Reading Analysis 5
In the last chapter City of Rhetoric, Fleming concludes his argument by serving the readers with a summary of the existing enviable problems that lie, and forever will lie, In our cities today. Fleming states that these physical entities, which we call cities, act too much like a private space. Cities, weather intentionally or unintentionally, segregate and gentrify societies into categories. Fleming realizes that there and pros and cons to both low income housing as well as prestigious neighborhoods. Low income housings are more dangerous and have poor standards of living. However on then flip side, prestigious housing lacks diversity and social interaction. Fleming sees this as a problem. He believes buildings shouldn’t be designed for low income or higher income individuals, they should just be designed for humans. All humans are humans, therefore we shouldn’t be broken up in to categories that label us according to our income level or race. All humans are equal and cities should be designed to embrace that similarity. Fleming argues that the ideal cities should have the nessieties to sustain human life such as a close proximity to jobs, schools, parks etc. The most important quality that cities should have, however, is the adjacency to other people. Part of Flemings main thesis is that cities should cause public discourse and conversation whilst embracing the diversity that metropolitan areas are blessed with. This idea of public discourse and conversation can best be embraced if everyone, rich or poor, the majority or the minorities, lived within close proximity to each other. ” We need spaces that… not just as private individuals- as family members, friends, workers shareholders- but as citizens who are irreducibly different from one another”
“Reimagining Union Station.” The Washington Post, WP Company,
This source is a special one. This article touches on eventing we discuss in our class. This article touches on the gentrification of D.C, the evolution of D.C as an architectural city and, most importantly talks in depth about the development about Union Station. Union was never the grand masterpiece that it was today. It was built then renovated into something much grander then it previously was. Another interesting thing about this website is that it breaks down the development of Union station. There are three separate sections; Past, present and future. The past describes how the station started. The present describes what its currently evolved into. All the improvements to make what Union is today. The furure section of the article outlines the future plans of the station. They plan on expanding it by digging a tunnel under H street to expand the station and cover two blocks instead of one. This can be read as the literal, as an expeansion of a building. This could also be read as the ever expanding and improving city of D.C. Having to expand due to the gentrification and rise in population and popularity. I see this article serving as all elements of the BEAM model. Because this article is so in depth and covers a lot, it can be used in multiple ways. Im going to be using this article as an exhibit because I can analyze the transformation and design of the station overall.
Union Station: Washington DC.” Union Station: Washington, D.C., American Planning Association
I believe that this source qualifies as a method. This article is really good at illustrating the planning and design of the building. This article is similar to many of my other sources, however it differs by adding photos and small little of the photo. This source also talks a lot about the architects that were involved in the project. This source is a pretty good overview of the station.
The painting that I am writing about for this weeks commonplace is a very famous painting from one of my all time favorite painters. This is titled “nighthawks” by Edward Hopper. The first thing to notice when looking at this painting is the diner. The thing that hopper was famous for was the way he painted his windows; or lack thereof. Hopper never painted glass, it was always just assumed to be there. This is very prominent in this image. The dinner consists of a large curved glass wall, yet you can’t actually see the glass. It’s like the glass isn’t actually there. This is done to show the relationship between the subject and their surroundings. Here we can look at the people as the subjects or even the diner itself as a subject. We see a lit up diner in the middle of a lights out, empty street. This painting was done right around the time of pearl harbor, where the U.S would have blackout drills. Everyone would turn off their lights and close their blinds in case there as another bombing. So maybe hopper wanted to show the fearlessness of these people in the middle of maybe one of these blackout drills.
The image that I am writing about for this weeks commonplace is a painting by René Magritte. This painting is titled “The Son of Man”. There are many speculations regarding this painting including the man’s relationship to water and any religious affiliations. However, I believe that this painting shares similar ideologies to the painting I wrote about in last weeks commonplace. Magritte liked to challenge the idea of identity and viewer’s relationship to something they assume to be a fact. In this painting, viewers assume there to be a man’s face under the apple. But because this is a painting the only thing there is a painting of an apple. There is no mans face painted under the apple. That’s just what we assume. Just like we assume the word apple to represent a physical apple. We assume there to be a face under the apple here. Magritte liked the idea that language assumed hierarchy. That the word apple is greater than the apple itself. An apple would never be an apple without its label. This painting is almost a visual representation of that idea. That assumptions are even made visually, not only verbally.
“Washington, DC Fact Sheet.” Washington.org, Washington.org, 9 Mar. 2017, washington.org/DC-information/washington-dc-fact-sheet
The first first source that I am chasing to write about is an collection of statistics about D.C. Everything from demographic information of the citizens of D.C to the climate to different information about the universities in D.C. However the most valuable parts of information on this website that are helpful to my website are the traveling information. The specific information that I am planning on using from this website are the statistics on the transportation and visitor statistics. The transportation information illustrates the number of translations, train stops, types of public transportation including busses, trains and taxis. The visitor stats illustrate how many visitors per year visit the attractions such as the monuments, memorials and museums. I think that this source is mainly a background source. I could also argue that this is an exhibit source too. I could use specific facts from this article to analyze the frequency and practicality of Union Station. However, I feel that doing that sort of analysis would require a lot of assumptions due to the lack of specific information regarding Union Station. I would mainly be drawing conclusions basesed on the travel statistics and about of visitors to the attractions. This source acts as a background source much better because it offers me context to the popularity and visitation frequency of D.C.
“Burnham Place at Union Station .” Burnham Place at Union Station
The second source that I am writing about is an article that outlines the goals and the mindset of the main architect that designed Union Station, Daniel Burnham. This article is short but actually really informative on the purpose of the station. This article illustrates how versatile Union station can be. Not only is it a transportation Mecca for people all around the country, but it also serves as a shopping center and a national landmark. The article describes Union Station as a ” Multi- Modal station”. The article comments on the unique architectural design that allows for more then the conventional about of people to occupy the station. This was a practical decision that is perfect for the use of a train station. This article is exactly what I was looking for when trying to connect the design of the station to its practicality. For this reason, Im going to be using this source as a method, using the concepts regarding the design of the train station and apply it to my rhetorical analysis.
“Union Station’s ‘Forgotten’ Historic Interior Spaces.” Streets of Washington, Streets of Washington, www.streetsofwashington.com/2012/10/union-stations-forgotten-historic.html. Accessed 9 Apr. 2017.
I am going to be using this source as my exhibit. Because my main topic of discussion throughout this essay is talking about the effects of the aesthetics of union station, this article is perfect. The main point of this article is analyzing and giving context to the different rooms and structures. The article talks about the structures on the inside and outside of the building. This source also has pictures to go with the descriptions, just like my essay. I am easily able to implicate this source in to my essay. For most of the essay I am analyzing different aesthetic aspects of the station. With this source as my exhibit, I am able to use examples from the text to not only give me a better understanding of the station it self, but also use the specific examples in the text as evidence to my claims throughout the essay.
“Washington – Union Station, DC (WAS).” Great American Stations, Great American Stations
This source is the perfect background source for my essay. This article gives a brief overview of the history of the train station’s history. The article also talks about L’Enfant. L’Enfant was the architect who built the mall and who strategically placed the station at the top of the mall. In my essay I speak about the rhetorical effect of the station being placed where it is. What I really like about this article is that it talks an immense about about the design of the station as well as the design of DC as a whole. This article also offers statistical information regarding the station. I can use both the information about the construction of D.C/ Union Station as well as use the statistical information to have a better understanding of the rhetorical meaning of the D.C train station as a whole. With this information readily available, my essay can flow better
The commonplace image that I am choosing to write about today is a painting by René Magritte titled “ Ceci n’est pas une pipe”. The painting consists of a pipe, and the words written underneath. In english, this french sentences translates to “ This is not a pipe”. This image is a from a collection of Magritte’s “treachery of images”. The treachery of images is a collection of paintings that all convey a similar message. Magritte is arguing that, us as a society, tack on and assume words and physical objects are the same thing. We assume the material object of a pipe and the word pipe are the same thing. Magritte is playing with the concept that meaning and thing have no relationship. Almost like the word is merely a shadow of the thing it’s representing. This philosophy parallels plato with his philosophy of the cave. Where the people in the cave see the shadows of the passerby’s as the real thing because that’s all they know. But when set free from the cave, they soon come to realize that the shadows they were seeing were a smaller fraction of a larger picture, and that the relationship between thing and the representation of the thing are two very different things. This painting is merely exemplifying that philosophy saying that a pipe and the word pipe aren’t the same thing.