Contextual Background: I am a HPL on the MA for Illustration and Visual Media at LCC. Our student cohort is very diverse, and many make work about their culture and positionality. However, they can find sharing this work within the university difficult – particularly during crits.
Evaluation: This is partly due to the complexities of showing work in a multicultural environment and students’ experience that they must often explain their work, so others understand it. This can be emotionally and mentally taxing. This is confirmed by the report Critiquing the Crit which found that a key issue in crits is “a feeling that cultural capital played a considerable role in student’s ability to perform ‘well’” (Blythman et al, 2007, p. 4).
For example, in a recent crit, a student shared an illustrated publication of Urdu poetry intended for a Pakistani audience. Peer feedback was that the project was difficult to understand. As a result, the student considered translating the poetry into English and supplementing their drawings of djins (supernatural beings) with written descriptions. Thankfully they didn’t. Reflecting on this experience, I could have done more to support the presenting student and to guide the session by promoting self-awareness and reflective practice amongst the group (UAL, n.d.). This approach aligns with UAL’s Climate, Racial and Social Justice Principles.
Moving forwards: To improve, I find Rosenberg’s practice of “observation without evaluating” (Rosenburg, 2005, pp. 25-35) helpful. It was devised with a different context in mind; however I believe it offers a constructive framework for critique within art and design pedagogy, and I intend to use it moving forwards.
Within an art and design crit, promoting observing without evaluating could help students to give feedback about what they can see, rather than their interpretation of a work. Instead of relating through the dichotomy of understanding or not understanding, they would instead focus on what is visible; in other words, the formal elements of a work. I believe this may help to level the crit experience.
To integrate this practice, I could:
- Outline Rosenberg’s framework at the beginning of a crit and invite students to use it. Furthermore, I can link it to MAIVM’s existing guidance on compassionate critique to help them connect it with a familiar format.
- Ask students to consistently locate their feedback in the work. For example, if a student shares an interpretation of a work, I could encourage them to connect it to something specific like colour, form, texture, material etc.
- Ask presenting students to prepare questions for the group to guide the feedback that they receive. I would recommend that they ask for feedback on formal elements in their work which they want to progress. This will also help the responding students to be intentional with their contributions.
As I want to implement a new method, peer feedback would be helpful. I have asked Andrea Machicao Francke (a peer on the PgCert) to observe a crit on the 13th March where I will trial this approach. Andrea is a senior lecturer experienced in running crits and contributes to the podcast The Bad Vibes Club discussing the role of crits in art schools.
References
Blythman, M., Orr, S. & Blair, B. (2007) Critiquing the Crit. Project Report. Higher Education Academy.
Francke, M.A. & De Kersaint Giraudeau, M (2024) The Bad Vibes Club: episode 2: Ten Texts on Sculpture 8: Sculptural Pedagogy [Podcast]. 5 March. Available at: https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/ten-texts-on-sculpture-8-sculptural-pedagogy/id1220925467?i=1000648101785 (Accessed: 31 January 2024)
Rosenberg, M.B. (2005) ‘Observing without evaluating’, in Nonviolent Communication: A Language of Life. 2nd ed. Encinitas, CA: PuddleDancer Press, pp. 25-35
UAL (no date) Climate, Racial and Social Justice Principles. (Accessed: 16 February 2025)