Introductions in the Humanities

When you begin a paper, it’s important not only to introduce the topic that you’re writing about, but also the way you’ll be writing about it. Your papers in the humanities will almost always involve close readings of texts (whether they are stories, movies, paintings, etc.), so what better way than to start your paper immediate with a close reading of the text? This has numerous advantages:

• Your reader knows from the first sentence what you’re writing about

• Your reader knows the style of argument you’re pursuing right away without having to
wade through a semi-relevant hook or introduction

• You prove right away that your large-scale thesis is based on close observation of the text

• You’re beginning with something your reader doesn’t know because no one knows your personal interpretation of the text

For today’s in-class assignment, I want you to re-write your Feeder 3.2 introduction. Begin the paper with an image of one of the pieces you’re interpreting, and rather than starting with some kind of general statement begin by going straight into an analysis of the piece with no wind-up at all. Note these examples of literary journal articles that begin in just this way:

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/eighteenth-century_studies/v043/43.2.cleary.html

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/eighteenth-century_life/v034/34.1.weinbrot.html

Once you’ve written a sentence or two, show it to your group members and ask them if it sounds like analysis or a slow wind-up. If your group members approve, show it to me and I’ll tell you whether or not I think you’ve started strong. After I’ve approved your initial thought, revise the rest of your introductory paragraph, moving as quickly as possible from this analytic beginning to a concise statement of your thesis.

Some other helpful art history databases

Try the JSTOR database at the bottom of this list:

http://eresources.lib.unc.edu/eid/list.php?letter=J

(note: you may want to limit your search to articles by clicking the check box next to the word "article;" the other types of resources probably won't have the type of analytical arguments you'll need for Feeder 3.2)

Also try the Arts and Humanities Citation Index here:

http://eresources.lib.unc.edu/eid/subject.php?subjectName=Art+and+Architecture

Try entering some search terms on this database, and if you get too many results try limiting your search to the subject area ART and the document type ARTICLE on the left-hand sideboxes. Again, this will help you zero in on the kind of analytical articles that will be most useful to you.

April 13: Draft Workshop #2

1. For each of the draft’s body paragraphs, write a brief note explaining what this paragraph is trying to accomplish. What is its purpose in the world? What does it give the reader that s/he didn’t have before?

2. Look back at your answers to question 1. Are any of the paragraphs redundant? Do all of them relate clearly and directly back to the thesis statement? Re-read the Feeder 3.1 assignment. Taken together, do these paragraphs fulfill the demands of the prompt?

3. Imagine that this paper were read out loud at a conference or another venue in which a question-and-answer session would follow. Write down at least two questions that you could imagine readers might ask after they read this draft. Try not to think of these as critical or combative questions, but the kinds of questions one might ask if s/he were intrigued by the topic and wanted to know more.

Pre-Writing Feeder 3.2

Ask your partner to send you an image of the piece of art that s/he brought in on Thursday. Examine the piece for a few minutes… don’t start writing right away… spend some time looking at the piece and thinking about what kind of reaction it provokes.

Next, brainstorm a list of formal features that you recognize in the piece. By formal features I mean things that would fit into the “evidence” column on the chart we made on Thursday… i.e. things that are indisputable facts about the piece. Brainstorm a list of at least 15 of these features and post them to your partner’s wave.

After you have brainstormed these formal features, examine your list and re-examine the artwork. Next, brainstorm a list of claims you might make based on the evidence you found. Brainstorm at least 6 claims and post them to your partner’s wave. Group the larger and smaller claims; the larger claims might form the basis of an entire paper, while the smaller claims might serve as a paragraph topic sentence in support of a larger claim.

April 13: Draft Workshop #1

1. Paraphrase the author’s thesis statement. How does this statement put the two articles in conversation with one another? What do the articles have in common (i.e. approach, evidence, critical framework, etc.)? What do the two authors have to say that is different from one another?

2. Describe the argumentative style of each of the two articles that are summarized (you may need to look back at the original sources to answer this question). Does their argument hinge on formal features of the artist’s work, biographical details, or wider historical / cultural issues? What kinds of evidence does each author use to prove his or her point? How the differences in the two authors’ approaches be productive highlighted in the draft?

3. How does the author relate this conversation to your blog’s audience? What assumptions does s/he make about your audience’s interests? Are these assumptions appropriate? Propose a different reason why your audience might be interested in the debate summarized in the draft.