Hi you all. I should post the instructions for the extra credit soon. I wanted to check with you all about how to do it this year. The main idea of the extra credit is to have a peer-rating process (which is a big part of the online world now).
In the past, we had these instructions:
Top-45 rated students will get extra credit.
Deadline: midnight next Wednesday Nov. 4th
STEPS:(1) Go to each of the UCLA galleries (I'll put in links after all images submitted) & rate the image (5 stars = best)(2) Use these criteria to rate the artwork.(a) Candor (and/or) personal vulnerability (and/or) humor in answering "Why do you do what you do?" (b) Relevance of imagery to the text — How well are the words integrated into the image? Do images/sounds offer additional layers of meaning to the overall message through contrast, irony or storytelling? (c) Surprise & something unexpected (d) Visual and/or audio creativity.
(3) You may also invite friends to rate photos from outside of the class or school (optional)
This process has worked well for four year. But, last year we heard suggestions to add an aspect of the extra credit that includes rating from curators such as the TAs or others. This brings up interesting issues about whether art should be more open or whether it should be "judged" or vetted... and if so how much?
So, this year, I am thinking of having two aspects:
I. Peer rating like past years - Top 25 peer rated.
II. Curation - Top 25 juried.
A student gets extra credit if they are in one of the two Top 25 groups.
Here is a proposal for how to do the curation:
(1) You as TAs select the best five images from your section (in your personal opinion).
(2) I'll compile the 75 images and make a simple way for them to be rated by a jury.
(3) The TAs + Prof Winter + Meryl Friedman from UCLAlive will rate the 75 (the Top 25 wins). I can create a very simple page on the web that makes it very easy.
What do you all think of this plan?
Post below.
Replies