Summarizing Haltman

In Haltman’s “Introduction to American Artifacts” he gives readers insight on how to give a good investigation analysis.
Describing an image is better than giving your personal interpretation, because when you give your interpretation it does not leave much room for others to give their honest opinion. It becomes easy for others to be bias to your interpretation, rather than giving their own, raw, opinion.

Giving a thorough description of an image leaves room for others to make their own analysis of the work. Your description gives meaning to the work without saying exactly what the work is saying. Everyone sees things with different perspectives, because everyone is simply not the same. The way you may view the world isn’t going to be the exact way the next person sees the world. This is why you use descriptive words rather than “definite” meanings.

You want to use very good verbs, adverbs, nouns, adjectives, etc. because this creates the connection between the work and the viewers.

Once you create this description you then want to talk about it with a superior, then maybe revise your description after some criticism. This will help you become more self-conscious with your perception. You want to use the emotions that these images may bring out. This also serves as a connection between the work and the viewers.

Eventually, you may do research because this gives a more in depth and a more realistic view. You don’t want to give an analysis based off of pure opinion.

1 comment

  1. Is interpretation, analysis, conclusion-drawing ever valuable? When? What’s the relationship between details and subjective understanding of those details do you think?

Leave a Reply