AS-LEVEL CLASSICAL CIVILISATION

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "AS-LEVEL CLASSICAL CIVILISATION"

Randall Hensley
5 years ago
Views:

1 AS-LEVEL CLASSICAL CIVILISATION CIV2C Athenian Vase Painting Report on the Examination 2020 June 2015 Version: 1.0

2 Further copies of this Report are available from aqa.org.uk Copyright 2015 AQA and its licensors. All rights reserved. AQA retains the copyright on all its publications. However, registered schools/colleges for AQA are permitted to copy material from this booklet for their own internal use, with the following important exception: AQA cannot give permission to schools/colleges to photocopy any material that is acknowledged to a third party even for internal use within the centre.

3 CIV2C Athenian Vase Painting General Comments The number of students sitting this paper showed a welcome increase over Performance was generally similar overall, although there was a wider spread of marks this year. The vast majority of students clearly enjoyed their studies and revealed a deep knowledge of and insight into this topic. Many of the papers were once again a real pleasure to mark. Most students chose Option A for their initial answers, some 80% or so favouring Exekias and the Andokides Painter over The Option B questions on the red-figure Pioneers. Performance on the two 20-mark questions was very similar, but the 10-mark Option A question was done rather better on average than its Option B equivalent. There was a much closer split in Section 2 with students opting by a small majority for the Option D question (11) on the Classical era over the wartime alternative in Option C. Here again the Option D majority outperformed the minority on average, but only by a small amount; Question 10 however provided a higher percentage of answers at Level 4 and above. Section 1 Option A Questions about basic techniques have been set several times recently, partly because in the past students have not made the expected use of these in answering the longer questions. Again this year the answers to Question 01 on the basic black-figure technique were rather disappointing. While most mentioned incision and the use of paint, answers tended to be otherwise quite sketchy; there was a preponderance of two marks here. The date of the vase however (Question 02) was known by most students. Question 03 asked for a detailed look at Exekias well-known Achilles and Penthesilea vase. Most students recognised this, although answers which did not name the figures (or misidentified them) did not suffer as a consequence. There was some good discussion of the prominence of the two figures, their relationship to each other (with the male figure clearly dominant), the lack of intrusive background detail keeping the focus on the figures, the traditional black-figure reliance on pattern when arranging the figures etc. However, many felt that Exekias rose above the stylised norm in this portrayal; the use of white paint to show female vulnerability was often discussed, while the darkness of Achilles head and face were regularly described as menacing. Most felt that the attempt to show different body positions was generally successful (especially for the era), while the two visible eyes were clearly seen as important foci. All in all there was some good work here with a third of students reaching at least the top of Level 3. Similarly two-thirds of responses to the comparative essay (Question 04) reached Level 3 as most students knew their Exekias and, at least to a degree, their Andokides Painter. Some students restricted their discussion of the latter to his confirmed red-figure examples. Others saw him as the bilingual painter he was, until recently, accepted to be. Either argument was given equal credit. As a more general point (although highly applicable here), there seems to be a disinclination to argue against any statement made as part of an examination question. 3 of 5

4 This led to some curious conclusions where students, after extolling the virtues of Exekias and giving limited comment on the Andokides Painter, settled for total agreement with the statement claiming the latter as being superior.. in every way. Generally Exekias was handled much better than Andokides. The best answers often benefited from comparing and contrasting the two artists Ajax and Achilles playing a board game paintings, although there was a tendency to describe each painting separately, rather than to compare and contrast the two. Option B It was pleasing that nearly all students were confident in naming both the type of vase (crater) and approximate date ( BC) for Question 05. The psykter in Question 06 however defeated some, although those identifying it correctly tended to know its use and gain both marks. Almost all students could name another contemporary painter for Question 07. Euphronios Heracles and Antaios painting set for discussion in Question 08 is another well-known example and the figures were identified by most students. Again there was no penalty for not doing so. Students here tended to give less detail than in the Option A question, leading to a lower mean mark. Although responses usually mentioned key issues such as the effects of the (quite heavy) decoration to top and bottom, the symmetry of the four visible figures, the rather stilted action and the worthy attempt to portray anatomy and movement, their answers tended to be descriptive rather than evaluative. The essay question (09) was generally better done. Performance here overall was very similar to the corresponding Option A essay, with everyone reaching the Level 3 threshold but none here gained higher than mid-level 4. Again suitable examples were usually selected (Euthymides Revellers featuring in most answers) but some students failed to notice the request to refer to Photograph C in the title and so lost marks. Some referred to the competitive edge between the two exemplified by Euthymides comment on the Revellers vase, but then tended, as with the 10- mark question, to describe their chosen examples one at a time, limiting comparative analysis to a brief conclusion. To reach high Level 4 and Level 5, there must be an evaluative thread throughout. None of the answers here quite attained this, although there was no doubting the knowledge on display or students enthusiasm for the topic. Section 2 There is sometimes an interesting contrast between the performance of students who opt to answer the type of question (eg Question 10 here) where they can choose from a wide range of painters and vases, and those who prefer to deal with relatively few paintings by a limited number of named painters, as in Question 11. By and large the latter is a safer bet in terms of reaching Level 3, but those who take the apparently more demanding route seem to produce the majority of the top level marks. This was certainly true with these two questions. Option C Here most, but not all, students reached Level 3. A few answers talked in a vague way about unspecified pictures, giving generic details but clearly lacking the specific knowledge to focus in on any particular paintings. These did not gain many marks. Most, however, selected wisely from an appropriate set of examples (although Euthymides Revellers is hardly a depiction of war, and one or two of the mythological stories selected were borderline in this respect). It was good to see 4 of 5

5 much focus on the two action-packed sack of Troy vases, especially where they were compared and contrasted with each other. There was much to say about depiction of action and emotion in these portrayals, and many responses provided detailed evidence. The best essays then often moved on to look at a contrasting idea, still moments depicted in the midst of war, such as the Sosias Painter s Achilles and Patroclus cup or the Achilles Painter s name vase. There were one or two excellent essays of this type, comparing and contrasting, describing paintings in detail, yet never losing sight of the title. These students gained high Level 4 or Level 5 marks. Option D There were no such very high-level performances in Option D, but all students here reached at least the Level 3 threshold. Given three named painters to discuss (one of whom, the Achilles Painter, dealt in two quite different styles) the choice of examples was almost made for students. That said, most took full advantage to look at the Niobid Painter s multi-level name vase, the Meidias Painter s famous hydria and a typical white-ground funerary lekythos from the Achilles Painter. A number of students rightly pointed out the Achilles Painter s debt to the Berlin Painter for his red-figure efforts, using the lack of originality to discuss the disappointing judgement from the title. Overall this was argued both ways, some students seeing the influence of classical sculpture on these later painters as a good thing. Several argued that with these painters at last the portrayal of anatomy reaches something close to perfection. On the other hand some judged that the smallscale figures of the Niobid and Meidias Painters in particular prevented the portrayal of real emotion. Many essays would have benefited from more judgements on both sides of the argument, with some suffering from the regular defect of describe, then move on. Answers were generally competent but with few outstanding insights. Mark Ranges and Award of Grades Grade boundaries and cumulative percentage grades are available on the Results Statistics page of the AQA Website. Converting Marks into UMS marks Convert raw marks into Uniform Mark Scale (UMS) marks by using the link below. UMS conversion calculator 5 of 5

AS-LEVEL CLASSICAL CIVILISATION

AS-LEVEL CLASSICAL CIVILISATION CIV2C Athenian Vase Painting Report on the Examination 2020 June 2016 Version: 0.1 Further copies of this Report are available from aqa.org.uk Copyright 2016 AQA and its