Proofread Request. Short 1 Page!

[Coldkilla]

This isn't asking anyone to "do the homework for me". I wrote the paper, and now I ask for any ATOT person who may have a little time in their day to read this for any grammatical/spelling errors. I know my writing is bad, it has been since I was 4. This paper was only supposed to be about a page long and I think I finished it. It's made to compare two essays: John Berger?s ?Ways of Seeing? and Michel Foucault?s ?Panopticism.".

If you have any suggestions, comments, revisions you would like to make, please do. I will have some time tomorrow morning to check over your comments and make revisions before class. I appreciate your time. Thanks:

============================


-----------In many ways, both the works of John Berger?s ?Ways of Seeing? and Michel Foucault?s ?Panopticism,? we see that they make a very strong case on surveillance. Berger talks about how someone can view the world as a whole, and Foucault shows how someone can view world by watching someone. In terms of perception, they hold many different truths, ranging from: the value of freedom, learning, growing, and to also the path toward increasing one?s power.

-----------The value of freedom has decreased throughout the years. Foucault illustrates this by discussing on how one establishment called the ?Panopticism,? eventually transformed into the dozens of institutions we live in today. The Panopticism was an idea of a single establishment in the 17th century, that centralized the use of learning, discipline, and detention. However, instead the idea one centralized place for these ideals transformed into dozens, if not thousands of establishments ranging from: schools, prisons, the workplace, even hospitals. The future holds many different types of establishments that we don?t even think about today. The freedoms we all exhibit now, could all be classified as something else tomorrow, perhaps even eventually against the law. In contrast, Berger discusses how original art throughout the years has decreased because artists were being paid to create something, and thus the artwork was not coming from their heart. As time progresses creativity goes down and the freedom to express one?s self diminishes.

-----------Berger describes that the uneducated parts of the world exhibit less interest in some of today?s artwork. The richer countries are generally the more educated, as Will Durant, (U.S. author and historian) says, ?Education is a progressive discovery of our ignorance.? As time goes on and education becomes more available to other countries, they begin to see their mistakes from the past to move on. Contrasting this to the idea of the Panopticism, as time continues to move on, things get worse. People will always see a need to create a new institution to help people and even today?s practices may be deemed as ?unfit? for tomorrows world.

-----------One of the largest comparisons that I think should be made between these two essays is the desire for political power. ?In the end, the art of the past in being mystified because a privileged minority is striving to invent a history which can retrospectively justify the role of the ruling classes, and such a justification can no longer make sense in modern terms.? (Berger 136) I believe Berger is saying here that creativity is being abused to help promote the rich to keep them in power. In retrospect, Foucault talks about how fear is the driving force behind rallying public support to have someone in power. With that fear, there is a need for discipline, which is characterized by the many institutions we have today to help create this discipline. Both of these essays show how the world is constantly being watched by everyone, and how each person is striving to better themselves in the world they live in, whether its increase political power or to have a place to care for the sick.

============================

I know my writing sucks, and to put icing on the cake: I'm a freshmen in college with these writing skills. I could really use any suggestions/revisions you may have for me. Appreciated much. Thanks again.

PS: I anticipate the: "Take a writers class, you'll learn then. That's my suggestion." Answers. So please, if you could just stick to the more serious reply's so I can actually put some of those suggestions/revisions to work on this paper in paticular, I would appreciate it. Thanks again all!

Edit: This is supposed to be written using: "MLA Guidelines", hopefully I got that right. *Crosses fingers*. Thanks again for your time, looking forward to your responces in a few hours.

 

[JasonSix78]

Originally posted by: Coldkilla
This isn't asking anyone to "do the homework for me". I wrote the paper, and now I ask for any ATOT person who may have a little time in their day to read this for any grammatical/spelling errors. I know my writing is bad, it has been since I was 4. This paper was only supposed to be about a page long and I think I finished it. It's made to compare two essays: John Berger?s ?Ways of Seeing? and Michel Foucault?s ?Panopticism.".

If you have any suggestions, comments, revisions you would like to make, please do. I will have some time tomorrow morning to check over your comments and make revisions before class. I appreciate your time. Thanks:

============================


-----------In many ways, both the works of John Berger?s ?Ways of Seeing? and Michel Foucault?s ?Panopticism,? we see that they make a very strong case on surveillance. Berger talks about how someone can view the world as a whole, and Foucault shows how someone can view the world by watching someone. In terms of perception, they hold many different truths, ranging from: the value of freedom, learning, growing, and to also the path toward increasing one?s power.

-----------The value of freedom has decreased throughout the years. Foucault illustrates this by discussing on(omit "on" maybe?) how one establishment called the ?Panopticism,? eventually transformed into the dozens of institutions we live in today. The Panopticism was an idea of a single establishment in the 17th century, that centralized the use of learning, discipline, and detention. However, instead the idea of one centralized place for these ideals transformed into dozens, if not thousands of establishments ranging from: schools, prisons, the workplace, even hospitals. The future holds many different types of establishments that we don?t <--"wouldn't" instead of don't? even think about today. The freedoms we all omit "all"? exhibit now, could all be classified as something else tomorrow, perhaps even eventually against the law. In contrast, Berger discusses how original art throughout the years have decreased because artists were being paid to create something, and thus the artwork was not coming from their heart. As time progresses creativity goes down and the freedom to express one?s self diminishes.

-----------Berger describes that the uneducated parts of the world exhibit less interest in some of today?s artwork. The richer countries are generally the <--Omit "the"? more educated, as Will Durant, (U.S. author and historian) says, ?Education is a progressive discovery of our ignorance.? As time goes on and education becomes more available to other countries, they begin to see their mistakes from the past to move on. Contrasting this to the idea of the Panopticism, as time continues to move on, things get worse. People will always see a need to create a new institution to help people and even today?s practices may be deemed as ?unfit? for tomorrows world.

-----------One of the largest comparisons that I think should be made between these two essays is the desire for political power. ?In the end, the art of the past in being mystified because a privileged minority is striving to invent a history which can retrospectively justify the role of the ruling classes, and such a justification can no longer make sense in modern terms.? (Berger 136) I believe Berger is saying here that creativity is being abused to help promote the rich to keep them in power. In retrospect, Foucault talks about how fear is the driving force behind rallying public support to have someone in power. With that fear, there is a need for discipline, which is characterized by the many institutions we have today to help create this discipline. Both of these essays show how the world is constantly being watched by everyone, and how each person is striving to better themselves in the world they live in, whether its increase political power or to have a place to care for the sick.

============================

I know my writing sucks, and to put icing on the cake: I'm a freshmen in college with these writing skills. I could really use any suggestions/revisions you may have for me. Appreciated much. Thanks again.

PS: I anticipate the: "Take a writers class, you'll learn then. That's my suggestion." Answers. So please, if you could just stick to the more serious reply's so I can actually put some of those suggestions/revisions to work on this paper in paticular, I would appreciate it. Thanks again all!

Edit: This is supposed to be written using: "MLA Guidelines", hopefully I got that right. *Crosses fingers*. Thanks again for your time, looking forward to your responces in a few hours.

I've been up all night and I may have missed some stuff. My suggestions are in italics and bold type.

Where's my $10?

-Jason

 

[Luden]

I was not kind enough to to mark my changes, just edited them.. At least its better then nothing, no?

-----------In many ways, in both the works of John Berger?s ?Ways of Seeing? and Michel Foucault?s ?Panopticism,? we see a the foundation for a very strong case on surveillance. Berger speaks on how man can view the world as a whole, and Foucault displays how someone can view the world by watching someone. In terms of perception, they hold many different truths, ranging from: the values of freedom, learning, growing, and expanding onto the path towards increasing one?s power.

-----------The value of freedom has decreased throughout the years. Foucault illustrates this issue in his theory(?) ?Panopticism,? which has eventually transformed into the dozens of institutions, as we live in today. The Panopticism was a theory based on a single establishment being centralized around the structure of learning, discipline, and detention. However, now instead of only one seeing one centralized place for these ideals it has transformed into dozens, if not thousands of establishments ranging from: schools, prisons, the workplace, even hospitals. And the future will only open us to even a greater number of vast unknown possibilities of estasblishments. The freedoms that which we exhibit currently could be classified as something else tomorrow, perhaps even eventually against the law. In the contrary, Berger discusses how original art throughout the years has decreased since art has moved from a passion to a income, artists are only now being paid to create something, and thus the artwork was not coming from their heart. As time progresses creativity goes down and the freedom to express one?s self diminishes.

-----------Berger describes that the uneducated parts of the world exhibit less interest in some of today?s artwork. The richer countries are generally the more educated, as Will Durant, (U.S. author and historian) says, ?Education is a progressive discovery of our ignorance.? As time goes on and education becomes more available to other countries, they begin to see their mistakes from the past to move on. Contrasting this to the idea of the Panopticism, as time continues to move on, things get worse. People will always see a need to create a new institution to help people and even today?s practices may be deemed as ?unfit? for tomorrows world.

-----------One of the largest comparisons that I think should be made between these two essays is the desire for political power. ?In the end, the art of the past in being mystified because a privileged minority is striving to invent a history which can retrospectively justify the role of the ruling classes, and such a justification can no longer make sense in modern terms.? (Berger 136) Berger states that creativity is being abused to help promote the rich to keep them in power. In retrospect, Foucault displays that fear is the driving force behind rallying public support to have someone in power. With this fear, there is a need for discipline, which is characterized by the many institutions which we have today to help create this discipline. Both of these essays display how the world is constantly being watched by everyone, and how each person is striving to better themselves in the world which they live in, whether its increase political power, or to have a place to care for the sick.

 

[Coldkilla]

we see a the foundation for a very strong case on surveillance

possibilities of estasblishments.

^ Good thing I was reading the replys carefully.

Anyways, thanks for the suggestions, class in an hour. Hopefully I'll have this thing fixed up by then.

 

[jhayx7]

My 2 cents:

Invest in a Harbrace Handbook. It is the best reference book for writing that I have ever seen (even my wife agrees, she is an english major). I keep it in my backpack at all times, for school and work.