[2016 LA Club] Week 23

[literally lauren]

Howdy all, here's a longer piece to test your selectivity again. And just as a heads up, this will be the penultimate post for the L.A. Club this year (with one more posted next Wednesday on 28/9) because I'm planning something else for the month of October.
(It's super secret and totally never been done before except for last year and the year before that and also earlier this year )



Background Information:
The Melbourne Lord Mayor Robert Doyle recently announced that the work of famous anonymous street artist known as 'Banksy' would be featured in an upcoming exhibition. The following piece published in The Age is responding to this announcement.

Street art exhibition is ridiculous

Melbourne loves its street art. We know that from the regularity our stencil-adorned laneways are used to promote the city in tourism ads and fashion spreads. Not so long ago, Lonely Planet even claimed that Melbourne's street art was now one of Australia's biggest tourist attractions.

So now comes the news that Melbourne will play host to one of the world's most famous street artists, the ubiquitous-yet-elusive Banksy, whose work will be housed in one of our premier cultural institutions in Federation Square later this year.

Banksy may have once been a clever and mildly subversive street artist, but this show surely signals a steep descent from what was once considered outsider fringe art into the league of mainstream acceptability.

The news of the forthcoming Art of Banksy exhibition has been welcomed by mayor Robert Doyle as a "major coup" for the city. After all, Melbourne is internationally feted for its own home-grown street art scene, and has played host to some famously desecrated works by Banksy himself.

But since when is Doyle a friend of street art? Surely the approval of a known critic of street art like Doyle is more like a kiss of death. This is the same guy who earlier this year has gone on the record calling for a tightening of graffiti laws so anyone caught even carrying a spray can could be charged with a criminal offence if they can be linked to graffiti.

Moreover, Doyle has spoken in the tabloid media in support of "New York-style" no-tolerance policies where "vandals" are imprisoned for up to a year and police have the power to issue multiple charges for each piece of graffiti. So it seems more that a bit rich for him to now be welcoming the world's most famous street artist to Federation Square with such open arms.

If that's not sending mixed signals, I don't know what is. It's a tension that our city has never really dealt with – we love our street art but persecute our street artists.

Melbourne's street art is our city's most significant recent art movement and has gained us international repute as a street art capital of the world – but it has always existed in the face of being outlawed and vilified – and Doyle has been one of its most vocal critics.

It's hard to see how Banksy's Melbourne show will do much to help resolve this. 

OK so the exhibition will feature the work of local street artists (presumably those lucky enough to have avoided arrest in honing their craft) and will include a fleet of food trucks just to keep the edgy hipster vibe. It will also feature some of Banksy's most famous works including Girl with a Balloon, Flag fall and Laugh Now.

But surely a large part of Banksy's original appeal resides in the fact that his work was generally exhibited covertly and outside the legal or artistic establishment – such as the rats he stencilled just off Flinders Lane around the corner from the police station that were inadvertently removed by a council worker in 2010.

Banksy's best work has been the work that spoke to the context in which it was exhibited, such as his pieces adorning the walls of the Gaza strip in 2015 or his famous pieces on the West Bank barrier separating Israel from Palestine. This was work that had a sharp political message and helped to generate relevant discussion about the plight of those living under military oppression.

But Banksy's Melbourne exhibition is something quite different. It's a commercial exhibition promoted by US multinational companies including Live Nation and endorsed by city authorities. The sting of political subversion or any notion of vibrant, organic street credibility is sadly lost in the equation – leaving a show that may rely more on tired nostalgia than authenticity.

If nothing else, even before it opens its doors in October Banksy's Melbourne show has already exposed a gaping contradiction in Melbourne's attitude to our street art. It's surely time Melbourne openly dealt with this tension in our response to street art rather than leaving it to tabloid beat-ups and empty political gestures.

But by putting his name to this new show, we can no longer say with certainty which side Banksy is on.

- James Norman

[Anonymous]

This is an EAL response btw (analysing how language is used to persuade the reader of THREE main points). And I took way too much time. Gotta work on my timing...A LOT 
In response to the recent announcement by the Melbourne Lord Mayor Robert Doyle that the work of a famous anonymous street artist will be featured in an upcoming exhibition, James Norman contends in his opinion piece published in The Age ‘Street art exhibition is ridiculous’ that the street art exhibition is unwanted and fails to deal with the tension surrounding street art.

Norman positions the reader to question Doyle’s true motive behind holding the street art exhibition. In a jovial tone, Norman states that ‘Melbourne loves its street art’ to evoke affections in his reader towards street art by implying that it is a universal sentiment among Melbournians. Furthermore, the ‘regularity’ with which street art is used to ‘promote the city in tourism ads’ establishes street art as integral to Melbourne’s appeal. The use of the word ‘adorn’ further emphasises the aesthetic value of street art. Readers who are previously against street art are encouraged to regard it differently. Norman’s use of inclusive language as evident in ‘we’ and ‘our…laneways’ seeks to engender a sense of belonging and familiarity, inclining the reader to cherish street art in case its important values are lost to Melbourne. Adopting a sceptical tone, Norman employs a rhetorical question ‘But Since when is Doyle a friend of street art?’, depicting Doyle’s decision as out of ordinary, which is likely to cause the reader to be sceptical about his ulterior motives. Referring to the incident where Doyle tightened graffiti law so ‘anyone caught even carrying a spray can’ could be potentially charged, Norman highlights the severity that is typical of Doyle’s attitude towards street art. ‘Even’, which conveys the harshness of the law, is designed to evoke the reader’s indignation. The reader is thus inclined to agree with Norman’s assessment that Doyle’s sudden approval of street art is sinister and characteristic of a scheme.

Norman also claims that the street art exhibition served to enhance the self-contradictory stance the city holds towards its street art. Norman juxtaposes Doyle’s support towards ‘no tolerance policies’ and his ‘welcoming’ Banksy with ‘open arms’ to highlight the inconsistency in Doyle’s treatment of street art. The term ‘”vandals”’ in inverted comas alludes to Doyle’s labels on street artists, conveying Doyle’s antagonistic attitudes towards them. It also creates irony as the works of such ‘vandals’ were going to be exhibited in one of Melbourne’s ‘premier cultural institutions’. Therein, Norman seeks to expose the ludicrous aspect of the street art exhibition and hence draw attention the underlying issue of Melbourne city council’s lack of consistency. Norman’s jesting tone then shifts to a more serious one in an attempt to lend weight to his call for the issue to be resolved. ‘Persecute’ carries connotations of hostility and ill-treatment. The juxtaposition of the city’s ‘love’ of street art and persecution of street artists is likely to engender the reader’s indignation at the way the law prosecute street artist. The use of inclusive language, evident in ‘our city’ and ‘we love…’, compels readers from Melbourne to feel personally involved and thus take a more active role in trying establish consistency in cherishing street art and its artists. Furthermore, Norman appeals to Melbourne readers’ pride for their city by extolling Melbourne’s reputation as the ‘street art capital of the world’, intimating that street art earned Melbourne the world’s renown, reinforcing it as an important element of Melbourne’s city image. The fact that street art were always ‘outlawed and vilified’ depicts its existence as a precarious one, inclining the reader to fear for its future. Therefore the reader is positioned to agree that street art deserves to be cherished and treated in a more consistent manner by the government.

In a concerned and earnest tone, Norman argues that putting Banksy’s art on exhibition undermines its message. The description of Banksy as a ‘clever and mildly subversive street artist’ is designed to appeal to the group of readers who appreciates the pointed nature of street art. Norman used this description in past tense, as signalled by the use of ‘have once been’ in an attempt to engender disappointment. Appealing to the popular belief in the value of individuality, Norman critiques exhibiting street art as the art’s ‘steep decent’ into the ‘leagues of mainstream acceptability’, implying that the exhibition is a sign that street art would lose its uniqueness and conform to the confines of popularity. The reader is influenced to fear that the exhibition would feed such decline. Norman included the example of the rats Banksy stencilled off Flinders Lane to encourage the reader to recall their surprise element at discovering Banksy’s art in unexpected places, which is designed to evoke a sense a loss in the reader’s mind regarding a public exhibition of Banksy’s work.  Contrasting Banksy’s street art which carried ‘sharp political message’ with the authority-endorsed Melbourne exhibition, Norman reinforces the idea that the exhibition undermines the powerful message of Banksy’s art. ‘Vibrant’ and ‘organic’ are connotative of being novel, full of energy and life. Norman’s statement that it is ‘sadly lost’ is likely to reinforce the idea of valuable authenticity being lost in exhibiting street art. Thus the reader is positioned to rebuke the street art exhibition due to worries that it diminishes street art’s unique credibility and authenticity.

[literally lauren]

In response to the recent announcement by the Melbourne Lord Mayor Robert Doyle that the work of a famous anonymous street artist will be featured in an upcoming exhibition, James Norman contends in his opinion piece published in The Age ‘Street art exhibition is ridiculous’ that the street art exhibition is unwanted and fails to deal with the tension surrounding street art. v good overview - this is pretty much all you'd need for an L.A. intro for EAL

Norman positions the reader to question Doyle’s true motive behind holding the street art exhibition. In a jovial tone, Norman states that ‘Melbourne loves its street art’ to evoke affections in his reader towards street art by implying that it is a universal sentiment among Melbournians v good start - excellent clarity in your explanation here . Furthermore, the ‘regularity’ with which street art is used to ‘promote the city in tourism ads’ establishes street art as integral to Melbourne’s appeal. The use of the word ‘adorn’ further emphasises the aesthetic value of street art. good, but be careful analysing words in isolation/out-of-context like this. Saying something like 'the author's statement that graffitti "adorn" the streets emphasises its aesthetic value' would be more ideal because it shows that you know how the word is working in this particular context, but that understanding is still coming across here anyway, so this is more of a minor phrasing thing. Readers who are previously tense is a bit confusing here against street art are encouraged to regard it differently. Norman’s use of inclusive language as evident in ‘we’ and ‘our…laneways’ seeks to engender a sense of belonging and familiarity, inclining the reader to cherish street art in case its important values are lost to Melbourne. Adopting a sceptical skeptical tone, Norman employs a rhetorical question ‘But Since when is Doyle a friend of street art?’, depicting Doyle’s decision as out of ordinary, which is likely to cause the reader to be sceptical about his ulterior motives. Referring to the incident where Doyle tightened graffiti law so ‘anyone caught even carrying a spray can’ could be potentially charged, Norman highlights the severity that is typical of Doyle’s attitude towards street art. ‘Even’, which conveys the harshness of the law, is designed to evoke the reader’s indignation. The reader is thus inclined to agree with Norman’s assessment that Doyle’s sudden approval of street art is sinister and characteristic of a scheme GREAT cumulative analysis here; the linking between ideas and variation between sentences is awesome!.

Norman also claims that the street art exhibition served to enhance the self-contradictory stance the city holds towards its street art. Norman juxtaposes Doyle’s support towards ‘no tolerance policies’ and his ‘welcoming’ Banksy with ‘open arms’ to highlight the inconsistency in Doyle’s treatment of street art. The term ‘”vandals”’ in inverted comas alludes to Doyle’s labels on street artists, conveying Doyle’s antagonistic attitudes towards them. It also creates irony as the works of such ‘vandals’ were going to be exhibited in one of Melbourne’s ‘premier cultural institutions’. Therein, Norman seeks to expose the ludicrous aspect of the street art exhibition and hence draw attention the underlying issue of Melbourne city council’s lack of consistency YES!! Stellar acknowledgement of the intended effect/link to the argument . Norman’s jesting tone then shifts to a more serious one in an attempt to lend weight to his call for the issue to be resolved. ‘Persecute’ carries connotations of hostility and ill-treatment this sentence feels a little out of place because the quote is out of context. If you read this section of your piece aloud, notice how this sentence doesn't really fit with what's come before or after it?. The juxtaposition of the city’s ‘love’ of street art and persecution of street artists is likely to engender the reader’s indignation at the way the law prosecute street artist. The use of inclusive language, evident in ‘our city’ and ‘we love…’, compels readers from Melbourne to feel personally involved and thus take a more active role in trying establish consistency in cherishing street art and its artists. Furthermore, Norman appeals to Melbourne readers’ pride for their city by extolling Melbourne’s reputation as the ‘street art capital of the world’, intimating that street art earned Melbourne the world’s renown, reinforcing it as an important element of Melbourne’s city image. The fact that street artists(?) /was(?) were always ‘outlawed and vilified’ depicts its existence as a precarious one, inclining the reader to fear for its future. Therefore the reader is positioned to agree that street art deserves to be cherished and treated in a more consistent manner by the government v good paragraph overall!.

In a concerned and earnest tone, Norman argues that putting Banksy’s art on exhibition undermines its message. The description of Banksy as a ‘clever and mildly subversive street artist’ is designed to appeal to the group of readers who appreciates the pointed nature of street art. Norman used this description in past tense, as signalled by the use of ‘have once been’ in an attempt to engender disappointment. Appealing to the popular belief in the value of individuality, Norman critiques exhibiting street art as the art’s ‘steep decent’ into the ‘leagues of mainstream acceptability’, implying that the exhibition is a sign that street art would lose its uniqueness and conform to the confines this expression is a bit odd; either 'conform to popularity' or perhaps 'be limited to the confines of popularity' would be fine of popularity.  <--link?--> The reader is influenced to fear that the exhibition would feed such decline. <--link?--> Norman included keep a consistent present tense when talking about things the author is doing the example of the rats Banksy stencilled off Flinders Lane to encourage the reader to recall their surprise element at discovering Banksy’s art in unexpected places, which is designed to evoke a sense a loss in the reader’s mind regarding a public exhibition of Banksy’s work.  Contrasting Banksy’s street art which carried ‘sharp political message’ with the authority-endorsed Melbourne exhibition, Norman reinforces the idea that the exhibition undermines the powerful message of Banksy’s art. ‘Vibrant’ and ‘organic’ are connotative of being novel, full of energy and life. see above re: contextualisation of quotes. Norman’s statement that it is ‘sadly lost’ is likely to reinforce the idea of valuable authenticity being lost in exhibiting street art. Thus the reader is positioned to rebuke the street art exhibition due to worries that it diminishes street art’s unique credibility and authenticity.

Some exemplary descriptions of language meaning and effect here. You've isolated three major arguments very effectively, and your vocab/sentence structure were excellent (with a few minor slip-ups, but nothing that would impede your mark at all). Contextualising quotes is the only thing that might affect you if you get a really harsh assessor, but for the most part, the specificity of your analysis was really awesome!