The story of Caravaggio is a unique story, but again: which artists don't have it? As David M. Stone analyzes, there is a little mystery in Caravaggio's "story," and blood plays an important role. All things considered, I think Stone talks too much about the blood, overanalyzing and exhausting the idea, while leaving out key information about Caravaggio that is essential for the reader to draw conclusions about the blood itself. By failing to provide an analysis of Caravaggio's mentality, Stone's ideas are unconvincing. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay At the beginning of the article, Stone devoted a significant portion of his writing to explaining the details of blood and its use in cinema from pulp fiction, calligraphy, later novels and films, and even as a lipstick color.1 Instead of mentioning general conceptions of blood, providing specific evidence about blood related to Caravaggio would be more effective. Stone would later suggest the idea of ​​blood as a metaphor in Caravaggio's work2. I think he could be less complicated in his suggestions and expand on his claim by being more consistent and concise in his examples. I think it would be more effective for Stone to communicate the meaning in a simple way, instead of hinting at a deeper meaning through metaphor. Something I think Stone could have touched on to add integrity to his claim is Caravaggio's experiences - perhaps in his early days, or even today - and the events that led to the decision to sign with blood. Stone does not give us enough context to identify with Caravaggio or to gain insight into his approach and reasoning, which could have been an interesting addition to his article. One thing that is clear is that Caravaggio never signed his paintings3, and the fact that he signed The Beheading of Saint John the Baptist is very fascinating. This leads the reader to ask questions, such as the obvious question: why? – and Stone did not answer them; I feel like he dodged mention of Caravaggio's actual reasoning and that once again he could have delved deeper into Caravaggio's thought process in order to offer potential reasoning for his decisions. There must be a reason or some sort of conclusion that Stone can come up with about the stone that provides historical context and his evidence proves useful in understanding the use of blood in that era, but given that readers are trying to understand the real meaning and purpose of this story. the signature, then Caravaggio – who is at the center of the article – could have been mentioned much more. Stone's approach to developing his claim relies heavily on order and delivery of information. While it's not completely terrible, it has the potential to be more effective as I feel like some of the material isn't aligning properly to form a cohesive, easy to understand body. He could improve his clarity by organizing his testimony and giving examples in order. Stone's position is also sometimes unclear as he offers some potential ideas about the meaning of blood, but never makes a statement on his own behalf. Instead, several different possibilities are discussed, leaving us unsure of his point of view. Perhaps Stone could have strengthened his own claims by referencing other art historians who also worked on Caravaggio.4 Using the philosophies and examples of other historians could really help to forge a.