Derrel 12i - Test prep: Rhetorical choices (Edited 7-11-19 13:40)

The speaker in the PrageU video describes classical art as something that is Profound, Inspiring, and Beautiful. He defines classical art as something that inspires people and is objectively beautiful. He then compared classical art to modern art, by comparing artworks such as Girl in the Pearl Earring and Mona Lisa, to an actual rock and a female police officer peeing in the floor. The purpose of this comparison is to paint classical art as the superior form of art compared to its modern counterpart.

Rhetorical Analysis Essay:
Not all modern art are garbage and worthless, art should not only be judged by their visuals, as there is more to the art than just its physical form.

Context is key when judging the worth of a piece of art. One of the arguments that Robert Florczak made is how a piece of rock shouldn't be worth $10 Million. However, we need to acknowledge the context behind the artwork. The "stone" that Florczak referenced is actually named "levitating mass". The point of the artwork is to not stare at the rock, we were meant to stand below it. When we're realizing a rock which weighs many tons is directly above us, it gives the artwork value, since it is a surreal experience.

Another argument made by Florczak is how the usage of dung, or elephant dung in a painting of Mary holds no artistic value as it is just being inserted there as a shock factor. However, when looking into the context of the artwork, the usage of elephant dung due to it being tied to Zimbabwe culture. According to the culture of Zimbabwe, are powerful creatures and represents fertility. Therefore, the act of inserting elephant dung in a painting holds a symbolic meaning, as the artist wishes to use it to represent the fertility in Mary.

Next, Florczak argues that a sculpture of a policewomen squatting and urinating is nothing but a piece of junk, and is something that shouldn't be displayed in an art museum. However, the argument made by Florczak only acknowledges visuals of said art. What he did not realize is the context and meaning behind it. The art of a policewomen squating and urinating was made to show how even police, a force who suppress riots and demonstrations are people too. The artwork represents that fact by showing the police urinating, something that all humans do.

Lastly, in his video, there are numerous misinformation present, such as claiming the painting of Mary uses a cow dung instead of an elephant dung, and taking the quotes of art historian Jakob Rosenberg out of context by quoting “Quality in art is not merely a matter of personal opinion but to a high degree… objectively traceable.”, instead of the real quote being "“‘Artistic value’ or ‘quality’ in a work of art is not merely a matter of personal opinion but to a high degree a matter of common agreement among artistically sensitive and trained observers and to a high degree objectively traceable.” – This could either mean that Florczak is misinformed, or is deliberately changing the context of the quote to support his narrative.

In conclusion, an art piece shouldn't only be judged based on its visuals, as understanding the context, and the information related to an art piece is key in determining its overall value.

So your thesis therefore is going to be something like:

The author argues, contra Florczak, that modern art should not only be judged by their visuals, as there is more to the art than just its physical form, this is accomplished through explaining the context and deeper meanings of the art works.

The rhetorical analysis essay is asking you the question: *how does the author prove his/her thesis?*

Be careful about the first few lines of essays because 'you never get a second chance to make a first impression' as they say: by pasting your essay into Word, or proofreading it carefully, you could catch this from the first line:

"Not all modern art are garbage..."