I had added these two quotes to my essay because I felt my main issue was not enough quotes to back up my commentary. The other quotes in my essay had seemed to be pretty decently placed and didn’t necessarily need editing.

-This is shown when Haas and Hahn finished one of they’re projects, “we needed to change, like, the venue because it couldn’t hold all the people, and everybody came together.”

-They had a thought, “could we just make something that looks nice so that if people look at the place and they already know that they are going to dislike it, and all of a sudden, they’re confronted with something beautiful?”

Here is an original paragraph. from my essay that was way too long and needed revision:

The EA are an extremely strong willed and persistent group that believe there’s only one way to effectively help those in need. EA stands for effective altruism and is the practice  of selfless concern for the well-being of others. They pride themselves on living by this belief and trying to help those in need as effectively and efficiently as possible. Because of the need or want to be incredibly effective, they reject most other methods of help besides their current strategy of just giving money to those in poverty. They specifically believe in measuring good deeds worth by how effective they are in comparison to just giving money. Southan explains this mentality of the EA by simply paraphrasing, “does your preferred good deed make as much of a difference as simply handing over the money? If not, how good a deed is it really?” This mentality seems very counterproductive because the EA is focusing on criticizing those who are trying to make a difference instead of those who aren’t trying. Also, I believe that there isn’t really a way to justify quantifying those deeds with monetary values. If a deed is truly good and the person is genuinely trying to help, then there is nothing wrong with that. The main point should be that the person wants to help, rather than bashing them for not helping enough. Another important ideology of the EA is the thought that there is no physical difference from helping those around you and those in need anywhere else in the world. One philosopher who heavily talked about this idea is the Australian moral philosopher Peter Singer who brought up this hypothetical situation, “Suppose you saw a child drowning in a pond: would you jump in and rescue her” The overwhelming response to the answer is simply; yes. Singer than goes on to say that anyone who would save the child and not help those in poverty around the world is inconsistent. They believe there is absolutely no difference between the two scenarios and that if you’d save one you should save the other. I beg to differ in this case, because there are some obvious differences that the EA is ignoring in this scenario. One major difference is the difficulty in solving the two scenarios. To save the child you just pull her out of the pond, while stopping poverty and hunger around the world is and incredibly complex problem with no easy answer. There is also a huge difference in the distance of the two scenarios because the child is right in front of you, whereas the people in poverty are thousands of miles away from you so a huge disconnect is formed. The EA are blissfully ignorant in thinking that anyone can help very easily and are ignoring many complications involved. Instead of criticizing those who are doing their best to try and help, maybe they should try and reduce the overwhelming effects of barriers like distance, difficulty and ignorance.

Here is the revised version:

The EA are an extremely strong willed and persistent group that believe there’s only one way to effectively help those in need and while this seems like their intentions are good, their methods aren’t. Effective Altruism is the practice of selfless concern for the well-being of others. They pride themselves on living by this belief and trying to help those in need as effectively and efficiently as possible. Because of the need or want to be incredibly effective, they reject most other methods of help besides their current strategy of just giving money to those in poverty. They specifically believe in measuring good deeds worth by how effective they are in comparison to just giving money. Southan explains this mentality of the EA by simply paraphrasing, “does your preferred good deed make as much of a difference as simply handing over the money? If not, how good a deed is it really?” This mentality seems very counterproductive because the EA is focusing on criticizing those who are trying to make a difference instead of those who aren’t trying. Also, I believe that there isn’t really a way to justify quantifying those deeds with monetary values. If a deed is truly good and the person is genuinely trying to help, then there is nothing wrong with that. The main point should be that the person wants to help, rather than bashing those that are trying for not helping enough. The EA’s intentions of helping are very good, but their method of comparing whose help is most effective is counterproductive.

Another important ideology that the EA take to heart is the thought that there is no physical difference from helping those around you and those in need anywhere else in the world. One philosopher who heavily talked about this idea is the Australian moral philosopher Peter Singer who brought up this hypothetical situation, “Suppose you saw a child drowning in a pond: would you jump in and rescue her” The overwhelming response to the answer is simply, yes. Singer than goes on to say that anyone who would save the child is inconsistent and a hypocrite for not helping those in need around the world suffering from poverty, hunger, or disease. They believe there is absolutely no difference between the two scenarios and that if you’d save the child you should be helping those around the world. I beg to differ in this case, because there are some obvious differences that the EA is ignoring in this scenario. One major difference is the difficulty in simply fixing the two scenarios. To save the child you just pull her out of the pond and she is no longer suffering, while stopping poverty, disease, and hunger around the world is and incredibly complex problem with no easy answer. There’s millions of people suffering and trying to help them from being tormented by poverty, disease, or hunger is a near impossible task. There is also a huge difference in the distance of the two scenarios because the child is right in front of you, whereas the people in poverty are thousands of miles away from you so a huge disconnect is formed. The EA are blissfully ignorant in thinking that anyone can help very easily and are ignoring many complications involved. Instead of criticizing those who are doing their best to try and help, maybe they should try and reduce the overwhelming effects of barriers like distance, difficulty and ignorance.

The methods I used for the revision was first splitting the ginormous paragraph into two to allow an easier read. This also lets me focus in on individual points in each paragraph. I adjusted the introductory statements in each to make them focus on the points in each paragraph. I also specified some of my details by adding in a sentence or two when explaining my points. I also edited some sentences just so that they were worded more clearly.

While my intentions when writing my first draft were very different in that I wasn’t intentionally trying to intentionally make mine shitty, the end results were pretty similar. I found that the description Anne gave of a very disorganized and randomly assorted paper fit mine very well. I had very long paragraphs that went on and on. I also hit the word limit way before I finished talking about all my points, so my first draft was very half-baked. I feel like she’s very correct about how inevitable it is for your first draft to suck.

For my revision process, I plan to edit my intro because it seems to contain a  lot of points that I wasn’t able to address in my paper within the word count. If I shift the focus of my paper so it more accurately covers my various points, it will seem much more clear. I also need to break up my body paragraphs because I rambled on with many different points that don’t necessarily correlate. If I do this, my essay will have more organization and will overall flow better. I also need to develop a stronger conclusion, because I had spent too much time on the other parts of my essay.

Overall, while this process was a little time intensive, it was very beneficial. Even though I didn’t get direct insight on my essay, commenting on others allowed me to compare mine and see where I could improve. It also presented me with different strategies to organize my essay, different points to make, or a more general view of the essay could be formatted.

After reading through both articles, I believe that art is not a waste of time. While the EAs have a point in saying art doesn’t immediately solve hunger or poverty, they are wrong in the fact that art can’t be used to help. After listening to the TED Talk on painting in poorer communities, it made me realize that there are useful ways that art can help those in need. Painting a mural in a “slummy” town, did so much more for the people there than expected. First of all, it brought the community together through painting, weekly barbecues, or just the common interest of beautifying the community. This process also gave many people skills required to paint and work on a team that they could further use in their lives in a job. Lastly but most importantly, it drew attention to the community in need but in a positive way. The news and press reported on the mural but looked at the community as a community instead of slums or the ghetto. This inspires people to try and be better by getting jobs or just contributing to the community in a positive way. It gives them a chance to be treated like everyone else, which is something that the EAs handouts don’t do

The TED Talk I chose to review and discuss was “How Can Painting Change Communities.” I chose this one because I believe that the work being done has the most lasting impact on the people there. I believe the work being done is a true example of art changing lives and helping others. As far as a limit of the painting projects go, I don’t believe there is one. There are an incredible number of neighborhoods all around the world that could use a mural to decorate it. Also this project is one that people love and really want to support and see grow, so money wouldn’t be an issue considering they got $100,000 for just crowdfunding a project in Rio. I believe this project could be repeated over and over again throughout many neighborhoods and always have a great effect on the people there.  This is an especially great project because it does so much more than just make a building look pretty. Dre and Jeroen mentioned in the TED Talk that they had barbecues every week or so while in Rio and Philly. These barbecues brought people in the neighborhood together, not to mention they also hired many locals to help participate in the painting projects. This gave many people jobs and even trained some people with valuable skills that would help them become skilled workers after the painting project was done. By far the most powerful aspect of this project is how it made outsiders view the neighborhood. Multiple News Articles stopped referring to the places as slums and treated them better giving the people there hope for the future of their neighborhood. It gave the people there a chance to be viewed simply as people.

After taking a look at the Effective Altruism website, I felt as though I got a better understanding of the message the EA’s are trying to get across. During my first reading, I was very shocked and confused as to what the EA was trying to achieve. I got the impression that they were radical extremists  that would do anything to get their message across. It seemed as though they targeted the artist who are just trying to share their work, when they could be targeting big businesses and companies. After the first read and taking a look at the EA mentality, I realized this wasn’t necessarily true. The EA while it seems like they are radicals, just want the fastest possible solution to helping others. And artists aren’t really a target of theirs but rather just seem that way due to the author’s perspective. This seemed especially clearer after I had looked up the definition of Altruism. The EAs are just trying to devote their help to others who need it as effectively as possible. They don’t necessarily hate art, they just have bigger fish to fry. My second reading gave me more respect and understanding to what the EA is trying to achieve.

One of the annotations that I had made on Southan’s text is near the bottom of the first page. The article is discussing a hypothetical situation where a philosopher, Peter Singer, asks people if they would save a child drowning in a pool near them even if it would mean their clothes get wet or if it wasn’t your fault she’s drowning. The overwhelming response to this question is of course that they would save the child. Singer than equates ignoring the drowning child to the same thing as ignoring those dying of poverty and disease around the world. While I see what Singer is trying to get at, I firmly believe that there is a fundamental difference between the two situations. The drowning child is right by you and taking the child is a rather easy solution whereas helping those in poverty around the world is a tougher challenge because one, “people in poverty around the world” are AROUND the world and it becomes very difficult to directly help them in an efficient manor. The other problem is poverty is nowhere near as simple of an issue to fix as taking a child out of water. I therefore think it is unfair to equate the two scenarios.

Another annotation I made was on the middle of page 2. This annotation was in response to a part of the article where Southan explains that the EA’s see writing scripts and making movies demand resources that could have saved lives. I find this claim very ridiculous because while movie making is generally expensive, it doesn’t have to be. Also script writing just requires a computer or at the very least a pen and paper. I cannot fathom how either of those “resources” could have saved lives. I also feel like the EA’s are targeting the wrong people if they have a problem with wasting resources. Instead of attacking scriptwriters that are doing little to no harm, I feel it would be more effective to go after big corporations that waste more resources than the scriptwriter ever would in only a day.

AnnotationPDF

P.S. The pictures of my annotations are in the above link in a PDF format. They are only half pages because the full page pictures kept coming out blurry.