Changes to the Portfolio Review
No more process pieces: We all believe process is important, perhaps more important than anything we do, but the process piece has also caused more confusion and disagreement than anything else we do. Students may still use the “image description” field in SlideRoom to talk about process (and any other relevant details), but process pieces will not be assessed separately.
Number of Submissions: Students submitting things in either the “Film/Video” or “Audio/Music” categories should only submit 3 pieces with a maximum runtime of 5 minutes. Students submitting portfolios in all other categories, even if some of their elements are film or audio (for instance a “Multiple Media” submission with 2 films and 3 photos) must submit 5 pieces. In all categories, the total runtime of all time-based media must not exceed 5 minutes.
Comments: Reviewers must leave short comments for all portfolios they review.
All work must be original: This means students may not use artwork or elements created by other people (whether copyrighted or not).
Examples of things that cannot be used include the following:
Derivative work*
Stock art
Elements downloaded from the internet
Elements generated by artificial intelligence.
Audio Loops (unless used in a soundtrack for a film submission).
Things that can be used (exceptions) include the following:
Music in film projects
Fonts (including downloaded fonts) and things that come loaded with design software like brushes, symbols, textures etc.
Students can look for inspiration from and be inspired by other artists, or work in the style of an artist they admire, provided they are not directly copying or recreating things created by someone else.
*Please Note: A quick internet search about artist references says “When an artist uses a photograph for reference, the painting or artwork is called a derivative work. While the artist can maintain some ownership over their own work, they first need permission from the original photographer to use the photo for reference.” Copyright Issues for Artists - Bellevue Fine Art Reproduction
Students must have a primary role in group work: Instructors must ensure that students submitting group work had a primary role in the creation of all portfolio submissions. Students need to explain their contribution to group work in the “Image Description” field.
No slurs, weapons, cursing or things that obviously violate student codes of conduct and laws: In the past, we’ve seen portfolio submissions that include slurs, cursing, images promoting drug use etc. Ruth has been very clear with us that these kinds of things cannot be allowed in portfolios. Portfolios including any of these things will automatically be disqualified and students will not be given the chance to resubmit.
Allowable Programs or Apps: Questions came up this year around ProCreate and whether students should be able to use it. As with a college portfolio, students can use whatever programs, apps, etc. they choose - provided they are not using something generative - or the generative part of any program. We acknowledge that great art can be made in a variety of media with a variety of tools, however, we also need to recognize that some tools are not able to produce professional work that meets industry standards. Portfolios will be reviewed by a panel of teachers with significant expertise. Anything that does not meet industry standards, regardless of what programs are used may be scored lower.
Anime, Fan Art Etc: Students can submit work in the style or genre of their choosing - provided the work is original, but most colleges will tell students not to include certain types of work including anime, fan art, drawings made by directly copying a photograph, and art featuring celebrities. Students need to understand that many of our reviewers will score this kind of work lower - often much lower. In addition this kind of work often would also not meet our originality requirement. We strongly recommend that teachers and students review what kind of work colleges and employers do not want to see in portfolios, as there will likely be parallels in the way our team reviews portfolios. Here is a video you might want to show students about common mistakes students make with portfolios.
Client Work: Most of our panel isn’t really looking at whether work was designed for a client, we’re looking at the overall quality of the work, so including something that was designed for a client but doesn’t have the aesthetic appeal of something created for another purpose, might not score as well as something more “creative”. We would encourage students to create, choose, present artwork for the portfolio with an audience in mind and understand what may or may not appeal to our panel - whether this is client work or something else.
Challenging Scores: Disputes over scores have sometimes become contentious over the last couple years - especially after the review has concluded. While we appreciate the importance people place on scores, it’s also important to remember that this is a single measure, by one group of reviewers, who are doing the best they can and basing scores on a handful of art pieces. While we encourage teachers to challenge any obvious errors, we also need to honor our judges scores and the process used to reach these scores. All of us have our own perspectives, experiences and expertise, as such we may see and score the same work differently. A healthy debate about how things should be scored is fine, but pressuring people to change scores or comments - especially after the review has ended is problematic. The best place to address concerns is in-person, while we review portfolios. We are lobbying for two days to review portfolios, so we hope teachers will have time to see the scores for their students and to discuss any concerns as part of the review process, during our time together.
Comentários