I feel like this is somewhat misguided. Just because I have not written down my thoughts does not mean they have not already been constructed and organized. When I write down something, for example, in response to an article using Hypothesis, I unusually know what I want to type before I start typing it. In that sense, I have already analyzed without writing. Although, I could be missing the point entirely.

This passage takes on increased importance when considering the Maker movement and the creation of entirely new objects that do not fit our current vocabulary, and require additional thought and effort to properly describe. Our "world of worlds" is designed around things that are intimately familiar to us. Skyscrapers shine in the afternoon sun while my carpet is firm and dirty. But what do I use to describe something I have no intimate knowledge of, like non-Newtonian fluid? How do I describe that to someone else? The same issue occurs with the maker movement, where a group of people is consistently creating things that have no previously existed, and require brand new descriptions for.

The supplemental text I read for this piece was "3-D print your way to freedom and prosperity" by Jathan Sadowski for Aljazeera America. The article outlines the Maker movement, a growing number of people who use a variety of advanced tools such as 3d-Printers and Laser Cutters to create new things on a small scale and for personal use. Sadowski dissects the seemingly apolitical nature of the movement before going into detail how the movement is both impractical on a large scale and could have harmful side effects. Sadowski says that the movement seeks to appeal to everyone, but is only practical for people with access to expensive equipment, introduces dangerous oversights in being able to freely create dangerous objects, and is impractical in that a complete maker society would not be able to function due to a constant need for materials and equipment that can not be fabricated easily.

http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/5/3d-printing-politics.html

"Not only because their grammar is bad and their sentences incomplete" really shows how much the author of this source looks down on the writing of this generation. Haltman says that ideas should be concrete and physical no abstract.

The cultural significance behind the machete

The supplemental text I chose to apply was "What is a machete anyways?" by John Cline which an article about the history of the machete across various cultures and time periods

This shows follows the of haltman's ideals stating that the more self-conscious one becomes, the more complex one's relation ship to an object becomes physically and ocularly as well as psychologically. this creates relationship , experience, and ideas for the students to relate and write about

that even professional writes disapprove the idea of having too many ideas and specific objects and often teachers don't teach student's how to they because society trains the student's to follow. Korener disapprove their idea and argue that even objects can also perform what visual images can provide. This leads to saying that Haltmans ideas on visual images can also provide itself with an an interpretation and act as the best access

This supports Haltman ideas sayign "composing an objective description frees one ot move form a narrow focus on the object it self to a focus on the relationship between the object and oneself a its perceiver" that you have to find what your main point / focus that you want to point out

this relates to Haltmans text becuase the teacher here stating that there ways to teach students to comprehend how to obtain ideas from object and Haltmans provides steps and methods to "gain an analytic hold and open upon interpretation"

This add's on to Haltmans idea saying that "without imagination or ideas nothing of the sort is possible little defeat the purpose of this exercise so well as rigor without reverie" This display that ideas are very important and without it the report is meaning less

This relates to Haltmans ideology by finding value and historical interpretations from everyday objects and in the article it said "students will find value principally in learning from the models that these reading offer of how such interpretation can be carried out".

CRT technology was for a long time the only way to see things like what would be on an old computer screen, but it is fascinating that one of the major components for making it work is something that cannot be seen. It is a kind of polarity which the Haltman text says is very important when looking at an object.

The CRT heralded a new era for computing technology as well as televisions. They are what allowed the development of the graphical user interfaces used by every operating system today. Without them, computers would have never entered the everyday person's house.

In a way, the CRT indicated a cultural shift away from the traditional entertainment sources, such as musical instruments, to analog or digital screens.

In recent centuries, the conversion of branded products' names into that for the entire category is a surefire indicator of popularity. It is a good, if subjective, measure of the impact one company or brand has had on society.

This is the type of conclusion you can only come to if you go beyond what an object physically is and look at its impact on society as a whole. This in itself is reason enough to go deeper.

People will watch anything new and different, even if in days to come they will become extremely mundane.

Further impact beyond the direct effects of domestic television...

Essentially the opposite of the sort of discourse which Haltman promotes. Boyle had to come up with a concrete and complete proof for his ideas.

Already personifying the technology in the second paragraph...

There are still advantages to the CRT over conventional modern TVs - namely the lack of lag. For this reason, some gamers refuse to move on from the cathode ray tube.

Material culture is more than just the interactions of the people associated with that culture and deploys various concepts to determine the behavior the people conveyed.

Some aspects of material culture transcend boundaries while others are limited to the scope of their field.

Is it possible for the significance that these objects may hold to ultimately change over a period of time or are they resolved to stay stagnant ?

Can these different types of objects present different interpretations or are these objects set in stone in the matter they reveal cultural notions ?

The act of arguing or debating.

Items discovered by Anthropologist could possibly bring forth how they lived, died, or how their society functioned for instance when Anthropologists unearth ancient tools such as spearheads.

I am examining this text in conjunction with Haltman's "Introduction to American Artifacts". I chose this text because of the fact that its rationale is similar to Haltman's. Haltman's rationale, that artifacts and items and other physical elements all bear a certain cultural meaning to them and that through a structured process, one can grasp the aspects associated with that item.

Sophie Woodman establishes her stance that this preconceived notion is nothing but false. Artifacts and objects alike can have a multitude of meanings and underlying cultural aspects that exist within that object. Haltman himself though has vouched that the process of recognizing these aspects take repetitious action and a thorough game plan.

The writer brings a more modern and relatable point of view into the the mix. Since in this day in age almost everybody in America has a smartphone it makes it more easier for the readers to understand the point he is trying to make. Then brings up a controversial point of Arab terrorist using smart phones to act out violence. A entirely different but similar view to take based on the machete argument. It strengthens his claims, the more some isolates different realms of reason the more the topic can handled more circumspectly. (Haltman 7). He broadens his horizons by presented a more relatable topic to the audience instead of just sticking to just a provincial topic of farming tool and weaponry.

Media shapes culture, culture shapes society, and society can shape politics. It is cultural examples such as these that really show how influential media can be. Especially in movies that glorify tools to be weapons. Haltman states that there are metaphysical aspect that embody culture.

The writer bring in the view of revolt which runs deep in American culture since really the foundation of America was based on revolutions. This article was most likely published to feature an American audience so by bridging its emotional and cultural history is a great persuasive tactic. Though it never explicitly said revolts the use of slaves and pheasants using machetes as a weapon can imply such. The writer is trying to discretely imply this notion to the reader in order to make them think and have a deeper and more personal connection with the topic.

It amazing to think that a simple farming tool used for corn can become the embodiment for killing and terror. The machete is not the only " tool" this is happened to. The ever so famous ninjas of Japan were actually simple farming tools before the iconized as weapon for Asia most notorious assassins. Small katana were used for slicing crops but have become a trademark weapon for the group. And even scythes that were used for cutting down wheat plants has become culturally a symbol of death held by the grim reaper to rip the souls out of the living. It just goes to show that an object can have two polar ideas based on culture and significance.

These historical contexts make a strong point of evidence to argument. A lot of times when examining a object its historical meaning comes to mind and bringing up dark historical points in America's history of slavery to argument brings up some emotional feelings to the mix. It goes beyond the scholarly talk of an object and expands the idea of the object to further the readers interpretation of it. By using more of these emotional deductions it serves as a bridge to speculation about meaning for the reader. (Haltman 8)

Tools or weapons can be best described in words and how the reader sees the object after that is all dependent on the writers diction and view. In descriptions "writers generate a set of carefully selected nouns, adjectives, adverbs, prepositions, and to effectively determine the bounds pf possible interpretation." (Hatlman 6) Using words such as "violence" or "deadly" will most likely make it seem like a weapon in this instance. More than anything the type of diction that a phrase has can drastically change what the word will mean or what it will mean to the reader.

This section brings up a very interesting point in the argument, though uncommon in the U.S many places outside the U.S use a machete as a tool (especially in tropical rain forrest areas) but in many part of American culture it's depicted as weapons such as movies, video games, and entertainment outlets. This could be what Prown calls a polarity which in turn finds material expression in a language of formal oppositions. That one single object what mean two completely perpendicular concepts. It can be perceived as one or the other depending on point of view of the beholder.

in light of halt-man's text, and in light of the research prospectus i believe that the reader should have a clear sense of what cause that particular interpretation.

I've caught myself doing this before but i didn't realize what the problem was until i read this essay. The, its about a object theme of this article, helped me realize description plays a key part not only in describing a object, but creating ideas from that object.

I believe this Is a problem because students don't actually realize what they are doing until the teacher reviewstheir papers.

In light of the halt-man text, he explained that description is the best access to experiencing a object, because description can the register the way a object may function for a particular person.

Basically it is a physical object that can be touched,named, and described.

I believe student's don't realize what they are lacking in certain skills unless they've been introduced to those skills. And the fact that certain skills are missing from 40 years ago, shows the difference of expectations from 40 years ago to now. So i believe these different expectations are causing teachers to skip the fundamentals, which has made things harder for some students.

I believe this is a way of getting readers and writers more interested in their work. For example, if you wanted to talk about poverty, you would talk about boarded up houses, the man that was sitting on the corner, etc. The use of a object is meant to help create physical connections to that object.

This goes back to haltman's text where he tells the reader to not look for what the object signifies, but how it signifies. I believe both these authors are looking for a gerundial meaning in their work

in light of the halt man text, i believe that some of the small of the features of a object can be important, and conscious analyzation of the features can make make a difference in the meaning that is interpreted from the object.

This metadata is interesting because it is surely to draw a reader in because someone who read's this will wonder have they been truly writing correctly, and read it to check to see if they have been writing correct

I for the first time in a while am actually happy about my work and am taking even more pride in the way it is turning out. In using a physical and concrete website as well I am able to showcase my work and have shown my parents and a couple close friends my work. My meaning has been clear, precise, and descriptive. I can finally "see what I am talking about." I can capture an abstract idea and analyze a feeling and emotion from a physical object such as a quilt panel and found that it is easier than just focusing not the abstract idea. This is the main idea of the Maguire text and what he wishes teachers to incorporate and I believe that every lit class should be this way. If we incorporated the ideas of Haltman,Fowler,Maguire,and Orwell into every writing it would make them great.

I have suffered from the literary disease many times when I get stuck in my writing and have to reach a word count. My writing starts off to be originally clear but the meaning gets blurred over time due to the fact that I have run out of things to say because I am not being concrete or descriptive in my writing. In rading the Haltman text and seeing all the many ways to combat this disease I will have to continuously re-read it to improve my writing when I get stuck,

This quote by George Orwell perfectly helps give supporting evidence to the thesis of this text. It not only gives a expert opinion, but masterfully puts the thesis into words. A concrete object requires you to describe something that can be explained through senses and can be very descriptive; however when describing an abstract idea, or something in your head it is so much harder to gather the thoughts in your head and put them down into a comprehendible writing. This entire quote could also be the thesis of the Haltman text, if you make a conscious effort to focus on being descriptive on an object your vocabulary will be precise and clear and make your writing very comprehensible.

I have often done this in my own personal writing and it is interesting to see if from a professional perspective.The Haltman work and Maguire both mention how to work on and help to make this mush into magic. I have also learned over this first unit that being more descriptive leads to more information and more detail and not mush like we have been led to believe. Mrs. A has repeatedly said this during class and Haltma and Maguire have enforced that idea too. As i Have been doing my research I have found this to be true, the more you go in depth in your research and your writing the more there is to talk about. I believe in one's writing there needs to be a deeper pursuit of your subject and I believe that it does help by giving a concrete topic.

I really like this point that Maguire made, I feel that it is a lot harder for students to learn based upon someone's ideas and what is going on in their head. If you can see and smell and touch something it is much easier to obtain your own ideas and your own interpretations and lead to more original and unique writings. I am seeing why we are doing the AIDS quilt as our first project. Something that is concrete reality. To continue with my previous post it is of utmost importance that you first focus on a concrete idea and from that you can gleam the "more abstract, conceptual,or even metaphysical aspects of that culture that they quite literally embody," as Haltman says.

This is very similar to the Primary text in that it reinforces the title of not writing with ideas but with objects. Haltman had a very conscious and specific desire for one to be more descriptive and vivid in the description of concrete items. This type of writing makes it easier for readers to picture and allows them to relate to and imagine one's writing. I have been using this kind of writing in my primary source description and it has helped my writing. These texts are very parallel in their main ideas.

This was an important skill that Haltman and Prown talked about. The first step to any good writing is to ask questions and deduct in order to come up with a good analysis. I recently did this in my own project where I came up with a list of at least three research questions that led to me finding some very good sources and finding answers and pathways that I did not even expect. I wonder if the author expected to find what he was looking for or kept an open mind.

This statement is very similar to the thesis of the primary text. Haltman was very focused on transforming your ideas into physical and emotional descriptions of objects. I enjoy how the title grabs your attention by telling you the "secret" immediately instead of making you read to decipher what it is.

The title makes me ask what is the difference?, Why will it only be good and not great? The dictionary difference between a idea and object is: an idea is defined as a thought or suggestion as to a possible course of action. An object is a person or thing to which a specified action or feeling is directed.

Based upon information alone I feel relates to Haltman and makes your writing better by sorting your suggestions and possibles courses of action into something specified and descriptive and elaborate. This answers my second question because if you do this your writing will be just "good".

This is a skill taught by teachers since elementary school, however every teachers idea of "concrete" is different. Every grade level I go up the idea of concrete becomes deeper and deeper. Now in my freshman year of college I realize that a concrete detail doesn't have t necessarily be the longest description, but it does need to be the most clear description.

Haltman thoroughly covered this in his essay, by stating that writers need to analyze and deduct before annotating to grasp the idea of the reading. This will help when having to describe objects or tell the meaning of a reading.

The title immediately grasped my attention, because I never heard anyone say that before and I was curious to see where the author was going with the piece.

To observe the idea that an object contains an infinite amount of meaning, concerning the context of its use brings me back around to What Is A Machete, Anyway? written by John Cline, an article circulating the significant meaning behind the machete-- a sharp, long knife. Historically, the machete was created to benefit those within the agricultural world, not to be used as a merciless weapon to end the lives of dozens, or even as a way of war against an oppressor, but because of the limited assets these people had they resulted to using the closest resource they could.

????????

non sequitur

Empathy with an object from an era past seems a bit overboard. All objects carry cultural significance, but in my own opinion, giving emotional relevance to it is a stage too far. Haltman assumes there is no right answer, but even so, there should be objectively wrong answers - those bordering on the ludicrous. Emotional analysis does little to contribute to a complete report on the cultural significance of an object - is the object's importance to the culture from which it came not greater than its importance to you as an observer?

Opposite of the way descriptions are handled in natural sciences, with a heavy emphasis on impersonal and clearly unbiased analysis. Haltman seems to encourage injecting one's own ideas at the potential expense of pure objectivism. This is both positive and negative, as it allows for a more vibrant array of ideas, but also allows for confirmation bias and the assessment of excess meaning to what may have only been a mundane occurrence.

It's quite an extrapolation to move from abstract ideas like life and death to physical, yet subjective measures such as the relative color and shape of an object.

What aspects make some objects more expressive than others?

When Haltman states that ones relationship to an object becomes more complex could he be referring to the polarity he mentioned earlier in the text? This complex relationship to 3D printing possibly leading to our own destruction and the polarity of using this for good and evil is exactly what Haltman is refering to when he says “the most persistent object metaphors expressive of belief” seem embedded in polarities.

I wonder if this applies to Haltmans conception of self conciousness? When he states that "The more self-conscious one becomes,the more complex one’s relationship to an object becomes,physically and ocularly as well as psychologically and experientially." Are makers consciously printing there own destruction?

This is an example of the nuanced language Haltman refers to. Descriptive language such as "bowling alone, "self-made man." According to Haltman this "Description provides the bridge between the realm of the material and that of concepts and ideas."

This article being an opinion post reflects Haltman's idea of turning to matters more subjective. Haltman suggest asking yourself "How does the object make you feel?"

This is a perfect example of Haltman's idea of "studying an object to formalize our observations in language." These books and TED talks are a result of Haltman's idea of material culture leading to descriptions and nuanced language. Leading to a better understanding of the object and language as a whole.

Refers to the nearsighted Individualistic approach to the maker movement. It is important because this approach has been infringing on the economic virility of the maker movement as a whole.

Simplistic economic individualism refers to those 3D printing as being disunited. It's important because this disunity could be the downfall of the "maker movement." If united, makers can disrupt the existing economy.

This is similar to the "material culture" that Haltman is referring to. Haltman states "Material culture begins with a world of objects but takes place in a world of words." this extreme capitalistic tent is what makes material culture possible. Which therefore makes it possible to "work“with”material objects,i.e.refer"to"them,the medium in which we work as cultural historians is language." Leading to the study of said objects.

The main text agrees with the supplemental text, by stating that visual analysis and verbal expression go hand in hand. Since the supplemental text is concerning 3D printing of objects and the main text regards using objects to expand language both texts are a fusion of visual analysis and verbal expression.

Both my primary and supplemental text mention polarity. "The persistent object metaphors expressive of belief seem embedded in polarities"The Haltman text mentions them in object metaphors in the same way my supplemental text uses the expression of makers and takers as a metaphor for what is to come with the use of 3D printing.

The supplemental text I am applying is "3D print your way to freedom". This text unlike the "Hallman" text is an online news article discussing the affects of 3D printing on both society and the economy. Whereas Hallman's is an anthology of essays, used to help build a better understanding of things.

In the length of a semester, it may seem that each little assignment is trivial and often times it is challenging to view the bigger picture. What I can see from this course is that each assignment is a culmination of a major assignment and the Prownian Analysis boils that down in a more digestible manner.

This paragraph describes the HIV/AIDS perfectly. I think the main point of each part of the quilt is to engage the viewer as a sort of detective. Every small detail holds a certain weight and one can see themes pop up after more investigation.

The article "3-D print your way to freedom and prosperity" isn't necessarily about polarity, but I think it uses compare and contrast in a bad way. The article jumps from the pros and cons of 3-D printing jarringly, without really establishing a strong opinion on either one.

This serves to be an effective tool for analytical interpretation. Often times, one attempts to perceive the nuances and deeper meaning behind an object right from the beginning. I know this is something that I tend to do. If something can be boiled down to something as basic as the polarities mentioned above, a birds-eye-view can be allocated to an object and zooming into smaller details will be easier.

This is an interesting comment and it helps understand how easy it can be to add subjective bias to a topic. Any kind of personal additions can largely narrow the scope of writing and it can make establishing new topics about a certain object even more challenging.

This is something I have struggled with in the past. Once my questions about certain topics are answered during research, it is difficult to keep my original thoughts in order, since I now know what is fact.

Baxandall makes a good point about pictures and how we use language to truly understand what one is looking at. In the context of objects in general, I think the supplementary text "3-D print your way to freedom and prosperity" sheds some light on how that could change if 3-D printing becomes more commonplace. I think being able to print whatever simple product one needs can change perceptions in a material culture and make certain things lose the value they may have once had.

This statement reminded me of the HIV/AIDS quilt. One can see the quilt objectively. I think the size of the quilt alone gives a good idea of how many people are/were affected. The quilt's subjective and personal appeals are what makes it so effective. Each part of the quilt has a story, family, and a fragment of time that makes it so memorable.

In this context, this statement is very illuminating. In a material culture, such as the one that is being described, the primary focus is on the objects. However, what makes certain objects more important than others in this viewpoint is how words are used to describe. I think a great example of this can be applied to the art world. There are countless talented artists in the world today that have incredible abilities.

This image looks like a picture taken by a camera, but it is actually hand-drawn. In an internet age, this illustration will get likes and favorites on social media, but there probably are not many long, meaningful comments about it.

Meanwhile, if you're shown an image like this one, it's instantly recognizable, and I believe that is largely to do with the amount of language used to describe this painting.

As stated in my secondary reading, describing the object in a concrete way instead of using abstract ideas can enhance your paper

In The Secret to Good Writing, many teachers believe that the ideas are what matter. This caused many of the students to easily get off topic, while Tyre believes that writing about physical objects helps them stay on topic.

Your imagination is critical when performing a task as you may come to a halt with writer's block if you are only thinking abstractly.

When describing an object we have to concisely give our readers or listeners a vivid description of what the object is. Being sure to keep the reader engaged by not floating away from the topic at hand.

When describing an object the better your vocabulary is the more precise you can be when detailing it, we all can look at something and have thoughts on it but how well we can interpret those thoughts matter more. I myself am working on bettering my vocabulary to be able to describe material more concrete.

As in The Secret to Good Writing the difference between writers is those who focus on the object rather than ideas. When you focus on ideas you may end up on a different topic which displays lack of control. While focusing on the object shows communication power.

An object can be viewed in different context depending on a person. As two people from different cultures may view marriage differently. One culture may continue to accept you if you express your concerns with your marriage and believe divorce is the right decision. While another culture may shun you due to your belief.

I agree completely with this statement, as we completed our class activity with our peer we found out the meanings of our objects were different than what we concluded on at first sight.

To lucidly be able to describe an object we have to firstly have an interest in it, as this is the only way we can be drawn into analyzing it.

An artifact can be visualized differently depending on a person and the society they are in or either from. In material culture we oftentimes see items that have a unique meaning for certain that culture. This put me in the mind of my peer as she brought a flag from her country of origin and even though her parents left because of the communistic government, she keeps the entity because it signifies their strengthen as a family, while still embracing her culture.

As I am a student when reading this essay with hopes of one day becoming a scholar at being able to articulate my descriptions of items. As for now this essay gives me insight on the thought process needed to achieve this ability.

A scholar can find importance in all items no matter how insignificant it may seem to a student.

When reading this essay I have to begin with an open mind as some of the text can be interpreted in many ways than one, I should read it and understand in my best ability of how the author would want me to. In my secondary reading "The Secret to Good Writing: It's About Objects, Not Ideas" the author discussed that thinking about things in an abstract way can get you off topic.

" it cannot be denied that the machete is a powerful symbol of violent, popular revolt, a tool/weapon freighted with centuries of significance.("john cline what is a machete anyways?")

This quote form the machete article relates to what is said in this haltman article on a perfect note mostly because the machete had a reputation built around it over the past decades making it to be known as a violent tool.

Description lets us form our own interpretation, Description opens several gates to the ways of how we could think of an object, People visualize things in their own way we account to what we see in something.

Description allows us to explore an open world of ideas to what something can be or could be, I think of History behind an object as one description,propaganda,war, and the use of the object in the past can give us the idea or concept of what material is. In the machete article he mentions movie villains, war, and villagers killing their neighbors this is history, this is the history behind the machete from the experience of others and its portrayal.

Remarks are what beliefs others in society had confirmed to which forms an attitude of some sort towards what the object is. Remarks are capable of forming misconception or even the truth behind material, Otherwise the whole world would have thought the same about certain material we confirm to the Remarks that aligns with our own personal beliefs.

The author is saying we should be clear and precise as much as possible to give the audience a clear idea of what we see with our own eyes and what feelings it imparts to ourselves. The man in the machete article had a similar experience through this with the actions of the machete him giving his own idea in detail of what the instrument is.

To look at a object that you specifically chose and to bring your own interpretation and your own outcome, can lead to opening up new possibilities and new subjects that lead to a deeper understanding of the item. Thereby drawing insight.

Every detail within the object is some sort of instrument to finding the answer to the meaning of it's use,purpose, and what motivates people to use such an object. We should be precise when describing material to indicate what culture lies beneath the object Prown is giving us the idea to incubate ourselves into the object to truly understand it. Patience, we can make an analogy with patience and a mother bird laying on her eggs till the birth of her children, Prown is saying that patience and time allows us to spot the details of an object. This in a way goes along the lines of what the man in "what is a machete anyway" was doing, He held a machete, he used the machete, and he knows what it's capable of doing.

This applies to majority of Sophie's writing in Material Culture, as to looking deeply into the significance of the objectified culture. It is not to look at the surface but to look inside and analyze what couldn't and can't be seen.

As the text suggests, There are questions of how Materials can be socialized with culture. The knowing of mere objects and the collaboration of civilization can lead to many historians questions and philosophies being answered or clearing the ideas. The material culture is not only looking at the object but looking at the deeper meaning.

As being suggested, both life and death are such contrasting concepts yet at the same time go hand-in-hand with each other and also open two different ideologies up for discussion. These prime ideologies open up the connections to how culture, material culture and social theory can be explained metaphorically.

I see Material Culture as a part of history, Material culture is like an guide to the idea of what makes an Object apart of a decade or several events in the past and present. Material Culture is apart of the world and peoples lives in the past and the ones living in the present as of now. When we dig deeper into Material and the culture and significance behind it we began to understand why It is apart of history and why it describes a time and place in the past and the world today.

As I have also wondered, it is questioned how objects can be "gauged for potential cultural expressiveness", although it is signified in the reading of Material Culture that objects can have meaning along with the culture that is align with it at that time.

Although many objects may be very distinguishing, others can have more of a descriptive background. Not only that but also attaching more significance to a person's livelihood and considers the subject of the object that is involved.

People have an idea of what underlies what a machete should be and it's purpose, I believe to have an unconscious belief is to confirm to what others beliefs are within an object. When we have a conscious belief we're able to determine what an object is to us and what are the motives and meaning behind the inanimate object.

An object may be characterized by their physical characteristics, but it is possible to have a different meaning by paying attention to not only physical characteristics but perhaps, a historical one. Thereby allowing said "gerundial meaning"

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/10/what-is-a-machete-anyway/280705/

The author of the what is a machete anyways had a real experience with the object that made him question himself about the power of a weapon used for fun or a tool whilst turning into a violent weapon. Haltman's statement I believe corresponds to this effectively, it does because this was a psychological experience when the authors friend had grabbed the machete from the bush when they encountered a stranger, They questioned their relationship with the Object making them question their own morals with the use of a dangerous object such as the "machete"

An interpretive analysis should come only after fully understanding a text and the goal it is trying to achieve.

The text is describing how we're obliged to study particular areas of objects within a text scaling from top to bottom, every detail is a part of the blueprint to what makes the object what it is. When I read "What is a Machete, Anyway?" I learned how it became visualized as a symbol for violence, History and it's relation to humans had formed this conception of what a Machete should be. The machete article and Haltman reading correlates with one another since the article goes in depth of the use of Machetes in the past and present.We have to try to understand what makes the object what it is and what's its use for.

It should not be difficult for the reader to follow you in your interpretation of an object. Your thoughts should be clear and concise.

You must think heavily when describing things and think outside the normal thought process. It is your interpretation therefore it should not fall under anyone else's umbrella of ideas.

This statement relates heavily to the supplement reading I have chosen , "The Secret to Good Writing". Describing an object comes from clear and concrete details. Our descriptions of a object helps readers understand the object better, the clear our description, the clearer the object becomes for the reader without actually seeing it.

This aligns the connections between my analysis and reading of Material Culture by Sophie Woodward, which explains the underlying strong connection that historians have with material culture.

People interpret things differently and it can be based off prior beliefs or how you were raised. For example, the term "football", if you grew up in Europe you would think of that word as what we commonly refer to as "soccer". However in the U.S football is a totally different sport. And thats not to say who is right, just a difference in interpretation.

This is stating although two objects can both be interpreted, one could be looked at in a deeper sense than the other one. For example, a rock and a laptop are both items that can be described. But because of the laptop's complexity the description can go on longer.

Through reading this text I have t come upon it with an open-mindedness attitude, because different people perceive text differently.

a system of methods used in a particular area of study or activity.

Beginning this reading, I had a very hard time understanding what the author was trying to say and comprehending the extensive vocabulary used. However once I read "The Secret to Good writing" by John Maguire, I have a better understanding of what the text is trying to say. It is basically attempting to describe how to describe objects in a text.

This quote made me think a lot about the entire process of describing an item. Different people have different ideas about things. So descriptions certainly do serve as the latter to objects and individuals concepts and ideas.

These writings have various connections that both collectively clash and mix with each other that comprehensively bring the subject of deeper meaning between the study of history and the understanding of it as well.

As a college student, I am subject to knowing the depth between the words of the essays that are collectively encased in the volume. This supplemental reading is to allow me to make distinguishing connections with my secondary reading "Material Culture" by Sophie Woodward, which goes into depth with how materials and certain objects can be seen in the world with such a great undertone and description which relates to the Haltman reading

Haltman Annotations

• Prownian analysis?

• "finding value in particular historical interpretations proposed by teapot ... students will find value in learning from the models..." this makes me think. Is this Prownian analysis. is this what makes writing better

• objects are like a physical piece of history, so this is kind of where the material culture term relates. We have to try to understand this

• we have to seek their cultural significance. In The secret to good writing, it was also brought up how objects mean so much more and have so much significance. I believe that is a way these are connected.

• It was stated also in The secret to good writing that all abstract ideas come from objects. that is another connection to understand.

• it is important to observe the object, pay careful attention to its aspects, be attentive for detail but keep an eye on the "big picture" .. this is a great point and will help with future writing. Observe closely and think deeply

• engage with the object on an intense and intellectually level? its more than describing an object

• prownian analysis .. a way of reading history?

• "We see articulation and deduce patterns of use; we see interaction and deduce relationship; we see expression and deduce reception" this is a bit confusing to understand. in other words does it mean to break down and evaluate.

• "Material culture begins with a world of objects but takes place in a world of words." this quote is relatable to the main idea of the secret of good writing I believe objects are the foundation for all abstract ideas

• The Prownian analysis process great if needed to look deeper into an object.

• Haltman makes me think of what was stated by Tyre in her article the secret to good writing she stated that "Student papers are often unreadable not only because their grammar is bad and their sentences incomplete, but also because they are way, way too abstract."

• The two articles relate yet they are different. I feel the composition is different yet the concepts are similar.

• Both articles relate to ways to improve writing and open the mind to new ideas about how to approach writing about a particular thing or object.

"3-D print your way to freedom and prosperity" by Jathan Sadowski

"The maker movement embraces a kind of naively apolitical, techno-economic, capitalist utopia that thrives on individualistic value" (Sadowski). This quote has it's own section in this article and provides a strong mantra for the phenomenon that is 3-D printing. Jathan Sadowski, a Ph.D. student at Arizona State University, talks about the concept of 3-D printing and how versatile it can be. The article begins with comments made by Barack Obama a State of the Union address from 2013. "'Three-D printing [has] the potential to revolutionize the way we make almost everything,' he said." Sadowski agrees with this and brings up a lot of points about the benefits of 3-D printing, such as the ability to be creative, ease of accessibility, and individualism and power given to the entrepreneurial mind. However, Sawoski argues that these very benefits fit well into "the Californian Ideology". This theory suggests that high-tech entrepreneurs can bypass the regulations and systems that have been established. However, these systems would not be broken or disrupted, but would actually stay the same. Sadowski makes another strong point about what dangers could be presented in easily-accessible 3-D printing. Since manufacturing regulations can be so easily disregarded when 3-D printing, dangerous products can be made. Sadowski writes about Cody Wilson, "a founder of Defense Distributed, [who] designed, prototyped, and posted plans for a working 3-D-printed plastic handgun he called the Liberator."

This article was written in 2014, when 3-D printing was still a very new concept and the potential for what could be created and which huge conglomerates could be toppled where boundless. However, the years have past and 3-D printing has slowly crept away from the mainstream media and dinner table conversations. The equipment needed to 3-D print a few years ago was still not consumer-friendly, but now you can buy 3-D printers for a few hundred dollars. Many schools around the United States have 3-D printers that are accessible to schools. I believe that the 3-D printing concept was always destined for small-scale usage. The flexibility to create whatever someone needs works best in a small-scale, because these products being printed do not have to go through the quality control that bigger manufacturers. I think the Californian Ideology did eventually come true, but under a different pretense. I think that the "system" was not impacted by 3-D printing because the bigger financial piece of the pie is the manufacturing of the 3-D printers, not so much the products being printed.

Source: Sadowski, Jathan. "3-D print your way to freedom and prosperity." Al Jazeera, 17 May 2014, http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/5/3d-printing-politics.html.

A means of identifying, analyzing and categorizing objects in Historical Archaeology.

In the analysis of the machete, the author examines not only the object itself, but the cultural significance of it and talks about how the original culture would interpret it as simply a tool and weapon of the poor farmers.

Some objects are meant to spread a message while some are products of necessity. The machete has been able to do both as an indirect effect of being a tool that was necessary at the time and a weapon that is capable of harming. However the extend to which an object signifies a deep and meaningful message about a particular culture does not limit it's cultural importance, it only makes such importance in the object harder to find.

Nobody ever thinks of a plan stapler as an essential and even cultural item that must have a prominent and deep meaning, but with enough observation and digging back to the roots of history, you can find intriguing facts and connections that can be made. Staples are only a byproduct of humanity's growth in written language and technology. They would not exist if machines like the typewriter and printer were not invented (both significant items on their own). To judge an object as historically important can turn out to be one sided and closed minded as there is signifigance is everything, and everything can be tied to a culture or a historical even that has either grown or reduced a culture.

These hooks make the object more interesting and offer a point of contrast that could be used when talking about cultures. One object can be associated with one ideal and be the opposite of that ideal. Taking the example of the machete, people view it as a destructive tool used for homocide, but historically it has saved many people and cultures from their downfall. This technique can make the reader intrigued and even invite more room for speculation as people will want to know what connections can be made between the two contrasting ideals. Such soeculation has the potential to create questions and invoke more thoughts about the background of the object and create a community discussion that argues about and shakes the current ideas about culture and society in both the present, past, and potentially future.

How long should the process of speculating be? I've always seen it as a process that can take a while depending on how detailed the object is. For something like the AIDS quilt, there is so much behind the entire project ranging from the visual aspects of our individual panels of the quilt to the in depth stories of the families and why they decided to memorialize their loved ones despite the heated political climate around the time. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2016/10/11/almost-30-years-later-people-are-still-impacted-by-the-aids-memorial-quilt/?utm_term=.b66b589fd879

"I'm obsessed with the importance of writing with objects, and know it works, but it's hard to get the idea across. It goes against the conventional teacher wisdom that says students have to handle abstract ideas, and what the heck does writing physically have to do with that?" While Haltman refers to working with material objects the proper historical grammatical language is required. Despite Maguire is obsessed with writing with objects he's not teaching the same methods for proper grammatical usage.

"How should one train students to give good, vivid examples in their writing? Should you tell them, Be more specific? I used to do that but I don't any more, because it's too vague, not operational." Haltman gave us methods on how write a proper depiction of an object with the correct process such as culturally, emotionally, physically, and creatively.

"When you think of a concrete object, you think wordlessly, and then, if you want to describe the thing you have been visualizing you probably hunt about until you find the exact words that seem to fit. When you think of something abstract, you are more inclined to use words from the start, and unless you make a conscious effort to prevent it, the existing dialect will come rushing in and do the job for you, at the expense of blurring or even changing your meaning." Maguire and Haltman both focus on one narrow point. Haltman focuses on the drawing and the linguistic. Meanwhile, Maguire focuses on the the same methods when describing a visual object.

"If the professional writers whom Fowler and Orwell addressed had to be warned away from over-abstraction, how much more do our students need that advice? Yet the writing textbooks on the whole say nothing about abstractitis, mentioning it at most only in passing. And instructors do not focus on over-abstraction, even though that's the major problem young writers have." Maguire states that even professional writes disapprove the idea of having too many ideas and specific objects and often teachers don't teach student's how to they because society trains the student's to follow. Korener disapprove their idea and argue that even objects can also perform what visual images can provide.

This kind of backbone for working can work for many other types of writing but definitely seems useful to be able to truly analyze objects with cultural significance.

It can be easy to describe what is easily seen but it takes creativity and thought to create connections between an object and the culture it belongs to as well as the culture of the one studying it. One must be willing to be imaginative to truly see the object for what it means instead of just the physical nature of it.

Only with careful deduction can you take into account both detailed parts of an object as well as the overall picture and connect them well.

By looking at an object multiple times, in different perspectives, one can discern much more subtle aspects of the object and the culture it represents.

This seems to be one of the main messages of this introduction. We can only really describe materials by using language. Though we interact with objects in the physical world, the significance and culture of an object is seen through the language used to describe it.

There are polarities in how to describe an object just as polarities that are often used to describe objects as well as polarities that the objects symbolize.

Prown approves objects that students select if he feels that the object has a cultural potency which leads to a good study about a part of a culture or human experience.

It is hard to choose what topic to study, even harder to choose just one panel in a quilt with thousands.

The article I chose was "A Terminal Condition: The Cathode Ray Tube's Strange Afterlife." Part of its cultural significance is the actual object itself but it also showed many different parts of changing cultures over many years.

In Maguires article-"From a teacher's perspective, the lovely thing about this technique of writing with things you can drop on your foot is that both the skilled and the unskilled can do it." By having different techniques in writing aids the students to write with purpose and pay close attention to verbiage to achieve better writing skills.

The study of the development of human consciousness and self-awareness.

You have to first look to see the object itself before you can see beyond it to why it is significant.

Going to cultural museums, I have often seen objects be used to explain the cultures of different parts of the world. Specifically, Reflections of Culture at Fernbank that is mostly looking at the significance to different objects and colors for cultures around the world.

Miguire "Ideas are what matter," Bernadette said confidently. "Getting them to define and handle ideas is what's important, not things." Halman explain that without usage ot the mind on thinking and creative ideas it would be almost impossible to write a creative player relating to Migure saying that ideas are the most important.

"Ideas are what matter," Bernadette said confidently. "Getting them to define and handle ideas is what's important, not things." - Maguire. In Haltmans text he expresses how it would be almost impossible to write without using your mind and creative imagination skills.

Maguire-"They don't understand why this bias toward the physical matters nor why it works" by writing with a biast perspective allows the reader one side of the story which isn't fair to the reader.

In Maguire article states "They don't understand why this bias toward the physical matters nor why it works." This will have an negative impact because it would affect how the reader obtain the information only seeing one side of the spectrum. This would only let the reader comprehend one side of the story.

WhiletoomuchKenneth Haltman informationcanbealmostasbadastoolittle,anythingleftoutofdescriptionislosttointerpretationforever. (pg 6/7)

The students in Maguire classroom didn't do enough research such as examples and information to know more about the subjects they were assigned to which explained detailed in Haltmans quote.The reason is because students ideas are jumbled and not clear and concise to a narrow focus on the subject.

Maguire state that "Today I give students a shortcut. I say, "Write physically. Write with physical objects. Put physical objects in your essay." This shows that its crucial to express and comprehend the significance of the object because even Maguire follows Haltman's ideology when composing ideas for writing.

By Maguire instructing his students to "Write physically. Write with physical objects. Put physical objects in your essay". When you identify a object it signifies much more meaning and helps you write with purpose when you have a object to show significance much similar to Haltman theory of writing an essay.

The text I have decided to examine in conjunction with this one is the article "Material Culture" by Sophie Woodward. I chose this text because of the fact that its rationale is similar to Haltman's.

The process may seem arduous, yet it has always shown its effectiveness.

Explanations of possible queries will most likely seem hidden away but with the right to detail you can force these concepts out.

When it comes to material culture, a incredible amount of thought and knowledge is required and also the ability to recognize key details.

When collecting ideas from examinations of artifacts it may be best to not make bold presumptions or nonsensical statements.

The article written by Sophie Woodman addresses material culture in a similar light, that objects pertaining to a certain culture are likely to represent a demographic wholly.

Images are not to be presented solely by what they depict but, instead based on reflections and thoughts of that image.

Haltman seemigly implies that an improper description may fully distort the meaning attached to an object.

With practice and concentration, those who study cultures will be able to deduce notions and behavior based on the physical characteristics of the object.

Just as Sophie claims, Haltman as well says that only after full contemplation shall those studying objects and physical aspects be able to grasp a true understanding. Observers must go beyond just looking.

What is the meaning of "pedagogic" ?

What is "etymological"? Defined as: relating to the origin and historical development of words and their meanings

This relates to what we discussed in class during the first week about what a "good question" is and how would you ask a "good question" and how its important to think about this when working on any type of research. It helps in jogging thoughtful discussion as well.

There is a meaning behind everything but some things may have a deeper meaning than others or may be interpreted in various ways to different people.

I am applying the "What is a Machete, Anyway" as my supplemental text and the main idea of that article is expressing how there are various interpretations of what a Machete is actually. Some people see it as a tool while others see it as a weapon. Everyone's view on a particular object is not the same because of cultural differences. In the article, Cline says himself, "the machete bears an unusual character. It’s possible to conceive of it as a weapon, yes, but it’s also very much a tool — not altogether different from, say, a shovel."

In relations to the "What is a Machete, Anyway" article where the machete can be described as a weapon but also as a tool, relates to this specific line in terms of how people look at objects differently.

When expressing your interpretations of an object you need to understand the physical significant value that object holds in that culture which will explain their individual perspective.

Relating to the science of phenomena as distinct from that of the nature of being.

Relating to metaphysics; the essentially metaphysical question of the nature of the mind.

Relating to the origin and historical development of words and their meanings.

A means of identifying, analyzing and categorizing objects in Historical Archaeology.

It is because of this very limitless possibility that allows for a greater understanding of a culture to be understood

Can a object be linked on a spritual and cultural level?

I beleive this text and the secondary The Secret to Good Writing: It's About Objects, Not Ideas, agree in a sense that the main text is looking for a individual to develop a deeper connection and meaning to a object for a better understanding, while the secondary text is developing a a deeper connection to ideas that are presented.

It is a very bad death with fits and starts. It does not get a proper burial nor does its death provide new life. The circle of life does not seem to be working well for CRTs. This break in the circle of life seems to be causing a whole lot of problems for other parts that are connected to them.

New advancements always seem to come with some problems. Sometimes it is easier to try to adapt to an items problems instead of trying to fix the item.

People were buying into technological things that do not work yet a long time ago. It seems that humanity is always looking at and anticipating about what is coming next in the world even when there is nothing to be seen yet.

CRT screens were the first way to see beyond what was within a reachable distance and connect with others both far away and close. It allowed people to disconnect with interacting with the Earth, like playing outside, will the effects of what was needed to create the screens could be seen when away from Earth.

Of course there was a controversy. It is hard to make people believe that there is something when they cannot see it. It seems to be that in those times there was always skeptics about new technology as it hadn't been seen before. This helps to bring even more history to something that would be considered ancient by anyone born in the last decade.

I am not sure that it is completely dead. There is still some use for it, especially among older generations that grew up with it. I know that I still make use of cathode ray tube tvs.

As related to the primary text, the interpretations of what a machete is defined as can be viewed differently from all aspects. From a law standpoint, they see the machete as a weapon because it is a sharp object but others see it as a tool because it can be compared to a table saw or an ax.

This goes back to the primary researches statement of culture having an affect on how people see objects. Some cultures use machetes as actual tools i.e the "corn knife" while others see it as a weapon because they have seen it being used in that way.

In the last paragraph of the piece, Haltman writes about the study of material culture being a more exploratory process rather than explanatory process. I believe this is what Cline was doing in his article on the machete. He was exploring different cultures' meaning of the machete.

Cline, John. “What Is a Machete, Anyway?” The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 21 Oct. 2013, www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/10/what-is-a-machete-anyway/280705/.

In the last paragraph of page eight Haltman writes about the "simplicity of freely choosing an object..."(Haltman, page 8). In Cline's case there was no freedom in choosing an object. Cline wrote the article to give more information on a certain incident.

Cline, John. “What Is a Machete, Anyway?” The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 21 Oct. 2013, www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/10/what-is-a-machete-anyway/280705/.

On page seven in the last paragraph Haltman says that an analysis of an object should not necessarily be an argument, but should have a claim and present information. Cline seems to do exactly this in his article. He presents historical evidence of the machete being used as a weapon and a tool, but does not argue as to whether or not a machete should be seen as either in today's world (Cline)

.Cline, John. “What Is a Machete, Anyway?” The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 21 Oct. 2013, www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/10/what-is-a-machete-anyway/280705/.

In the third paragraph of page six Haltman describes the importance thinking about how an object signifies its meaning. Cline writes the machete was a symbol of terror during the Rwandan Genocide because it was used to kill millions of people. This effectively explains how the machete was a symbol of terror in Rwanda.

Cline, John. “What Is a Machete, Anyway?” The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 21 Oct. 2013, www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/10/what-is-a-machete-anyway/280705/.

In the last two paragraphs of page five Haltman describes the process of deducing meaning from an object. It is a very fast process. Our deductions are influenced by our current culture, so our deductions could be wrong because the object comes from a different culture. In his article, Cline talks about his own exposure to machetes being used as agricultural tools. He would at first associate a machete as a tool rather than as a weapon, however in some cultures this symbolism could be wrong.

Cline, John. “What Is a Machete, Anyway?” The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 21 Oct. 2013, www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/10/what-is-a-machete-anyway/280705/.

On page four Haltman writes about the importance of word choice when writing about an object. A reader's view of a culture will be based on the writer's interpretation, and word choice heavily influences interpretation. Cline seems to write in a light-hearted manner, at times almost comedic, to maintain a more informative approach, as opposed to taking a stand on the arrest of the man carrying a machete (Cline).

Cline, John. “What Is a Machete, Anyway?” The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 21 Oct. 2013, www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/10/what-is-a-machete-anyway/280705/.

The last paragraph of page three is a quote from Jules Prown on describing an object. In Cline's article a brief history of the machete is given, defining its original purpose as an agricultural tool in 16th century Europe. However, it was soon also used as a weapon, creating a different meaning for the tool (Cline).

Cline, John. “What Is a Machete, Anyway?” The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 21 Oct. 2013, www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/10/what-is-a-machete-anyway/280705/.

I chose John Cline's article "What is a Machete, Anyway?" as my supplementary reading. The article addresses the arrest of a man who was carrying an unconcealed machete in public. Cline writes about the history and cultural symbolism attached to the machete, pondering whether or not the machete should be considered a weapon (Cline).

Cline, John. “What Is a Machete, Anyway?” The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 21 Oct. 2013, www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/10/what-is-a-machete-anyway/280705/.

In the first paragraph of page one, Haltman writes about the importance of asking certain types of questions when researching a cultural object. In his article, Cline asks what the machete meant or symbolized to various cultures over time (Cline).

Cline, John. “What Is a Machete, Anyway?” The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 21 Oct. 2013, www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/10/what-is-a-machete-anyway/280705/.

3-D printing is the process of creating an object that is new, by breaking something down and then fabricating it into something of use. This process is very convenient and fast. Unlike the Haltman's essay this discusses the effects of 3-D printing on both social and economical scales.