- 1)I thought that author gave enough background information to illustrate why Alewitz was the natural choice. The profile talks about his job as a factory and office worker before he became a painter. Also he has experience in creating murals for different kinds movements such as unions and local causes that would make him an effective choice including his education and working background. The strategy of letting the question float throughout the profiles makes you the reader decide for yourself based on the evidence you gather as you read is it true or not.
- 2) The profile creates a dominate impression of Alewitz by starting off talking about how he happiest when helping amateur painters with ideas for murals that could have impact on their community. Also he dropped out of school to join a movement which is a dominate impression that he follows what he believes in.
- 3)I believe that Buhle's evaluation of Alewitz's is that he wants citizens to have self pride in themselves and their work. Furthermore understanding history and learning from it by getting educated so they can have a better future.
Monday, October 24, 2011
Profile
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
While I disagree with the concept that he sufficiently responded to the question, I think you accurately expressed the ways that the author thought he was defending the statement he opened the profile with. I also really liked the sentence you ended the first question with, "the strategy of letting the question float throughout the profile makes you... true or not". I thought that was a well-worded sentence, and portrayed your idea well. I think that you could have written a little more on the topic, but your ideas were very good.
ReplyDeleteFor the second question, I think you could have gone in depth for what a dominant impression means a little more and express to me exactly what made the dominant impression, and what that dominant impression was to you. I didn't get a very good idea of what you believed the dominant impression to be.
The third question doesn't take the question into account well enough, I believe. I think more reflection on what the author was trying to say about the man and about the essay and the paintings would've helped your response. Overall, I think the last two responses weren't quite as understandable as your first, which I thought was very good.