The improvement in the standard of the speeches was evident in this second informative speech. It was obvious that our class had used the information provided by the course, to improve numerous aspects of a speech. And that is said not for praising reasons, but because I was doubting the usefulness of the course to a certain degree. However, the best of the speeches (in my opinion, although I didnâ€™t get to see all the speeches) was one, that the speaker did not demonstrate any improvement in the presentation. This is due to the fact that Lorenna, the speaker that I refer to, had the ability to produce an almost impeccable speech before even starting the course.
What made the personal difference in this case is the following: As soon as I realized the topic of the speech I was thoroughly disappointed. Is she going to speak about a single painting, the Mona Lisa, for 6 minutes? Even if it is one of the most important paintings in history, what is she going to tell us for 6 minutes? However, as the speech progressed, this view was being revised continuously. By the end of the speech I was cursing the courseâ€™s rules i.e. that the speech should not last more than 6 minutes. (Although the particular was quite longer as far as I can recall.) I want comment a lot on the presentation aspects of the speech. Regarding Lorenna, these virtues are given: pleasant voice, clear pronunciation and enunciation, good speed, appropriate hand gestures. What struck me the most was the content, the way she disentangled her subject. Starting from an appropriate, in length, history of the painting and ending with simple artistic analysis of the painting and the numerous innovative techniques used by Da Vinci. This analysis, has helped me realize that maybe this was the problem with my speech: Although I tried quite a lot, I did not manage to bring my topic close to my audience. Lorenna, with the aid of a very successful presentation aid, appl