Hi Greg, I agree – there is usually nothing intrinsically or necessarily wrong with a clichéd image.
When first seen it was (obviously) not the overfamiliar thing is has since become.
The DP visual arts course currently has two components – studio and investigation. There will be three components in the new course, but in many ways the focus will stay the same: students will continue to research and look at art from different times and places, and they will continue to make art, and there will be a link between the two.
I have just returned from five days in sunny Cardiff (Wales), with each day solidly focussed on reviewing, analysing, assessing and discussing the many studio artworks and investigation workbook pages submitted by candidates through their Candidate Record Booklets.
In all cases our primary purpose was to come to an accurate assessment of the work, whether it was component A or B, and Higher or Standard level.
Many of my students come into class with a ‘great’ idea, are excited about it, and really want to go with this ‘first’ idea, starting, like, now!
I don’t want them to lose either their enthusiasm or their idea, but I’ve seen a lot of wasted art supplies and materials, and unsuccessful art, resulting from this urgent but superficial approach.
My new 1st year Diploma Programme visual arts class contains a mixture of Standard and Higher level – nothing new about that, of course – but in addition, I have a couple of second year art students.
These two have been added because of a schedule clash: their DP ITGS class happens at the same time as their DP Visual Arts class. They could alternate with art one week and ITGS the next, but, for a variety of reasons (some parent driven), they don’t.