Patricia Muench

Prof. Saddler

10/26/08

Making it Today’s World

            Do you remember the time in school when you learned how to write an essay? Do you remember how your teacher said to read it over at least two times before you handed the assignment in? The point that your teacher was trying to make was that you do not notice certain things the first time you look at something. You have to look it over at least twice to make sure you noticed everything. This is the same concept that people should use when they go to a museum. Museums have many different pieces of art to view, which makes some people want to move around a museum fast. However, when you go to a museum, people should go through the museum twice in order to have the full experience. A perfect example of a museum that you might not notice everything the first time around while viewing it is the National Art Gallery in Washington D.C. Within the National Art Gallery and the NCLC 130 group, two main concepts that were discussed were sound levels and boundaries within the art.

            In the National Art Gallery, there are all different levels of sound. Deipeveen even says, “Then you climb the worn, grand marble staircase. Inside the galleries, the sound level drops dramatically. It is the hush of churches and libraries, and it makes you peculiarly aware of how your steps echo between the highly polished hardwood or marble floors and the high ceilings.” (Deipeveen 2). This relates to the National Art Gallery in the sense that in the west building, the east building, and the common area in between the two buildings, there are different sound levels. When going through the east building, sound changes were not that noticeable because it did not change much from the noisy common area. Sound changes were only drastically noticeable when going into the west building. This was what was noticed the first time around when viewing the museum.

            Another topic that came about while going through the museum was about the boundaries within art. Zerubavel clearly states an example of this situation by saying, “The lines we draw vary not only across cultures and historical periods but also within cultures at a given point in history.” (Zerubavel 66) This quote relates to the museum because even though the museum was separated into two main sections, within those sections were other sections. For instance, on the ground floor in the east building, there was the section of modern art. Within the modern art in that section, it was also divided by colored art and black-and-white art. This difference was fairly easy to notice when viewing this specific part of the museum. In the west building, there was mostly classical art. Even though this section was made up of classical art, there was also a division of skin color at the beginning. For example, at the entrance to the west building, there are pictures of white people, including George Washington. Then, there were also pictures and some tiny sculptures of Native Americans. These boundaries were all very noticeable the first time around when viewing the museum.

            Viewing the museum the second time around, a few other things were pointed out. The two buildings were divided up by modern art and classical art, but there was much more to it. The second time around, one concept that was pointed out was that the sound levels also relate to the theme of the museum dividing modern art from classical art. With the classical art being in the west building, the sound level was dramatically low. However, with the modern art, there was a lot more talking involved throughout those galleries. At this time around, it was noticeable that the sound level also related to that specific time period around when the art was created. In today’s society, there is much more noise and talking involved in public areas. Therefore, it would make sense that the aura around that area of art would match that time period. In the west building, it was at a very low noise level. It might have been because people were shocked at how different the works of art were, or that it just did not appeal to their taste. Whatever the case was, the sound level was low. A good explanation for this was because the entrances to each building set a statement as to how sound should be treated. In the east building, when you first walk in, you wouldn’t be able to tell that it was a museum, unless someone told you because it looked like the inside of a mall. Going into the West Building and up the stairs, you walked into a huge area with pillars and a fountain. It was such an amazing sight to see for everyone. The sound levels changed drastically going into the west building, and that might be a good explanation from the difference between their entrances.

            In boundaries within art, it explains to us a little bit about the time period that the art was from. In the west building, not only did it have paintings, but a beautiful courtyard and some sculptures too. When you think about it, that was what was important at the time. Scenery was a big part of classical art. Viewing this area a second time makes you think about the strategy behind why certain pieces of art were placed together. When classical art was made, as mentioned in the first time around, Native Americans were a major topic that was discussed among Americans. When people came over to America, Native Americans played a major role when America was first discovered. So that was why the two pictures of Native Americans were placed where they were in the museum. In the east building, including more detail in the art is a major part of modern art. For the colorful section of the ground floor, there was a lot of detail in each piece of art. One piece of art included Mickey Mouse. Another piece of art was a plane that was put into the middle of that same area. Both play major roles in society today, which obviously tells us about the time period. Another part of that section was the area of black-and-white paintings. This showed the other side of modern art and today’s society by portraying that people also should be required to put more thought into what a simple piece of art represents. The black-and-white art were just a few lines on each piece of art and that is all. Many people did not understand this, but it was because this area just required a deeper thought process, rather than a visual process. Overall, the boundaries within art gave us a deeper understanding of what society it like during the time periods in which the art was made. Also, viewing the building the second time around truly pointed out the explanation behind when any piece of art was made.

            The National Art Gallery was a great place to portray the concepts of sound levels and boundaries within art. To notice everything in this museum, it was required that you view each section of the museum at least twice. This museum truly represented what teachers try to tell us about seeing something different each time you view something. This was the way to get a deeper understanding about each piece of art. The National Art Gallery met all of the standard traditions of any museum, but also made it unique from every other museum at the same time. Going through the museum, you were definitely able to figure out the stories behind past American culture. People definitely had to attempt to notice what they would not normally notice in order to get the full experience of the National Art Gallery.

Works Cited Page

Diepeveen, Leonard, “Art Museums: Organizers of Culture, “in Diepeveen, Leonard and Timothy van Laar, Art with a Difference: Looking at Difficult and Unfamiliar Art,             McGraw Hill, 2000, pp. 1-33

Zerubavel Eviatar, “The Social Lens,” in The Fine Line: Making Distinctions in Everyday Life,     Chicago, 1990, pp. 61-80

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Patricia Muench

Prof. Lecker

10/5/08

Analysis of an Argument: “The Naked Source” by Linda Simon

The Assignment I am Most Proud Of

            “In “The Naked Source”, Linda Simon argues that children only write about history, and they don’t write history… Her main argument is that the students need to experience history for themselves when learning about history.” This is the best thesis I have probably ever written. The analysis of an argument essay that I wrote was probably the scariest essay because I thought that it was absolutely horrible at first. When I saw the grade of an A/A- on my paper, it was the best day ever because I was so proud of that grade. I worked hard on the paper, but I was scared that it wasn’t going to be good enough. Introduction paragraphs are always the hardest for me, which made that grade even more accomplished. The analysis of an argument was an essay I truly felt that I wrote well not just because of the grade, but because of all the better writing skills I learned and applied in the essay.

            Creating structure and organization in an essay has always been something that I have had to work on. Understanding the story is the first step towards writing an analysis of an argument, and its structure. To do that, I read the story twice all the way through. What helped with understanding the story of “The Naked Source” is that present day people can relate to the story. When Simon said, “Students do not know history. Students should learn history.”, I definitely agreed with the statement (Simon 391). I was very proud of mixing this quote into the essay because I was able to explain it afterwards. Something that I needed to work on was to show and not just tell, which is what I did. After the quote, I used some explanations like, “She feels as if the students lack a sense of historical-mindedness. She argues that students aren’t given the opportunity to expand their curiosity.” This is something, up until now, that was a weakness of mine. This type of explanation is a major accomplishment of this course for me. Transitions were also much smoother for me in this essay. I tried to relate each paragraph to first-hand experiences, second-hand experiences, and teachers’ opinions. Structure was one of my proudest accomplishments in the essay for me.

            Another important aspect of an essay is evidence. In the essay, I was most proud of all the evidence that I included within the essay. I was able to give information that was totally relevant to the essay without it feeling like “fluff” information. In class, we also learned how to introduce evidence in an essay and what qualities evidence should have. We learned that evidence such as personal experiences, historical or scientific research, direct quotes, and maybe even use a movie.  Throughout the essay, I used a few quotes from Simon. Even if the quotes were short such as, “I found it!” or “But what does it mean?”, they were all relevant to the essay (Simon 393).  “A recommendation that Simon gives to teachers is that they should have the students’ work read and evaluated not only for the facts that they have managed to compile.” I was also able to use quotes like this one without putting it into an exact quote. Something that was challenging was to not fill up my whole paper with quotes, but with a variety of evidence.

            Within this essay, I was extremely proud of my improvement and accomplishments. I have grown so much since the beginning of NCLC 110, and it showed through this essay that was near the end of the course. Whether it was an introduction paragraph or a variety of evidence, my organization and structure have improved so much. This essay for me was truly an accomplishment because it was the culmination of everything that I learned throughout the course. That grade of an A/A- was well deserved in my opinion because hard work really does pay off.

4

Back to NCLC 130 Page