In my explorations of views of studio critique, I have been in parallel working my way through Bauhaus approaches to education. I was having difficulty finding primary source references to the way design critique was held at Bauhaus (or if it was even held at all), and Jignesh Khakhar on the PhD Design list offered Wick's text as a strong representation of how education happened under the various forms of Bauhaus leadership. I realize this is just one text of what appears to be hundreds of scholarly works dedicated entirely to the influence of Bauhaus (and a side trip might be to understand why art historians feel it so, so critical), but it has helped me a little—but only a little—in finding some references to critique. It is largely organized by leadership, and I'm not done working through all of the Bauhaus directors. I'll share the few details I've found about critique so far, and update this as I continue through the book.
All quotes below are from the above mentioned text.
In discussing the fundamentals of pedagogy, quoting Wilhelm Waetzoldt (who then influenced Gropius):
This would commend the idea of allowing leniency to win out in doubtful cases when considering admissions, especially since the first semester of a unified school should be a trial period… A loafing or trial semester, in which one can look around, try things out, observe oneself…, would allow the beginner to find his own way into the clear, saving him many detours and disappointments. The outlook of the teacher toward these students as they grope along should, as much as possible, not be one of correction and regulation but rather of advice, guidance, and showing the way into the essence of artistic means. (p61)
In explaining the pedagogical basis of the Bauhaus, as described in the grounding statutes of 1921:
The object of this course was "the knowledge and proper evaluation of the individual means of expression." The point was above all "to liberate the creative forces in the student" while "avoiding any binding attachment to any style movement." (p67)
In a recollection of a moment with Itten in 1921 (which appears uncharacteristic, given the style in which Itten's teaching is later described):
…he displays the weeping Mary Magdalen from the Grunewald Altar; the students struggle to extract essential feature from this complex picture. Itten glances at their efforts and then bursts out: if they had any artistic sensitivity, they would not attempt to draw this, the noblest portrayal of weeping, a symbol of the tears of the world; they would sit silent, themselves dissolved in tears. Thus he speaks, then departs, slamming the door! (p110)
In describing Itten's preliminary course intent:
…the purpose of Itten's preliminary course was not primarily direct preparation for the subsequent teachings in one of the workshops but rather a chance for students to discover and develop their own creative abilities, free from any attempt to judge them by other than aesthetic criteria. (p113)
In examining Itten's philosophy of the purpose of a "true teacher" compared to a gardener, quoting from his diary:
He prepares the ground and sows. The seed germinates out of sight in the dark bosom of the earth; after the appropriate amount of time, it pushes upward; and finally it appears as a young plant… it gets everything it needs from the earth and atmosphere around it. Its own essence develops out of itself into a flower and fruit… the clever gardener cautiously allocates the care he gives it. He knows that his help is limited, but the strength and power of nature is enormous. (p115)
And,
… on principle [Itten] would not correct the student's work, and he was also suspicious of students' taking after the manner of their master. (p115)
In reflecting on his role as an art educator, quoting again:
How can I permit myself, as an educator and teacher, to cross out the ideas of the children, to show all their mistakes and weaknesses with red ink?... The teacher as a constant corrector becomes the gravedigger of the initial childlike thinking… don't cripple the students inside by making corrections but overlook their mistakes with praise and approval. (p116)
In describing how Josef Albers responded to student work, quoting a former student:
[The students made] masks, boats, castles, airplanes, animals… little figurines. He referred to all this as kindergarten products, which could have been made better in other materials. (p181)
...yet describing the attitude Albers projected:
Albers, who on principle offered no model solutions and was wary of correcting his students' work… because there was no idea solution. (p184)
There's only one reference to how Kandinsky interacted with students; quoting a student, discussing an assignment:
In Kandinsky's class we were given a real vacation assignment... In the final session he did not say much new, just something about the tensions in the square; I myself did not understand it completely, and I think it's not that important anyway..." (p201)
A brief description is provided about how Schlemmer taught figure drawing:
Because Schlemmer's course on life drawing did not have him walking through the rows of students like a schoolmaster, looking over their shoulders to control them, or even intrude in their drawings in order to make corrections (evidence of his high pedagogical ethos, which consisted of an unconditional respect for the integrity of the students' creations)... (p274)
And again, but in his words:
I don't like playing the schoolmaster. (p275)
There were no references to critique or criticism in the chapter dedicated to Moholy-Nagy, Paul Klee, or Joost Schmidt.
The text provided only brief references to the Bauhaus continuations in Chicago and Black Mountain, and no real description of how Gropius or Mies ran their classroom or conducted critique, with this exception about Mies:
In his teaching methods he was 'more inclined to advise a student to try again, rather than to help him with detailed critique or encouragement.' ... 'he would sketch on a sheet, shove it at the student, and say 'try doing it like this.' (p84)
This is, of course, just one book amongst what seems like hundreds on the Bauhaus, so I have to believe that in-class critique was better documented somewhere. I do find it fascinating, however, that it seems like very few of these people seem to actually teach or want to teach (the text actually says that explicitly), which I don't think is that different than now.