Critique as Collaboration in Design Anthropology

What I read

In this text, the authors discuss the culture of critique in the design studio, both in academia and in professional practice. Based on interviews with 26 designers, the authors identify that critique, as a collaborative tool, is effective, and that the academic field of anthropology can benefit from adopting this form of discussion rather than closed peer-review.

The authors start by providing a literature review related to critique in the design studio, noting that there are a number of different existing perspectives on the structures, methods and outcomes of critique. These exist in four stages of a project, and show up as desk critiques, pin-up critiques, juries, and open-houses. They are both formal and informal, and public and private.

The language used in a critique has a direct impact on the success of the experience; language of attack and survival is often used to describe the style of a critique. Lerman and Borstel indicate that critique often feels "like attacks, attacks imbued with a passion that seemed intimately connected with the aesthetic values of the beholder." They provide the Critical Response Process which emphasizes respect, trust, specificity, clarity, insight, and integrity, in order to provide a positive experience with critique. Fleming describes a large part of critique as "designer-to-designer talk," and in language used in these contexts "serves to establish the object being critiqued while providing the opportunity for the critic(s) to shape the eventual outcome."

Critique is used not only in education, but also in professional practice, and this is related to the culture of the company where the critique occurs. Dannels indicates that critique "has been shown to be an important part of the traditions, rituals, and values of the institutions where they are practiced." Rooksby and Ikeya show that critique needs to provoke disagreements and differences.

Next, the authors present their own study of critique based on 26 one-hour interviews with various designers, 8 of whom were educators. Participants indicated that critique is fundamentally about collaboration, and that one of the most important parts of that collaboration in critique is "access to physical studio space and desk space for informal critiques." Being critiqued requires openness and transparency, which may be at odds with a company's focus on privacy or fear of public response. One educator developed guidelines for a successful critique, which indicate that process work is not a deliverable, consensus is important, each person has something to contribute, and one may need to "take the lead" during the critique.

The head of an architecture studio is quoted extensively in how he urges his designers to be "consolidators" of different ideas, and to look for and respect criticism all through the design process.

The authors summarize their findings: "we argue that critique can be understood as a generous and generative collaborative practice." They propose that there are "three broad clusters of values present within design critiques: openness, multiplicity, and collaboration." This is different from how feedback is presented and gathered in academic contexts, where work is critiqued through double-blind peer review, and is not as productive in developing and considering new ideas.

What I learned and what I think

As I reflect on the last few papers I've read, it strikes me that few are skeptical of the value of critique as a whole. I don't mean because of the way it's conducted; there are plenty of perspectives of how critique is abusive, and so the method of critique is not valuable. I mean the entire practice of what the authors might think of as the late stages of a project: the juries and reviews (and perhaps the pin-up critique, too.) I've certainly taken for granted that I think these things have benefit. I'm increasingly questioning what the benefit actually is.

To me, a "desk critique" is teaching. I'm not sure it's necessary to even call it a critique, and it's not really what my students would refer to it as, unless it's more akin to the one-way tear-down. It may be good or bad teaching, as professors use different approaches, but the word doesn't fit. And it seems important to call out that it doesn't fit, because of how loaded it is (maybe it doesn't matter what it's called…)

So with that exception, starting with the basic premise that the article presents—that critique is about "moving an idea forwards"—how do the other forms of critique do that? They do other things, for sure. Perhaps it's about the goal of the activity. If it isn't about moving an idea forward, then we should probably call it what it is, and not expect it to be about the "normal" creative process. That is, if the goal of a group critique is for a student to learn how to present their work and lead a group, then there's no reason to guide it to be collaborative, because that's not really true to life. If the goal is to have outside practitioners involved in the process, then it has nothing to do with the student. It starts to require different rules and different operating models.

That aside; I appreciate the direct three-piece framework that the authors articulate. I initially viewed their language as a punt on the value of negative criticism, but as I really think about each word—openness, multiplicity, and collaboration—there's nothing that's inherently about "saying things that are good." These support the idea of directness.

One thing I had not considered is the idea that a peer review of a journal article is a form of critique in the same broad brush as design critique. I think, in its current form, it has the same challenges that a jury or "final crit" has—there's really no point, given that it's the end. Some journals and conferences allow for revisions, but there's so much removed from the process of making that those suggestions have to feel almost forced, or as a thing to do grudgingly instead of a thing to do as a way towards improvement. And, there's no trust at all, given that the people doing the reviewing are competing across the profession, for jobs, for publishing, and so on.