It is biased towards students who are highly literate. It assumes that these are necessary to prepare young people who wish to pursue a career as a visual artist. Highly literate people do not always produce art that engages an audience
The authors of the paper are clearly out of step with real artists practises. An artist does not look at a guide book when creating. It is a multifaceted approach. If the exam truely is the test of whether you are suitable to continue further study of art, create and exhibit work then it it contradicts the contemporary artworld where collectors wish to have, for example, Banksy pieces ripped from public walls to collect them and display in gallery spaces.
The history of art is littered with examples of recognised contributors to culture who did not annotate and write an essay about everything they thought and produced.
For example subjective questions are assessed by people who may have some or little understanding or professional recognition as practising artists in industry/ the community. They are judging a medium technique of which they know nothing or almost nothing about. A final view – The colour plates students analyse are poorly printed and student’s cannot even download a full copy of them to use for revision.
To get to the exam refer to the new Studio Arts study design 2010.
The new 2010 wafer thin study design is a joke. It is so subjective a 4 page document had to be released in April to refine some of the open ended content. Expect more clarification in the future.
Good Luck if you study or teach from it and don’t forget to ask VCAA for a crystal ball to help with any mysterious items conveniently fussy where you are advised to use your judgement ( i.e substantial is a word that comes to mind and reminicent of the half cup full or half empty dilemma. – Remember VCAA have the right to question your judgement if judged to be out of step with their judgement at the time of judging – read the small print.