Profiles: For Critical Inquiry

1.) I thought by the end of the profile, the author had given enough background information to illustrate why Alewitz was the natural choice. The profile highlights his background as a worker, activist, and proponent for education which gives him a lot of life experience to pull from when creating murals. The profiler also states "Everything under the sun is suitable for reworking as an Alewitz image". It seems Alewitz is able to sympathize and create a mural for many types of situations. I think this makes him an effective muralist because he is not stuck solely in his own experiences, but applies what he has learned from them to many different situations which might not directly correlate. I think the profiler does a good job portraying this when describing several specific murals Alewitz had painted. They deal with a variety of subjects but are linked by key characteristics like working conditions and education.

The effect of letting the question of why Alewitz was the natural choice challenges readers to decide on their own if the statement is accurate. We spend the rest of the profile gathering evidence for each side of the argument. In that sense it is an effective technique in making the audience read more closely and also prompting the readers to have their own opinions.

Overall, I did not like how the author posed that question at the beginning. The profile never referred back to that beginning mural of Cesar Chavez. Perhaps that was deliberate so that readers had to make conclusions on their own of whether he was the natural choice, but to me it seemed like setting up a question and never getting around to answer it.

2.) First off, I should admit I am not totally sure what the question is referring to as a "dominant impression", but I am taking it to mean that the profile creates a strong, defined perspective of who Alewitz is as a muralist. With that being said, I didn't feel like the profile created a dominant expression of Alewitz. I felt the profile wasn't always cohesive and often I wondered how we had gotten from one topic to another. In particular, I did not understand or like the flow in paragraphs 7 through 10. It goes from discussing the places/movements Alewitz had covered to his artistic inspirations to the process of making a mural. Without the annotations I don't know if I would have fully understood the profiler's thought process moving through those few paragraphs. I felt that because I was sometimes questioning the structure of the profile instead of focussing on how it applied to Aleqitz, it took away from his "dominant impression".

3.) Buhle evaluates Alewitz's murals as reminders to citizens that they must play an active role in the education and furthering of themselves while also having pride in what they do. I think the profile did prepare readers to understand this because it explained several specific murals and thus gave lots of people ways to identify with them. There was the Chavez mural in Oxnard, the food worker one in Austin, and the civil rights one in New Market. Each of these had different purposes and concerns being depicted, but shared Buhle's evaluation of what Alewitz's murals "boldly insist".

Rhetorical Analysis Project

The object of my analysis is the Rotunda in the State Capitol building. I knew I wanted to choose something in the capitol building because it is such an important part of Madison, literally (it's huge and a focus of the city) and culturally (important political demonstrations and decisions are often associated with the capitol). I selected the Rotunda specifically within the capitol because I thought there would many aspects of it to analysis -- it's spatial significance, the components of it's murals, etc. I also picked it because I think it has an interesting history.

As mentioned briefly above, it is influencing people in it's political importance. For example, during the Union protests last year, the Rotunda was a physical and symbolic gathering point for people to come together and voice their opinions. I think it also influences people in a way that is less controversial. I can remember a field trip my 4th grade class took to the Capitol and the one part of the building that stands out in my memory is the Rotunda. It's size and beauty are also influential to people and can leave lasting memories.

One question I have about RA and the Rotunda is what aspects of it do I focus in on to analyze? There are so many different components to it (the murals, the dome, the arches) I am worried that my analysis won't be focused and coherent. Also, is there a way to tie it's history into the analysis? Should I touch on the context of the Rotunda or focus solely on the physical make-up of it?

AARP and Rhetorical Analysis

Rhetorical analysis involves critical reading forms of rhetoric in an attempt to understand how the author has tried to influence an audience through language. Jack Selzer describes two types of analysis – textual and contextual. Textual analysis involves focusing solely on the text and looking at things like the writer’s word choice, format, and tone. Contextual analysis involves understanding the environment in which the rheotic was created in order to understand how that has influenced the author. Using rhetorical analysis on a piece of writing “can offer you additional perspective and understanding”.

The interest group website I choose to analyze is the AARP (American Association of Retired Persons). The organization is for people 50 and older and they are actively involved in lobbying Congress, providing information through magazines and bulletins, and giving member products, services and discounts. Using rhetorical analysis on the website is especially interesting because the AARP is considered to be one of the most influential interest groups in Washington. Knowing that ahead of time, it is interesting to look at how, or if, that political influence is present in their website.  It is also important to note that AARP is a membership organization, so they are also selling something through their website.

To get a better understanding of AARP, I concentrated on analyzing the “About Us” information pages. Selzer probably would have mentioned the website’s arrangement of dispositio. The initial About Us page is very brief, less then 3 paragraphs. At the end of it, it gives users an option to Read more. The left hand side bar breaks down “Who We Are” into many categories like History, Our Executive Team, and Diversity at AARP. I think they keep the initial introduction brief as a way to get user’s initial interest. A long, non-categorized webpage would lose reader interest. By categorizing the information and allowing readers to choose the link they want to read more about the web page, the website elicits interest and allows users to find information they are looking for easier. It also works to draw users deeper into the website because they must click numerous links to find more information.

AARP also relies on ethos to persuade users. It’s history section talks about how the organization has been well established for over 50 years. It discusses its leadership and their expertise to establish their own. It also establishes ethos through by listing their political achievements from the last year. They give concrete examples of what they have done in order to win people over.

This is just a brief analysis of the website. An interesting thing to note about the website overall is that it does not come across as blatantly trying to sell or persuade users. The website appears like one you’d expect for a magazine. The home page has links to sections like “Food”, “Travel”, and “Relationships”. There are quizzes and games you can take and play on the website. While the content of these is definitely geared to an older crowd, the first feel of the website is not going for an obvious sell.

Here is a link to the website.