HUMN 303 Week 3 Discussion: Influences of Ancient Architecture

HUMN 303 Week 3 Discussion: Influences of Ancient Architecture

HUMN 303 Week 3 Discussion: Influences of Ancient Architecture

Required Resources

Read/review the following resources for this activity:

Textbook: Chapter 6

Lesson 2

Minimum of 1 scholarly source (in addition to the textbook)

Initial Post Instructions

This week you will read about architecture. The lesson includes information on Roman architecture, which was greatly influenced by the Greeks and Etruscans.

Locate at least two architectural works that were influenced by Greco-Roman architecture. These can be from any time period after the Greco-Roman period but should be from different periods themselves (e.g., one from Renaissance and one from Baroque). Then address the following:

ORDER A CUSTOMIZED, PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

Good News For Our New customers . We can write this assignment for you and pay after Delivery. Our Top -rated medical writers will comprehensively review instructions , synthesis external evidence sources(Scholarly) and customize a quality assignment for you. We will also attach a copy of plagiarism report alongside and AI report. Feel free to chat Us

What is the function of each structure?

How does each work exhibit influence of the Greco-Roman period? Is the influence specifically Greek, Etruscan, or Roman – or a combination?

How would you compare the two selected works? Take the role of the evaluative critic.

Use examples from the text, the lesson, and the library to help support your answer. Please remember to provide images and citations to help illustrate your points.

Follow-Up Post Instructions

Respond to at least one peer. Further the dialogue by providing more information and clarification.

Writing Requirements

Minimum of 2 posts (1 initial & 1 follow-up)

Minimum of 2 sources cited (assigned readings/online lessons and an outside source)

APA format for in-text citations and list of references

Grading

This activity will be graded using the Discussion Grading Rubric. Please review the following link:

Link (webpage): Discussion Guidelines

Course Outcomes

CO 1: Identify the content, forms, and/or techniques of work of art (e.g., architecture, fine art, literature, and/or drama).

CO 2: Analyze the content, forms, and/or techniques of a work of art (e.g., architecture, fine art, literature, and/or drama).

CO 3: Explain the historical/cultural/social context in which a work was created.

CO 4: Classify works of art using different approaches (by discipline, genre, style, period, etc.) in order to contextualize the works and relate them to a variety of influences.

Due Date

Due Date for Initial Post: By 11:59 p.m. MT Recommended by Wednesday

Due Date for Follow-Up Posts: By 11:59 p.m. MT on Sunday

Posts must be on two separate days.

Image result for Daniel Libeskind – Facing Gaia

Daniel Libeskind – Facing Gaia

Libeskind — a self-declared “people’s architect” — always insisted that he wanted to create “a space for people, not just corporations.” But what is a “space for people”? One possible answer might be a space where citizens recognize their polity (and themselves) as subscribing to democratic values. Particular shapes or even materials are often said to symbolize such values: glass, for instance, is taken to signify “transparency” (and, by implication, democratic “accountability”). Greek and Roman statues are supposed to remind citizens of democratic ideals from the ancient past. (Mueller, 2015)

This week we are looking at Greek and Roman architecture and we are going to look at how they have influenced American architecture. This will let us look at how the types of buildings we make express our values.

The discussions are open throughout the class, but you can only get credit for posting during the week the discussion is assigned. That means that I will be grading posts in Week 3 discussions that are submitted between Sunday 9/15 and Sunday 9/22.

References:

Mueller, J. (2015, June 22). Can Architecture be Democratic? Retrieved July 3, 2018, from http://www.publicseminar.org/2015/06/can-architecture-be-democratic/

Discussion Grading Rubric_Gen Ed_ JAN21

Discussion Grading Rubric_Gen Ed_ JAN21
Criteria Ratings Pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeInitial Post Content
7 pts

Outstanding

Addresses ALL aspects of the initial discussion question(s), applying experiences, knowledge, and understanding regarding ALL weekly concepts.

5 pts

Very Good

Addresses MOST aspects of the initial discussion question(s), applying experiences, knowledge, and understanding of MOST of the weekly concepts.

3 pts

Competent

Address SOME aspects of the initial discussion question(s), applying experiences, knowledge, and understanding of SOME of the weekly concepts.

0 pts

Poor

Minimally address the initial discussion question(s) or does not address the initial question(s).
7 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeInitial Post Evidence & Sources

4 pts

Outstanding

Integrates evidence to support discussion from assigned readings OR online lessons, AND at least one outside scholarly source. Sources are credited.

3 pts

Very Good

Integrates evidence to support discussion from assigned readings OR online lessons. Sources are credited.

2 pts

Competent

Integrates evidence to support discussion only from an outside source with no mention of assigned reading or lesson. Sources are credited.

0 pts

Poor

Does not integrate any evidence.
4 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeFollow-up Post
8 pts

Outstanding

Response furthers the dialogue by providing more information and clarification, thereby adding much depth to the discussion.

6 pts

Very Good

Response furthers the dialogue by adding some depth to the discussion

4 pts

Competent

Response does not further the dialogue significantly; add little depth to the discussion.

0 pts

Poor

Does not respond to another student or instructor.
8 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeProfessional Communication

4 pts

Outstanding

Presents information using clear and concise language in an organized manner (minimal errors in English grammar, spelling, syntax, and punctuation).

3 pts

Very Good

Presents information in an organized manner (few errors in English grammar, spelling, syntax, and punctuation).

2 pts

Competent

Presents information using understandable language but is somewhat disorganized (some errors in English grammar, spelling, syntax, and punctuation).

0 pts

Poor

Presents information that is not clear, logical, professional or organized to the point that the reader has difficulty understanding the message (numerous errors in English grammar, spelling, syntax, and/or punctuation).
4 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeFrequency of Responses

2 pts

Outstanding

Posts in the discussion on two different days.

0 pts

Poor

Posts fewer than two different days OR does not participate at all.
2 pts

Total Points: 25