Spoliarium

The Spoliarium (often misspelled Spolarium) is a painting by Filipino artist

Juan Luna. The painting was submitted by Luna to the Exposición Nacional
de Bellas Artes in 1884 in Madrid, where it garnered the first gold medal
(out of three). In 1886, it was sold to the Diputación Provincial de
Barcelona for 20,000 pesetas.

It currently hangs in the main gallery at the ground floor of the National
Museum of Fine Arts in Manila, and is the first work of art that greets
visitors upon entry into the museum. The picture recreates a despoiling
scene in a Roman circus where dead gladiators are stripped of weapons
and garments.
Critique
What is a Critique?
A critique is a genre of academic writing that
briefly summarizes and critically evaluates
a work or concept.
Critiques can be used to analyze carefully a variety
of works such as:

Creative works – novels, exhibits, film, images

Research – monographs, journal articles, reviews,
Media – news reports, feature articles
Like an essay, a critique uses a formal, academic
writing style and has a clear structure, that is, an
introduction, body, and conclusion. However,
the body of a critique includes a summary of the
work and a detailed evaluation.

The purpose of an evaluation is to gauge the

usefulness or impact of a work in a particular
field.
Why do we write critiques?
Writing a critique on a work helps us to develop:

• a knowledge of the work’s subject area or related works

• an understanding of the work’s purpose, intended
audience, development of argument, structure of
evidence or creative style, and
• a recognition of the strengths and weaknesses of the
work.
How to Write a Critique
Before you start writing, it is important to have a thorough
understanding of the work that will be critiqued.

• Study the work under discussion.

• Make notes on key parts of the work.
• Develop an understanding of the main argument or
purpose being expressed in the work.
• Consider how the work relates to a broader issue or
context.
Introduction
Typically, the introduction is short (less than 10% of the word
length) and you should:

• Name the work being reviewed as well as the date it was

created and the name of the author/creator.
• Describe the main argument or purpose of the work.
• Explain the context in which the work was created.
• Have a concluding sentence that signposts what your
evaluation of the work will be. For instance, it may
indicate whether it is a positive, negative, or mixed
evaluation.
Article Reviewed:
Pesch, Udo, “Administrators and Accountability: The Plurality of
Value Systems in the Public Domain,” Public Integrity, Fall, 2008, Vol. 10,
No. 4, pp. 335 -343.

The article, “Administrators and Accountability: The Plurality of

Value Systems in the Public Domain”, by Udo Pesch seeks to address how
accountability and value systems interact in the decisions made by public
administrators. The research problem being addressed is whether public
administrators are free from accountability for their decisions and what
are the different influences that can affect their decisions.
Summary
Briefly summarize the main points and objectively describe
how the creator portrays these by using techniques, styles,
media, characters or symbols.

This summary should not be the focus of the critique and

is usually shorter than the critical evaluation.
 It is clear from the abstract of the article that this is no simple issue.
In fact the article is fairly confusing for the first couple paragraphs. The
author starts by saying that explicit ethics codes of reference systems
make it easier to hold individuals accountable for their actions, however a
conflict emerges when an individual’s moral values are different from such
accountability policies. What can make accountability more complicated
are the motivations of the administrator and also the individual’s inability
to perceive future consequences of their decisions.
Critical Evaluation
This section should give a systematic and detailed
assessment of the different elements of the work, evaluating
how well the creator was able to achieve the purpose through
these.

A critical evaluation does not simply highlight negative

impressions. It should deconstruct the work and identify
both strengths and weaknesses. It should examine the
work and evaluate its success, in light of its purpose.
Critical Questions (Examples)
a. Who is the creator? Is the work presented objectively or subjectively?
b. What are the aims of the work? Were the aims achieved?
c. What techniques, styles, media were used in the work? Are they
effective in portraying the purpose?
d. What assumptions underlie the work? Do they affect its validity?
e. What types of evidence or persuasion are used? Has evidence been
interpreted fairly?
f. How is the work structured? Does it favor a particular interpretation
or point of view? Is it effective?
g. Does the work enhance understanding of key ideas or theories? Does
the work engage (or fail to engage) with key concepts or other works
in its discipline?
 To such a complicated issue the author sums the research up well
by saying that there are times when a public administrator has to violate
their own moral codes because there are no universal moral rules that
“allow a civil servant to live up to integrity standards.” (p.341) A public
administrator can hide behind laws and organizational procedures, but
ultimately this is no reason to disregard accountability and there are ways
that these individuals can act morally. Pesch writes, “It would be more
sensible to design accountability arrangements that acknowledge that
civil servants are actively responsible for their actions, and that try to
provide them the opportunity to consciously address the potential
difference between authorized rules and communal principles and values.”
(p.341) And, while this is excellently laid out as a theory, the author
ultimately admits that there is no single best design for an accountability
agreement on a tangible level.
Conclusion
This is usually a very brief paragraph, which includes:

• a statement indicating the overall evaluation of the work

• summary of the key reasons, identified during the critical
evaluation, why this evaluation was formed.
• in some circumstances, recommendations for improvement
on the work may be appropriate.
 Overall this article is not very straightforward in the beginning and
it is not until the second page that you realize where the article is headed.
In order to have more people be engaged and read the whole article it
needs a new, more concise introduction. Once the reader gets to the
really good examples that are relevant to the everyday life of a public
administrator, a good portion of the article has already past. Overall it is a
good, well-written article with an important message for public
administrators and organizations. The piece, when taken as a whole, is
relevant and very convincing in theory but starts slow and never lays out
a concrete way of approaching this
complex problem.
Reference List
Include all resources cited in your critique. Usually, American
Psychological Association (APA) style is used in referencing.

Writing a paper according to APA style simply means you are

standardizing the way you write the paper so that others who read it
know exactly what every little reference and comma means. It was
started, not surprisingly, as a way to standardize research papers
written in the field of Psychology, but this style has also been adapted
for use in other fields as well.