heavily involved with other important conservators, art historians, and other valuable people in the field. 
• Content: The article reflects back on the achievements the Getty Conservation Institute has had over the past thirty years. Everything is properly cited and well written. 
• Contextual Updates: The Getty's blog is updated almost daily, and has many articles with various content. All papers are written by scholars, interns, volunteers, and others associated with the museum.The Getty is considered quite reliable in it's information, seeing as it is an important institution. 
• Age: The Getty's blog began in April of 2010. It has been around for about five years, which makes me believe most of the issues have been worked out and is fairly reliable. 
• Reliability: Overall, I would say this source is pretty reliable. Whalen is an active participant in the art world, has worked for The Getty since 1998 and is Director of Conservation. His article is on a website where the credibility is more than likely assured, and it seems likely that he is knowledgable and reliable for his field. 

Evaluation of Scholarly Sources

This post will address scholarly resources that I found that complement my controversy on the risk of Pompeii's collapse and the importance of conservation. The first one is an excerpt from an article titled "From the Trenches" in the journal Archaeology. The second article, "Preserving a Legacy" is less directly related to Pompeii, but is a journal that documents the process of conservation.

Ratcliff, Trey. "Storm Approaching Pompeii" July 28th, 2006 via Flickr
Attribution NonCommercial Sharealike License 

"From the Trenches"

It's purpose is to inform the reader on new tools and ways archaeology is being used to further analyze historic sites. It is published through the Archaeological Institute of America and is a peer-reviewed academic journal. It quotes major project directors and an archaeological superintendent. However, since this is only about a page in the magazine, no bibliography is immediately given. The author is Jarrett A Lobell, the Executive Editor at Archaeology. The intended audience is readers of the magazine, so people who care about archaeology and history. I found it through the JSTOR website. It's a very short article, but has some scholarly support.

The City Project, "David Alfaro's America Tropical". August 1st, 2005 via Flickr
Attribution NonCommercial Sharealike License 

"Preserving a Legacy"

The purpose of this scholarly journal is to document The Getty Conservation Institute's project to conserve the mural "América Tropical" by artist David Alfaro Siqueiro. The journal, titled the Getty Research Journal, is published though the University of Chicago Press on behalf of the J. Paul Getty trust. It has a list of sources cited, including writings about the mural, other papers written about the mural from separate authors, and papers about the type of imaging used on-site to help with the conservation process. The authors are Emily MacDonald-Korth and Leslie Rainer, both painting and wall-conservators for the Getty. The intended audience would be readers of the Getty Research Journal, so most likely people who care about the arts. I found it through the JSTOR scholarly database.

Evaluation of General Sources

This post will discuss two sources of information about the same controversy. One of the major discussions in the art history world is the preservation/conservation of art, and how lacking funds or know-how can destroy invaluable history. One of the more recent scandals regarding poor conservation and it's consequences is the treatment of the historic ruins of Pompeii. One discusses a collapse in 2011, while another discusses Pompeii's recovery from the 2010 and 2011 scandals. Two of the more reliable sources regarding the most recent uproar over Pompeii's continuous decline would be The Wall Street Journal's article titled "While Pompeii Crumbles" and the Smithsonian's "The Fall and Rise and Fall of Pompeii".

While Pompeii Crumbles 

Screenshot from "The Wall Street Journal", September 3rd via Wall Street Journal online

The website url is ".com" for the Wall Street Journal, which hints less credibility than a .gov or .org, simply because .com's tend to be able to be run by anyone. The Wall Street Journal tends to fluctuate in it's credibility, so the article should be taken with a grain of salt. The author is Francis X Rocca, the Vatican correspondent for the Wall Street Journal who also has worked for the National Catholic Reporter, the Catholic Herald, and other news groups (primarily in the religious field). The text was last updated January 12th, 2011. This means there is a risk that the information is outdated or incorrect, and all obvious links lead to other unrelated articles or are sponsored. There is one graphic, which is the image I have taken a screenshot of above. It depicts a destroyed structure from the House of Gladiators, which collapsed in 2011. Rocca seems critical of the Italian government, but manages to remain mostly informative and not overly one-sided. He recognizes both the Italian government's failings but also the lack of resources they've had to work with and failings on the museum's side as well. The museum probably would have the most to gain, since there is a central focus on lack of attendance (which means lack of funds.) As mentioned before, there seem to be no links citing other resources or information in the text of the article.

The Fall and Rise and Fall of Pompeii

Screenshot from "The Smithsonian Magazine", September 3rd, via The Smithsonian Magazine online

Again, the url here is a .com. However,  Smithsonian Magazine is more highly regarded than The Wall Street Journal. The author is Joshua Hammer. Hammer is a freelance correspondent who frequently writes for the Smithsonian, and has written for many magazines such as The New York Times, National Geographic and more. He has won several awards for his journalism and has written several well-acclaimed books. The page was last updated July of 2015, making the sources more likely to be accurate. Again, there is a lack of links to other pages within the text and only are links to other articles. The article is mostly informative, and does not seem to promote much aside from further conservation efforts for Pompeii. There are many pictures within the article, and many show pictures of the ruins or artifacts, including the one I took a screenshot of. The article does a good job of remaining unbiased, though the beautiful descriptions of the ruins benefit the museum as it paints a tantalizing picture of Pompeii and it's neighbor Herculaneum. There are no extra links leading to further readings, but frequently quotes and cites well-respected scholars.