Art Review Annotated Bibliography

An annotated bibliography looks like a regular bibliography, but includes one to three paragraphs below each entry, summarizing the source and discussing its usefulness for a particular task at hand.

In your work for Project #1, you will created an annotated bibliography--a useful tool to help you learn about the particular art you are reviewing.

You’ll compile a list of sources, with one-paragraph annotations that

1)  summarize and rhetorically analyze each source (its length, style, targeted audience, appeals, content, and effectiveness as an argument); and

2)  assess how helpful each source was in your growing knowledge of your project topic.

Include some well-rated national sources, both popular and scholarly, such as:

Harper's
Mother Jones
National Review
The Atlantic Monthly
The New Republic
Vogue
Esquire
The Nation
New York Times Newspaper
New York Times Television Reviews
Entertainment Weekly
Bright Lights Film Journal
The San Francisco Chronicle
The LA Times
The New York Review of Books
/ The Week
Newsweek
The Economist
Wired
Reason
Business Week
Essence
Vanity Fair
Variety
The Village Voice
Kino
Film Quarterly
The New Yorker
Rolling Stone
The Wall Street Journal
Time

Try to also include some well-rated regional sources:

The Minneapolis Tribune
The Fargo Forum
Art Forum
The High Plains Reader
The North Dakota Quarterly

Your bibliography should be proofread and formatted according to MLA guidelines.

Each annotation should:

·  be roughly one paragraph in length;

·  briefly summarize the review in question;

·  briefly analyze the length, type, style, audience, and persuasiveness of the review (that is, do a short rhetorical analysis);

·  evaluate its usefulness in helping you to understand the work of art you are reviewing, and to get a sense of how the work has been received so far.

______

Sample:

Art Review Annotated Bibliography

Noodlebrain, Rudy. “Stephen King Goes to Mars.” Rev. of The Banishment, by

Stephen King. The Chicago Tribune 22 Jan. 2009: C3.

This short, four-paragraph review takes a harsh look at King's newest novel, calling it a rehash of his former books and not nearly as frightening as his best work. Its ethos is rather jokey and irreverent, with lots of slang, and seems to be intended for the general public with no specialized knowledge of literature or art. It seems to me a pretty good "medium-sized" review: it isn't a super detailed or large-view evaluation of King's book, bit it's more than a simplistic "thumbs up" or "thumbs down." The writer is a well-published critic, and its rhetorical stance is moderate but affirmative. It is fairly persuasive, but would have been improved by acknowledging possible counter-views.

Nucklehead, Chuck. “New Foo Fighters CD Rocks.” Rev. of Bending the Rules,

by Foo Fighters. Amazon.com. Jan. 21, 2009

<http://www.amazon.com/forums/cds/$%#Homer>.

This Amazon review by a music college professor is a very long and detailed discussion of Foo Fighters' newest CD, as well as their past work. This is definitely not just a quickie "yay or nay" kind of evaluation. It puts the new work in context, discusses work by other, similar bands, and examines Foo Fighter's ideological and political views. Its diction and tone of voice are scholarly and serious, and its targeted audience seems to be older, fairly educated listeners of rock—perhaps upper-level college students or even music scholars. Its ethos, in other words, is quite sophisticated and it asks to be taken seriously. After reading this review, I came away feeling convinced that I should buy the new CD, but I also now understand the group and their music much better. The review's rhetorical stance is thoughtful and even-handed.