Writing Analytically, 6th Edition - Rosenwasser, David & Stephen, Jill.original_ [160]
Thesis 3: painting as bid for credit for being loyal friend and servant
Evidence mismatches: painter’s prominence; his confident stare; prominence of easel and brush; small size of king and queen (smaller than servants)—if painter wished to emphasize loyalty and service, his subordinate relationship to the more powerful at court, he would have made himself and the tools of his trade less important
Step 5: Choose the claim that seems to account for the most evidence and then reshape that claim to better accommodate evidence that doesn’t fit.
When you’ve found conflicting or inadequately explained evidence, try using it to evolve your existing thesis rather than beating a too-hasty retreat. The direction in which the writer’s thinking is moving—that the painting asks for someone’s strengths to be recognized—is not an entirely new start. The shift she is apparently making but not yet overtly articulating is from the painting as showcase of royal power to the painting as showcase of the painter’s own power.
In order to better formulate this claim, the writer should query what she is emphasizing as the primary feature of her evidence: size, especially that of the king and queen versus the painter. She could do this by pushing her thinking with the question So what?
So what that the king and queen are small, but the painter, princess, and dwarf (another servant) are all large and fairly equal in size and/or prominence?
So what that there are size differences in the painting? What might large or small size mean?
Here are possible answers to the “So what?” questions:
Perhaps the relative size and/or prominence of figures in the painting can be read as indicators of their importance or of what the painter wants to say about their importance.
Perhaps the king and queen have been reduced so that Velázquez can showcase their daughter, the princess.
Perhaps the size and physical prominence of the king and queen are relatively unimportant. In that case, what matters is that they are a presence, always overseeing events (an idea implied but not developed by the writer in paragraph 6).
Perhaps the painter is demonstrating his own ability to make the king and queen any size—any level of importance—he chooses. Although the writer does not overtly say so, the king and queen are among the smallest as well as the least visible figures.
Given these answers to the So what? questions, the writer should probably choose Thesis 2—that the painting is a bid for recognition of the painter’s status and brilliance as an artist—because this thesis explains more of the evidence than anything else the writer has come up with so far. It explains, for example, the painter’s prominence and the relative insignificance of the monarchs: that the painter, in effect, creates their stature (size, power) in the world through his paintings. Framed in a mirror and appearing to hang on the wall, the king and queen are, arguably, suspended among the painter’s paintings, mere reflections of themselves—or, rather, the painter’s reflection of them.
Step 6: Repeat steps 2 through 5 as necessary.
The writer would probably want to concentrate on repeating Step 2, seeing how far she can go in making her revised thesis account for additional evidence.
Thesis: painting as bid for appreciation of painter’s status and brilliance as an artist
Step 2 repeated: See how far you can make each thesis go in accounting for evidence.
Evidence:
The painter is demonstrating that he can make the members of the royal family any size he wants, then the painting not only is a bid for recognition, but also can be seen as a playful though not-so-subtle threat: be aware of my power and treat me well, or else suffer the consequences. As an artist, the painter decides how the royal family will be seen. The king and queen depend on the painter, as they