GEN-12 · Portfolio gate

Curate three pieces for a portfolio or exhibition proposal; refuse one candidate that cannot meet your tooling-statement standard, and explain why the refusal is part of professional practice.

At least four candidate pieces (student’s own). Shared tooling-statement standard (class-adopted or GEN-01’s bar). Portfolio layout or exhibition proposal template your program already uses.

Keeping the strongest aesthetic piece despite an empty statement. Softening the standard for seniors. Refusing a weak piece for craft reasons and calling it an ethics gate. No written refusal.

Three admitted pieces with statements; one written refusal with reasons tied to the standard; a short curator’s note on the through-line of the three; and a sentence on what would make the refused piece admissible later.

CT: gate as craft. CR: applying a standard under temptation. CO: peer audits whether the three actually meet the bar. CM: curator’s note. CZ: viewers who would have seen the dishonest fourth piece.

Portfolio reviewer or arts teacher audits the gate decisions. Standing instruction: reject a set that sneaks in an undocumented generative piece. School-supervised.

R1: three in, one refused. R2: reasons cite the standard. R3: standard pre-declared. R4: temptation named. R5: portfolio ready to submit. R6: refusal is documented without humiliating detail that doesn’t belong in a public portfolio.

(a) Four pieces, no refusal. (b) Refusal is clearly about taste while claiming ethics.

Lane A immediately, and a natural finale for this track. No verified credit claim.