Taken for the 2017 Subject Report for the Comparative Study Component
https://resources.ibo.org//data/d_6_visar_sur_1705_1_e.pdf
1.
Component grade boundaries
Grade: 1234567
Mark range: 0-5 6-11 12-17 18-23 24-29 30-35 36-42
The range and suitability of the work submitted at higher level
The comparative study enables candidates to gain knowledge and understanding of artworks. Most candidates demonstrated the ability to answer this task appropriately and well.
Often comparative studies were insightful and supported by thorough research. Many presentations were of a high standard with sophisticated discussion and innovative analysis. In the work of many higher-level candidates the connections with their own art making were creative and the study had clearly been investigated in parallel with studio and process portfolio work. These studies effectively addressed the criteria and exceeded expectations.
Candidates who analyse art works, rather than simply describe them, are the most successful. Giving a brief account, or citing a fact, is not analysing and this is the reason that many candidates do not achieve beyond the mid mark level. The ability to use evidence to support the interpretation and evaluation of art works is a feature of good responses. Evidence comes from accurate observation of the selected art works and from related contextual research; these are skills that some candidates are well taught. However, many lack the ability to evaluate evidence and to make an appropriate selection of knowledge.
A common fault is to compare artists rather than artworks. Selecting art works that lead to a meaningful comparison is important. Poor choices resulted in simplistic bullet point lists, often presented in Venn diagrams. Candidates often involve extra works in the study; this is successful when it enhances the contextualisation of the principal selected artworks. However, a lengthy sequence of works all analysed at the same level does not achieve depth of understanding. It is advisable to concentrate on three clearly defined artworks.
While candidates must link art history or artist biography in the comparative study to the analysis of the selected works, too much unrelated and irrelevant information can be detrimental. Using research and analysis to support opinion was difficult for some. While there were some very good responses, a number were primarily descriptive, or highly opinionated, based on conjecture and misunderstanding rather than referenced evidence. Unfortunately, there were still a number of candidates who had not been taught the necessary research and analytical skills to tackle this task well.
Some candidates fill the first screens with illustrations and titles to little effect. The guide asks for an introduction, and the best candidates realise that this is the moment to introduce the nature of their comparison, just as they also realise the importance of drawing their discussion of similarities and differences to a considered conclusion. These responses indicated the focused thinking required by the top-level descriptors.
Repetition of ideas and information was frequent. This is particularly the case on screens dedicated to comparing and contrasting, which often simply repeat earlier points. The best candidates understand that the whole study is a comparison and develop this discussion from the start in the manner of a well-argued presentation of ideas.
Sometimes candidates used fewer than the minimum number of screens and so were unlikely to have meet the criteria well: this is particularly true for the 3-5 additional HL screens (criterion F).
Component grade boundaries
Grade: 1234567
Mark range: 0-5 6-11 12-17 18-23 24-29 30-35 36-42
The range and suitability of the work submitted at higher level
The comparative study enables candidates to gain knowledge and understanding of artworks. Most candidates demonstrated the ability to answer this task appropriately and well.
Often comparative studies were insightful and supported by thorough research. Many presentations were of a high standard with sophisticated discussion and innovative analysis. In the work of many higher-level candidates the connections with their own art making were creative and the study had clearly been investigated in parallel with studio and process portfolio work. These studies effectively addressed the criteria and exceeded expectations.
Candidates who analyse art works, rather than simply describe them, are the most successful. Giving a brief account, or citing a fact, is not analysing and this is the reason that many candidates do not achieve beyond the mid mark level. The ability to use evidence to support the interpretation and evaluation of art works is a feature of good responses. Evidence comes from accurate observation of the selected art works and from related contextual research; these are skills that some candidates are well taught. However, many lack the ability to evaluate evidence and to make an appropriate selection of knowledge.
A common fault is to compare artists rather than artworks. Selecting art works that lead to a meaningful comparison is important. Poor choices resulted in simplistic bullet point lists, often presented in Venn diagrams. Candidates often involve extra works in the study; this is successful when it enhances the contextualisation of the principal selected artworks. However, a lengthy sequence of works all analysed at the same level does not achieve depth of understanding. It is advisable to concentrate on three clearly defined artworks.
While candidates must link art history or artist biography in the comparative study to the analysis of the selected works, too much unrelated and irrelevant information can be detrimental. Using research and analysis to support opinion was difficult for some. While there were some very good responses, a number were primarily descriptive, or highly opinionated, based on conjecture and misunderstanding rather than referenced evidence. Unfortunately, there were still a number of candidates who had not been taught the necessary research and analytical skills to tackle this task well.
Some candidates fill the first screens with illustrations and titles to little effect. The guide asks for an introduction, and the best candidates realise that this is the moment to introduce the nature of their comparison, just as they also realise the importance of drawing their discussion of similarities and differences to a considered conclusion. These responses indicated the focused thinking required by the top-level descriptors.
Repetition of ideas and information was frequent. This is particularly the case on screens dedicated to comparing and contrasting, which often simply repeat earlier points. The best candidates understand that the whole study is a comparison and develop this discussion from the start in the manner of a well-argued presentation of ideas.
Sometimes candidates used fewer than the minimum number of screens and so were unlikely to have meet the criteria well: this is particularly true for the 3-5 additional HL screens (criterion F).
"The time has come," the Walrus said, "To talk of many things: Of shoes--and ships-- and sealing-wax-- Of cabbages--and kings..."
www.jabberwocky.com/carroll/walrus.html
In the next phase of the course we will be:-
www.jabberwocky.com/carroll/walrus.html
In the next phase of the course we will be:-
- Planning, making and completing the Comparative Study component. This is worth 20% of your final grade and we will be spending roughly 20% of the course on this task. There are some differences in the requirements for HL and SL students. HL students actually make an artwork in response to their study and there is a requirement of extra slides for this. Please note: it is a VERY good idea to have at least one of the artists be someone who is related to your own cultural identity. It is a VERY VERY good idea to aim to make this component the start of your own independent inquiry leading to your exhibition ( DO focus on artists who you think might be a useful starting point for your own artistic work. DO NOT focus on artists who work with materials/idea you are not fascinated by).
- Under-taking a short practical unit based on the theme for the UN day which will involve a trip to the beach......
- Taking advantage of the visiting artist next weekend - if you are you will need to have an image of a face to work from and will need to have practiced drawing this several times in advance. It would be a very good idea to have some investigation of Carne Griffiths's work before you meet him. (prep at home)
- Taking advantage of your Discovery Week to collect visual material for your own art work. It is always VERY good to show in your Process Portfolio that you are using your experiences in your art production. If you are gong abroad do some research into contemporary artists from the place you are going to. What is their work concerned with? If you are staying in Oman, find artists whose work relates to what you are doing. USE the opportunities you have to make connections........
com_study_clarification_doc.pdf | |
File Size: | 206 kb |
File Type: |
rubric-comparative-study-assessment_1_.pdf | |
File Size: | 59 kb |
File Type: |
comparative_study_slide_by_slide_sheet.docx | |
File Size: | 96 kb |
File Type: | docx |
How much is Enough?
Today we will look at some examples of Comparative Studies and think about how much work needs to be done to ensure getting a 6 or 7 for our Visual Art course - with particular thought about work outside of class.
As a rule of thumb - for every hour of classtime you should be spending an hour working outside of class. If you cannot honestly claim this then it is time to move up a gear....... this is the part of the course where grades above 4's are won or lost............
In seven weeks time I will want to see your first full draft of the CS. Think of this as being 2+ slides a week from now on.
HL students then need to develop an artwork from your study, this should also begin in parallel to your writing of the study.As with the EE your CS MUST be based on solid research, you MUST understand, fully, the context the artworks were made in, and the intentions of the artists.
As a rule of thumb - for every hour of classtime you should be spending an hour working outside of class. If you cannot honestly claim this then it is time to move up a gear....... this is the part of the course where grades above 4's are won or lost............
In seven weeks time I will want to see your first full draft of the CS. Think of this as being 2+ slides a week from now on.
HL students then need to develop an artwork from your study, this should also begin in parallel to your writing of the study.As with the EE your CS MUST be based on solid research, you MUST understand, fully, the context the artworks were made in, and the intentions of the artists.