For week 7, Adrian Caluya wrote his artist conversation on Norax Ayala. For starters, we are asked to point out 3 technical mistakes that the writer made in his or her post. However, after proof reading Adrian’s post I found that there aren’t many. The only suggestion I would make is to combine some of his sentences because many of them are so short and blunt. Because of this, I will transition to the conceptuality of his writing. I believe Adrian’s post is very mediocre. His tone is very straight to the point, as seen in his fairly short sentences and paragraphs and fails to elaborate on the artist he interviewed. In addition to his, I would suggest ( through what the rubric provides ) to include his own experience when he intiallly saw the artist’s pieces. Other than that, the good components of his post is the clarity of his writing and ability to compress the basic information of the artist in a simple structure.
The link to the post I edited https://adriancaluya.wordpress.com/2015/10/12/wk-7-artist-conversation-norax-ayala/
As for myself, I am my worse critic. I will be proof reading my week 7 artist post on Jane Weilbel. I will be honest and say that I definitely rushed this post in order to meet time it was due so there are a lot of mistakes. Three technical habits that I already know are present are my run on sentences. I have this tendency to write excessively, overusing adjectives such as “really”. I also mistakenly shift from using present and past tense. Conceptually, I do try to understand the artist and art piece that I am writing about. I think with this post I didn’t provide enough of information to convey my analysis well enough which thus makes my statements seem vague. I do believe that there are some positive qualities of my writing. I try to analogize my writing so that the audience will be able to understand how my own thoughts and perspective on their personal level. With that I do exert visible effort in my writing to explain my point, but maybe I would better off writing more simple.