The
candidate achieved mid-range marks in the assessment objectives, however
additional marks could have been attracted to AO1. The secondary sources
referenced on page 2 of the Supporting Studies could have more consistently
reflected the candidate’s intentions. The candidate would also have attracted
more marks in AO1 by avoiding extended biographical details about the artists
studied. Instead, the candidate should have paid more attention to the ideas
they are developing as part of their Supporting Studies, and the insights
provided by the artists they are studying. The candidate should also have established
a more convincing connection between their chosen theme and any artists chosen
for study. The comparisons between the works of other artists could have been
more forensic. The script would have attracted more marks in AO1 and AO2 if the
visual language used by the chosen photographers was understood more
convincingly.
Some
of the analysis used language which was overly complex. Some of the claims for
the candidate’s own work were over-stated and not supported by the evidence. Evaluation
of the candidate’s work would have been more reliable if robust methods of
review were used. For example, peer review, professional feedback or systematic
visual analysis could have been applied to the work. The story board in the Proposal
section would have benefitted from including more detail. Specific scenes and progression
between scenes could have been illustrated, along with the timing of text and/or
commentary.
