|
|
 |
|
|
|
Home > Leading Critiques in Studio Art Classes
|
Leading Critiques in Studio Art Classes
|
|
| |
by Ken Daley
Professor of Art
Old Dominion University
Norfolk, Virginia
|
|
| |
Critique or Rebuke?
As students in studio art programs, all of us experienced classroom critiques. Now, as secondary and college-level teachers, we conduct them. What we sometimes forget as teachers is that students, both young and old, first meet the term "criticism" as a pejorative term. Criticism is not initially understood as a process of objectively analyzing and evaluating works of art, of gathering information and building a vocabulary with which to make more refined judgments about the quality of works of art. Often students identify very closely with the art objects they make, and any negative criticism expressed about the work is construed as an ad hominem rebuke. In structuring critiques for my classes, I try to make it very clear from the beginning that the critique is about the work, not the person. I remind students that many artists would say that a bad review is better than no review at all -- at least people are paying attention to your work.
I vividly remember my first experience as a teaching assistant in graduate school. I assisted a professor who taught a color theory class of about 25 undergraduate students from various majors. He would give an assignment each week that was to be completed and tacked on the wall, ready for review, at the beginning of the first class the following week. He would always arrive a few minutes late, after the work was tacked up and the students were seated. He would then walk up and down the wall once, scanning the wall and pausing occasionally to examine different works. Then he would proceed to walk the length of the wall once more, this time tearing works off the wall and tossing them on the floor until five or six would be left in place. These he would praise and talk about at length, pointing out why they were successful. At the beginning, I could see that several students were shocked by this professor's theatrical method of critiquing (actually, so was I), and perhaps a few never got over the initial trauma of having their work thrown to the floor and stepped on. But after a while, most students seemed to accept this professor's method as a kind of competition, a challenge to see if they could "stay on the wall."
Despite its obvious flaws, perhaps there actually was some merit in this professor's performance. By critiquing the assignments together, he confronted the ad hominem issue very bluntly. He also created an environment that was challenging once the students got past the intimidation factor. But even then, as a young teaching assistant, I felt much was lacking. There was very little discussion -- the professor's style was largely one-way: he talked and the students listened. Lacking, too, was an assessment of why those assignments trodden underfoot were rejected. Why did they fail? Could some have been improved? In any critique, both successful and unsuccessful solutions need to be compared and analyzed.
A Participatory Critique
I primarily teach drawing and printmaking courses at all levels. Regardless of level, I think it is of utmost importance to have full student participation in the critiques. Unless he or she is a gifted performer, nothing is more deadening, more boring, than a teacher who does all the talking. Of course the instructor has much knowledge to impart, but often the Socratic method can effectively enable students to come upon that information through well-asked questions by the instructor, or by inspiring the students themselves to ask pertinent questions about each other's work. And a silence after a question does not have to be immediately filled with words. I will intentionally allow an extended silence, recognizing that many students are very self-conscious about offering opinions or giving answers they think might be wrong. If necessary I will call on students, but my goal in any critique is to reach a point at which the students overcome any hesitancy in sharing their thoughts and opinions.
If the critique is centered on a particular assignment, I begin by asking for someone to restate the objectives of the assignment. I will then ask for volunteers to point out those works which they think successfully meet the objectives and to explain why. Then I might ask students for an assessment of some works that they think are not quite successful, and then for suggestions on how they could be improved. On a beginning level, we will be primarily talking about techniques, skills, and use of structural design elements in the critiques; many of the principles to be evaluated will be objective. On advanced levels, we will also be talking about content issues. Here the discussions can become quite subjective, and instrumental theory in art criticism becomes very important. With advanced critiques, particularly at the college level, the students are already familiar with the process. The work is often multidisciplinary, and often there is no specific assignment -- I periodically schedule "reviews" of works in progress. At these sessions I try to have a short presentation ready about a current issue in the arts, and use that as a catalyst for stimulating discussion. This can be in the form of shared printouts, slides, or a PowerPoint presentation. Since I am aware of what issues my students are working on, I try to select material each time that is relevant to problems that some of them are dealing with. At this level, each critique can be a very different experience. I particularly relish those times when I feel I must interrupt to be heard.
Conclusion
Whether engaged with an introductory class or advanced class, I think my primary role in a critique is that of a facilitator -- one who at appropriate times will question, add information, define terms, explain history; who will offer anecdotes, humor, positive reinforcement, and constructive suggestions; and who will provide, at the conclusion, a summation of opinion and group accomplishment. I will also be sure to recognize outstanding efforts, whether successful or not, to which a student has committed considerable time. I often stress the value of reworking a problem or assignment, of developing a willingness to explore variations and make comparisons, and of being willing to risk failure to find out something new. Therefore, I remind students that I am not just evaluating single works; I am also evaluating their work ethic.
Ken Daley received his BFA from the University of the Arts and his MFA from the Yale School of Art. He is Professor of Art at Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Virginia, where he teaches drawing, printmaking, and art criticism. He has been an AP Studio Art reader since 1996.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Course Home Pages