# data[].attributes.body
-stylistic relationships across individual pieces
-effectively fulfilled through the selection and application of media
-use of imagery

# data[].attributes.body
SL:
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.
HL:
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.

# data[].attributes.body
SL:
- a curatorial rationale that does not exceed 400 words.
- 4–7 artworks
- exhibition text (stating the title, medium, size and intention) for each selected artwork
- two photographs of their overall exhibition
HL:
- curatorial rationale that does not exceed
700 words.
- 8–11 artworks
- exhibition text (stating the title, medium,
size and intention) for each selected artwork
- two photographs of their overall exhibition

# data[].attributes.body
- Demonstrates effective application and manipulation of media and materials.
- Reach an assured level of technical competence in the chosen forms

# data[].attributes.body
Group member: Ling, Emma, Armani, Trini

# data[].attributes.body
One
TWO
THree

# data[].attributes.body
Standard Level

  SL students submit 9–18 screens which evidence their sustained experimentation, exploration, manipulation and refinement of a variety of art-making activities.

  For SL students the submitted work must be in at least two art- making forms, each from separate columns of the art-making forms table.

Higher Level

  HL students submit 13–25 screens which evidence their sustained experimentation, exploration, manipulation and refinement of a variety of art-making activities.

  For HL students the submitted work must have been created in at least three art-making forms, selected from a minimum of two columns of the art-making forms table.

# data[].attributes.body
Criteria A
10-12

Working across at least the minimum required 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
Criteria B
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.
Criteria C
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
Criteria D
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.
Criteria E
4
The portfolio conveys evidence clearly, coherently and in an engaging, coherent manner.
There is an excellent range of visual evidence and consistent use of appropriate subject-specific language used to document the art-making process.

# data[].attributes.body
- visually elaborates ideas, themes or concepts
- effective communication of stated artistic intentions

# data[].attributes.body
Candidates who do not examine and compare at least 3 artworks by at least 2 different artists from at least two contrasting cultural contexts will not be awarded a mark higher than 2 in criteria B and C. Candidates who do not examine and compare at least 3 artworks by at least 2 different artists will not be awarded a mark higher than 3 in criterion D.

# data[].attributes.body
A: Identification and analysis of formal qualities
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
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
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
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
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.
(HL only) F: Making connections to own art-making practice
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.

# data[].attributes.body
HL students submit 10–15 screens which examine and compare at least three artworks, at least two of which need to be by different artists.

The works selected for comparison and analysis should come from contrasting contexts (local, national, international and/or intercultural).

HL students submit 3–5 screens which analyse the extent to which their work and practices have been influenced by the art and artists examined.

HL students submit a list of sources used.

# data[].attributes.body
List down the components of the following for each assessment part

1. Assessment Tasks
2. Assessment Criteria

# data[].attributes.body
- SL students submit 10–15 screens which compare at least three artworks, at least two of which should be by different artists.
-The work selected for comparison and analysis should come from contrasting contexts (local, national, international and/or intercultural).
-SL students submit a list of sources used.