NZ Scholarship Visual Arts common mistakes
NZ Scholarship Visual Arts · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Submitting a workbook that reads as a chronological diary of 'I did this, then this', with dates and process photos but no stated proposition the body of work is testing.
Candidates transfer habits from Level 2/3 folio work, where volume and visible effort are rewarded, and treat the workbook as evidence of activity rather than as an argument. They also leave the conceptual framing until after making, so there is nothing to write about.
What to do instead
Write a one-sentence working proposition (a question or claim the work is testing) on the first page and revisit it every few pages, noting what each new test proved or disproved. Convert diary entries into analytical captions: what was tried, what changed, what it now suggests. Ask a teacher to read only the annotations and state back your proposition; if they cannot, rewrite the framing before making more work.
Presenting a coherent series of resolved, polished outcomes with no visible dead ends, abandoned directions, or failed tests in the workbook.
Candidates believe Scholarship rewards finish and consistency, and they prune anything that looks uncertain. In fact the schedule rewards demonstrated critical inquiry, and a smooth series gives assessors nothing to show depth of thinking.
What to do instead
Deliberately retain two or three failed or abandoned tests per phase, annotated with why they failed and what that revealed. Use a consistent annotation format: intention, result, judgement, next move. If a phase has no failures recorded, that is a signal the inquiry is too safe, not that the work is strong.
Producing a body of work whose visual language (palette, mark, composition, typographic system) is inconsistent across pieces without any stated reason for the shifts.
Candidates chase whatever looks impressive in each new reference or tutorial, so each work restarts stylistically. They mistake variety for range and never establish a register that can be pushed.
What to do instead
Define a constrained visual system early (limited palette, set of marks or grid, fixed type family and scale relationships) and treat departures as deliberate, documented experiments. Show at least one work where the system is stretched to breaking point and explain the consequence. Consistency should be legible in thumbnails alone.
Making photographs that illustrate a theme (e.g. 'isolation') with single, self-explanatory images, rather than building a sequence or series where meaning emerges between frames.
Candidates come from a single-image assessment habit and from social media, where one striking frame is the unit of success. They also under-plan shoots, so editing becomes selecting the best pictures rather than constructing an argument.
What to do instead
Edit in sequences of five to seven images and present two or three alternative orderings with written reasoning about what each ordering claims. Shoot to a shot list derived from the proposition, including pairs and repetitions intended to be read against each other. In the workbook, annotate the gaps and transitions, not just individual frames.
Treating printmaking as a technique showcase: many processes (etching, screenprint, collagraph) demonstrated on unrelated images, with registration and editioning errors left unresolved.
Candidates equate breadth of process with sophistication and are often taught processes in isolation. Poor registration and inconsistent inking are tolerated because 'it's handmade', so craft problems are never diagnosed.
What to do instead
Choose one or two processes and push them to technical mastery, documenting proofs and state changes as part of the inquiry. Keep a registration and inking log with test strips; resolve misregistration before adding new processes. Justify any second process by what it lets you say that the first cannot.
Submitting sculpture documented only in flat, frontal photographs, so spatial, material and scale decisions cannot be assessed, and maquettes are absent from the workbook.
Candidates photograph work where it happens to stand, with poor light and no sense of the viewer's body, and they skip maquettes because they want to get to the 'real' work. Assessors then cannot see the thinking that the object embodies.
What to do instead
Document each work from multiple angles plus one view showing scale relative to a person or known object, with consistent lighting and a neutral background. Photograph and annotate maquettes alongside the resolved work, showing what each test decided (joint, weight, sightline, material behaviour). Include one image of the work in its intended viewing situation.
Using quotations and artist models as decoration - a borrowed phrase at the top of a page or an artist named but not analysed - without showing what was taken and how it changed the work.
Candidates are taught to 'reference artists' and comply literally, and they fear that analysing a model looks like copying. The result is name-dropping that carries no evidence of influence.
What to do instead
For each model, write three short analyses: what the model does technically, why it works, and one specific thing you will test in your own work this week. Then show the test and its result. Keep a running table of model, borrowed strategy, test, outcome, so influence is traceable rather than asserted.
Regenerating a design outcome repeatedly in software (endless type and layout variants) without ever testing it at final size, in the intended context, or with a reader.
Screen-based work makes iteration frictionless and flattering, so candidates equate quantity of variants with rigour. They never leave the screen, so legibility, hierarchy and material behaviour at true scale go untested.
What to do instead
Print every serious variant at final size and annotate it by hand; photograph it in the intended setting (wall, shelf, screen, hand). Run one structured reader test - ask three people what they see first, second, third - and record the answers against your intended hierarchy. Limit each phase to a set number of variants before a physical test is mandatory.
Writing the workbook annotations as description ('I used blue to represent sadness') rather than as reasoning about decisions, alternatives and consequences.
Candidates lack a vocabulary for formal analysis and worry that interpretative writing is pretentious. Descriptive captions feel safe and are quick to produce, so the analytical register never develops.
What to do instead
Use a fixed prompt set for annotations: what decision was made, what else was possible, why this one, what it costs, what it now makes possible. Ban symbolic one-liners unless the symbolism is tested against a viewer's reading. Build a personal glossary of formal terms (value, interval, register, weight, edge) and use them precisely.
Leaving the selection, sequencing and final presentation of the submission until the last weeks, submitting everything made rather than a curated argument.
Candidates treat curation as admin and believe more work means more credit, and they underestimate how long honest editing takes. Fatigue at the end also makes them reluctant to cut favourite pieces.
What to do instead
Do a full dry-run selection and sequence at least six weeks out: lay everything out, cut to the strongest line of inquiry, and have someone unfamiliar with the work describe what it is about from the sequence alone. Then spend remaining time filling only the gaps that dry run exposes. Keep a written rationale for inclusions and exclusions, including why strong-but-irrelevant works were cut.