Last Name 1 First and Last Name Professor Class May 13, 2019 Heritage Preservation and Gentrification: Japan, China, and Los Angeles In our world of modern architecture and technology, the past is often overlooked. Heritage sites around the world are neglected or bulldozed for the pursuit of new development and profit. However, heritage architecture is an invaluable part of history. Both gentrification and preservation legislation can either work for or against these precious sites. The following paper will argue that preserving heritage architecture must be done through adding economic value to the architecture. Sustainability, cultural history and economics are all key factors in this crucial discussion. 1. Preservation of Heritage Architecture Preserving heritage architecture is a complex issue that requires nuance. First and foremost, defining what makes up a heritage site is an initial hurdle. Cities all over the world have growing and diverse populations. The history of each city is also unique. Thus, deciding what specific architecture is worth preserving can prove difficult. As stated with clarity, the “origins of heritage [can be] defined by using the past as a resource for the present” (Graham, et al. 11). However, although this definition is clear, it does not make the differentiation for heritage any easier. The past can be shaped into an entity for the present and future. Yet this depends on the ownership of the past and what kind of present and future is desired. Buildings may be old and appear aesthetically interesting, but if their structure is damaged, they are dangerous. Furthermore, some heritage is better left in the past. In the United States, slavery is a tragic part Last Name 2 of historical heritage, as is Native American genocide. For China, the Cultural Revolution was an incredibly dark chapter. Many people still alive from this period would rather not remember. Japan also faced atomic attacks and many terrifying earthquakes. The two latter countries both have histories ruled by many Emperors. Therefore, preserving heritage architecture is a complex and problematic subject. Historical records of countries exist in multiple forms. Architecture is only one of them. Thereby, it is important to preserve only architecture that is still viable, meaningful, and of value. Preserving heritage architecture is a central way to memorialize history, since buildings are tangible and lasting. Heritage sites should “[contain] transferable values, whether architectural/aesthetic, social or moral, [making particular buildings deserve preservation and restoration]” (Graham et al. 16). Often, heritage sites may be preserved for their landmark architecture. Other times, aesthetic beauty or social function are central claims for their restoration. Preservation of heritage is an important way to keep the history of a society alive. However, how to keep them alive remains a burning question. For example, some developers the façade of heritage architecture alive but create new commercial boutiques. Does this practice help protect the heritage of the site, or does it only turn history into a cheap marketing ploy? With ever-changing societies, economies, and cities, it is difficult to marry heritage with contemporary life. Gentrification is an important overlap in this subject, as heritage sites require refurbishing of otherwise unused or damaged spaces. Yet, gentrification is also problematic: by transforming the past into the future, the present is often overlooked. 2. Gentrification Gentrification is the process of reanimating an area for commercial purposes. In any given city, certain neighborhoods become economically depressed. When this occurs, every Last Name 3 aspect of the neighborhood breaks down. Factories are abandoned, restaurants close, churches are left, leaving a large number of down-trodden buildings. With gentrification, the mission is to recreate a bustling center for urban life in these areas. Thus, gentrification is somewhat paradoxical: “although the very apparent social characteristics of deteriorated neighborhoods would discourage redevelopment, the hidden economic characteristics may well be favorable” (Smith 538). It requires imagination, vision, and capital to gentrify many abandoned neighborhoods in the world. Yet the economic motive within this model does speak volumes. While certain neighborhoods are poor, their price is therefore also low. This leaves developers to buy up large buildings and repurpose them for commercial or residential use. Therefore, gentrification and the preservation of heritage sites are sometimes linked. Some neighborhoods perhaps never had a positive economic period. Others are returned, with a vengeance, to their glory days and new purposes through gentrification. Gentrification often relies on changing the functionality of certain buildings. The creative overlap between reality and vision works to save older buildings, with “former industrial areas also changing with the conversion of warehouses and factories into apartment blocks” (Atkinson 58). Thus, the gentrifying process reimagines the city and translates heritage architecture into new ventures. But by this same process, the specific special heritage portions of the city are often discarded. Preservation must thus work together with gentrification to balance the needs of culture and commodity. Furthermore, gentrification often creates a monotone way of life and architectural reality (Atkinson 229). Developers, architects, and citizens must each become aware of how certain sites must be preserved, while helping to gentrify certain areas. The result must be a measured and balance response to several issues. Last Name 4 Neighborhoods have also begun to shift and structure themselves in unprecedented ways. As mentioned above, factories no longer have a place in the dense metropolis, while new businesses are necessary for residents and commercial use. Gentrification relies on the clustering of businesses and living areas in a small zone. Thus, space is made efficient use of, while heritage landmarks can become gathering places for community: gentrification, on paper, can include and bring together (Butler 162). However, this is not often the case in reality, with many overlapping architectural and socioeconomic issues appearing. The following sections will discuss examples of Japan, China, and Los Angeles in terms of how they reconcile both gentrification and preserving heritage architecture. 3. Japan Japan is an interesting and positive case study in terms of gentrification and historic preservation of buildings. When looking at images of Japan, it seems that their heritage is profoundly intact. But the country suffers from a lack of data for academics on gentrification, especially due to the language barrier (Atkinson 139). Kyoto is an especially interesting case study: a massive percent of historical heritage houses are still standing (Atkinson 142). However, perhaps an equal number or more homes and heritage architectural sites were demolished to make way for new luxury condos and apartments (Atkinson 144). This was based on a huge population boom a couple decades ago, which led to many new residents from the outskirts of the region (Atkinson 147). Although Kyoto is sold as the traditional heritage of Japan, gentrification has also created a widely modern impression. This erases some of the history, even though much of it remains, for the historic preservation of Japanese history. The island of Kyushu, Japan is another interesting case study. Over the past three decades, the town has effectively combined gentrification and preservation of heritage. For this Last Name 5 island, their combination “success is largely due to its utilization of a nation-wide nostalgia for the country’s agricultural past. Through the careful incorporation of elements of the idealized rural village, [the business] used the country’s rural heritage as a theme in which to situate its own business plan” (McMorran 334). For Kyushu, the rural heritage made it easy to create heritage hotels and create both international and domestic tourist attractions. This is a successful example of gentrifying and refurbishing heritage sites for commercial gain. Therefore, heritage does not have to be specific in terms of one architectural building of great significance. Instead, it can be used to signify value and shift to meet the needs of developers, customers, and businesses (McMorran 334). Especially in the case study of Japan, but elsewhere as well, the issue of authenticity arises. Conservation is more likely to occur when there is a legitimate cultural heritage to preserve (Ehrentraut 262). In the case of Kyoto above, many traditional style houses or buildings could be cleared for new development. This was based on their unimportant stature: they were simply old, without important heritage value. Yet the properties of Kyushu island had an important narrative worth preserving. It holds true that many sites of historical value will still potentially not be preserved if they are not granted some important social recognition of meaning. In the case of the Ogimachi World Heritage Site (WHS), the prestigious certification of the region guarantees its preservation (Jimura 288). With this specific case, the remote villages cannot ever become fully gentrified. While they may face a huge influx of tourists (and thus face touristic types of gentrification to cater to visitors), the place itself is now unable to change in terms of architecture. However, the locals who have heritage roots in the place see the certification as both positive and negative. It is positive as it will protect the village from demolishment and replacement by new housing or businesses (Jimura 288). Yet it is also Last Name 6 negative, as the WHS automatically becomes an international and domestic tourist destination. Therefore, Japan has complex levels of issues in terms of their heritage preservation and gentrification processes. Each process occurs simultaneously and in different formats between various regions, based on historic importance, economic value, and contemporary needs. 4. China In China, the situation is vastly different. The government (at the municipal level) has focused on the negative responses to gentrification and huge development alterations (Atkinson 140). Therefore, as China’s economy also demonstrates, part free market and part government control play major roles in gentrification and heritage preservation (Atkinson 140). Gentrification leads to economic inequality which the government has attempted to suppress in legislation and local rulings. Moreover, China has developed far more extensively in terms of reshaping the architecture of the country. Japan pales in comparison (besides perhaps Tokyo and Osaka), as China creates skyscrapers and modern housing complexes for their huge population. Unfortunately, more so than in Japan, China has also destroyed many heritage sites. Based on their intensive motions to grow their economy, the government has destroyed many “invaluable” sites (Wai-Yin, Yun 15). In the name of profit and contemporary gentrification, sites of importance are demolished to create profitability (Wai-Yin, Yun 15). With architecture as with industry, China’s development has been unsustainable, focusing on economics instead of the environments. As Shin explains, “dispossession is a precursor to gentrification. Dispossession occurs through both coercion and co-optation and reflects the path-dependency of China’s socialist legacy” (Shin 471). Therefore, China’s situation in terms of heritage and gentrification is complex. Many places are dispossessed making them prime candidates for gentrification. Yet China’s relationship to many non-socialist historic sites makes it more volatile. If sites are not Last Name 7 declared precious by external forces they can often be demolished. Furthermore, the coercion that Shin explains makes sites that do have value become easily eliminated from public consciousness. For Guangzhou, China, gentrification occurred in several waves, beginning in the 1980s (He 2817). The first wave consisted of developing housing units to improve the city in terms of contemporary infrastructure (He 2817). In this wave, many heritage sites may have been lost in order to create a more efficient city design. Many potentially irreplaceable historical artifacts and buildings were likely lost in this time to create the new. The secondary gentrification occurred in this century, “featuring an ambitious urban upgrading scheme with the aim of building a worldclass city. While the first wave of gentrification was a modest experiment of marketized operation, the second wave of gentrification is at the core of the local government's growthseeking and city reimaging neoliberal urban strategy” (He 2817). Therefore, the gentrification efforts of the first wave became exponentially grander in the second. Anything without notable value (and even those with) was cleared away for the contemporary vision of a Chinese city. Furthermore, this case study shows the harsh reality of gentrification and preservation. Even when the Guangzhou citizens protested, they were unheard by the rich and powerful. Thereby, the financial market and political elite are the true masters of both gentrification and preservation (especially in China). Heritage preservation in China thereby primarily functions to maximize financial gain (just as gentrification does). The value of the heritage site only becomes evident when it can help to market or sell products to customers. China is in the unique position of state-based economic guidance and forced growth. When the Chinese government uses “urban redevelopment, the state attempts to regularize informal areas into new production spaces for its revenue maximization” Last Name 8 (Wu 631). Thus, the ideas of heritage preservation and gentrification become more intensive. The market ultimately dictates the necessity for any space to exist in China. Laws from 1982 also put heritage site preservation status solely into the hands of the central government (Du Cros, Yok-Shiu, Lee 140). Yet Guangzhou especially (along with other cities) had to create their own local legislation to attempt damage control (Du Cros, Yok-Shiu, Lee 140). Therefore, the topic of heritage is problematic in China especially based on the government’s primary interest of money. 5. Los Angeles The situation in Los Angeles, California in the USA is completely different than that of China or Japan. Los Angeles is a huge metropolis, but California in and of itself is an incredibly young state. Since it was taken primarily from the Arroyo culture, Los Angeles was completely robbed of much of its heritage (Scott, Soja 161). As authors note, developers “gave this priceless heritage away [which would otherwise] have the finest parks in the world and the finest public buildings - and all endowed beyond the dreams of avarice. As it is, nothing was left in the city but the Plaza and some riverbed when we began to take notice” (Scott, Soja 161). Therefore, the true heritage of Los Angeles has mostly been lost. Gentrification continues to cyclically generate new neighborhoods and bring economic attention to where there was once nothing. However, the newness of Los Angeles is also its charm and promise. The heritage of America is the heritage of total diversity. Japan and China are still countries primarily made up of their own ethnic inhabitants. Therefore, their idea of heritage is distinct. In Japan, heritage means something of old or ancient Japan that is strictly Japanese. The same is true in China, despite many political empires and dynasties attempting to erase the history of one another. Yet in Los Angeles, the diversity that now exists (and has for decades) is the real heritage of its history. This includes “Native American, Mexican, African-American, Japanese, […] Malaysian, Last Name 9 Filipino, English, Turkish [as] only a few of the more than one hundred cultural and ethnic backgrounds that exist together in LA. Each of these groups makes its own special contribution to the rich mix that is creating a new heritage for the metropolitan area” (Rieff 135). Therefore, consolidating specific neighbors such as Chinatown, Little Tokyo, or Little Armania tell the story of immigration. That central narrative is the central heritage of an otherwise almost brand-new Los Angeles. Massive diversity should be celebrated in addition to the diversity of influences of buildings that international cultures bring with them. However, this absolutely new element of the city, in addition to its intensive gentrification, make its urban areas problematic. Since Los Angeles has far less heritage architecture remaining, the spread of gentrification has had a major impact on the Downtown area. Skid Row is an infamous part of the core which is full of homeless people and ridden with crime. Yet in the past few decades, this area for working class housing and homeless sanctuary has become increasingly smaller. Today, “the Downtown hyper structure is programmed to ensure a seamless continuum of middle-class work, consumption and recreation, without unwonted exposure to Downtown’s working-class street environments” (Davis 231). By gentrifying and making each part of the center into a place designed for those with money, Los Angeles appreciates only the heritage of the rich. Moreover, there are measures taken to separate the rich from the poor, allowing them to get from their vehicle into their work space, and into their recreational establishments seamlessly (Davis 234). Thus, the gentrification of Los Angeles, without a solid heritage, makes especially the Downtown zone into a problematic region full of inequality. Anyone with money and secure employment sees it as a playground full of convenience, while those who cannot pay the price are unable to keep up with the constant gentrification of more and more blocks. Last Name 10 Another critical aspect of the Los Angeles heritage is its relation to heritage. As such a young city, landmarks from less than half a century ago are already preserved. Many of them lead the gentrification movements by transforming retro spaces into new commercial ventures. In other countries or cities, these landmarks would be too young to be viewed as truly ‘heritage’ material. Thus, the city is continuing to be shaped, while gentrification spreads. Yet this spread of gentrification, as mentioned above, comes with more issues than privileging the rich. Within one decade (1998 until 2008), nearly a hundred social outreach organizations were displaced from Los Angeles neighborhoods (De Verteuil 1563). All of these relocations occurred because of gentrification. Therefore, people cannot access important services when gentrification spreads to an area. Just as we saw in China, the market rules in terms of architecture. The true price paid damages the lives of many while only catering to the few. Thereby Los Angeles gentrification and heritage is highly problematic, valuing profit over people. 6. Discussion and Conclusion Preserving important heritage architecture and gentrification are complex issues. For each place above, specific cultural, social and economic aspects change the considerations. Sometimes, gentrification works well in combination with preserving heritage architecture. For example, in Japan, more than one region was able to successfully marry gentrifying and heritage. In Kyoto, Kyushu and Omigachi, the Japanese were able to fuse heritage and commerce. Each region had a different response to the forces of change or conservation. Kyoto, for example, is more similar to the case of Chinese cities: heritage sites must have a deeper meaning, as the entire city is older. Meanwhile, Kyushu capitalized on its rural beauty to attract tourists and commerce. As Japanese culture values heritage highly, yet also values commercial success, the two were perfectly in unison. For Omigachi, the World Heritage Site officiation drastically Last Name 11 changed the situation. Unlike Kyoto (which is already well-known) or Kyushu (relatively unknown), it was the single factor that both gentrified and preserved the area. On one hand, the region was perfectly preserved in perpetuity. No future generation can alter the historic site. Yet, based on the WHS qualification, people from all over the world are made acutely aware of the place. Their tourism numbers therefore increase dramatically. In this sense, it is impossible for Omigachi to ever be exactly as it was before (at least culturally). But the architecture will be protected in perpetuity, more so than the majority of buildings in Kyoto or Kyushu. Therefore, the gentrification or welcoming modifications for tourists will have a hard limitation. The Japanese value in terms of heritage and its authenticity make it an effective protectorate of its heritage buildings. China faces a different value in terms of the country’s heritage sites. Gentrification, like in Japan, has been sweeping throughout China. With its many revolutions and shifts, a large portion of heritage has already been lost. The Chinese government partly controls the market, and thus it is the central driving force for this discussion. Only if something retains commercial appeal will it continue to be granted protection and earn its worth. Therefore, this is a brutal system that often leads towards pure gentrification and modernized construction. This can easily dismiss many important heritage sites without protection or serious consideration. Although local legal entities are also able to legislate, the central government still has the final say. Thereby, China is in a position in which gentrification must meet heritage sites to transform them into successful economic areas. Without doing so, many historical sites risk demolishing to be redeveloped into brand new condominiums which may or may not be filled. The government should also work towards creating new measures to protect more heritage sites. If a site can be preserved through redesign into gentrified commercial attractions, then investments should be Last Name 12 government subsidized. This way, the history and culture of ancient China does not have to be completely lost to cold modernism. Instead, the government can meet commerce in the middle to create lucrative but sustainable solutions for heritage. Los Angeles is wildly different from either China or Japan, as it is so young. To protect heritage sites in Los Angeles, the few that do exist should be legislated to never be altered. Gentrification in LA is also complex in terms of heritage sites and utility for people. While transforming otherwise abandoned factories or would-be heritage buildings is positive, the transformation should also be cautious. In the example of Downtown LA, it is difficult to note the full impact. On the one hand, gentrification is positive in creating employment and housing. However, on the other hand, the poor of Downtown lose resource (i.e. community centers) because they are not lucrative. Especially in this young suburban metropolis, a fine line must be walked. The city must create safe spaces for those without money, without only catering to the needs of the wealthy or middle-class. Just as in China and (to a lesser degree) Japan, the market ultimately prevails. Yet, Japan’s example should be followed as a balanced way of preserving heritage while keeping up economic growth. By transforming rural regions into tourist landmarks, while simultaneously preserving them, Japan leads the way. Their specific and unique history makes it more accessible than that of China or the young California. With heritage sites, authenticity is critical, which makes it difficult for Los Angeles or China to become as effective as Japan. In the case of China, too many dynasties have come before, with varying cultures. Additionally, the government is anything but authentic. Los Angeles, on the other hand, only has a new heritage that was taken from Hispanic predecessors. Thus, any attempt at authenticity in Last Name 13 the U.S. seems flawed or illegitimate. Meanwhile, Japan remains incredibly insulated, making its tourist stops especially successful and socially justified. Moreover, heritage conservation architecture is also evidenced as more sustainable (Araoz 55). Thus, innovative ideas relating to the environment can be included in heritage conservation. Since the heritage building is not being demolished with a new one to replace it, heritage preservation saves both economic and ecological resources. For each country above, heritage can be fused with commerce for a successful future. Even though the United States, China, and Japan are incredibly different countries, heritage preservation can be approached in similar ways. If heritage sites are made economically viable, whether they become a museum or new venture, then they are more likely to survive. When a heritage site is recognized as important for the entire world, then tourism in large numbers become assured. Yet this may also destroy the integrity of what the site should actually represent. Thus, achieving a balance between the commercial reality of the world and the heritage aspects of a site is central to saving it. Heritage preservation boils down to pragmatism and innovation: using gentrification for local growth and respect for the original site are the key factors. In conclusion, gentrification and preserving heritage architecture are critical to the future of world cities. As modernization continues, it threatens to destroy all important relics of the past in favor of slick buildings that are purely functional. Gentrification is thus either a threat or a great tool to preserving heritage site architecture. If implemented properly, it can give life back to abandoned but culturally important sites. Improper use of it, however, results in the damaging of neighborhoods and demolishing of invaluable architecture for the sake of money. Protecting heritage architecture from gentrification or with gentrification depends on the local scenario. Japan has implemented several highly effective policies, with an idealistic approach to their Last Name 14 heritage sites. Their approach still makes it economically viable. Thus, LA, China, and the world over should follow their lead by respecting and cultivating heritage sites. Transforming them into economic contributors does not need to remove their important cultural value. Instead, these driving forces should work together to create visionary cities of the future while protecting the past. Last Name 15 Works Cited Araoz, Gustavo F. “Preserving Heritage Places under a New Paradigm.” Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development, vol. 1, no. 1, 2011, pp. 55–60., doi:10.1108/20441261111129933. Atkinson, Rowland. Gentrification in a Global Context: the New Urban Colonialism. Routledge, 2008. Butler, Tim. “For Gentrification?” Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, vol. 39, no. 1, 1 Jan. 2007, pp. 162–181. Cros, Hilary Du, and Yok-shiu F. Lee. Cultural Heritage Management in China: Preserving the Cities of the Pearl River Delta. Routledge, 2011. Davis, Mike. City of Quartz Excavating the Future in Los Angeles. Verso, 2006. Ehrentraut, Adolf. “Heritage Authenticity and Domestic Tourism in Japan.” Annals of Tourism Research, vol. 20, no. 2, 1993, pp. 262–278., doi:10.1016/0160-7383(93)90054-7. Graham, Brian J., et al. A Geography of Heritage Power, Culture and Economy. 2016, 0AD. He, Shenjing. “Two Waves of Gentrification and Emerging Rights Issues in Guangzhou, China.” Environment and Planning A, vol. 44, no. 12, 2012, pp. 2817–2833., doi:10.1068/a44254. Jimura, Takamitsu. “The Impact of World Heritage Site Designation on Local Communities – A Case Study of Ogimachi, Shirakawa-Mura, Japan.” Tourism Management, vol. 32, no. 2, 2011, pp. 288–296., doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2010.02.005. McMorran, Chris. “Understanding the ‘Heritage’ in Heritage Tourism: Ideological Tool or Economic Tool for a Japanese Hot Springs Resort?” Tourism Geographies, vol. 10, no. 3, 2008, pp. 334–354., doi:10.1080/14616680802236329. Last Name 16 Rieff, David. Los Angeles: Capital of the Third World. Jonathan Cape, 1992. Scott, Allen John, and Edward W. Soja. The City: Los Angeles and Urban Theory at the End of the Twentieth Century. Univ. of California Press, 2005. Shin, Hyun Bang. “Economic Transition and Speculative Urbanisation in China: Gentrification versus Dispossession.” Urban Studies, vol. 53, no. 3, Apr. 2015, pp. 471–489., doi:10.1177/0042098015597111. Smith, Neil. “Toward a Theory of Gentrification A Back to the City Movement by Capital, Not People.” Journal of the American Planning Association, vol. 45, no. 4, 1979, pp. 538– 548., doi:10.1080/01944367908977002. Verteuil, Geoffrey De. “Evidence of Gentrification-Induced Displacement among Social Services in London and Los Angeles.” Urban Studies, vol. 48, no. 8, 2010, pp. 1563– 1580., doi:10.1177/0042098010379277. Wai-Yin, Chan, and Ma Shu-Yun. “Heritage Preservation and Sustainability of Chinas Development.” Sustainable Development, vol. 12, no. 1, 2004, pp. 15–31., doi:10.1002/sd.224. Wu, Fulong. “State Dominance in Urban Redevelopment.” Urban Affairs Review, vol. 52, no. 5, Mar. 2016, pp. 631–658., doi:10.1177/1078087415612930. Sample Annotation #1 Zemel, Carol. "Sorrowing Women, Rescuing Men: Van Gogh's Images Of Women And Family." Art History 10.3 (1987): 351. Art Source. Web. 9 June 2015. [Author Credentials] Carol Zemel is an art historian with a PhD from Columbia University. She has authored many books and articles in art journals. She was a Professor in the Department of Visual Art & Art History at New York University. [Audience/Type of Information] Art History is a peer-reviewed journal. The audience for it is art historians and probably undergraduate majors in art history. The article is an indepth discussion (24 pages) on the topic. It contains only black and white illustrations. Otherwise, the text is mostly text-based with lots of footnotes and a bibliography. [Bias / Point of View] The author has a feminist focus, and she uses historical information to demonstrate that VG's paintings of women reflected society views on female sexuality and prostitution. She argues that he viewed prostitutes as fallen women who could be saved through a proper domestic life. The author questions the 19th century male assumption of what all women inherently wanted. [Currency of the Source] This article was published in 1987, which was after the feminist theory had been well developed so that perspective is included. There were a couple of other articles about Van Gogh and women that I can also use as a comparison. [Relevance to Paper] This article discusses the images of women and family in the paintings Vincent van Gogh. I was interested in Van Gogh’s views about women and there was a substantial number of examples and theories of Van Gogh’s view about women that I can use in my paper. Sample Annotation #2 Cashdan, Marina. "Tim Burton: Hailing Filmdom's Oddest Artist."Modern Painters 21.8 (2009): 48-57. Art Source. Web. 11 June 2015. [Author Credentials] Marina Cashdan attended Columbia University. She is writer and editor whose work regularly appears in the New York Times, Huffington Post, Style Magazine, Frieze, Art in America, among other arts magazines. She was formerly the executive editor at Modern Painters. She is currently the editorial director of Artsy. [Audience/Type of Information] Modern Painters is very glossy arts magazine, filled with photos and advertising. The audience for this is definitely artists, but also the general educated public with an interest in the arts. Tim Burton has mass appeal, so this could also be classified at General Interest/Substantial News. [Purpose / Bias / Point of View] I think the point of view is promotional. Essentially, the publication promotes activities of the art world, especially New York. This article promoted Tim Burton who was having an exhibition at the Museum of Modern Art. She is basically arguing that Burton is an artist as well as a filmmaker. [Relevance to Paper] This article is perfect for my paper because she interviewed Burton and includes quotes to show how he perceives himself. There are also many images of his work, most of which are not seen in the books I’ve found. Sample Annotation #3 Wallace, Amy, and Tim Burton. "Tim Burton /." Los Angeles Magazine 56.5 (2011): 3840. OmniFile Full Text Select (H.W. Wilson). Web. 11 June 2015. [Author Credentials] Amy Wallace is an award-winning journalist whose work has appeared many well-known popular magazines including GQ, The New Yorker, Vanity Fair, Esquire, and Elle. She spent four years as a Senior Writer at Los Angeles Magazine and is now Editor-at-Large. [Audience/Type of Information] Los Angeles Magazine is a large-circulation popular magazine. Tim Burton has mass appeal, so this could be classified at General Interest/Substantial News. [Purpose / Bias / Point of View] I think the point of view is promotional. Essentially, the publication promotes people or activities associated with Los Angeles. In this case, Burton was having an exhibition at LACMA. [Relevance to Paper] This article is very short, but Burton does discuss his involvement with Los Angeles, his education at CalArts and his exhibition at LACMA. It gave me some basic facts, but not much more. Sample Annotation #4 Stasukevich, lain. "Reclaiming Art." American Cinematographer96.1 (2015): 30-36. Art Source. Web. 11 June 2015. [Author Credentials] Stasukevich is a staff writer for American Cinematographer. I could find no other information on him anywhere except in IMDB, it says he is a camera person and he has one TV credit. [Audience/Type of Information] American Cinematographer is a trade magazine published in Hollywood. I can tell because it is filled with ads for cameras and movies. The information in the articles is fairly technical providing information on camera settings, lighting, and lenses. [Purpose / Bias / Point of View] The article interviews Bruno Delbonnel, cinematographer for Burton, asking him questions about his vision for the movie Big Eyes. The purpose is to share Delbonnel’s approach to visual effects and photography with other filmmakers. [Relevance to Paper] Because I am a digital major, I found this information very relevant to me. It gave me information about why and how Burton and his cinematographer collaborate to make an interesting movie. Collaboration is one of the points I plan to discuss in my paper.
Purchase answer to see full attachment