Passage Discussion

[johnadamsbird]

Hey Manhattanites,

I'm trying to hone my scale-identifying skills, and had a question about this type of passage. I had trouble finding an alternative to the author's argument (i.e. that Noguchi was original and broke the mold in sculpting--pun intended). Am I trying to read "through" the scale instead of reading "for" the scale? Is understanding the author's perspective sufficient in this type of passage?

Thanks,
Johnny

[ohthatpatrick]

Yeah, I think this is a pretty one-sided passage. The author is a big Noguchi fan and is essentially writing a puff-piece.

Often when an author presents the work of an artist that he/she admires, there is some common criticism of the artist that the author would argue against (or a misconception that the author would clarify). But here there’s no such stuff, so identifying a scale is a somewhat fruitless pursuit.

I tend to always read primarily for the author’s main point and purpose (since EVERY passage has that). In this case, the first paragraph gives me the author’s tone (very pro-Noguchi) and the author’s purpose is revealed in line 9-10 “i’m going to discuss one specific story to illuminate my general theme about this artist’s creativity”.

If I pick up on a scale as I’m reading, I’ll use that to help organize the various chunks of the passage according to whether they land on one side or the other.

But if I’m reading a passage like this with no real opposing point of view to the author’s, I look for other distinctions to hang my hat on.

When passages are largely descriptive or one-sided, the author is frequently pointing out what makes the topic distinctive or noteworthy. Those become the big ideas.

If you had to pick a few things that the author thought were “special” about Noguchi or his work, what would they be?

I’d fixate on stuff like
“deeply original questions” / “veered off at wide angles from well-known courses followed by conventionally talented”

“sculptors through the ages had relied exclusively on negative light”
not our buddy Noguchi! He goes for positive light.

Well THIS becomes a very important distinction (or scale, if you want to think about it that way).

Noguchi’s vision with THIS innovative sculpture (positive light reflections)
vs.
Sculptors through the ages relying exclusively on negative light / shadows

Many of the questions test our understanding of how Noguchi’s innovative new idea differed from the typical, traditional type of sculpture.

So this isn’t the typical “he said / she said” scale, but it’s the central distinction that makes Noguchi noteworthy and different.

The 3rd paragraph gives us more meat on that scale
Noguchi had chrome nickel steel (finally, a usable substance for positive light sculptures)
vs.
traditionally, sculptors didn’t have a material that reliably gave off positive light reflections

The 4th paragraph:
Noguchi’s positive light sculpture would have an “invisible” surface and thus a shape that was only derived secondarily
vs.
Traditional sculptures apparently had “visible” surfaces and you could immediately see their presence and dimensional relationships

Hope this helps