Documenting 3-D Work, the Written Evidence & Academic Integrity
- Photograph 3-D work so form, space, and scale read clearly in the 15 images
- Write the required written evidence to make the inquiry and process explicit
- Cite sources correctly and avoid plagiarism and prohibited AI use
The 15 images and the written evidence
The Sustained Investigation is submitted as 15 images — which may include detail shots, multiple viewpoints, and process images, not only 15 separate objects — plus written evidence in two short parts with tight character limits: one identifies the inquiry, the other describes how materials, processes, and ideas were used to explore it. In 3-D, using extra images to show a piece from more than one angle is often essential, since a single view can hide the form. The writing is scored as part of the investigation; it tells the reader the question so they are not guessing from images alone.
Documenting 3-D work well
A photograph flattens a three-dimensional object, so documentation takes real care. Shoot each work against a plain, uncluttered background, evenly lit to reveal form and volume (raking light shows surface and mass better than flat front light), and include a second viewpoint or detail when one view cannot convey the piece. Show maquettes, in-progress states, and revisions, and order the 15 images so the investigation’s development is readable. A brilliant object shot on a messy desk in flat light is judged as the muddy image it appears to be.
Academic integrity: sources, plagiarism, and AI
Your portfolio must be your own original work. If you work from another artist’s piece, a found object with strong existing design, or published imagery, you must move well beyond duplicating it and cite the source — closely copying another artist’s sculpture or an uncredited design without significant transformation is plagiarism and can void the score. Generative AI may not be used to create the artistic investigation or the artwork; the work must be made by you. Using found objects is allowed, but the creative transformation must be yours and any borrowed design acknowledged.
Rewrite this weak written-evidence sentence so it earns credit: "My sculptures are about strength. I used clay and wire and worked really hard on them."
- 1.State the actual inquiry as a question about a 3-D problem, not the topic "strength."
- 2.Tie materials and processes to why they were chosen — connect them to the inquiry, not just list them.
- 3.Point to an experiment or revision the images show, so the writing and images reinforce each other.
- 4.Cut filler about effort ("worked really hard"), which describes labor, not investigation.
With found objects and appropriated design, the line matters: presenting an existing designed object with little transformation, or closely copying another artist’s sculpture without credit, is plagiarism. Readers are trained to spot it and the score can be reduced or voided. Transform found material substantially and acknowledge any borrowed design in your documentation.
A student closely reproduces a famous artist’s sculpture, changing very little, and does not credit the source. What is the problem?
For 3-D work, plan your photography as carefully as your building. Use a clean background, lighting that reveals form and volume, and a second angle whenever one view hides the piece. Readers score the images; a strong object badly documented quietly loses points on both rubric rows.
Why is it especially important to include more than one viewpoint or a detail image for some works in a 3-D Sustained Investigation?
Answer the 2 checkpoints as you read.
Sign in to save your progress