Please answer the questions below in full sentences.
1) Summarize the argument that Indych-Lopez makes in this article in your own words (in about 3 sentences). Think about the following questions: why do murals incite controversy? How did the controversies differ? Which aspects (iconography, imagery, location, the artist’s position, the relationship between patron and artist) of the murals created public debate? Why is the Rockefeller case more complicated than a clash between Rockefeller and Rivera?
2) Pick one sentence in the article that seems to best state her thesis. Usually this is located in the first couple or last few paragraphs of the essay. Copy the sentence below and give the page number.
3) What kind of evidence does Indych-Lopez use in her argument? Visual analysis? Iconography? Historical context? Other? It might be more than one. Give a specific example of each type of evidence used in the article. You can quote directly if you like and provide a page number.
4) Are you convinced by Indych-Lopez’s argument? Are there any weaknesses in it that you can see? Are there any objections or questions that you have?
5) Finally, what did you find interesting, unusual, or surprising while reading this essay? Did anything in particular really jump out at you? In what ways might this article relate to contemporary debates about public art, monuments, and artists’ obligation or responsibility to depict a diverse society?