Assessment Report

New Zealand Scholarship
Visual Arts 2022

Standards 93306  93307  93308  93309  93310

93306:  Painting

Part A: Commentary

In 2022, Scholarship Painting submissions demonstrated high-level performance, and extraordinary, engagement and execution with the painting medium. All types of approaches and sub-genres were awarded Scholarships, including drawing-led propositions, digital painting, conceptual enquiries, abstraction, graphic novels, illustration, pictorial, and oil painting. Many candidates employed a questioning and investigative approach, which encouraged iterative exploration.

There was a sense of play in much of the Scholarship work, with candidates clearly taking genuine joy in the making process. Consequently, there was a lot of innovation in evidence. The best propositions sat within personal interest (subjects/ideas in the world or about the painting medium), showing students' commitment towards their practice. These entries all exhibited a real passion; they were thoroughly invested in the chosen topic. This clarity read as a sophisticated, measured, engaged, and mature approach to their painting proposition. Many students were involved in their practice beyond the folio/outside the classroom which enhanced possibilities. They participated in external events, exhibitions, festivals, and extracurricular creative opportunities.

Of note was increased thinking around communication in both individual works, and how the folio layout might shape the reading and understanding with which they operate. Candidates knew the work was to be 'viewed' (by an audience), and they considered how to incorporate the encounter with the work into communication and compositional aspects. Artworks were successful individually but also worked well as sequences, or in the interplay between works.

It was exciting to see candidates making art for themselves and an audience, versus just fulfilling the Scholarship standard. They were working things out, thinking about art as a tool/means for well-being and sorting out life's problems/scenarios. They saw 'art as a means to navigate the world' and the art enquiry as a way to express an opinion, viewpoint, or emotion.

The marking panel noted a perceived lift in the workbooks across the field. There was an academic understanding of painting media, why and how they used it, and its impact on the image. In looking towards contemporary art, candidates were analytical in reflecting on other artists' practices – always asking why a specific approach and conceptual framework might be relevant to their making/thinking and application.

The marking panel encourages the inclusion of captions to provide important contextual information (media, materials, method, process, duration, scale, size, social, event, and site-related factors), mainly when what is occurring in the construction/timeframe of a work's development may not always be visible or apparent.

Part B: Report on performance standard

Candidates who were awarded Scholarship with Outstanding Performance commonly:

• presented a sophisticated relationship between the folio performance and workbook, often showing a high level of research skills and annotations that were meaningful and critical concerning their own artwork
• understood their strengths and worked towards these by embedding in their practice attention to the craft of making in relation to the proposition
• did a lot of planning, from colour palettes to mark making or media investigations, as well as digital mock-ups, and annotated notes. They also documented alternative arrangements and in-depth analysis before works were placed on the folio boards
• engaged in a genuine inquiry that had a deep connection evidencing clear ownership of the proposition and their sustained investigation over the year.

Candidates who were awarded Scholarship commonly:

• used their own photoshoots, ensuring they had ready access to subject matter, models, etc., and/or developed small series of drawings to work through their ideas before attempting larger finished works
• presented a clear understanding of drawing and mark making in relation to their painting approaches, and were willing to experiment and try different methods, which was then reflected upon in the workbook (sometimes edited out of the folio)
• carefully considered layout options for the folio, and were willing to alter arrangements when unexpected outcomes provided new opportunities for investigation
• reflected on how the two sites of evidence (folio and workbook) supported each other and informed the development and conception of artwork.

Candidates who were not awarded Scholarship commonly:

• described what went on the folio without applying their own understanding of processes or artists they had referenced
• lacked depth of analysis and did not thoroughly investigate all the options evident in the artwork
• did not recognise or capitalise on the best works or opportunities presented on the folio
• tended to jump to a new option without fully exploring the relationships that were developing between works.

93307:  Design

Part A: Commentary

In 2022, Scholarship Design submissions comprised a field of entries that were wide scoping in approach and purpose. Candidates were passionate, enthusiastic, and sincere in their passion and conviction for the projects pursued. In evidence across the various design genres explored was the student's personal voice and ownership of their enquiry; they were obviously immersed in their chosen subject/topic and appeared to enjoy it all. This included a high level of experimentation, the use of crafting and other discipline-based methods, and consideration of project-related contexts to open up lateral thinking and execution. Another highlight was the volume of exceptional drawing, including digital drawing/painting. Drawing styles were authentic, with confident media and mark-making employed, as well as a thorough understanding of selected, brief-specific conventions and the relationship between type and image.

In Design, it is crucial that the process/work clearly communicates to an identified target audience and considers the design functionality and how the work produced aims to fulfil the requirements set. Candidates that started with a proposal evidenced by research were able to establish rich projects that kept on developing communication through creative and insightful thinking processes. In evidence, however, was a trend of topics that were too broad, where a narrow or simplistic (sometimes nonsensical) set of briefs didn't give enough scope to sustain a scholarship enquiry. The marking panel advises against 'grabbing an aesthetic' and writing a proposal around that alone; the critical point being that design must communicate.

Candidates thought about formats of material appropriate to the proposition and within the cultural milieu. A mixed media/drawing base was utilised by many to sustain their proposition effectively and inventively. This approach sat hand in hand with choosing a proposition suited to their project and personal interests, which encouraged exciting directions that continued to challenge established ways of designing, not driven by outputs.

With moving images formats, the use of sound, lighting, and editing both amplified and refined the complexity of the proposition with some astounding outcomes. Candidates were thinking beyond story/narrative and using moving images as a format, formally and conceptually. Likewise, with anime, students were thorough with character investigation, moving away from emulation into creating their stylistic mode.

The marking panel encourages the inclusion of captions to provide important contextual information (media, materials, method, process, duration, scale, size, social, event, and site-related factors), mainly when what is occurring in the construction/timeframe of a work's development may not always be visible or apparent.

Part B: Report on performance standard

Candidates who were awarded Scholarship with Outstanding Performance commonly:

• articulated a brief that positioned them inside the research, explicitly discussing individualised connection and contextual alignment to locate content and extend ideas
• produced a workbook in parallel to folio development, as opposed to post-folio reflection, so that making, researching, annotating, and reflecting were concurrent, revealing deeper levels of analysis and idea reformation
• utilised writing as a method (tool) to clarify and evaluate progress, setting up new phases for content development and message/meaning-making
• refined and fluently executed visual and media processes, employing conventions from the field to communicate ideas in connection with the project proposal and intention.

Candidates who were awarded Scholarship commonly:

• were prepared to take risks to propel and develop ideas in parallel to strengthening their command of visual language and process
• analysed a range of design references, eliciting technical and conceptual information to inform their decisions, and use of media and digital skills
• controlled communication, whereby narrative and message were authentically connected to the management of visual language and conventions within the field (design practice)
• engaged in a range of making modalities to construct and consider formats and materials pertinent to their topic and provocation.

Candidates who were not awarded Scholarship commonly:

• used the workbook to literally describe the evidence already on the folio and often focused on technical processes
• placed a superficial reliance on research models
• revealed insufficient levels of visual fluency and struggled to sustain their command of design conventions to produce outcomes that purposefully communicate
• proposed a brief that was misguided with a set of design formats, as opposed to a provocation that expanded through questioning or addressing a problem or topic
• under-utilised the folio and the 8-page workbook as a repository for evidence, often failing to signal all phases required to reach an outcome, revealing gaps in context, content generation and collecting to inform and reiterate and clarify ideas.

93308:  Sculpture

Part A: Commentary

In 2022, Scholarship Sculpture submissions presented expansive enquiries deeply embedded in making, with candidates exhibiting a high level of crafting and technical approaches appropriate to their central proposition. Overall, the works were diverse, distinctive, and student-directed, defining an outstanding level of ownership. Candidates demonstrated a real strength when they made a body of practice, either as a series or as iterations that kept building on from previous discoveries. Identifying potential phases of investigation (material and process) enabled clarity and direction; this was supported by students taking artworks to fruition and photographing installed sculptures well, throughout the making process.

Candidates made work both within their own domestic environment and at school; or found appropriate sites with which they had a personal connection, or that enhanced the sculptural proposition they were working within. Photo-documentation of sculptural work was precise, and often conceptualised the complexity of the sculptural intent and meaning. These entries were sophisticated; it was obvious that candidates had set working parameters that helped them to effectively review, analyse and consider what came next, and to reflect upon the efficacy of context. It was great to see candidates choosing when and how they might introduce new ideas and contexts to extend the dialogue. For example, many students utilised scale relations to change register by making props; oversized objects; human-scale form; drawings and gestures; real-world, site-based arrangements; multiples; and intimate works.

A strong, material focus and methodological understanding, led candidates to create work in productive ways; many engaged in highly experimental, lateral, and exploratory practices. This included combining processes in ways that expanded meaning, and the relationship between object and viewer, such as casting and performance, manufactured and nature, handcraft and mechanical. At their best, propositions used sculptural devices and conventions to exploit how subject matter could be perceived through object, human and non-human means, offering sophisticated viewpoints and perspectives, around a range of cultural, social, political, and ethical themes.

The marking panel encourages the inclusion of captions to provide important contextual information (media, materials, method, process, duration, scale, size, social, event, and site-related factors), mainly when what is occurring in the construction/timeframe of a work's development may not always be visible or apparent.

Part B: Report on performance standard 

Candidates who were awarded Scholarship with Outstanding Performance commonly:

• employed highly developed making skills that facilitated sublime crafting and technically astute sculptural outcomes
• maintained pluralistic systems for developing ideas in a body of work, both conceptually and formally
• expanded the work on the folio boards through clear and related analysis of work and supporting research in the workbook
• used personal convictions or reflections about issues to investigate sculptural ideas with an authentic understanding of the selected sculptural proposition.

Candidates who were awarded Scholarship commonly:

• engaged in a wide range of sculptural methods that were strategically linked to the conceptual structure of the work
• expanded the conceptual richness of the work by exploiting site, scale, or material qualities in the production of work
• used the workbook to present related research and exploration that supported the sculptural activity on the folio boards
• presented and took good documentation images that gave a conceptual understanding of the sculptural work in terms of its scale and site relations and, at times, extended meaning beyond the object.

Candidates who were not awarded Scholarship commonly: 

• engaged in sculptural activity that was highly derivative of established sculptural practice
• re-presented images of sculptural work from the folio in the workbook that did not contextualise or advance the sculptural proposition
• employed a narrow attitude to methods in the development of ideas, restraining their ability to expand the proposition and make work
• presented workbook pages that undermined the sculptural work shown on the folio.

93309:  Printmaking

Part A: Commentary 

In 2022, Scholarship Printmaking submissions demonstrated a comprehensive understanding of print media and picture-making. Candidates' command of the technical ensured the selected conceptual terrain was at the forefront, no matter the enquiry. They had exemplary drawing skills and control of media, including preferred print processes that were their strength and which they moved forward. For example, in the use of line and plate tone, they understood the implication of their hand in the process (wiping back) and were able to manipulate and work with the medium strategically.

Different substrates contributed to the tonal range and surface texture employed. When combining various printmaking media, processes, and materials, candidates did so with sophistication and intelligence. In these instances, they understood how/what would contribute effectively to the image. Some prints had 10-15 layers of transparent and opaque tones, demonstrating mastery of transparency/opacity, and sensitivity in using ink. Similarly, colour use and theory were effectively managed and explored with refinement: complementary, harmonious, discordant. Candidates integrated colour fluidly by considering the visual and conceptual impacts: colour talks to duration, time, symbolism, and real-world contexts.

Candidates constructed specific narratives/images/compositions by seeking out their own imagery. It is not easy to establish ownership when it comes from somewhere else that is not their design or conception. Of note was how compositional ideas were used to advance the inquiry, reflecting the thinking, passages, and sequences. Digital collage was used as a drawing tool, encouraging the development of multiple options, and therefore better understanding of the potential of composition to communicate.

Many engaged in innovative exploration of conventions, with some opting for a deep dive into one process, while others seamlessly incorporated a range of printmaking processes showing an openness to discovery. In these instances, students knew when to stop and knew what action was doing the work. Scale was also handled well, from small studies to significant series/works.

Artistic reference was critical, with candidates identifying specific aspects they were using to extend their ideas. The folio and the workbook revealed the thinking between individual prints and phases of works. This aspect was supported by close consideration of the folio format, order of works, and placement of sequences (leaving room for significant works and no space fillers).

The marking panel encourages the inclusion of captions to provide important contextual information (media, materials, method, process, duration, scale, size, social, event, and site-related factors), mainly when what is occurring in the construction/timeframe of a work's development may not always be visible or apparent.

Part B: Report on performance standard 

Candidates who were awarded Scholarship with Outstanding Performance commonly:

• established a clear, complex proposition to inventively explore a range of approaches and to expand ideas through innovative thinking
• showed deep engagement and ownership of their inquiry, with evidence of independent thinking and informed decision-making through a conceptual or pictorial investigation
• demonstrated exceptional drawing and sophisticated printmaking skills, and a high level of technical fluency and intuition relevant to their stylistic interests
• experimented, took risks, and trialled possibilities to ask and answer questions, and to critically analyse findings through self-reflection and making; and so, built on strengths and informed next steps.

Candidates who were awarded Scholarship commonly:

• set up clear propositions, often of personal significance, broad enough to ensure the ongoing development of ideas
• researched a range of possibilities, and wove together aspects from various contemporary practices with their own to synthesise ideas
• explored and experimented with printmaking processes, and built on findings to expand and develop ideas
• produced prints that consistently demonstrated a high level of fluency in technical skill, and seamlessly integrated processes to create further possibilities.

Candidates who were not awarded Scholarship commonly:

• had narrow propositions that could be limiting and were not broad enough to sustain a year-long inquiry
• described other artists’ artworks with little reference to what aspect of the work informed their thinking and artmaking, or why it was relevant
• told what they had done rather than explaining why they were making decisions
• made several versions of one idea/one plate dealing with similar pictorial concerns and imagery, rather than pushing themselves to explore new compositions/ideas.

93310:  Photography

Part A: Commentary

In 2022, Scholarship Photography submissions included a robust and engaging set of propositions. Candidates identified topics that demonstrated their passion and commitment to the subject matter and process. Students arrived with foundational knowledge, skills, and competencies that enabled them to hit the ground running. This understanding was matched by topics that could be made in the everyday with media at hand; students had access to subject matter that they could return to and re-visit, creating a cycle of inquiry between folio and workbook. They found the 'moment' photographically over and over, and created extraordinary bodies of work.

Many engaged in an authentic journey, with a balanced scaffolding between the various phases of the work's production. Candidates understood the wide range of picture-making conventions available, viewpoints and perspectives, including how the camera can be used to capture subject, light, shadows, distance to subject, symmetry, time of day for photographing, and how and when to manipulate light.

High-performing candidates could: critically explain, analyse, and extrapolate key focuses within their project; as well as artists' practice; related fields; their own lives, activities, and experiences; and a broad range of connected contexts. These students often contextualised their decision-making through the frame of other artists' practice but with their own take and purpose, sound analysis and reading of context.

In workbooks, the marking panel encourages students to consider making the process more explicit: people in the photo shoot, materials used, hours spent (repeated shoots), where the props come from, what was bought/found/made, did they assemble a group/community especially. All these factors inform the depth of engagement, the strategies and tactics used to develop a concept, and reveal the processes involved in formulating the work and the contexts that matter to the project.

Candidates need to drive the proposition to ensure there is more to explore and to increase the scope. The range of experimentation was extensive: trial and error of – antiquarian processes (by hand or digitally); extending their camera's functionality (astrophotography over several nights); different lenses (macro, fisheye) and cameras (polaroid, digital SLR, film, camera phones); and wet processes (cyanotype, impasto transfer, photograms, scenography, pinhole).

The marking panel encourages the inclusion of captions to provide important contextual information (media, materials, method, process, duration, scale, size, social, event, and site-related factors), mainly when what is occurring in the construction/timeframe of a work's development may not always be visible or apparent.

Part B: Report on performance standard

Candidates who were awarded Scholarship with Outstanding Performance commonly:

• made volumes of work that were indicative of the level of commitment for their project, to the point where ideas were running between the two sites of evidence (research and making were equally critical)
• in their workbooks, critically explained more of their artmaking, the symbolism, and technical directions behind their decisions
• produced further investigations beyond the folio that included additional projects or parallel body of work
• provided a robust analysis of artistic references that made genuine connections, demonstrating a comprehensive understanding of relevant knowledge.

Candidates who were awarded Scholarship commonly:

• presented a genuine engagement in practice, and context was influential to the relationship between the folio and workbook
• included experimental work in the folio/workbook to show how ideas were tested and later refined, with an investment into a range of processes
• demonstrated control of conventions being used and how those were transferred into print, with awareness from inception through to export/print; for example, photographing in black and white, and printing in black and white
• took the opportunity of the workbook to utilise their learning through research and concept.

Candidates who were not awarded Scholarship commonly:

• presented a running commentary of what was on the folio; an explanation of folio panels one, two and three
• engaged in limited research with little connection to a concept
• did not make appropriate links between research and practice because of a lack of photoshoots; communication was not informing, and intention did not match the artmaking practice or vice versa
• struggled to demonstrate competence in technical processes: for example, inadequate print quality, such as the tonal range being too dark and homogenised; and not understanding the need for the photographic print to be carried through into the folio production.

Subject page

Previous years' reports

2021 (PDF, 231KB)

2020 (PDF, 586KB)

2019 (PDF, 302KB)

2018 (PDF, 146KB)

2017 (PDF, 77KB)

2016 (PDF, 238KB)