IB Visual Arts SL cheat sheet

A valid comparison set requires at least three works by at least two different artists from contrasting cultural contexts; the third artist or work may come from the candidate's own culture.

Formal analysis vocabulary is grouped by element: line (contour, implied, gestural), shape (organic, geometric, positive/negative), colour (hue, value, saturation, temperature), space (overlap, scale, atmospheric and linear perspective), texture (actual, simulated), and composition (symmetry, asymmetry, rule of thirds, focal point).

Comparing works means matching like with like: compare treatment of the same formal element or the same function across works, not one work's colour against another's subject matter.

Chronological distance matters: a work made before 1900 and a work made after 2000 in the same medium still differ in patronage, reproduction technology and audience, so state the gap explicitly.

Cultural context indicators to identify per work: patron or commissioner, intended location (sacred, domestic, public, commercial), intended audience, and the status of the artist in that society.

Medium comparison follows a rule: identify material first (oil, acrylic, ink, clay, digital pixel, found object), then the constraint that material imposes (drying time, opacity, permanence, reproducibility).

Scale and viewing distance are comparative data: record dimensions and whether the work is portable, architectural, or site-specific, because these change the viewer's bodily relationship to the work.

A comparison earns full credit only when similarities and differences are both analysed; a list of differences alone caps the achievement level.

Function categories to test each work against: ritual/religious, commemorative, documentary, decorative, political/propagandistic, commercial, and personal expression; one work can hold several functions at once.

Contextual research must be sourced: museum or gallery collection pages, artist interviews, exhibition catalogues, and academic databases are citable; unattributed image-aggregator sites are not.

Separate the three layers in writing: the work's original context (when and for whom made), the artist's stated intention (if documented), and the candidate's own interpretation, labelled as such.

Interpretation is not assertion: each interpretive claim needs evidence from the work itself (a specific formal detail) or from documented context (a cited source).

Cultural framing terms to apply precisely: appropriation, assimilation, hybridity, diaspora, postcolonial critique, and indigenous knowledge systems; each implies a specific power relationship.

Patronage and funding shape content: state who paid, whether the work was state, religious, corporate, or self-funded, and how that constraint is visible in the work.

When the artist's culture is not the candidate's, avoid speaking for that culture; report what sources say and mark the limits of the candidate's understanding.

Reproduction changes meaning: a photograph of a sculpture, a print of a painting, or a digital copy of a textile removes scale, surface, and site, so note when analysis relies on reproduction.

A conclusion must answer a comparative question posed at the start; if the study opens with no question, the conclusion has nothing to resolve.

Connection types that count as synthesis: shared formal strategy, shared function across different cultures, direct influence or lineage, parallel response to similar historical conditions, and deliberate rejection of a tradition.

Influence claims require evidence of transmission - a documented meeting, a teacher–student link, a translated text, an exhibition, or a travel account; resemblance alone is not influence.

A defensible conclusion states what the comparison reveals that single-work analysis could not, and names the specific evidence supporting it.

Counter-evidence strengthens a conclusion: acknowledge a work or detail that contradicts the proposed pattern and explain why the pattern still holds or must be limited.

Comparative studies are assessed on analysis over description; a paragraph that only recounts what is visible sits at a lower achievement level than one that explains why it is visible.

Citation practice: every factual claim about an artist's biography, intention, or historical setting carries a source; visual analysis of the work itself does not need a citation.

Visual organization of the study should mirror the argument: paired images with aligned detail crops let the reader verify comparisons rather than accept them.

Sustained experimentation means repeated trials with variation: at least three iterations of a process, each changing one variable (medium, tool, substrate, scale, or time).

Record the variable changed in each trial, because a portfolio showing ten unrelated outcomes demonstrates range but not sustained investigation.

Media categories to document: wet (ink, watercolour, acrylic, oil), dry (graphite, charcoal, pastel, chalk), print (monotype, lino, screen, etching), lens and digital, textile and fibre, clay and plaster, and mixed-media assembly.

Process evidence includes the physical trace: test strips, colour charts, failed casts, overprinted proofs, and material samples; these show method better than finished works alone.

Health and safety documentation is part of process: ventilation for solvents, dust masks for plaster and sanding, and correct disposal of acrylic wash water.

Scale and time data are legitimate experimental variables; record dimensions and duration so refinement can be demonstrated numerically.

Skill development is evidenced by before-and-after pairs of the same subject or technique, dated, so progress is visible without narrative claims.

Photograph process work as it is made; reconstructing a process from memory after the fact produces generic, unverifiable documentation.

Reflection must be specific and forward-looking: what was attempted, what the material actually did, and what the next trial will change; 'I like it' and 'it went well' carry no assessable content.

Research sources for process work: artist monographs, technique manuals, museum conservation notes, material manufacturer data sheets, and recorded artist talks.

Investigate technique by testing the claim: if a source says a medium behaves a certain way, run a trial and record whether the result matched.

Reference artists should be used for method, not for copying outcomes; state which specific decision (ground preparation, layering order, colour mixing) was borrowed and how it was adapted.

Document failure explicitly: a cracked slab, a muddy overpaint, or a failed registration is data about the material's limits and belongs in the portfolio.

Annotation beats description: a caption that names the medium, the support, the date, and the intended next step is more useful than a paragraph of adjectives.

Keep a working bibliography with access dates for web sources, since online artist pages and technical data sheets change or disappear.

Reflection cycles should be dated and sequenced so a reader can trace how one investigation led to the next rather than seeing isolated entries.

Refinement is demonstrated by a visible change between versions: composition crop, palette reduction, scale shift, or surface change, with the reason recorded.

State intention in operational terms - subject, mood, audience, and intended viewing condition - rather than as a vague theme such as 'identity' or 'nature'.

Editing is part of the portfolio: showing discarded directions with the reason for rejection proves critical judgement better than showing only successes.

Cohesion test: a reader should be able to name the through-line of the portfolio in one sentence after reading it; if not, the investigation is scattered.

Communication includes layout: consistent image sizing, legible annotation, and clear sequencing let the assessor follow the investigation without hunting.

Intention and outcome should be compared at the end of each investigation: state what the work now does that the original plan did not anticipate.

Vocabulary precision signals understanding: distinguish 'sketch' from 'study', 'maquette' from 'model', and 'test piece' from 'resolved work'.

Record material and tool choices with reasons, since unexplained choices read as habit rather than as investigation.

Resolution criteria for selection: the work fulfils its stated intention, the making is finished to the edges and surface, and it can be displayed without further alteration.

Selection number is set by the assessment requirements, not by how many works were made; extra works stay out of the exhibition and can be documented in the process portfolio.

Hanging decisions follow sightlines: centre line at roughly eye level, consistent spacing between works, and no work placed where a viewer must step back into a doorway or crossing point.

Lighting choices affect reading: raking light reveals texture, diffuse light flattens it, and direct sunlight fades textiles, works on paper, and ink.

Framing and mounting are curatorial statements; a bare canvas, a deep box frame, and a pinned print each signal a different relationship to the viewer.

Label data per work: title, medium, dimensions, and year; the curatorial rationale carries the interpretation, not the label.

Grouping logics to choose from: chronological, thematic, by medium, by scale, or by formal dialogue between adjacent works.

Installation sequence controls pacing: a large or loud work at the entrance sets expectation, and a quieter work at the exit determines what the viewer carries away.

A curatorial rationale states the exhibition's organizing idea, why these works belong together, and how the installation guides the viewer; it is argument, not description.

Coherence is tested by removal: if a work can be taken out without weakening the exhibition's idea, its inclusion needs justification or reconsideration.

The rationale must name the intended viewer experience - what the viewer sees first, what they are asked to compare, and what they leave with.

Word limits are binding in the assessment, so the rationale should be drafted to length and cut, not trimmed after writing at double length.

Reference the actual installation: sightlines, wall colour, plinth heights, and lighting are evidence that the curation was decided rather than defaulted.

Titles and sequencing carry meaning; a numbered sequence, a single thematic title, or no title at all each frame the viewer's reading differently.

Acknowledge tension or contrast between works in the rationale; an exhibition of near-identical works reads as repetition, while explained contrast reads as curation.

The rationale and the physical hang must agree; a rationale claiming dialogue between two works that are hung in separate rooms is unsupported.