Overview
- FRQ 1 - Comparison: 8 points (35 minutes recommended)
- FRQ 2 - Visual/Contextual Analysis: 6 points (25 minutes recommended)
- Combined, these long essays are worth 14 of 34 FRQ points (41% of Section II)
- Both require identifying works from the 250 required image set
- Both assess Skill 8: Argumentation alongside other skills
Key structural difference: FRQ 1 provides one required work (with image) and asks you to select a second work for comparison. FRQ 2 provides no images - you select from a list of works or choose your own from a specified content area. This tests not just analysis but your visual memory and strategic judgment about which works you know best.
Strategy Deep Dive
The long essays test whether you can construct art historical arguments, not just recall information. Understanding the deeper purpose of each question type transforms your approach from frantic recall to strategic demonstration of understanding.
FRQ 1 - Comparison Strategy
The comparison essay isn't asking you to list similarities and differences - it's testing whether you understand how art historians use comparison to reveal meaning. When you compare, you're showing how artistic choices become visible through contrast. The prompt always focuses on a specific theme: power, sacred space, gender, innovation. Your job is to show how comparing two works illuminates that theme in ways analyzing them separately wouldn't.
First, decode what kind of comparison they want. "How both works convey power" is different from "how power is conveyed differently across cultures." The first wants shared strategies; the second wants cultural specificity. Read the prompt three times - the exact wording shapes your entire argument.
Work selection is crucial. You get 2-4 options (or can choose your own from the same content area). Pick based on three criteria: visual memory clarity, contextual knowledge depth, and genuine comparability to the required work. If the required work is the Seated Boxer (Hellenistic Greek), comparing to Doryphoros (Classical Greek) lets you discuss idealization vs. emotional realism. Comparing to a Roman portrait would shift focus to cultural appropriation and function. Same required work, completely different essays based on your selection.
The key insight: examiners aren't looking for the "right" comparison. They're looking for thoughtful analysis of whichever comparison you choose. A seemingly unlikely pairing defended well scores higher than an obvious pairing discussed superficially.
FRQ 2 - Visual/Contextual Analysis Strategy
This essay tests whether you can construct a focused argument about how form and context create meaning. The prompts are thematic: "how artists use light," "how architecture shapes ritual," "how materials convey status." You're not cataloging every feature - you're building an argument about specific artistic choices.
Without images provided, work selection becomes critical. Choose works you can visualize precisely. Mental clarity about visual details matters more than choosing the most famous or complex work. Better to write brilliantly about the Röttgen Pietà's emotional expressiveness than fumble through half-remembered details of the Arena Chapel.
The strategic framework: your thesis should propose a specific relationship between form and meaning. Not "Bernini uses marble to create drama" but "Bernini exploits marble's translucency and carving potential to dissolve boundaries between spiritual and physical realms, making divine experience tangible for Counter-Reformation viewers." The specificity focuses your entire essay.
Rubric Breakdown
Understanding how points are actually awarded transforms these from intimidating essays into achievable tasks. Let me decode what examiners really want for each point.
FRQ 1 - Comparison (8 points)
Identification (1 point): You need two accurate identifiers for your selected work. "Starry Night by Van Gogh" gets you nothing - they know you can name famous works. "Starry Night, Van Gogh, 1889, oil on canvas" earns the point. The identifiers prove you're discussing the actual work from the image set, not some half-remembered version.
Visual OR Contextual Description (2 points): One point each for describing relevant features of both works. "Relevant" is key - if comparing how works convey power, describing color harmony might be accurate but irrelevant. Describe features that support your comparison: scale, positioning, symbolic attributes. These points are essentially free if you stay focused on the prompt theme.
Similarity/Difference Explanation (2 points): Not just identifying but explaining similarities or differences. "Both use hierarchical scale" identifies; "Both use hierarchical scale to establish divine or royal figures as ontologically different from human subjects, making power relationships visible through size" explains. The explanation shows you understand why artists make choices, not just what those choices are.
Defensible Claim (1 point): Your thesis must be both arguable and defendable. "These works are similar and different" isn't a thesis. "While both works use monumental scale to convey power, the Colossal Head achieves authority through material permanence and abstraction, whereas Napoleon Crossing the Alps creates authority through dramatic narrative and idealization" proposes a specific argument about how power operates differently in each work.
Evidence Supporting Claim (2 points): This is where students often lose points by being too general. "Napoleon's horse rears dramatically" is observation, not evidence. "Napoleon's rearing horse places him literally above the viewer's eyeline while its dynamic diagonal movement suggests unstoppable forward momentum, visualizing his military genius through compositional energy rather than traditional symbols of rule" uses visual evidence to support an argument about power.
FRQ 2 - Visual/Contextual Analysis (6 points)
Identification (1 point): Same requirement - two accurate identifiers. The challenge is remembering precise dates and materials without images. Create mental anchors: "Chartres, Gothic, 1200s, limestone and stained glass" is sufficient. Exact dates matter less than reasonable accuracy.
Defensible Thesis (1 point): Must establish a line of reasoning, not just restate the prompt. If asked about light in architecture: "Chartres Cathedral uses colored light to create sacred space" restates. "Chartres Cathedral transforms physical light into theological metaphor through stained glass, making abstract concepts of divine illumination literally visible and emotionally affective for medieval worshippers" establishes an arguable position about how light functions.
Evidence (2 points): One point each for two pieces of specific evidence. Quality matters more than quantity. Two deeply analyzed features score higher than six superficially mentioned ones. For Chartres and light: (1) "The deep blue glass, especially in Notre-Dame de la Belle Verrière, creates an otherworldly atmosphere distinct from earthly experience" and (2) "Clerestory windows positioned above human eyeline draw viewers' gazes upward, using light's source to create vertical spiritual aspiration."
Evidence Explanation (1 point): The crucial link between evidence and argument. Many students describe evidence beautifully but forget to connect it to their thesis. "This use of blue light matters because medieval theology associated sapphire with heaven and the Virgin Mary. Viewers didn't just see blue light - they experienced divine presence made visible, transforming abstract faith into sensory experience."
Complexity (1 point): The bonus point that separates excellent from good essays. Achieved through nuance, multiple perspectives, or thoughtful connections. "While Abbot Suger's writings emphasize light's theological symbolism, the actual experience varies dramatically with time of day and season, suggesting medieval viewers encountered multiple versions of the sacred space, each offering different theological emphases through changing light conditions."
Common Long Essay Patterns
Recognizing recurring patterns in prompts helps you prepare flexible frameworks that adapt to specific questions while maintaining scholarly rigor.
Power and Authority Comparisons
These appear almost every year, asking how different cultures visualize political, divine, or social power. The pattern: one work usually shows direct power (ruler portraits, divine images) while the other might show institutional power (architecture, ceremonial objects). Your task is revealing how different visual strategies achieve similar ends.
Key insight: power isn't just depicted, it's performed through art. Qin Shi Huang's terracotta army doesn't just show military might - it performs eternal vigilance. Versailles doesn't just house royal power - its endless enfilade creates power through spatial experience.
Sacred Space Analysis
Whether comparing two religious buildings or analyzing how one creates sanctity, these questions test understanding of how architecture shapes spiritual experience. The recurring theme: transformation of material into spiritual through design choices.
Strong responses discuss sequence and progression - how approaching, entering, and moving through sacred architecture creates theological narrative. Weak responses list architectural features without considering experiential dimension.
Innovation Within Tradition
These prompts ask how artists balance continuity and change. The trap is discussing only innovation or only tradition. Excellence comes from showing how innovation gains meaning through dialogue with tradition. Picasso's Les Demoiselles d'Avignon is radical precisely because it violates Renaissance spatial conventions viewers internalized.
Material and Meaning
Questions about how materials convey meaning test whether you understand art's physical dimension. Not just "bronze is durable" but how bronze's associations (weapons, bells, permanence) create meaning. How jade's rarity and hardness made it suitable for Olmec supernatural translations. How fresco's integration with architecture makes it basically different from moveable paintings.
Time Management Reality
Sixty minutes for two complex essays demands strategic efficiency. Here's the realistic workflow that balances thorough analysis with exam constraints:
FRQ 1 - Comparison (35 minutes): Spend 5 minutes reading the prompt, examining the required work's image, and selecting your comparison work. This feels long but prevents false starts. Make your selection based on confidence, not complexity - better to compare works you know thoroughly than attempt impressive but half-remembered pairings.
Next, 5 minutes outlining. Not just listing points but structuring your argument. Map which visual/contextual features you'll describe, which similarities/differences matter for the prompt, and how your evidence supports your thesis. This outline becomes your roadmap, preventing rambling.
Writing takes 22-23 minutes. Introduction with identifications and thesis (3-4 minutes). Two body paragraphs for descriptions and comparisons (8-10 minutes each). Brief conclusion reinforcing your argument (2 minutes). Leave 2-3 minutes for review - catching missing identifiers or unclear pronouns can save points.
FRQ 2 - Visual/Contextual Analysis (25 minutes): Without images, work selection is faster but requires absolute confidence. Spend 3 minutes choosing and mentally reviewing your selected work. Visualization is crucial - can you see specific details, not just general appearance?
Outlining (4 minutes) focuses on building your argumentative through-line. Map your thesis, identify specific visual/contextual evidence, plan how each piece of evidence advances your argument. This essay is shorter but requires tighter construction.
Writing (16-17 minutes) follows a clear structure. Introduction with thesis and identifiers (2-3 minutes). Two development paragraphs, each presenting and explaining one major piece of evidence (6-7 minutes each). Conclusion that achieves complexity through nuance or connections (2 minutes).
Time reality check: You'll feel rushed. That's normal and expected. The exam isn't testing perfect prose but clear art historical thinking. Prioritize clarity and specific evidence over elaborate writing. A direct essay with rich visual analysis outscores a beautifully written essay with vague generalities.
Final Thoughts
These long essays reveal whether you've internalized art historical thinking. The comparison essay tests if you understand how meaning emerges through relationships between works. The analysis essay tests if you can construct arguments about how form creates meaning. Both require moving beyond description to interpretation.
Success comes from preparation that goes beyond memorization. As you study each of the 250 works, practice making argumentative claims. Don't just learn that the Pantheon has an oculus - consider how that void transforms the building from mere shelter into cosmos model. Don't just memorize Judith Slaying Holofernes' date - analyze how Gentileschi's personal experience infuses biblical narrative with psychological specificity absent in male artists' versions.
The students who excel write essays that feel inevitable - where every piece of evidence builds toward a conclusion that illuminates the works discussed. This isn't about having the "right" interpretation but about constructing persuasive arguments through careful visual analysis and contextual understanding.
During the exam, trust your preparation but remain flexible. If your planned comparison isn't working, switch works. If your evidence doesn't support your thesis, revise the thesis. The exam rewards clear thinking, not stubborn adherence to initial ideas.
Remember: these essays ask you to do what art historians actually do - use comparison and analysis to reveal how art creates meaning. You've spent months learning to see with art historical eyes. Now show that vision through focused, evidence-based argument. The works you've studied aren't just test material - they're your tools for constructing thoughtful interpretations. Use them wisely, and let your understanding shine through.