This is an opinion based essay, so I do not mind whatever essay side you end up choosing. PLEASE USE
TIMES NEW ROMAN SIZE 12 font
I am not asking for a mere summary of these two essays, but rather critical engagement with their arguments and methods. In other words, I am asking you to think about these two readings and form opinions, which you need to convey clearly. In order to do so, you should use the first person voice!.
Here are the points and questions to address in your essay:
Briefly summarize the general conclusions offered by each author concerning the significance
and meaning of the sculpture at La Venta. What are the similarities in their interpretations? What
are the key differences? Avoid quotes (using them only very sparingly) and instead synthesize
their ideas in your own words.
Do you feel that one of the authors is more interpretive than the other? Which one do you feel is
more interpretive, and why do you think this? Explain and give clear examples of when you think
an author may have gone too far with her/his interpretation or, by contrast, not far enough.
What are the respective strengths and weaknesses of each authors methods? When thinking
about this, remember our discussion (and the terminology we used) about how changes in
meaning can, sometimes, occur through space or over time. Do you think each author does an
adequate job of addressing how she/he is arriving at her/his interpretations and the methods
she/he is utilizing to do so? Does one author over–reach with their interpretations? Does one not
go far enough? Be specific.
Which essay do you feel is the most convincing and why do you think this? Make sure to tell me, at
the end of the essay, which one you prefer and why you prefer it over the other.
Here are the points and questions to address in your essay:
Briefly summarize the general conclusions offered by each author concerning the significance
and meaning of the sculpture at La Venta. What are the similarities in their interpretations? What
are the key differences? Avoid quotes (using them only very sparingly) and instead synthesize
their ideas in your own words.
Do you feel that one of the authors is more interpretive than the other? Which one do you feel is
more interpretive, and why do you think this? Explain and give clear examples of when you think
an author may have gone too far with her/his interpretation or, by contrast, not far enough.
What are the respective strengths and weaknesses of each authors methods? When thinking
about this, remember our discussion (and the terminology we used) about how changes in
meaning can, sometimes, occur through space or over time. Do you think each author does an
adequate job of addressing how she/he is arriving at her/his interpretations and the methods
she/he is utilizing to do so? Does one author over–reach with their interpretations? Does one not
go far enough? Be specific.
Which essay do you feel is the most convincing and why do you think this? Make sure to tell me, at
the end of the essay, which one you prefer and why you prefer it over the other.
I attached both readings.
Leave a Reply