Worked example · Art · Year 10
DCF: Citizenship → Identity, image and reputation
A secure Year 10 response, annotated so you can see which success criterion each part meets. It is also your answer key. Part A: A corrects, B styles, C misleads, D changes the person, E styles, F changes the person (D can fairly be argued as “misleads” if the pupil explains it). Part B: Case A is OK everywhere; Case C is likely to be banned in the UK and needs a label in France and Norway; Case D needs no label in the UK but needs one in France and Norway. Part D is personal and has no single right answer.
| Case | Tools used | Category | Why that category and not the one next to it |
|---|---|---|---|
| A | T1, T2, T3 | Corrects | Only the background and the brightness changed; the pupils look exactly as they did, so it is not changing the person. |
| B | T2 | Styles | The black and white and the grain are obvious to anyone, so nobody is fooled; it is a look, not a correction. |
| C | T6 (which does T4 and changes skin colour) | Misleads | It changes the person, but worse: it changes the exact thing the foundation claims to do, and the caption says there is no filter. |
| D | T5, T7 | Changes the person | Her body shape is no longer real. The AI sky is just styling. It borders on misleading, because you are being sold jeans on a body that does not exist. |
| E | T2, plus scanning and collage | Styles | She changes her face a lot, but she shows the original next to it and explains every step, so it is art, not deception. |
| F | T6 | Changes the person | Her face shape and eyes are altered. It is not selling anything, so it is not misleading in the advertising sense, but it changes how she presents herself. |
Tool codes are accurate, and each reason names the boundary with the neighbouring category rather than just repeating the label. Case E shows the pupil understands that openness, not the amount of change, is what matters. Evidences criteria 1 and 2.
| Case | UK (ASA) | France | Norway |
|---|---|---|---|
| A | OK. Removing a bin does not mislead anyone about anything that matters. | OK. No model's body or face changed. | OK. No person's body or skin changed. |
| C | Likely to be banned. Same as the 2021 tanning rulings: the filter exaggerates what the product does, and “no filter” is false. | Label needed: Images retouchées, under the 2023 influencer law, because the filter changes her face. | Label needed. It is a paid post and her skin has been changed. |
| D | OK in law, no label needed. Someone could complain that it misleads about how the jeans fit, but there is no labelling rule. | Label needed: Photographie retouchée, under the 2017 rule, because the model's body was made thinner. | Label needed. Her body shape was changed in an advert. |
If the ASA ruled against her, the ruling would be published on the ASA's website with her name and the brand's name in it, and news sites might report it. That stays searchable for years after she deletes the post, so any brand thinking of working with her could find it. Her followers trusted her because she said “no filter”; once that is shown to be untrue, people start to doubt her other posts too, which is the part of a reputation that is hardest to get back.
Each country is judged by its own rule, and the table shows why one image gets three different answers: the UK asks “is it misleading?”, while France and Norway ask “was the body changed?”. The reputation answer explains permanence and trust using the real fact that rulings name influencers. Evidences criteria 3 and 4.
Alike: both give everyone the same smooth, young, unlined face, whatever the person really looks like, and both make the real face start to look “wrong” by comparison.
Different 1: the Mask of Youth was controlled from the top, by the government, for a political reason — to make an ageing queen with no heir look stable. A filter is chosen by the person themselves, often without thinking, and the reason is personal, not political.
Different 2: it was applied to one person, the Queen. Filters are used on millions of ordinary people, including teenagers, every day, so we are now comparing ourselves with edited versions of people our own age rather than with a monarch nobody expected to look like.
One real similarity and two differences, each tied to evidence from Section 4 (who controlled it, why, and whose faces). Evidences criterion 5.
D1. “I miss seeing your actual face in your pics, you always look like you. Are you okay though? You've said that a few times now.” Then I would leave it there and not go on about her photos, but if she kept saying things like that or seemed really down, I would tell her she could talk to Meic, and I would mention it to our Head of Year.
D2. My honest image rule. On a self-portrait I will use T1 and T2 freely, because cropping and colour are part of the art and everyone can see them. I will use T3 only for things that are not me, like dust on the lens. I will not use T4, T5 or T6 on my own face or body, because then the portrait is of someone who does not exist. If I use T7, or any big change for artistic effect like Nia's collage, I will put the original photo next to the final piece and list every edit in my annotation, so the viewer knows exactly what they are looking at.
D1 is kind, does not comment on her looks, and knows when to pass it on. D2 sorts all seven tools with a reason, and makes openness the rule rather than banning editing altogether. Evidences criterion 6.