Morality and Politics of Justice
Artist Statement
Nick Tarasewicz
For my project, I delved into the realm of standardized testing and No Child Left Behind (NCLB) because of the high influence they have in the lives of students, teachers, and educational institutions. Personally, I believe that standardized testing assesses skills that will not aid students outside the school walls. Life is not a multiple choice question. I propose that we reform standardised tests to measure student’s critical thinking and problem solving abilities, thus better preparing them with the tools needed to survive life.
The symbolism that I used in my art piece is three cups and three balls, each cup representing an answer choice on a test, and each ball as the appropriate answer. The idea is that the viewer would be asked to follow the balls and guess their location, but by the end of the demonstration a lemon would be found under each of the cups. This represents how standardized testing is encouraging students to develop the wrong skills (the balls) and it won’t prepare them for life (the lemons).
The rhetorical devices used in this visual piece are ethos, pathos, and logos. I used ethos by metaphorically dressing up as NCLB and the quote integrated at the finale; pathos by playing a very deceptive game that sucks in the viewer’s emotional attention; and logos was used with the statistics in my script. The overall tone of my presentation is deceptive and “above-it-all” due to me playing the role of NCLB. I have complete control and power over the viewer, and no matter what they say, they’re going to be wrong. However, when the lemons appear underneath the cups they’ll recognize the metaphor that testing doesn’t prepare for the surprises of life. The tone shifts from opaque to revealing.
Artistically, I chose to use this game of “cups and balls” for my visual piece because I wanted to do something new that others haven’t done before. I also thought this game appropriately represents the perspective presented through my Op-Ed. I labeled the cups “A” “B” and “C” in order to better convey the sense of a test, and I dressed up as NCLB in order to convey a sense of helplessness to the viewer.
I feel that the large amount of effort devoted to my “game” is effectively conveyed by the refinement of my actions and script. I refined my piece by practicing non-stop on the choreography to make it as seamless as possible. If I had more time, I would have recorded my presentation and edited it in a manner similar to a political campaign ad, allowing for a deeper integration of pathos. I am proud of how my presentation came out in that it appropriately conveys my perspective on justice to the audience and a polished and refined manner.
Nick Tarasewicz
For my project, I delved into the realm of standardized testing and No Child Left Behind (NCLB) because of the high influence they have in the lives of students, teachers, and educational institutions. Personally, I believe that standardized testing assesses skills that will not aid students outside the school walls. Life is not a multiple choice question. I propose that we reform standardised tests to measure student’s critical thinking and problem solving abilities, thus better preparing them with the tools needed to survive life.
The symbolism that I used in my art piece is three cups and three balls, each cup representing an answer choice on a test, and each ball as the appropriate answer. The idea is that the viewer would be asked to follow the balls and guess their location, but by the end of the demonstration a lemon would be found under each of the cups. This represents how standardized testing is encouraging students to develop the wrong skills (the balls) and it won’t prepare them for life (the lemons).
The rhetorical devices used in this visual piece are ethos, pathos, and logos. I used ethos by metaphorically dressing up as NCLB and the quote integrated at the finale; pathos by playing a very deceptive game that sucks in the viewer’s emotional attention; and logos was used with the statistics in my script. The overall tone of my presentation is deceptive and “above-it-all” due to me playing the role of NCLB. I have complete control and power over the viewer, and no matter what they say, they’re going to be wrong. However, when the lemons appear underneath the cups they’ll recognize the metaphor that testing doesn’t prepare for the surprises of life. The tone shifts from opaque to revealing.
Artistically, I chose to use this game of “cups and balls” for my visual piece because I wanted to do something new that others haven’t done before. I also thought this game appropriately represents the perspective presented through my Op-Ed. I labeled the cups “A” “B” and “C” in order to better convey the sense of a test, and I dressed up as NCLB in order to convey a sense of helplessness to the viewer.
I feel that the large amount of effort devoted to my “game” is effectively conveyed by the refinement of my actions and script. I refined my piece by practicing non-stop on the choreography to make it as seamless as possible. If I had more time, I would have recorded my presentation and edited it in a manner similar to a political campaign ad, allowing for a deeper integration of pathos. I am proud of how my presentation came out in that it appropriately conveys my perspective on justice to the audience and a polished and refined manner.
Reflection:
In this project we delved into the world of moral philosophies and the notion of justice. We began by studying the works and life of Henry David Thoreau, including his transcendentalist beliefs; the attitude that human prowess isn’t limited to physical confinements. In short, transcendentalists believe that society and its institutions ultimately corrupt the purity of the individual. They have faith that people are at their best when truly "self-reliant" and independent.
We proceeded to study and contrast the moral philosophies of Libertarianism, Utilitarianism, John Rawls’ Justice as Fairness, and Deontology, examining how they relate to creating a “just” society. This examination was accomplished by reading Justice: What’s the Right Thing to Do? by Michael Sandel, the Harvard University Professor of Government. The book talked about how each of these philosophies is applied to certain moral dilemmas and the justice system. Libertarians believe in the rights of the individual so that as long as no harm is caused to others, one may do as they please without government interference. Utilitarianism focuses on the greater good of society through cost-benefit-analysis, dismissing the lives of the few in order to protect society as a collective. John Rawls’ philosophy focuses on complete equality and that regulations should be created through a “Veil of Ignorance” were all forms of prejudice and personal bias are ignored. Finally, Deontology values human life above all else, and that one’s actions are only considered morally just if done for the “right” reasons without ulterior motive or prospective gain.
We then looked at the concept of rhetoric, or the use of words and images to persuade an audience. We also briefly studied the use of logical fallacies in writing and political campaigns and how they are used to detract the viewer from the true meaning of the argument. Finally, each student selected a prevalent issue of political controversy and developed what they believed to be the most “just” solution based upon the aforementioned philosophes and researched evidence. The findings were conveyed in an Op-Ed writing piece as well as in a form of visual rhetoric (e.g., propaganda poster, advertisement, video, etc.).
The most powerful lesson I gained through this project is understanding the power of concise writing. I tend to be very long-worded in writing pieces. The first draft of my Op-Edwas almost 3,000 words! The desired limit was 750 to 1000 words. The amount of evidence in support of my perspective was overwhelming, and I included almost all of it. The paper was so convoluted with evidence it was nearly impossible to derive the proposed solution to my issue. Over the course of a couple of days, I worked through my entire paper, eliminating everything that didn’t specifically support my thesis. The result was 783 words! When I re-read my Op-Ed, I found that my argument was a thousand times more convincing with fewer words. This editing taught me that there is a true beauty in simplicity.
By looking at the project expectations, my paper’s strength is in sentence craft, proofreading, rhetoric, and the use of evidence: it is weakest in philosophical content. When focusing on reducing the length of my Op-Ed, I received many peer critiques. These critiques enhanced my own proofreading refinements.
I created a total of eight drafts of my paper. With each of these drafts my sentences became more concise and the use of evidence became stronger. However, I did struggle in relating my topic to a specific philosophical content, and felt uncertain as to how to seamlessly tie everything together in the end. I could have rewritten my Op-Ed by focusing the philosophical content and then built my evidence around it. This would have allowed me to find evidence to support my philosophy instead of finding a philosophy to support my evidence, which is an easier process by far.
If I were provided with another week to toil on this project, I would focus on further revising the script for my visual presentation piece. Due to the fact that I spent so much time revising my Op-Ed, I somewhat neglected certain aspects of my presentation. It would have been stronger if I had revised my script to include specific evidence from my paper, not only creating a stronger rhetorical appeal, but also further connecting it back to my paper. I would have liked to obtain a few more peer critiques to see if there was anything that I had missed while proofreading.
In conclusion, this project has challenged my definition of what justice is and how society combats issues of controversy. In the future, I would like to further delve into the realm of moral dilemmas and how different philosophies go about resolving them.
In this project we delved into the world of moral philosophies and the notion of justice. We began by studying the works and life of Henry David Thoreau, including his transcendentalist beliefs; the attitude that human prowess isn’t limited to physical confinements. In short, transcendentalists believe that society and its institutions ultimately corrupt the purity of the individual. They have faith that people are at their best when truly "self-reliant" and independent.
We proceeded to study and contrast the moral philosophies of Libertarianism, Utilitarianism, John Rawls’ Justice as Fairness, and Deontology, examining how they relate to creating a “just” society. This examination was accomplished by reading Justice: What’s the Right Thing to Do? by Michael Sandel, the Harvard University Professor of Government. The book talked about how each of these philosophies is applied to certain moral dilemmas and the justice system. Libertarians believe in the rights of the individual so that as long as no harm is caused to others, one may do as they please without government interference. Utilitarianism focuses on the greater good of society through cost-benefit-analysis, dismissing the lives of the few in order to protect society as a collective. John Rawls’ philosophy focuses on complete equality and that regulations should be created through a “Veil of Ignorance” were all forms of prejudice and personal bias are ignored. Finally, Deontology values human life above all else, and that one’s actions are only considered morally just if done for the “right” reasons without ulterior motive or prospective gain.
We then looked at the concept of rhetoric, or the use of words and images to persuade an audience. We also briefly studied the use of logical fallacies in writing and political campaigns and how they are used to detract the viewer from the true meaning of the argument. Finally, each student selected a prevalent issue of political controversy and developed what they believed to be the most “just” solution based upon the aforementioned philosophes and researched evidence. The findings were conveyed in an Op-Ed writing piece as well as in a form of visual rhetoric (e.g., propaganda poster, advertisement, video, etc.).
The most powerful lesson I gained through this project is understanding the power of concise writing. I tend to be very long-worded in writing pieces. The first draft of my Op-Edwas almost 3,000 words! The desired limit was 750 to 1000 words. The amount of evidence in support of my perspective was overwhelming, and I included almost all of it. The paper was so convoluted with evidence it was nearly impossible to derive the proposed solution to my issue. Over the course of a couple of days, I worked through my entire paper, eliminating everything that didn’t specifically support my thesis. The result was 783 words! When I re-read my Op-Ed, I found that my argument was a thousand times more convincing with fewer words. This editing taught me that there is a true beauty in simplicity.
By looking at the project expectations, my paper’s strength is in sentence craft, proofreading, rhetoric, and the use of evidence: it is weakest in philosophical content. When focusing on reducing the length of my Op-Ed, I received many peer critiques. These critiques enhanced my own proofreading refinements.
I created a total of eight drafts of my paper. With each of these drafts my sentences became more concise and the use of evidence became stronger. However, I did struggle in relating my topic to a specific philosophical content, and felt uncertain as to how to seamlessly tie everything together in the end. I could have rewritten my Op-Ed by focusing the philosophical content and then built my evidence around it. This would have allowed me to find evidence to support my philosophy instead of finding a philosophy to support my evidence, which is an easier process by far.
If I were provided with another week to toil on this project, I would focus on further revising the script for my visual presentation piece. Due to the fact that I spent so much time revising my Op-Ed, I somewhat neglected certain aspects of my presentation. It would have been stronger if I had revised my script to include specific evidence from my paper, not only creating a stronger rhetorical appeal, but also further connecting it back to my paper. I would have liked to obtain a few more peer critiques to see if there was anything that I had missed while proofreading.
In conclusion, this project has challenged my definition of what justice is and how society combats issues of controversy. In the future, I would like to further delve into the realm of moral dilemmas and how different philosophies go about resolving them.