A-level History of Art

Transcription

1 A-level History of Art HART2 Themes in History of Art Report on the Examination 2250 June 2016 Version: v1.0.

2 Further copies of this Report are available from aqa.org.uk Copyright 2016 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 General Comments All six questions in the paper were attempted, allowing for differentiation between excellent, good, competent, limited and basic responses. Questions 1, 2, 3 and 4 were almost equally popular. Question 5 also attracted a significant number of responses. Question 6 was the least popular question and students frequently failed to focus on the artists or architects social or cultural status as the question demanded, often describing two works of art and sometimes trying to suggest a social or cultural status for each. This often led to the response being allocated to the lower mark ranges or judged invalid in a number of cases. There was occasionally a mismatch between the question numbers and the answer but this was generally dealt with in a sympathetic way. However, there were some students who failed to number the questions from the outset which is a requirement. It was pleasing to note there were few rubric infringements. AO1 was generally sound and secure. Sometimes artworks were imprecisely or incorrectly identified, although the titling of works was generally more accurate than in previous examination series. There were fewer incorrect dates and misspellings of artists and architects names but when these did occur they were frequently wildly inaccurate. Theoretical texts occasionally formed part of some students responses, and these were generally well understood and used with great care, especially in the most successful responses. There was little evidence that students were aware that there were frequently several versions of a particular work, and occasionally a series of works was analysed as a single work. On rare occasions examples were cited that were outside the date range of the specification. AO2 was usually clearly demonstrated with substantiated judgements and sustained discussion, particularly in the upper mark ranges. Sometimes students resorted to writing everything they had learned, which frequently led to irrelevance and digression that did not directly address the demands of the question. This was particularly evident in what seemed to be prepared responses, which foregrounded formal analysis. However, there was a noticeable improvement in the quality of comparative analysis with some excellent responses to Question 1 which required students to analyse the similarities and differences of two works of art. Nevertheless where appearance and meaning formed a significant part of the question these were often relegated to a minor part of the response or ignored completely. AO3 was evidenced to a consistently high level, with the majority of students presenting a clear and coherent response with spelling and grammar presenting less of a barrier to clear and coherent responses. However, a small number of students displayed a lack of clarity and organisation, which led to vague and repetitious writing, inhibiting the overall quality of the response. This was frequently accompanied by poor selection of appropriate examples. Less able students frequently employed irrelevant material outside the scope of the question. On the whole, the quality of written communication was satisfactory. However, poor handwriting presented a significant number of problems and despite examiners concerted efforts frequently made it difficult to gain a clear understanding of some students responses. While such issues were dealt with sympathetically, in some cases, the legibility was so poor that it was difficult to credit particular aspects of the response. 3 of 7

4 Question 1 Subjects and genres Analyse the similarities and differences between either two paintings or two sculptures that are of the same subject or genre. This question was chosen by a wide range of students and was generally answered successfully. However, a significant number of students selected examples that led to further blurring of subject and genre. Examples of painting were far more popular than sculpture, with portraiture particularly well addressed in examples such as Matisse s The Green Stripe and Picasso s Portrait of Dora Maar. Similarly, Donatello s David and Michelangelo s David were used to exemplify the genre of the male nude. The similarities and differences element of the question elicited responses of three distinct types. Some students focused on either similarities or differences leading to a lack of balance in the response; some made little attempt to address this demand and simply offered an analysis of two separate works. The more successful responses were generally well crafted with well-chosen examples which were used effectively to address the question from the outset. Occasionally, students chose larger compositions to exemplify the subject or genre frequently giving a formal analysis of the whole work. Large-scale figure compositions such as Masaccio s The Tribute Money and Gentile da Fabriano s The Adoration of the Magi were used to distinguish similarities and differences in stylistic approach and in narrative methods. Question 2 Materials, techniques and processes Analyse the ways in which materials and techniques have affected the appearance of two works of art. This was one of the most popular questions. On the whole, it was answered successfully, bringing forward a wide range of knowledge and understanding of materials and techniques and of their relationship to appearance. Although generally the focus on materials and technique was sound, some students focused on technical procedures like the use of giornata in fresco, but not relating these to the chosen example. This often led to technical discussion that digressed from the main demand of the question. As expected, the two David figures by Donatello and Michelangelo were the most popular examples and these gave students scope for a detailed discussion of materials, techniques and appearance with carving and modelling procedures clearly understood. However, some students chose examples that used the same material or technique and this limited the scope for discussion and analysis. Frequently cited examples included Degas Little Dancer, Giacometti s Man Pointing, van Gogh s Starry Night and Picasso s Still Life with Chair Caning. On the whole, examples were well known, well analysed and discussed with confidence. Question 3 Form and function Analyse the ways in which function is expressed in the form of either two domestic or two commercial buildings. A wide range of examples was cited including some with only marginal relationships with commercial or domestic functions, therefore some responses were limited by poor choice of examples. In most cases, the basic function of the buildings was identified but the majority of the 4 of 7

5 response focused solely on architectural form. The range of chosen examples such as the Crystal Palace, the Colosseum, the Pompidou Centre and the Parthenon, which arguably have a marginal commercial aspect, demonstrated limited understanding of commercial function. These examples were allowed although rarely did they feature in focused responses to function per se. The concept of domestic function was altogether better understood with popular choices being Le Corbusier s Villa Savoye and Frank Lloyd-Wright s Fallingwater. The responses were generally well researched and domestic function and form were successfully addressed. The students that successfully integrated discussion of the function and form of their chosen examples, giving each equal attention, generally produced more successful responses. Question 4 Historical and social contexts Analyse two works of art and discuss the historical and/or social contexts of each. This was a popular question and some excellent responses were seen. The most popular examples were The Wilton Diptych, Delacroix s Liberty Leading the People, Géricault s The Raft of the Medusa, Goya s The Third of May, 1808, David s Napoleon Crossing the Alps and Picasso s Guernica. Occasionally, the balance of the discussion addressed historical/social contexts without relating this to the chosen examples and sometimes students selected examples where the historical or social narrative was not so obviously expressed - such as in David s Oath of the Horatii. The examples in this category were frequently ones that dealt with subtle social mores, for example the gender politics of Manet s Olympia and its relationship to prostitution or the social position of women as in Mary Cassatt s Little Girl in a Blue Armchair. Analysis of this kind was frequently accompanied by popular scholarship, often only partially understood which added little to the analysis. Sculpture featured less frequently in responses to this question although there were a number of students that made successful analyses of Epstein s Rock Drill and Rodin s Burghers of Calais. Question 5 Patronage Discuss how patronage has contributed to the appearance and meaning of two buildings, each by a different architect. Fewer students answered this question and fewer excellent responses were seen. The majority of students were able to make a tentative link between the patron and the building, but could not always identify the motives and character of the patron in relation to the buildings appearance and meaning. The majority selected valid examples, however, some less able students merely described architectural details and failed to identify the patron or discuss the context of the commission. Since appearance and meaning is frequently attached to the intent of the patron, this led to irrelevant and tangential discussions that failed to address the question. Examples included Cosimo de Medici and the Medici Palace, Brunelleschi and the Ospedali degli Innocenti, as well as Le Corbusier s Villa Savoye and Mies van der Rohe s Farnsworth House. 5 of 7

6 Question 6 Social and Cultural Status Discuss the social and/or cultural status of two artists and/or architects. This was the least popular question and also the least successfully addressed. There were a number of students who focused on an analysis of the works and did not relate this to the social and/or cultural status of the artist, which was the demand of the question. Where this was addressed, responses frequently lacked detail and were sometimes the subject of sweeping generalisations, loosely connected to a single key work. However, there were some successful attempts to outline the career of artists such as van Dyck, Ingres, Courbet and Manet but although these failed to elicit excellent responses, students were at least attempting to address the demands of the question directly. Very few architects were chosen, and the students choosing them demonstrated only sketchy knowledge of their career. 6 of 7

7 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 7 of 7