BA Hons Dance Performance 2010-11 Assessment feedback Collaborative PracticesDevised Performance- Film Project First Marker: Dionysios Tsaftaridis

Student: Margarita Deligianni Comments (1 Marker) 1. Evidence of intelligent engagement with the learning experience provided demonstrating an original, inventive investigation which reflects a unique point of view: Excellent 2. Very Good Good Concern
st

Evidence of the ability to synthesise ideas and information, ordering existing knowledge and/or developing new knowledge Excellent Very Good Good Concern

3.

Demonstration of clarity in the structure and crafting of the presentation material, including movement: Excellent Very Good Good Concern

4.

Evidence of the ability to assess the status of and strategies behind processual work: Excellent Very Good Good Concern

5.

Evidence of knowledge of key issues in current practice and address them in your discussion/reflection. Excellent Very Good Good Concern

6.

Evidence of your role as artist/researcher at work, demonstrating rigorous attention to stages of experimentation in the process Evidence of excellent directorial skills in the theatrical handling of the dancers within the work Excellent Very Good Good Concern

Additional comments:

The most difficult work to be commented on, since it was a two part screenwork with conflicting levels of achievement. While the first part of the work was carefully designed in every level, the second was not. Therefore, while certain points are excellent, the overall result does not achieve the creator’s aim.
Suggested mark (first marker); 58 Signed: Date:

Evidence of knowledge of key issues in current practice and address them in your discussion/reflection and thus demonstrate your understanding and application of variety of shots.2 Marker FOR MODERATION/ NOT FOR STUDENTS Name of 2 Marker: Dimitris Tsioukas Student: Margarita Deligianni nd nd Please rate as EXCELLENT. Suggested Mark: 53 Signed: Date: MODERATED RESULTS First Marker: Suggested mark (second marker) Agreed Mark (if applicable) ________ _________ _________ ____________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ____________________ (signature of first marker) (signature of second marker) (date finalised) (date finalised) . scale. While the first was brilliant. GOOD 6. cancelling the artistic aims of the first part. I found this nonrelationship very disappointing. Demonstration of clarity in the structure and crafting of the presentation material. demonstrating rigorous attention to stages of experimentation in the process Evidence of excellent directorial skills in the theatrical handling of the dancers within the work GOOD Further comments: Margarita’s work consisted of two distinct parts. preserving and punctuating an interior. The second part was some sort of filmic caricature or even parody. Evidence of intelligent engagement with the learning experience provided demonstrating an original. esoteric rhythm. including a clear thematic focus: CONCERN 4. which was completely out of context. shallow and superficial. rhythm in the editing process. in order to create a work that can only ‘exist’ in the film medium. GOOD. Evidence of the ability to synthesise ideas and information. Margarita failed to explain this verbally and failed to support her choices concerning the second part of her work. VERY GOOD. Evidence of your role as artist/researcher at work. CONCERN next to each criteria 1. Evidence of the ability to assess the status of and strategies behind processual work how particular tasks and methods were evolved: GOOD/ CONCERN 5. Furthermore. stimulating emotion and perception through the inventive use of camera and sound. ordering existing knowledge and/or developing new knowledge GOOD 3. inventive investigation which reflects a unique point of view GOOD 2. the second part was poor.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful