Critical Thinking Worksheet
o 0
o
• Each of your papers will focus on one of the readings posted to Blackboard in
‘Assignments.’
• You will choose 1 article per critical thinking paper from the articles posted in
Assignments on Blackboard.
• To write your papers, you will use the Critical Thinking Worksheet questions
elow.
• However, you will NOT answer the questions by number. You will use these
questions as an outline to structure your paper.
Formatting and other requirements to get a good grade:
• Paper must be double spaced, 12 pt. Times New Roman Font, using default
margins for Word. One “ente
eturn” between paragraphs only.
• Each paper will be two pages long. Not one page with only a small paragraph on
the second page, but a complete two pages. Do not use tricks to make your
paper look longer than it is, as that will severely hurt your grade.
• Your name and the date.
• Author and Title with FULL bibliographic reference. Not just the title and author.
• You MUST cite the article properly in the body of your paper.
• Best grades will go to those who use the CHICAGO FOOTNOTE METHOD.
Look it up on line. Vastly better method than MLA. If you do use MLA, you must
cite exact page numbers (not the whole article, but the exact page where you
found your specific points).
• Your paper must be clearly written and proofread, with no spelling or grammar
mistakes.
• I take good writing very seriously, you will not get a good grade for a badly
written paper done at the last minute.
• You will fail if you do not cite information in your paper properly. Plagiarism is
theft and I also take that very seriously.
If you are not confident about your writing or if English is your second language,
consider visiting the Writing Center.
Scroll down for the worksheet.
Critical Thinking Worksheet:
Remember, do not answer these by number. These questions are meant to help you
outline your paper and guide your writing. Your paper should be fluid, not a list of
numbered answers.
You must answer questions 1-3. Then, use the remaining questions XXXXXXXXXXto inspire
the rest of your paper; you do not have to answer all of them.
1. In approximately three sentences, summarize the point of the work, i.e., the author’s
argument. (required)
2. Can you tell from the author’s argument what the accepted understanding of the theme
or topic is? Is s/he/they arguing against a previous idea or for a new conceptualization?
Are they presenting a basic introduction to a subject? Or are they presenting a general
survey of a particular subject? Explain. (required)
3. What evidence does the author use to make their argument? (required)
4. What is the relationship between the essay/article/excerpt and information conveyed in
lectures or other essays/journal articles
ook excerpts/etc. we have read?
5. Has the author changed or influenced your understanding of the subject, the work(s) of
art, and/or architecture in question? Why or why not?
6. Can you locate a bias or slant in the author’s stated opinion, methodology, or use (or
lack of use) of evidence? Does it get in the way of the argument?
7. What statements(s) and/or question(s) do you find most provocative and convincing?
Why?
8. Are there any statements(s) and/or question(s) do not convince you, or leave you
feeling like the idea has not been adequately proven? Why?
9. Critique the style and/or method the author employs. Is it one that you (personally)
enjoy as a scholar? How does it relate to your own approach to constructing an
argument?
10. What does the title of the work mean, in relationship to the argument?
11. What other information allows you to contextualize the work? Is it specialized or
meant for a general readership? What date was it written? Where was it written/in what
publication did it appear? Do you know anything about the author?
Scroll down for the list of readings
(be sure to google terms you don't recognize
These are best for the second critical thinking paper (they assume a higher level of
knowledge about Greek art, you may need to google terms you don’t recognize).
S.F. De
ew, “Masks of Blackness: Reading the Iconography of Black People in Ancient
Greece,” in Untangling Blackness in Greek Antiquity, Chapter 2, Cam
idge University
Press, 2022.
A. Rosenerg-Diitracopoulou, “The Soft Youth in Boetian Coroplasty,” in Papatoniou,
Michaelides, and Dikomitou-Eliadou (eds) Hellenistic and Roman Te
acottas, Brill,
2019
N. Salomon, “Making a World of Difference: Gender, asymmetry, and the Greek nude,”
in A.O. Koloski-Ostrow and C. L. Lyons (eds) Naked Truths: Women, Sexuality, and
Gender in Classical Art and Archaeology, Routledge, 1997
The Roman reception to Greek art and architecture
In chapter 16 of “Greek and Roman art and architecture” Rachel Kousser argues that the
Hellenistic period marked a time of artistic innovation and diversity; with a
oad range of styles,
techniques, and subject matter that departed from traditional Greek norms (Krousser, 2015,
pg XXXXXXXXXXShe also explores how the Roman looting of Greece influenced Roman art and
architecture, especially in terms of the use of na
ative and emotive elements. The author is
arguing for a new conceptualization of the Hellenistic period in Greek art and architecture, one
that emphasizes its departure from traditional Greek norms and its impact on Roman art and
architecture. Kousser is not presenting a basic introduction to the subject, but rather a focused
analysis of a specific period and its influence on subsequent artistic traditions. Kousser uses a
variety of evidence to support her argument, including analysis of specific works of art and
architecture, historical and cultural context, and comparisons with earlier and later artistic
periods. She also draws on scholarship from a range of subjects, including art history,
archaeology, and classical studies.
The article relates closely to lectures and other readings we have had in class on Greek
and Roman art and architecture, such as Joachim Winckelmann’s false assumptions on Greek
art(Krousser, 2015, pg 375). The author has influenced my understanding of the subject by
highlighting the innovative and diverse aspects of Roman art in comparison to Greek art.
Krousser states that the Roman looting of Greek art on Greek soil was well planned and that
individuals felt closer to the Greek art for this reason. “In essence, looting was a powerful spu
to the Roman reception of Greek art and architecture, and It facilitated the integration of Greek
forms with Roman cultural practices.”(Krousser, 2018, pg.377). Kousser’s use of evidence is
generally balanced and objective, though there is a slight bias towards highlighting the
innovative and diverse aspects of the Hellenistic period.
Krousser’s discussion of specific works of art and architecture was also insightful and
illuminating. While I found Krousser’s argument to be generally convincing, there were a few
statements that I felt were not adequately supported by the evidence. Her assertion that the
Hellenistic period marked a departure from traditional Greek norms could have been bette
supported by more detailed analysis of earlier Greek art. I appreciated Krousser's method of
analyzing specific works of art and architecture in detail, as it provided a more nuanced
understanding of the period. However, I found her writing style to be somewhat dense and
academic, which made the article more difficult to read and understand.
The title of the article, “The Roman reception to Greek art and architecture" is a concise
summary of the chapter's focus. However, the specific focus on the Hellenistic period, as well as
the looting and collecting of Greek art and architecture by the Romans provides a more focused
argument and analysis. The article is a specialized work intended for a scholarly audience,
written in 2015 and published in "The Oxford Handbook of Greek and Roman Art and
Architecture." The book includes multiple articles written by many people, but was edited by
Clemente Marconi. Clemente Marconi is a well-known scholar in the field of classical studies
and has published extensively on Greek and Roman art and architecture. Krousser argues that the
period was characterized by a shift away from the classical ideals and focused more towards
personal evaluation based on naturalism and chronology.(Krousser, 2015, pg XXXXXXXXXXKrousse
provides evidence of this shift in the architecture and decoration of public and private buildings,
such as the House of the Vettii and the Baths of Faustina Minor (Krousser, 2015, pg XXXXXXXXXX).
Krousser also examines the use of materials, such as ma
le and mosaic, and the development of
new techniques in Roman art during this period. Overall, Krousser’s argument is that the Roman
art style represented a significant departure from the classical ideals of Greek art and
architecture, and that this shift was a reflection of the cultural and political changes that were
taking place in Rome at the time.
Reference
Marconi, Clemente, ed. The Oxford handbook of Greek and Roman art and architecture. Oxford
Handbooks, 2015.
R. Kousser, “The Roman Reception of Greek Art and Architecture,” in C. Marconi (ed), The
Oxford Handbook of Greek and Roman Art and Architecture, Oxford University Press, 2015,
374-394