Connection Study (2027)
What are the assessed criteria for the Connection Study
Criterion A: Connections with context(s) – 8 marks Criterion B: Connections with artworks – 8 marks Criterion C: Investigation of cultural significance – 8 marks Connections Study — 10-Screen Breakdown
Total : 10 screens, ≤2,500 words across the whole document (≈250 words/screen average — front-load the analysis screens, keep intro/conclusion lean) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Screen 1 — Introduction & Framing Word target: ~150 Full image of the resolved artwork (clean, well-lit, credited as "my work") Title, medium, dimensions, date One-sentence artistic intention statement Name the 2 comparison artists/artworks and preview why they were chosen (one line each — full justification comes later) This is the "here's what you're about to read" screen — set the stage, don't analyze yet. What goes on this screen: Show the whole resolved artwork. One clean, well-lit image of the full piece — not a detail shot, that comes later. Give the basics. Title, medium, dimensions, date. State the intention in one sentence. What was the student trying to do or say with this piece? Preview the two artists. Name Artist 1 and Artist 2 and give a one-line hint at why each was chosen — just a teaser, not the full justification (that's Screens 5 and 7). "Think of this as the movie trailer, not the movie. Show the work, say what you were going for, and name who you'll be connecting it to — save the deep explanation for later." Word budget: ~150 words — keep it tight. Common mistake: Over-explaining the connections here. If Screen 1 starts doing Screen 4/5's job, there's nothing left to build toward. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Screen 2 — Context: Identification Word target: ~250 | Criterion A Name the specific personal/cultural/social/environmental context(s) tied to the resolved artwork 1–2 process/development images (sketchbook page, work-in-progress photo) Explain why this context matters to the piece — not just where it was made What goes on this screen: Say what the context is. In a sentence or two, name the specific thing that shaped this artwork — could be something personal (a family experience, an identity), something local (their neighborhood, school, community), or something social (an issue they care about). Just one clear context, not a list of five. Show it's not made up — prove it. Add 1–2 images from their process: a sketchbook page, a work-in-progress photo, an early draft. This shows the context was actually part of how the piece got made, not something they bolted on afterward. Say why it matters. One or two sentences on why this context is important to the piece — not just "this happened to me," but "this is why it shaped the work this way." "Don't just tell me where the idea came from — tell me why that matters to this piece, and show me proof from your process that it was actually part of how you made it." Word budget: About 250 words — short. This screen sets up the what; Screen 3 does the how (the technical analysis of how that context shows up in the actual formal choices). Common mistake to warn them about: Writing a life-story paragraph instead of a focused claim. One context, clearly stated, backed by process evidence — not a full autobiography. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Screen 3 — Context: Formal Analysis & Evaluation Word target: ~300 | Criterion A Zoomed/detail images of the resolved artwork Analyze specific formal/technical choices (composition, material, scale, color, installation) that communicate the context Evaluate: how successfully does the artwork represent/respond to that context? What goes on this screen: Zoom in on the actual artwork. Add close-up or detail images — not the whole piece again (that was Screen 1), but specific parts: a brushstroke, a material choice, a section of the composition, an installation detail. Point to specific choices and explain what they're doing. Pick 2–3 concrete formal/technical decisions — composition, material, scale, color, or how it's installed/displayed — and explain how each one communicates the context named in Screen 2. This is the core of the screen: connecting a visible choice to the meaning behind it. Judge it. End with an evaluation — did the artwork actually succeed at representing/responding to that context? A sentence or two saying how well it worked, not just that it worked. "Screen 2 said what the context is. This screen proves it — point at the actual materials, colors, or composition and explain how each choice makes that context visible. Then tell me honestly whether it worked." Common mistake to warn them about: Restating Screen 2's content instead of moving to close analysis. If a student writes "this represents my community" again without pointing to a specific visual choice, they haven't done Screen 3's job — they've just repeated Screen 2. Every sentence here should be anchored to something visible in the artwork. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Screen 4 — Artwork Connection #1: Introduction & Visual Comparison Word target: ~250 | Criterion B Side-by-side: resolved artwork + Artist 1's artwork Basic details of Artist 1's piece (title, date, medium) Identify the technical/conceptual/stylistic link What goes on this screen: Put the two artworks side by side. The student's resolved artwork next to Artist 1's artwork, visually paired so a reader can look at both at once. Give the basics on Artist 1's piece. Title, artist name, date, medium — just enough so the reader knows what they're looking at. Keep this brief, almost caption-style. Name the connection. One clear statement of what kind of link this is — technical (a shared process or material), conceptual (a shared idea or theme), or stylistic (a shared visual approach). Just name it here; the deep "how and why" comes in Screen 5. "This screen is the introduction, not the argument. Show both works together, tell me who made the other one and when, and say in one sentence what kind of connection you see. Save the deep explanation for the next screen." Word budget: About 250 words — lighter than Screen 5, since this screen is doing visual/setup work more than analytical work. Common mistake to warn them about: Choosing a connection based on surface similarity ("we both used blue") instead of something real. If the only link is that two pieces look alike, Screen 5 will have nothing to analyze. Encourage students to pick Artist 1 because there's a genuine technical, conceptual, or process-based link they can actually unpack — not because the images happen to match visually. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Screen 5 — Artwork Connection #1: Analysis & Justification Word target: ~300 | Criterion B Detail images if useful (technique close-ups) Analyze how the technique/material/concept relates across both works Justify why this connection is meaningful to the student's own artistic intentions Subject-specific vocabulary throughout What goes on this screen: Add detail images if they help. Close-ups of technique — brushwork, texture, construction method, whatever the connection is actually about. Only include this if it sharpens the analysis; don't add images just to fill space. Explain how the connection works. Take the link named in Screen 4 (technical, conceptual, or stylistic) and unpack it properly: how does the technique, material, process, or idea actually show up in both works? Be specific — point to exact features, not general impressions. Justify why it matters to their own practice. This is the part students often skip. It's not enough to say "we're connected" — the student needs to explain why studying Artist 1's approach was meaningful to their own artistic thinking or decisions. Use real vocabulary. Proper subject-specific terms for materials, techniques, and formal qualities — this is being assessed directly. "Screen 4 named the connection. This screen proves it and makes it matter — show me exactly how the technique or idea shows up in both pieces, and tell me what it taught you about your own work." Word budget: About 300 words — one of the two heaviest screens in the whole document. Common mistake to warn them about: Describing both artworks separately instead of analyzing the relationship between them. If a student writes one paragraph about Artist 1's work and one paragraph about their own with no sentence connecting the two, they've described — not analyzed. Every claim here should be a comparison, not a summary. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Screen 6 — Artwork Connection #2: Introduction & Visual Comparison Word target: ~250 | Criterion B Side-by-side: resolved artwork + Artist 2's artwork Basic details of Artist 2's piece Identify the technical/conceptual/stylistic link (should differ in kind from Artist 1's connection to avoid repetition) What goes on this screen: Put the two artworks side by side. The student's resolved artwork next to Artist 2's artwork, paired visually. Give the basics on Artist 2's piece. Title, artist name, date, medium — brief, caption-style, same as Screen 4. Name the connection — and make sure it's a different kind of connection than Artist 1's. If Artist 1's link was technical (shared process or material), Artist 2's should ideally be conceptual or stylistic — not another version of the same argument. This is what keeps the study from feeling repetitive and shows range. "Same job as Screen 4, but for your second artist. Show both works together, give the basic details, and name the connection in one sentence. But make sure this connection is a different type than your first one — don't just find another artist who also used similar colors." Word budget: About 250 words — same lighter weight as Screen 4. Common mistake to warn them about: Picking Artist 2 for a connection that's essentially a repeat of Artist 1's (e.g., both chosen purely for stylistic similarity). Examiners are looking for range across the two connections — encourage students to choose Artist 2 specifically because they illuminate a different dimension of the resolved artwork than Artist 1 did. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Screen 7 — Artwork Connection #2: Analysis & Justification Word target: ~300 | Criterion B Detail images as needed Analyze the relationship (technique, process, composition, or concept) Justify relevance to own practice Optional: one line bridging both artist connections before moving to Criterion C What goes on this screen: Add detail images if needed. Close-ups showing whatever the connection is actually about — same principle as Screen 5, only include what sharpens the argument. Explain how the connection works. Unpack the technical, conceptual, or stylistic link named in Screen 6 in real depth — specific features, not general impressions. Justify why it matters to their own practice. Same as Screen 5: not just "we're connected," but what studying Artist 2's approach actually contributed to the student's own thinking or decisions. Optional: one bridging line. Since this is the last Criterion B screen, a short sentence tying both artist connections together — what do Artist 1 and Artist 2 together reveal about the resolved artwork — can help transition smoothly into the cultural-significance screens that follow. "Same job as Screen 5, but for your second artist. Prove the connection, don't just name it — and if you can, end with one sentence on what both connections together tell you about your own work." Word budget: About 300 words — the other heaviest screen in the document, matching Screen 5. Common mistake to warn them about: Same trap as Screen 5 — describing Artist 2's work and the student's work in separate paragraphs instead of actively comparing them. Also watch for students treating the bridging line as a big new argument; it should stay brief, since the real synthesis belongs on the final screen. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Screen 8 — Cultural Significance: Artwork 1 Word target: ~250 | Criterion C Historical/social/political conditions surrounding Artist 1's artwork How it communicated to its original audience Cite source(s) inline or via footnote marker (full citations go in the separate sources file) What goes on this screen: Set the historical/social/political context around Artist 1's artwork. Not the student's context this time — the real-world conditions surrounding when and where Artist 1 made this piece. What was happening at the time, socially or politically, that shaped it? Explain how it communicated to its original audience. What did this artwork mean to the people it was made for or shown to at the time? This is different from what it means now. Cite a source. A brief inline reference or footnote marker pointing to where this research came from — the full citation details go in the separate sources file, not on the screen itself. "Step back from your own work for a second. This screen is pure research: what was going on in the world when Artist 1 made this piece, and what did it mean to the people who first saw it? Back it up with a real source." Word budget: About 250 words. Common mistake to warn them about: Sliding back into talking about the student's own artwork or their connection to it — that's Criterion B's job, already done. Screen 8 should read like genuine art-historical research about Artist 1's piece on its own terms. Also watch for unreliable or thin sourcing — a single quick Google result won't hold up; push students toward museum sites, academic sources, or artist interviews/statements. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Screen 9 — Cultural Significance: Artwork 2 + Synthesis Word target: ~300 | Criterion C Historical/social/political conditions surrounding Artist 2's artwork How meaning shifts across time/place/audience Explicitly loop back: how does this cultural research inform the student's own practice? What goes on this screen: Set the historical/social/political context around Artist 2's artwork. Same job as Screen 8, but for the second artist — what real-world conditions shaped this piece when and where it was made? Show how meaning shifts. This screen adds a layer Screen 8 didn't need: explain how the artwork's meaning has changed depending on time, place, or audience. What did it mean originally, and how might it read differently today or to a different viewer? Loop back to their own practice. This is the most important part of the screen — explicitly connect this cultural research to the student's own resolved artwork. Why does knowing this history matter for understanding what the student made? "Do the same research job as Screen 8, but for your second artist — and this time, also show how the meaning has shifted over time or across audiences. Then bring it home: tell me why this cultural background actually matters to your own piece." Word budget: About 300 words — the heaviest of the three cultural-significance screens, since it's carrying both the shift-in-meaning idea and the tie-back. Common mistake to warn them about: Doing solid research on Artist 2 but forgetting the loop-back sentence at the end. Without that final connection to their own work, the screen reads as a stand-alone research report rather than part of the Connections Study — and that link back is specifically what the examiners are checking for here. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Screen 10 — Conclusion Word target: ~150 Synthesize across all three criteria — what did this investigation reveal about the student's artistic identity/practice? Brief forward-look: how this shapes ongoing/future work No new evidence introduced here — pure synthesis This is the only screen where no new evidence is introduced — it's pure synthesis, pulling the whole study together. What goes on this screen: Answer the "so what." Looking across the context work (A), the artist connections (B), and the cultural research (C) — what did this investigation actually reveal about the student as an artist? What did they learn about their own practice? Look forward, briefly. One or two sentences on how this understanding might shape work going forward — not a new project pitch, just a natural closing thought. No new images, no new claims. Everything referenced here should already have appeared earlier in the study. "Don't summarize what you already said — connect it. Tell me what all three parts, taken together, taught you about your own art-making." Common mistake: Treating this as a recap ("In this study I looked at context, then two artists, then cultural significance...") instead of genuine synthesis. A recap restates; a conclusion reveals what the pieces add up to. |
Samples |
