Part 1: Comparative Study

A. Identification and analysis of formal qualities

To what extent does the work demonstrate:

• informed identification and analysis of the formal qualities of the selected artworks, objects and

artifacts?

Mark Descriptor

0 The work does not reach a standard identified by the descriptors below

1–2

The work provides an outline of the formal qualities of the selected pieces but this is

limited, superficial or relies heavily on personal opinion.

3–4

The work provides a largely descriptive account of the identified formal qualities of the

selected pieces. There is some evidence of informed analysis, but this is underdeveloped.

5–6

The work provides a consistent, insightful and informed identification and analysis of the

formal qualities of the selected pieces.

B. Analysis and understanding of function and purpose

To what extent does the work demonstrate:

• informed analysis and understanding of the function and purpose of the selected artworks, objects

and artifacts within the cultural context in which they were created?

Candidates who do not examine and compare at least three artworks by at least two different artists from

at least two contrasting cultural contexts will not be awarded a mark higher than 2 in this criterion.

Mark Descriptor

0 The work does not reach a standard identified by the descriptors below

1–2

The work provides an outline of the function and purpose of the selected pieces, but this

is limited, superficial or relies heavily on personal opinion.

3–4

The work provides a largely descriptive account of the function and purpose of the

selected pieces from at least two contrasting cultural contexts. There is some evidence of

informed analysis and understanding, but these are not fully developed.

5–6

The work provides a consistent, insightful and informed analysis and demonstrates

thorough understanding of the function and purpose of the selected pieces from at least

two contrasting cultural contexts.

C. Analysis and evaluation of cultural significance

To what extent does the work demonstrate:

• informed analysis and evaluation of the cultural significance of the selected artworks, objects and

artifacts within the specific context in which they were created (such as the cultural, sociopolitical and

historical significance of the works, with respect to the original audience and purpose, as well as to a

contemporary audience)?

Candidates who do not examine and compare at least three artworks by at least two different artists from at

least two contrasting cultural contexts will not be awarded a mark higher than 2 in this criterion.

Mark Descriptor

0 The work does not reach a standard identified by the descriptors below

1–2

The work provides an outline of the material, conceptual and cultural significance of the

selected pieces, but this is limited, superficial or relies heavily on personal opinion.

3–4

The work provides a largely descriptive account of the material, conceptual and cultural

significance of the selected pieces from at least two contrasting cultural contexts. There is

some evidence of informed analysis and evaluation, but these are not fully developed.

5–6

The work provides a consistently insightful and informed analysis and thorough

evaluation of the material, conceptual and cultural significance of the selected pieces

from at least two contrasting cultural contexts.

D. Making comparisons and connections

To what extent does the work demonstrate:

• effective critical analysis and discussion of the connections, similarities and differences between the

selected artworks, objects and artifacts?

Candidates who do not examine and compare at least three artworks by at least two different artists will not

be awarded a mark higher than 3 in this criterion.

Mark Descriptor

0 The work does not reach a standard identified by the descriptors below

1–2

The work outlines connections, similarities and differences between the selected pieces,

with little analysis. These connections are largely superficial or inappropriate and

demonstrate a basic understanding of how the pieces compare and contrast.

3–4

The work analyses and describes the connections, similarities and differences between

the selected pieces, with some critical analysis. The connections are logical and coherent

and demonstrate an adequate understanding of how the pieces compare and contrast.

5–6

The work critically analyses and discusses the connections, similarities and differences

between the selected pieces. These connections are logical and coherent, showing a

thorough understanding of how the pieces compare and contrast.

E. Presentation and subject-specific language

To what extent does the work:

• ensure that information is conveyed clearly and coherently in a visually appropriate and legible

manner, supported by the consistent use of appropriate subject-specific language?

Mark Descriptor

0 The work does not reach a standard identified by the descriptors below

1–2

The work is limited or inconsistent in conveying information clearly or in a visually

appropriate manner. The work contains some appropriate subject-specific language, but

this is limited.

3–4

The work clearly and coherently conveys information, in a visually appropriate and legible

manner, with some consistent use of appropriate subject-specific language.

5–6

The work clearly and coherently conveys information which results in a visually creative

and legible study that enhances the impact of the work and the reader’s understanding.

Subject-specific language is used accurately and appropriately throughout.

At HL only

F. Making connections to own art-making practice

To what extent does the work:

• analyse and evaluate the outcomes of the comparative study investigation and on how this has

influenced the student’s own development as an artist, identifying connections between one or more

of the selected works and the student’s own art-making processes and practices?

Mark Descriptor

0 The work does not reach a standard identified by the descriptors below

1–3

The work outlines the outcomes of the investigation in a limited way. There are few or

only superficial connections to their own art-making practice.

4–6

The work provides some analysis of the outcomes of the investigation. The student

describes the extent to which their own art-making and pieces have been influenced by

artworks, objects and artifacts examined in the comparative study, making inconsistent

or incomplete connections.

7–9

The work provides an analysis of the outcomes of the investigation. The student

explains the extent to which their own art-making and pieces have been influenced by

artworks, objects and artifacts examined in the comparative study, making adequate

connections.

10–12

The work provides a consistent and insightful evaluation on the outcomes of the

investigation. The student effectively analyses and evaluates the extent to which their

own art-making and pieces have been influenced by artworks, objects and artifacts

examined in the comparative study, making informed and meaningful connections

throughout.

Part 2: Process Portfolio

A. Skills, techniques and processes

Using the required number of art-making forms from the art-making forms table, to what extent does the

portfolio demonstrate:

• the student’s sustained experimentation and manipulation of a range of skills, techniques and

processes, showing the ability to select and use materials appropriate to their intentions?

Candidates who do not submit portfolios reflecting the minimum required number of media and forms will

not be awarded a mark higher than 3 in this criterion.

Mark Descriptor

0 The portfolio does not reach a standard identified by the descriptors below

1–3

The portfolio demonstrates some experimentation and manipulation of skills, techniques,

processes and selection of materials, which may not be appropriate or related to

intentions.

4–6

Working across at least the minimum required number of media and forms, the portfolio

demonstrates experimentation and manipulation of some skills, techniques, processes

and the appropriate selection of materials, which are largely consistent with intentions.

7–9

Working across at least the minimum required number of media and forms, the portfolio

demonstrates purposeful experimentation and manipulation of a range of skills,

techniques and processes. The selection of materials is largely consistent with intentions.

10–12

Working across at least the required minimum number of media and forms, the portfolio

demonstrates assured and sustained experimentation and manipulation of a range

of skills, techniques and processes, and a highly appropriate selection of materials,

consistent with intentions.

B. Critical investigation

To what extent does the portfolio demonstrate:

• the student’s critical investigation of artists, artworks and artistic genres, communicating a growing

awareness of how this investigation influences and impacts upon their own developing art-making

practices and intentions?

Mark Descriptor

0 The portfolio does not reach a standard identified by the descriptors below

1–2

The portfolio shows superficial critical investigation into other artist’s art-making

practices with little or limited awareness of the impact on the student’s own developing

art practices or intentions.

3–4

The portfolio shows adequate critical investigation into other artist’s art-making practices

which displays an awareness of the impact on the student’s own developing art practices

and/or intentions.

5–6

The portfolio shows in-depth critical investigation into other artist’s art-making practices,

clearly communicating a secure and insightful awareness of how this investigation has

impacted upon the student’s own developing practices and intentions.

C. Communication of ideas and intentions (in both visual and written forms)

Using the required number of art-making forms from the art-making forms table, to what extent does the

portfolio demonstrate:

• the student’s ability to clearly articulate how their initial ideas and intentions have been formed and

developed and how they have assimilated technical skills, chosen media and ideas to develop their

work further?

Mark Descriptor

0 The portfolio does not reach a standard identified by the descriptors below.

1–2

The portfolio presents limited evidence of how initial ideas or intentions have been

formed or developed. The portfolio rarely communicates how technical skills, media and/

or ideas have contributed to the processes in their art-making.

3–4

The portfolio adequately identifies how initial ideas and intentions have been formed and

developed. The portfolio adequately communicates how technical skills, media and ideas

have been assimilated.

5–6

The portfolio clearly articulates how initial ideas and intentions have been formed and

developed. The portfolio effectively communicates how technical skills, media and ideas

have been assimilated to develop the portfolio further.

D. Reviewing, refining and reflecting (in both visual and written forms)

To what extent does the portfolio demonstrate:

• the student’s ability to review and refine selected ideas, skills, processes and techniques, and to reflect

on the acquisition of skills and their development as a visual artist?

Mark Descriptor

0 The portfolio does not reach a standard identified by the descriptors below.

1–2

The portfolio demonstrates limited evidence of the process of reviewing or refining ideas,

skills, processes or techniques. Reflection is mostly descriptive or superficial.

3–4

The portfolio demonstrates a process of reviewing and refining ideas, skills, processes and

techniques. The portfolio presents an adequate reflection upon the student’s acquisition

of skills as an artist.

5–6

The portfolio demonstrates an effective and consistent process of reviewing and refining

ideas, skills, processes and techniques. The portfolio presents a meaningful and assured

reflection upon the acquisition of skills and analysis of the student’s development as an

artist.

E. Presentation and subject-specific language

To what extent does the portfolio:

• ensure that information is conveyed clearly and coherently in a visually appropriate and legible

manner, supported by the consistent use of appropriate subject-specific language?

Mark Descriptor

0 The portfolio does not reach a standard identified by the descriptors below.

1

The portfolio conveys evidence with limited clarity or coherence. There is limited visual

evidence and the portfolio contains little or no subject-specific language used to

document the art-making process.

2

The portfolio conveys some evidence clearly and/or coherently, however this is

inconsistent.

There is some range of visual evidence and some inconsistent or elementary use of

subject-specific language used to document the art-making process.

3

The portfolio conveys evidence clearly, coherently and appropriately.

There is a good range of visual evidence and adequate use of appropriate subject-specific

language used to document the art-making process.

4

The portfolio conveys evidence clearly, coherently and in an engaging manner. There is

an excellent range of visual evidence and consistent use of appropriate subject-specific

language used to document the art-making process.

Part  3: Exhibition

A. Coherent body of works

Evidence: curatorial rationale, the submitted artworks, exhibition text and exhibition photographs

To what extent does the submitted work communicate:

• a coherent collection of works which fulfil stated artistic intentions and communicate clear thematic

or stylistic relationships across individual pieces?

Candidates who fail to submit the minimum number of artworks cannot achieve a mark higher than 6.

Mark Descriptor

0 The work does not reach a standard identified by the descriptors below.

1–3

The work shows little coherence through minimal communication of thematic or stylistic

relationships across individual pieces. The selection and application of media, processes

and techniques and the use of imagery show minimal consideration of intentions.

4–6

The work shows some coherence through adequate communication of thematic or stylistic

relationships across individual pieces. Stated intentions are adequately fulfilled through

the selection and application of media, processes and techniques and the considered use

of imagery.

7–9

The work forms a coherent body of work through effective communication of thematic

or stylistic relationships across individual pieces. Stated intentions are consistently

and effectively fulfilled through the selection and application of media, processes and

techniques and the considered use of imagery.

B. Technical competence

Evidence: curatorial rationale, the submitted artworks, exhibition text and exhibition photographs

To what extent does the submitted work demonstrate:

• effective application and manipulation of media and materials;

• effective application and manipulation of the formal qualities?

Candidates who fail to submit the minimum number of artworks cannot achieve a mark higher than 6.

Mark Descriptor

0 The work does not reach a standard identified by the descriptors below.

1–3

The work demonstrates minimal application and manipulation of media and materials

to reach a minimal level of technical competence in the chosen forms and the minimal

application and manipulation of the formal qualities.

4-6

The work demonstrates adequate application and manipulation of media and materials to

reach an acceptable level of technical competence in the chosen forms and the adequate

application and manipulation of the formal qualities.

7–9

The work demonstrates effective application and manipulation of media and materials

to reach an assured level of technical competence in the chosen forms and the effective

application and manipulation of the formal qualities.

C. Conceptual qualities

Evidence: curatorial rationale, the submitted artworks, exhibition text and exhibition photographs

To what extent does the submitted work demonstrate:

• effective resolution of imagery, signs and symbols to realize the function, meaning and purpose of the

art works, as appropriate to stated intentions?

Candidates who fail to submit the minimum number of artworks cannot achieve a mark higher than 6.

Mark Descriptor

0 The work does not reach a standard identified by the descriptors below.

1–3

The work demonstrates minimal elaboration of ideas, themes or concepts and

demonstrates minimal use of imagery, signs or symbols, or the imagery, signs or symbols

used are obvious, contrived or superficial. There is minimal communication of artistic

intentions.

4–6

The work visually elaborates some ideas, themes or concepts to a point of adequate

realization and demonstrates the use of imagery, signs or symbols that result in adequate

communication of stated artistic intentions.

7–9

The work visually elaborates ideas, themes or concepts to a sophisticated point of

effective realization and demonstrates the subtle use of complex imagery, signs or

symbols that result in effective communication of stated artistic intentions.

D. Curatorial practice (SL only)

Evidence: curatorial rationale, the submitted artworks, exhibition text and exhibition photographs

To what extent does the curatorial rationale justify:

• the selection, arrangement and exhibition of a group of artworks within a designated space?

Mark Descriptor

0 The work does not reach a standard identified by the descriptors below.

1

The curatorial rationale partially justifies the selection and arrangement of the

exhibited works as appropriate to the student’s stated intentions, or the curatorial

rationale may not be an accurate representation of the exhibition.

2

The curatorial rationale mostly justifies the selection and arrangement of the

exhibited works, which are presented and arranged in line with the student’s

stated intentions in the space made available to the student.

3

The curatorial rationale fully justifies the selection and arrangement of the

exhibited works, which are presented and arranged clearly, as appropriate to the

student’s stated intentions within the space made available to the student.

D. Curatorial practice (HL only)

Evidence: curatorial rationale, the submitted artworks, exhibition text and exhibition photographs

To what extent does the curatorial rationale demonstrate:

• the justification of the selection, arrangement and exhibition of a group of artworks within a

designated space?

• reflection on how the exhibition conveys an understanding of the relationship between the artworks

and the viewer?

Mark Descriptor

0 The work does not reach a standard identified by the descriptors below.

1

• The curatorial rationale partially justifies the selection and arrangement of the

exhibited works as appropriate to the student’s stated intentions, or the curatorial

rationale is not an accurate representation of the exhibition.

• The curatorial rationale conveys little justification for the relationship between the

artworks and the viewer within the space made available to the student.

2

• The curatorial rationale mostly justifies the selection and arrangement of the

exhibited works as appropriate to the student’s stated intentions.

• The curatorial rationale mostly articulates the relationship between the artworks

and the viewer within the space made available to the student.

3

• The curatorial rationale fully justifies the selection and arrangement of the exhibited

works as appropriate to the student’s stated intentions.

• The curatorial rationale effectively articulates the relationship between the artworks

and the viewer within the space made available to the student.