Part 1 (SL and HL): Comparative
study
External
assessment 20%
Why assess a
comparative study?
Both SL and HL
students need to understand the intricate relationship between theory and
practice. The course encourages students to critically investigate the work of
other artists and allow the work to inform their own art-making practice. This
task gives students the opportunity to elaborate, extrapolate and present a
comparative study of three works by at least two artists from different cultural
contexts that they have investigated as a part of their art-making practice. HL
students are further required to articulate the connections between the work
examined in the comparative study and their own art-making, giving them the
chance to think about how theory is related to practice.
Core syllabus
areas related to the task
The following
core syllabus areas are addressed in the comparative study assessment task. The
term “artworks” is used here generically and could refer to a range of visual
and cultural artifacts.
Visual arts in
context
- What
are the social, historical, political and intellectual contexts of each of
the works explored?
- How
do the artworks reflect aspects of the world in which they were created?
- What
experiences of the world does the audience bring to their interpretation
and appreciation of the artworks?
- Which
critical methodologies are most appropriate to analyse, interpret and
evaluate the artworks?
- How
has exploring these contexts influenced the students’ own art-making? (HL
only)
Visual arts
methods
- What
media, processes and techniques have been used in each of the artworks?
- What
aspects of the processes and techniques are conventional or innovative?
- How
have formal qualities, such as the elements and principles of design, been
used and to what effect (or affect)?
- What
motifs, signs and symbols have been used in the works and what do these
communicate to the audience?
- How
are the artworks evaluated?
- How
have the artists’ methodologies influenced the student’s own art-making?
(HL only)
Communicating
visual arts
- What
methods of organization and presentation most effectively communicate
knowledge and understanding?
- How
can visual organizers and graphics be used to convey information more
effectively than words alone?
- Who
is the audience for the comparative study? What prior understandings can
be assumed?
Possible
artists and approaches
The nature of
this task is relatively open-ended, permitting a wide range of approaches
providing that students still meet the requirements of the task and address the
marking criteria. The following table provides a range of possible approaches
to the task and relevant artists, artworks or artifacts. It is not intended to
be prescriptive or exhaustive.
|
Approach |
Artists/artworks |
Description |
|
Thematic |
Damien Hirst
(British, b 1965) For the Love of God (2007), platinum cast
of human skull encrusted with 8601 flawless diamonds. Mosaic mask
of Tezcatlipoca (Mexica/Mixtec,
c. 15–16th century CE) human skull, deer hide, turquoise, black lignite,
polished iron pyrite, white conch (Strombus) shell. The nasal cavity is lined
with plates of bright red thorny oyster (Spondylus) shell. Quimbaya
Death mask (Colombia:Quimbaya
c. CE 600-1100), gold. |
Memento Mori This
presentation focuses on Damien Hirst’s For the Love of God (2007)
work and arose from the student’s interest in the Día de Muertos (Day
of the Dead) imagery from Mexico. Comparisons
are made between Hirst’s work and 15–16th century Mixtec Mosaic mask
of Tezcatlipoca as well as theQuimbaya Death mask. The student
considers the prevalence of imagery of death across the cultures, considering
the function and significance. The student
considers the juxtaposition of precious elements with morbidity. |
|
Jean-Michel
Basquiat (Haitian-American 1960–1988) Irony of Negro Policeman (1981)
acrylic and crayon on canvas, 183 × 122 cm. Keith Haring
(American, 1958–1990) Untitled (mural in the cafeteria of
the Museum of Contemporary Art in Antwerp, Belgium, 1987), mural. Banksy
(British, unknown) Untitled (Keith Haring tribute, The
Grange, Bermondsey, London). Street graffiti, spray enamel via stenciling. |
Crime to
Commodity The student
was interested in graffiti/street art and was posing questions through their
own work about the definition of art versus vandalism. To broaden
the field of the student’s investigation, the teacher directed the student to
the work of Jean-Michel Basquiat and Keith Haring, both of whom were in the
graffiti scene before transitioning to the status of respected visual
artists. The student
explores the cultural context of the world in which each of the artists
worked/work and the significance of the political commentary in the work. The student
was particularly pleased to find a Bansky image that paid homage to Keith
Haring. |
|
|
Andres
Serrano (American, born 1950) Piss Christ (1987) photograph
of a small plastic crucifix submerged in what the artist has described as
being his own urine in a glass. David Černý
(Czech, born 1967) Shark (2005), life-like replica of a
bound Saddam Hussein in a parody of the glass tank of Damien Hirst’s The
Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living. Bill Henson
(Australian, born 1955), Untitled #38, 2005/06, type C
photograph, 127 × 180 cm, edition of 5 + 2 A/Ps. |
The Genius
of Offense Following a
TOK presentation on Robert Hughes’ Shock of The New: Art and the
Century of Change, the student launched himself into an investigation of
recent controversial art and the power of art to provoke strong reactions. The
comparative study considered the range of responses to symbols and imagery
used in the works from the different perspectives of the audiences who would
see and respond to the works in various contexts. The
investigation resulted in a short-lived, but enthusiastic series of works
that challenged some of the assumptions and the culture of hisconservative
faith-based private school. |
|
|
Historical |
Sandro
Botticelli (Italian, Early Renaissance: c. 1445–1510), Nascita di
Venere (Birth of Venus, 1486), tempera on canvas, 172.5 × 278.9 cm Alexandre
Cabanel (French, 1823–1889), Naissance de Venus (Birth of
Venus, 1963), oil on canvas, 130 × 225 cm Édouard
Manet (French, 1832–1883) Olympia (1863), oil on canvas,
130.5 × 190 cm ORLAN
(Mireille Suzanne Francette Porte, French, born 1947), The
Reincarnation of Sainte Orlan (begun 1990), series of plastic
surgeries on the artist’s body. |
Visions of Venus This
comparative study emerged from the student’s own art-making practice, which
focused on representations of the human form and changing notions of beauty. The
comparative study provides a survey of key works representing the female form
in Western art. In
analysing, interpreting, evaluating and comparing the works, the student
adopted a feminist critical methodology, which identified how feminist theory
informed the interpretation of imagery in the works and the evaluation of the
significance of the works within the context in which they were created and
to the broader canon of Western art. |
|
Pablo
Picasso (Spanish, 1881–1973), Les Demoiselles d'Avignon (The
Young Ladies of Avignon, 1907), oil on canvas, 243.9 × 233.7 cm. Fang mask used
for the ngil ceremony (Gabon, Central Africa, c19th
century), wood, 66cm. Iberian
female head (Province of Albacete, Castile-La Mancha, Spain, c. 299–100 BCE),
sandstone, 15 × 17 × 10 cm. |
Primitivism
in Picasso’s Les
Demoiselles d’Avignon The
student’s interest in this subject arose from a TOK discussion on the ethics
of appropriation in the arts, with a particular focus on the exploitation of
indigenous motifs. The student
was directed to a copy of Hal Foster’s “The "Primitive" Unconscious
of Modern Art”, October. Vol 34, (Autumn, 1985), pp. 45–70, which
helped the student evaluate the claims, denied by Picasso, that the
stylistically transitional elements in Picasso’s Les Demoiselles
d’Avignon were influenced by his contact with African and Iberian
sculpture. |
|
|
Rembrandt
Harmenszoon van Rijn (Dutch, 1606–1669),Self-Portrait with Two
Circles (c. 1665–1669), oil on canvas, 114.3 × 94 cm. Vincent van
Gogh (Dutch, 1853–1890), Self-Portrait with Bandaged Ear, Easel and
Japanese Print (1889), oil on canvas, 60 × 49 cm. Frida Kahlo
de Rivera (Mexican, 1907–1954), Self-portrait with Thorn Necklace and
Hummingbird (1940), oil on canvas, 61.25 × 47 cm. Brett
Whiteley (Australian, 1939–1992), Art, Life and the Other Thing (1978)
(Triptych), oil, glass eye, hair, pen and ink on cardboard, plaster,
photography, oil, dried PVA, cigarette butts, hypodermic syringe on board,
90.4 × 77.2 cm, 230 × 122 cm, 31.1 × 31.1 cm. |
Selfies The artworks
explored in this study were originally investigated when the student was
working on a series of her own self-portraits. Her
comparative study considers the changing conventions of portraiture within
the context of the time and place in which the works were created. Her analysis
and interpretation considered the ways in which meaning was conveyed through
the use of formal and symbolic codes, and in the case of the Whiteley,
written codes as well. The number
of works examined compelled the student to rely on the thoughtful and
considered use of annotated images and other visual organizers to convey her
understandings in a succinct manner. |
Resources
The Visual
arts guide (March 2014) strongly recommends that at least one of the
works explored in the comparative study is a work that the students have
experienced first-hand. This makes visits to art museums and galleries or
artist studios of critical importance as a resource to students. The artwork
itself should be considered itself as a primary source. Where the school’s
geographical, political or economic context makes access to museums and
galleries impractical, students need to have access to good quality
reproductions.
The visual
arts teacher is undoubtedly the most influential source that students have
direct access to. The quality of instruction that students need in order to
analyse and deconstruct works and to research the cultural contexts of works is
critical to their success.
Scholarly
books on visual arts, artists, styles, movements, periods and themes are
extremely useful. They can often provide the quality reproductions of works
that can be used as primary source material as well as reliable and critical
secondary source opinions about the intent and purpose of works, the cultural
context of the work and the significance. Exhibition catalogues in particular
can provide models for constructing a comparative study if viewed critically,
considering why the curator has chosen to put certain works together? What
associations and connections are being suggested?
Visual arts
journals and periodicals also provide a rich resource, and often reflect more
up-to-date contemporary trends in art-making practices than is available
through other published works.
The internet
is increasingly useful in investigation if used judiciously. Often, it is
assumed that students have the skills needed to navigate the web with
discretion, but this is rarely the case. Students need direction in finding the
authors of sites and how to determine if the information provided is reliable.
Many art galleries and museums have great websites with educational pages or
forums. These are great starting points, as are the growing number of
established contemporary artists who manage their own websites.
A guide for
students
Task summary
The
comparative study is an externally examined assessment task worth 20%.
To complete
the task, you are required to present a comparative study of at least three
artworks by at least two different artists from different and contrasting
cultural contexts. The work should be selected from work you have investigated
as a part of your independent coursework, and will be explored further and
presented as a series of screen-based slides.
Formal
requirements
SL
- SL
students submit 10–15 screens, which examine and compare at least three
artworks, objects or artifacts, at least two of which need to be by
different artists.
- The
works selected for comparison and analysis should come from differing
cultural contexts.
- SL
students submit a list of sources used.
HL
- HL
students submit 10–15 screens, which examine and compare at least three
artworks, objects or artifacts, at least two of which need to be by
different artists.
- The
works selected for comparison and analysis should come from differing
cultural contexts.
- 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.
Marking
criteria summary
|
Marking criteria |
Marks |
What the examiner is looking for: |
|
|
A |
Analysis of
formal qualities |
6 |
At the
highest level of achievement, the work identifies and analyses the formal
qualities of the selected pieces from at least two cultural origins and the
analysis of these formal qualities is consistently informed by reliable
sources and effective. |
|
B |
Interpretation
of function and purpose |
6 |
At the
highest level of achievement, the work demonstrates a consistently informed
by reliable sources and appropriate interpretation of the function and
purpose of the selected pieces within the cultural context in which they were
created. |
|
C |
Evaluation
of cultural significance |
6 |
At the
highest level of achievement, the work demonstrates consistently informed and
appropriate evaluation of the material, conceptual and cultural significance
of the selected pieces within the specific context in which they were
created. |
|
D |
Making
comparisons and connections |
6 |
At the
highest level of achievement, the work critically analyses the connections,
similarities and differences between the selected pieces. These connections
are logical and coherent, showing a thorough understanding of how the pieces
compare. |
|
E |
Presentation
and subject-specific language |
6 |
At the
highest level of achievement, the work clearly and coherently conveys
information which results in a visually appropriate, legible and engaging
study. Subject-specific language is used accurately and appropriately
throughout. |
|
F |
Making
connections to own art-making practice (HL only) |
12 |
At the
highest level of achievement, the work analyses and reflects upon the
outcomes of the investigation consistently and appropriately. You effectively
consider your own development, making informed and meaningful connections to
your own art-making practice. |
Possible
structure
|
Introduction |
Summarize
the scope of your investigation from which the focus artworks, objects and
artifacts have been selected, and any thematic or conceptual framework you
have used to draw the investigation together. |
1 screen |
|
The
artworks, objects or artifacts and their contexts |
Summarize
your research from a range of different sources and present your inquiry into
the identification and interpretation of the selected artworks, objects and
artifacts. You also explain how you have applied a range and combination of
critical theories and methodologies to the works. Areas of investigation
might include:
|
3–5 screens |
|
Making
comparisons and connections |
Present your
comparisons of the different pieces, clearly identifying links between them.
These comparisons might include:
|
3–5 screens |
|
Connecting
to own art-making practice (HL only) |
Reflect on
your research outcomes and the extent to which your own art-making practices
and pieces have subsequently been influenced by artworks, objects, artifacts
and their creators examined in the comparative study. These influences and
personal connections, which should be evidenced in both visual and written
forms, might include:
When
referring to your own artwork and practices, you must be sure to identify and
acknowledge your own artworks with the same rigorous attention to detail as
with images from other sources. |
3–5 screens |
|
Sources |
Include a
reference list of sources used during the study. In-text referencing is
required throughout the comparative study. Every image used within the
comparative study must be appropriately referenced to acknowledge the title,
artist, date (where this information is known) and the source, following the
protocol of the referencing style chosen by the school. |
1 screen |
Further advice
for students
- Most
students will complete the comparative study using a slide presentation
software such as Microsoft’s PowerPoint®, Apple’s Keynote® or
Prezi Pro™, and then convert the document to a portable
document file (PDF) for electronic submission. Avoid using animations
within slides and animated transitions between slides that may be lost
when the file is converted, or may be missed if a moderator advances
through your presentation prematurely.
- When
importing images for your presentation, resize them first to a maximum
height or width of 1,500 pixels, optimized for web and devices. This will
significantly reduce the overall size of your file, without compromising
the image quality when viewed on a screen.
- Use
a consistent design scheme for your presentation. Use one or two fonts
throughout the presentation. Sans serif fonts tend to be easier to read on
screen. Avoid narrow or cursive fonts. Make slide backgrounds subtle and
consistent and use high contrast between background and text colour.
- Wherever
possible, communicate with visuals and graphics in preference to text.
- Check
your grammar and spelling, paying particular attention to the spelling of
artists’ names and subject-specific terminology.
- Your
teacher is able to provide suggestions to improve your comparative study
on your first draft only. Make sure you submit it on time.
Comments
Post a Comment