The Components of the ‘Crit’ in Art and Design Education.

What I read

In this text, Healy identifies the eight components of a crit, as a literature summary from previous texts.

Healy explains that the text is intended to describe the benefits and limitations of a crit. He summarizes existing research that show the benefits, which include: fitting in a context of vocational training; developing understanding of professional practice; offering an opportunity to receive feedback; encouraging reflection; and assessing work.

Healy then describes the eight components of a crit.

Timing indicates the place in the curriculum when a critique is used. During a project, crits tend to be informal and focus on process. It is a "formative activity and is centered around guiding and supporting the students." When used at the end of a project, it is more formal and "focuses more on product or outcome as opposed to process."

Participants including students, instructors, and external evaluators. A group critique offers less time for each individual student to receive feedback, but may reduce stress.

Formality is described as influencing the anxiety and nervousness of students. Duration can vary. Location influences spatial concerns.

The Audience may include other students, and "students providing feedback to their peers is a key aspect in the development of professional norms that are expected of design graduates." Larger groups can increase anxiety.

Feedback is best delivered as "clear, actionable… that they can implement in the next phase of their project or in future projects."

Purpose is split between a formative approach and a summative assessment.

Healy notes that outside factors influence how successful a critique is for students. Scaffolding is loosely referenced as presentation skills, which are typically not taught throughout the curriculum. Ego shows up as a tension between a student expected to "take the expert critique professionally and not personally," but also drive an agenda and act in control. Conflicting feedback that is provided by tutors and guests may confuse students. And, technology needs to be considered.

What I learned and what I think

I appreciate the simple description of the components of a critique, and I'll reflect on my concerns or thoughts about each.

Timing. My negative perspective of critique is aimed primarily at "final crits," and most heavily on the final crits that show up at the end of the quarter. There has to be an opportunity for a student to apply what they learned. If a project is ending mid-quarter, then the focus on the artifact needs to be translated into a focus on process. This means that the transition needs to be made obvious in or after the crit, or the actual crit can be a discussion of the process instead of the object. But I don't see any way that criticism at the end of a quarter will find its way into the next quarter.

Participants. Healy references that peer-to-peer discussion is valuable, and is illustrative of Vygotsky's Zone of Proximal Development, so it looks like I have something else to read. I can see the value of learning how to discuss someone else's work, but this has to be modeled, and if the model is coming from the old-school critique, then…

Formality. When discussing the negative nature of critique, a lot of the texts use large language around the anxiety that the event causes in students. I don't disagree at all—I see that in students, for sure. I'm not sure negative sentiment is always bad. It needs to be couched in all of the things, particularly in pre-established trust.

Duration. Operationally, this plays a big role, because there's only a small amount of time in a class. But in terms of value, there's so much to talk about that I don't think "long" is a bad thing; it just needs to be managed. There's no reason for a large group to hang around, and if a small team can't manage 1 or 2 hours (with breaks), then there's a problem to solve.

Audience and Feedback. If the students are learning or practicing presentation skills, then they need someone to present to. If they aren't, I don't know why a critique would need to have other people observing, unless they have something to contribute. I also think it's extremely valuable for students to hear conflicting feedback, useless feedback, incomplete feedback… but they also need to learn how to navigate that, both by soliciting more detail and by selectively interpreting, integrating, or ignoring what they hear.

Location. This is extremely operationally-constrained. If the student has no studio space, then the critique isn't happening in their "owned" space. If there are so many students that the crit can't be isolated, then all of the issues above sort of break further. This points to a pretty pragmatic, but unrealistic, need of more space.

Purpose. This is really the biggest aspect of a critique that's on my mind. What really is the goal? It could be to teach students how to present, how to hear and absorb criticism, how to provide criticism, how to improve their skills or process or method, how to improve a specific design, how to work closely with other people, how to interact with someone in a position of authority… I suppose any of these are legitimate, but they are all different and have different qualities; and they all need to be taught. I think it's a legitimate teaching approach to just have someone do something new with little to no instruction, but if there's never a meta-consideration of the experience, then there's no growth that will happen as a result.

Maybe there's some value in analyzing this. Here are different reasons you might do a critique. Here are different styles you might use. Build a pedagogy by being explicit in your choices.