4 thoughts on “Railroads on parade (1939), R. Sprong”
When I started watching your slidecast, I wasn’t sure how much you could talk about the future of technology from the world’s fair, but you squashed my doubts. I thought it was really good. I ended up liking how you tied everything into the world’s fair. That was a great idea! I think you did a good job giving the set up for the world’s fair, explaining how it was trying to give people hope for the future as America was in the Great Depression. You also did a great job using the trains as a very real example of futurism. This is a little thing, but the two pauses in your dialog sorta took me out of the narrative for a moment. Not a huge issue, and it’s something I too had to deal when making my video. But other than that, I really liked your premise and you did a great job!
R. Sprong did a great job detailing the future predictions of railroads that were on display at the 1939 World’s fair. He was able to minimize a presentist viewpoint during his presentation through providing the proper context in which predictions about the future of railroads were made, most notably being the great depression. Moreover, Sprong went beyond simply detailing the different railroad innovations that were on display at the fair by explaining the positives and negatives of the different railroads. A great example of this was how some railroad innovators, such as those who created the S1 model, believed that the faster and more powerful a train is, the better. While the idea of power as progress was tempting to some engineers, these trains were never able to be implemented due to overpowering the rails they would travel on. Sprong then contrasted this example with the diesel-powered train, which even though was slower, was more practical and therefore replaced the steam-powered train. Even though Sprong never explicitly stated the idea that superior-crafted individual inventions are not always as successful as one’s that work better in a system, the viewer was able to easily pick up on the concept. While the presentation was a great one, Sprong could have minimized gaps in audio as well as done a better job matching his dialogue with the pictures on display.
Ryan,
Overall, I thought your presentation was well researched, but could you some help with he formatting. Obviously, the biggest problem is some of the gaps with no audio within the presentation. In order to remedy this, it might be easier for you to take all your audio in only one or two clips to minimize the amount you need to edit during your compiling period. Other than this, the presentation was pretty good. I really enjoyed listening to the overarching theme that much of what these rail roads did was aesthetic. In the end, no matter what they did, it was kind of a hoax. These trains did not perform as well as they “looked” they would perform. You say that the reasoning was to convince people of a better tomorrow. While thinking about that, I think that your conclusions are pretty darn accurate. Other than to give that emotional reaction, why would these companies spend so much time and money on these “stupid” designs?
Nicely done with the presentation, just try to fix the audio stuff for the final project.
—Josh
Ryan, I enjoyed your presentation, however, I was a bit confused by it initially. At first, I thought that you would be speaking about trains and railroads throughout your entire presentation. Your transition into the World’s Fair was confusing, I was unsure how you were going to create a connection between the two, yet you created a parallel by demonstrating to your viewers how “evolution” of the train and the World’s Fair was simply a fasçade for an optimistic future after the Great Depression. The comparison between different train engines demonstrates the extensive research you did and gives viewers a better understand of what was technological better and what was practical, without you going much in depth. You can further expand your research about what did the public thought about these new “developments” in trains and what were the thoughts between social classes since we have discussed in class about people’s beliefs in technological innovation. As our other peers have commented, the pause in between the video was awkward, but not a big issue to worry about. Other than that, you did a great job!
When I started watching your slidecast, I wasn’t sure how much you could talk about the future of technology from the world’s fair, but you squashed my doubts. I thought it was really good. I ended up liking how you tied everything into the world’s fair. That was a great idea! I think you did a good job giving the set up for the world’s fair, explaining how it was trying to give people hope for the future as America was in the Great Depression. You also did a great job using the trains as a very real example of futurism. This is a little thing, but the two pauses in your dialog sorta took me out of the narrative for a moment. Not a huge issue, and it’s something I too had to deal when making my video. But other than that, I really liked your premise and you did a great job!
R. Sprong did a great job detailing the future predictions of railroads that were on display at the 1939 World’s fair. He was able to minimize a presentist viewpoint during his presentation through providing the proper context in which predictions about the future of railroads were made, most notably being the great depression. Moreover, Sprong went beyond simply detailing the different railroad innovations that were on display at the fair by explaining the positives and negatives of the different railroads. A great example of this was how some railroad innovators, such as those who created the S1 model, believed that the faster and more powerful a train is, the better. While the idea of power as progress was tempting to some engineers, these trains were never able to be implemented due to overpowering the rails they would travel on. Sprong then contrasted this example with the diesel-powered train, which even though was slower, was more practical and therefore replaced the steam-powered train. Even though Sprong never explicitly stated the idea that superior-crafted individual inventions are not always as successful as one’s that work better in a system, the viewer was able to easily pick up on the concept. While the presentation was a great one, Sprong could have minimized gaps in audio as well as done a better job matching his dialogue with the pictures on display.
Ryan,
Overall, I thought your presentation was well researched, but could you some help with he formatting. Obviously, the biggest problem is some of the gaps with no audio within the presentation. In order to remedy this, it might be easier for you to take all your audio in only one or two clips to minimize the amount you need to edit during your compiling period. Other than this, the presentation was pretty good. I really enjoyed listening to the overarching theme that much of what these rail roads did was aesthetic. In the end, no matter what they did, it was kind of a hoax. These trains did not perform as well as they “looked” they would perform. You say that the reasoning was to convince people of a better tomorrow. While thinking about that, I think that your conclusions are pretty darn accurate. Other than to give that emotional reaction, why would these companies spend so much time and money on these “stupid” designs?
Nicely done with the presentation, just try to fix the audio stuff for the final project.
—Josh
Ryan, I enjoyed your presentation, however, I was a bit confused by it initially. At first, I thought that you would be speaking about trains and railroads throughout your entire presentation. Your transition into the World’s Fair was confusing, I was unsure how you were going to create a connection between the two, yet you created a parallel by demonstrating to your viewers how “evolution” of the train and the World’s Fair was simply a fasçade for an optimistic future after the Great Depression. The comparison between different train engines demonstrates the extensive research you did and gives viewers a better understand of what was technological better and what was practical, without you going much in depth. You can further expand your research about what did the public thought about these new “developments” in trains and what were the thoughts between social classes since we have discussed in class about people’s beliefs in technological innovation. As our other peers have commented, the pause in between the video was awkward, but not a big issue to worry about. Other than that, you did a great job!