IBDP visual arts - CS 3-way comparison scoring guide

Crit D (will be retired soon)

1. Slides 11 & 12: Comparisons ____ Note well: You’ll think up categories of comparison between your artworks. You only need to compare 2 artworks at a time, within a given category. You can stretch this to 3 slides if you want to, if you have that much to write, but I recommend 2 denser slides. (Don’t assume that 3 “meh” slides will fetch a higher score than 2 great slides) Use in-text citations

2. Example 1

3. Example 1 Feedback: This CS gets low-6 to low-7, depending on examiner. Good: —research-driven insights, including non-obvious connections —great use of images. They’re relevant and helpful. —no wasted space. Bad: —Inadequate organization: needs topics of comparison organized using clear, descriptive subheadings (see examples 3 and 4).

4. Example 2

5. Example 2 Feedback: This CS gets mid-6 to low-7, depending on examiner. First and third slides are great, second is weaker. Good: —research-driven insights, including non-obvious connections —dividing comparison into Formal Analy, F&P, and Cult Signif Bad: —Venn Diagram format isn’t as good as subheadings (see Example 4) because you can’t go into much depth. —Lacking images. Adding pics would elevate this to a sure 7.

6. Example 3

7. Example 3 Feedback: This CS gets high-5 to low- 6 , depending on examiner. This format’s great for highlighting comparisons between 2 artworks at a time. Good: —research-driven insights, including non-obvious connections —dividing comparison into Formal Analy, F&P, and Cult Signif Bad: —Some shallow descriptions that need more analysis. For example, on slide 2, student is listing the time periods when the artists were active. So what? Should explain why the time period matters, how it affects audience, etc. Fewer subheadings with more analysis in each. --Only images are the 3 selected artworks repeated again and again.

8. Example 4

9. Example 4 Feedback: This CS gets a high-6 to 7. This student didn’t produce as much text as Example 2, but it tends to be better info. The slides go deep into analysis. The slides answer the question “so what?” And the connections are often non-obvious. That’s what puts this example over the top. The student did her research and she understands art history. She also uses pictures effectively. Beautiful layouts. No wasted space.

10. Example 5 Mid-scoring

11. Example 5 Feedback: This CS scores a mid-4 to high-4 . Even though there are some coherent, effective connections identified between the artworks (such as the comparison of the hands seen in the works on 2 nd screen) the study demonstrates an adequate rather than thorough understanding of how the pieces compare. Final slide has nothing of substance, thus earns no points. There are some well-observed connections identified on the first two screens, but these should have been further developed. The comparative outline presented on last screen makes superficial, frivolous comparisons (so what if the artwork is a photo? Explain why it matters. Venn Diagram isn’t the best format for doing this). The CS does not present enough discussion of connections, similarities and differences to reach the high-5, 6, or 7 range .