Man in Machine: Apollo-Era Space Suits as Artifacts of Technology and Culture

1. Douglas N, Lantry, “Man in Machine: Apollo-Era Space Suits as Artifacts of Technology and Culture,” Winterthur Portfolio 30, no.4

(Winter 1995): 203-230
2. Jules David Prown, “Mind in Matter: An Introduction to Material Culture Theory and Method,” Winterthur Portfolio 17, no. 1 (Spring

1982): 1-19

-Your assignment is to write a 750-word (roughly 3 full pages) summary of the readings for one class period, to be submitted in hard

copy at the beginning of that class period. Just include your last name in the header, and page # is fine (no elaborate heading needed;

include method/topic or interesting title if you like at maximum).

I want you to be free to write a fluid response to the text, both summarizing and reacting to it with your own thoughts, and yet there

are some components I expect to see. You must give a short (1-3 paragraph summary of each writer’s main idea or thesis or project in

their article, defining any major concepts the writer describes or creates. First summarize the entire article in 1-2 sentences, then

go into more detail. Try to do this in your own words, but if you happen to do any research on these basic concepts or the article

itself, you must cite your source fully. Do not give a biography of the writer in the abstract; only mention something biographical

briefly if relevant to your abstract and setting the work in the larger context, for example if we know the person studied a particular

method that shows up in their work, based on the general biography, and what you notice in the text.

Consider the topic under which the readings fall (e.g. Feminism) and be sure to read about that methodology or theory in the d’Alleva

text or in another source online. You should have a good sense of the main components or tactics of that methodological approach, and

write about how this article or chapter embodies that approach. Set the work within the context of that movement.

Finally, how does this work and its methodological approach relate to the approaches we have seen so far? Builds off of them? Reacts

against them? Be specific and show how they relate. What is useful about the author’s approach? Do you agree with their

thesis/assessment? What does it do for the work of art? For our understanding? How does this contribute to the canon? Are there any

blind spots? What does it do for the artist/work of art/period/culture under discussion? What questions are you left with?

‘ Summary of author’s main points and overall point of article/chapter
‘ Set the work within the context of this particular method or movement
‘ Set the work within the context of the methods we have looked at thus far
‘ If relevant, make connections between the two readings
‘ Provide your own critical analysis of the ideas presented– what is useful about the author’s approach or contribution? How does this

contribute to our understanding? What does this do for the canon? What questions, if any, does it raise for us?

Posted in Uncategorized

Leave a Reply