Thanks to the article in the book, I was able to think about the video “How the art can help you analyze” from a different perspective. I learned how to better analyze given information and like in the case of art, take a deeper look beyond the obvious, analyze, and think about the rhetoric of the speech.
The three intellectual standards I would like to discuss are Significance, Logic, and Relevance. Questions bellow each of the categories in the book helped me out to better identify them.
The presenter Amy E. Herman in the video provided the ostensibly unimportant extent of art. Significance of the recording was in the illustration of the evidence, that art is not only seemingly visual pleasure, but can teach how to study affairs thoroughly, the detailed analysis generally, or formulation of the right questions. Specific examples of different kinds of occupations and the profit from learning how to analyze art were great ideas on how to bring near potential advantages of art to those, who don’t consider art as a way to improve personal skills.
The Logic, as the next intellectual standard was in the structure. The way how the content was put together, an example of the exploration of the art piece, and following examples of the situations when we can use gained patterns made complete sense. The natural flow from abstract thinking into practice was a logical process of the explanation and getting to the point.
Relevance is the last of the standards I would like to point out. The clear aim of understanding the main issue was flawless. All the examples were comprehensive and related to the topic.
All the noted aspects of analyzing art in the video were very important, helping to understand better the issue. It’s surely worth it to be aware of them.
Tereza, your post does a great job of highlighting features of the video that structure its underlying argument. Great work!