2-D Design Concentration—Section II
A concentration is defined as “a body of work unified by an underlying
idea that has visual
coherence.” In scoring concentrations, there are four major areas of
concern.
• Coherence and/or development—is the work presented actually
a concentration?
• Quality of the concept/idea represented—is there evidence of
thinking and of focus?
• Degree of development and investigation that is evident in the work—including
the
amount of work or number of pieces represented.
• Quality of the work in both concept and technique, regardless of medium.
Note: These four areas will necessarily appear in shifting relationships of
relative strength and weakness.
When the four are not even in the level of achievement they represent, they
will be considered as a whole
to arrive at the score for the section.
Because this section is concerned with a process of growth and discovery,
the work presented may span a
range of levels of achievement. If this is the case, the higher level that
is reached should be acknowledged
in the score that is given.
The scoring guidelines that follow provide examples of overall characteristics
of concentrations that would
merit each of the six scores.
6 EXCELLENT CONCENTRATION
• There is an unmistakable connection between the idea of the concentration
and the work presented.
• The concentration engages the viewer with the work and the idea.
• The work shows effective integration of concept and design skills.
• Technical aspects are strong to excellent.
• The work shows informed risk taking and development beyond technical
concerns.
• An evocative theme is carried out.
• The work demonstrates an original vision.
• Overall, the work is of excellent quality.
5 STRONG CONCENTRATION
• The work and the concentration topic have a close relationship.
• The idea of the concentration is good to strong.
• There is evidence of thought in the work.
• The work is technically competent; skill is evident.
• There is evidence of effective pursuit of the idea.
• There may be some less successful pieces, but overall the work shows
a strong grasp of design
principles.
• The work shows a sense of transformation over time, although it may
not be totally successful.
• An evocative theme is investigated.
• Overall, the work is of strong quality.
4 GOOD CONCENTRATION
• There is a sense of concentration, and the work is related to the
idea.
• The work may be inconsistent in terms of quality, but overall the
application of design principles is
good.
• Manipulation of ideas is evident.
• Some growth and discovery are evident.
• The work may be a concentration and be technically competent but with
an incomplete sense of
investigation.
• Although the work is of strong or excellent quality, it is not a concentration.
• Overall, the work is of good quality.
3 MODERATE CONCENTRATION
• The work is a concentration, but the topic is inadequately considered.
• The concentration may include several loosely related ideas.
• The concentration may be so broad that the student could not really
explore an idea in depth.
• The work may be inconsistently related to the idea.
• Some growth is evident, but only moderate understanding of design
principles is demonstrated.
• Although the work may be of good quality, it is not a concentration.
• Overall, the work is of moderate quality.
2 WEAK CONCENTRATION
• There is little investigation of the idea.
• The idea is appropriate for a concentration, but the knowledge and
understanding needed
to execute it are not evident.
• A concentration is presented, but the work is weak in application
of design principles.
• The work may appear to constitute a good start, but it does not show
sufficient investigation.
• Although the work shows moderate grasp of design principles, it is
not a concentration.
• Quantity of work may be lacking.
• Overall, the work is of weak quality.
1 POOR CONCENTRATION
• There is very little or no sense of investigation.
• The idea of the concentration is not carried out.
• The work shows very little or no evidence of understanding of design
principles.
• There is a lack of an underlying rationale that would link the work.
• There is not enough work to represent a concentration.
• The images are virtually impossible to see.
• Overall, the work is of poor quality.