Workshop Questions

Does it meet the general structure for an academic conversation?

                Academic Problem → Analysis of Art Object → How Analysis Informs Academic Problem

                Question About Art Object → Analysis of Scholarship → How Analysis Informs your Questions

                Question → Common Answer → Close Study Helps Us Create a Better Answer

Is the author’s question/problem interesting?

                Is it an actual question/problem, or does it feel forced?

                Do you care about the question/problem?

Does the author set up the conditions for which you might care?

Does the author’s argument help us answer the question or understand the problem?

                Is looking at the sources (art object or academic) a useful way to answer their question? Why

                Is there a better way to go about answering their question?

                Is this way of answering the question interesting, unique, or pleasurable?

Do they cite sources effectively?

                Is it clear when the author is using someone else’s thoughts?

                Is it clear who this other person is?         

Is it clear why the audience should care what this other person says?

Does the author do interesting and important work with quotes, paraphrases, and summaries?

Is this text enjoyable to read?

                Does the author find a way to preserve her voice in this genre?

                How might the author better stick to her brand?

Is the layout easy to read and consistent?

Groups for Workshop 6

1. Group 1
•  "It's Not You, It's Me"
• If You're Reading This, It's Not Too Late
• Natural Selections
2. Group 2
•  Wake Me Up When The Semester Ends
• My Parent's Eight-Tracks
• Almost Alternative
3. Group 3
•  Social Media Superstars
• The Pursuit of Hippieness
• Nu Metal Central
4. Group 4
•  The Deep End
• 1960s Rock
• The Golden Age
5. Group 5
• If You Are . . .
•  Background Music: Soundtracks and Scores
• Rap and R&B with Risky B
6. Group 6
• Best of Both Worlds
• Maroon 5 Mania 
• Second is the Best
7. Group 7
• No Cover Charge
• Destined to Be The Queen
•  My Parents' Playlist
8. Group 8 
• Millennials
• Railroaded
• Fairly Local

R.R. 11/20

Please Watch this video:

Please Answer these questions:

1. What is the overall emotion evoked from this video? Explain how the various elements listed below function in creating this emotional feeling:
1. Image
2. Sound
3. Gesture/Body Movement
2. Now look up the lyrics to this song. Ignoring the music for a moment, what is the pathos of the lyrics? Consider the following questions:
1. To whom is the narrator speaking?
2. Summarize the narrator's message to the speaker.
3. Does the narrator use honorific or pejorative language, and if so to what effect?
4. Does the argument reinforce, challenge, or degrade any of your values or beliefs?
3. What is the relationship between the pathos of the lyrics and the pathos of the music (discordant, complimentary, contradictory, symbiotic?) 
4. What is the relationship between the pathos generated by the music and lyrics and Outkast's ethos both as a band as a fake band created for this video?
5. Does answering these questions at all change your engagement with this music? 

R.R. 11/18

Please Watch This Video:

Please Answer these  Questions:

1. What is the claim in this song. Please quote directly, unless it's implicit.
   
2. What is the evidence/data that Ronson and Mars present to support their claim? Please quote directly, unless it's implicit.
   
3. What is the warrant that connects the evidence/data to the claim? Please quote directly, unless its implicit.
   
4. Is this model of argumentation deductive or inductive? Please support your answer.
   
5.  Is the "pathway of thought" utilized here effective given both the actual audience of this piece and the audience that Ronson and Mars invent for this song? Hint: you need to tell me something about both of those audiences to appropriately answer the question.
   
6. How would you describe Ronson and Mars's ethos?
   
7. What is the relationship between ethos and logos?

R.R. 11/16

Please listen to this song.

Please answer the following questions:

1. How does the band demonstrate the following elements of Aristotelian rhetoric to their audience?
1. Knowledge--
2. Goodwill--
3. Virtue--
2. Describe the relationship the band is trying to create with their audience. Provide a different answer for each of the following audiences: 
1. Actual Audience
2. Invented Audience
3. Future Audience
3. Describe the band's relationship to history and culture please provide a specific answer for each of the following  questions:
1. To what/whom is the band opposed?
2. To what/whom does the band align?
4. Considering your answers to the above questions--and incorporating other elements that you may not have discussed --do you consider Against Me! to have an effective ethos for their audience, time, values, and moment? Please explain your answer in depth.

R.R. 11/13

1. What is the explicit exigence for the piece you are analyzing? Remember exigence is not simply what the author is writing about but the situation/problem in the world to which she is responding. 
   
2. For the author (I mean what is explicitly stated, not simply your interpretation) how is dealing with "No Church in the Wild" or the Peruvian Punk Underground a fitting response to this exigence?
   
3. For the author what do we learn from either reading "No Church in the Wild" through Nietzsche or from considering the recording and distribution practices of Narcosis. I want to know what we learn from the reading itself, separate from its relationship to the author's stated exigence.
   
4. How does the author connect what he learned from his object of study back to his stated exigence and how does the lesson solve/complicate/enlighten the initial problem?
   
5. Make sure to put all of your group members names on the bottom of your response.  

ICA 11/11

Bailey uses philosophy and scholarship to understand the art object that is "No Church in the Wild." Now that we have reviewed Bailey's argument, do you think the move to use Nietzsche to read Kanye was effective? In other words, does the argument make you rethink the video, it's message, it's purpose, or its aesthetic value? Keep in mind that Bailey's overarching purpose was to argue for the value of philosophy by demonstrating how it can help us gain "a broader understanding of something." He wants to demonstrate that philosophy is a tool that can enable us to "unpack" art objects.