The Design Critique as a Model for Distributed Learning

What I read

In this text, the author presents an overview of critique, analyzing and synthesizing various other texts; he spends the majority of the time describing desk critique, the unique 1:1 experience between student and professor.

The author begins by describing the unique nature of the design process, and the resulting unique nature of design education. Design is both problem solving and problem setting, and is a process where quality emerges from "independent, seasoned expert judgement" that comes through practice and experience. It is an exploratory process, and highly tacit. The design studio is where this process is taught and learned, and provides room for a complex form of instruction, driven by structured conversations and presentations. A majority of the work is project based.

The author describes that critique is "the active pedagogy of the studio," and defines it as "a systematic and objective examination of an idea, phenomenon, or artifact. Within design, use of the term also includes that evaluation of an idea as well as the act itself." There are many forms of critique. The author cites Blythman's broad description of different approaches, and Shaffer's observation that the jury is the most well-known form of critique. These juries were not typically public, as "the juries of the Ecole des Beaux-Arts were held in private after collecting work from students. Grades and written comments were written directly on drawings." This changes, and in a public context, the critique becomes a defense. This is "the least successful aspect of studio and critique" but remains common; "summative critiques, ironically, take the most time and are probably the least effective at developing ideas and learning." An alternative, where "a small number of students present their work in an informally structured environment which still includes a studio tutor or critic," is much more effective.

The author then focuses on a desk critique. This is described as a "small, informal conference between a student and a critic: professor, visiting professional, or another student… it is an intense personal engagement that reviews a student's design and thinking process." It is impromptu, and the work product drives further exploration, where–quoting Shaffer–the "professor explores the implications of various design choices, suggesting alternative possibilities, or offering ways for the student to proceed in his or her exploration of the problem." Other students may observe this, and in a physical studio, "the informal observer/listener in a desk crit is always present, another student nearby, who is developing an understanding of the value of critique through incidental learning."

The author reflects on the unique nature of why a critique is an effective educational model: "it could be hypothesized that the design studio model of critique as an educational process was a formalized process of traditional apprenticeship" and is a form of cognitive apprenticeship.

Critique requires physical space and time, and low faculty-student ratios. The author notes that "as administrators in design education well understand, studios are more resource intense" and are being removed or becoming less dedicated for student use. Online critiques have been attempted, but the author identifies a number of problems with this approach, including a loss of peer critique and impromptu critique.

What I learned and what I think

I did not gain a lot from this article, not because it has little value but because it is both citing and is cited by the majority of what I've already been reading. I noted the other day that I may be "saturated" in previous literature, and this is sort of reaffirming that.

I do appreciate several unique elements. First, the reference to the Beaux-Arts approach being private is not something I've come across before, but makes sense—it has seemed too idealized in the lore of critique as a base, and this is the first time an author I've read has really pushed on that. The author only briefly mentions the transition from that to public, and not in a lot of depth. This has been filled in implicitly in other articles with Bauhaus references, but I haven't yet found that either (although I haven't gotten to the Mies critique approaches in much depth, and he was supposedly the worst of the bunch.)

A number of these papers are coming to one of the conclusions I am arriving at too, focusing on the decreasing availability of physical studio space available for students to use. It's going away and probably isn't coming back, at least at large public universities (and at private universities, it's only coming back through dedicated endowments). Online isn't going away either; this was from 2012, so clearly it's not an exception any more, and is the rule. But I don't see a great deal of change in approach for critique. The closest I've seen is observing Chad and Swava in Figma, and on a voice-only call, for hours at end, but not necessarily talking the whole time. At scale? Not happening, at least not without large technology shifts. Breakout rooms aren't doing it.

I'll focus for the next week or so on Bauhaus, and then off we go to California, so then this will all shift to coursework.