When looking at urban development a lot of times we see glorious cities. Strong, metal, tall buildings lining the map, filling the skyline around us. So much so, it might seem like that’s all there is in the world, but there is more than just what humans have created and some artists are starting to recognize this. Nature has not always been at the center of urban development, it often is considered last when building something new. First comes where we should put this new housing, then comes “what are we going to do to lighten up the place?” Some people believe that as humans we need to connect with nature to continue to grow as a species and yet as I found through my artifacts sometimes that connection is interpreted differently. When looking at my first artifact, a photographic series called Wild Concrete, a photographer named Romain Jacquet-Lagreze studied the way nature endures through destruction. While my second artifact challenges this idea and makes us question whether this commonplace of just believing nature will endure through that destruction is the right thing to do.
Speech/Essay Outline:
- Intro/Thesis
- [1] wild concrete introduce it, rhetorical situation, the why for the artifact and thoughts
- [1] Temporal/pathos, ethos, and logos the what and how of the artifact
- [1] The over all commonplace and how it relates back to both artifacts
- [2] intro to my second artifact, comparative element
- [2] difference between what certain pathos, ethos, or logos each artifact creates
- (thinking about another paragraph but not sure yet)
- conclusion
It looks like you are on the right track I really liked the hook you used to grab my attention. I also liked how you waited towards the end of the paragraph to mention your artifacts I think that is something I am going to try to accomplish in my real introduction paragraph.
I really liked the way you developed this intro; it reads to me like you are building up anticipation for the big reveal of the artifacts. I think one thing that could help is a little more specification on the second artifact so that there is still intrigue but not as much mystery. Your speech looks well organized and the outline makes it easy to follow from a speaker perspective.
I like your topic a lot! I think you might need to add a specific thesis sentence that states exactly what you’ll be analyzing regarding the first artifact though. The only other comment I have is I think the sentence “First comes where we should put this new housing, then comes ‘what are we going to do to lighten up the place?'” ruins the flow a little bit and doesn’t serve a purpose, but that might just be me.