Critique Development | JI Teaching

Scaffolding Class Critiques

Introduction to Critique

I begin teaching how to do critique by having the students critique my artwork. Having them critique mywork instead of another artist’s, or another student’s work is very much on purpose. A major component of critique is getting out of your own perspective and looking at multiple other views. I don’t want them to necessarily privilege my viewpoint when I have something to say about their work. So, by starting with critiquing my work, I am placing myself as an equal in this part of the process.

I present them with the work and expectations I have for the critique.
- I walk them through several models (rose and thorn, sandwich, etc.) that they could employ if it makes them feel more comfortable but let them know the end goal is to just be open about what you have to say about the work.
- I do not require any vocabulary or formalities in these initial conversations
- I do have one rule: no opinion without justification. “I like it” or “That part is weird” isn’t critique until they are able to explain why.
After they have spent a few minutes responding I will usually prompt them with more specific questions, “What do you think about the color scheme?”, etc.
I then demonstrate how not to start critiques of your own work. I lead with some of the following introductions and ask them how it changes their responses:
- Starting negativity: “I really hate this piece”, “I know I messed up here but…”, “I’m not finished with this, so don’t look at it.” etc. (The end result here is that people zoom in on the negative parts and aren’t able to look at the work as a whole.)
- Being overly positive: “I am so happy with this piece!” “Didn’t I do a good job on this part?” “I’m really proud of…” “I worked so hard on…” (These remarks curtail almost any critique because the artist has set up his/her/their feelings as part of the critique process. In order to be able to give feedback that is not wholly positive, peers would have to invalidate the artist’s enthusiasm).

Building Depth

The Artist's Role After

Critique always starts with accepting the viewpoint as valid. If one person reads your art a certain way, so will others. Then, as the artist, you can choose multiple paths: Decide that it bothers you that your art might be understood in this manner and change it accordingly, decide that it wasn’t your intention, but it doesn’t bother you that others might interpret it that way and not change it, realize that it is a great direction you could take your artwork and exploit the unintentional messaging. I have found this to be a huge step in artistic development.

Finally, an indispensable part of our critique process has been to discuss what I term the “Uniformed Viewer.” It is simply not possible to explain your work to everyone who will see it. Though artist statements have their place, the vast majority of artwork is not accompanied by one. Therefore, the work has to tell its own story. I often ask the students to look at each other’s work (and their own) as the uninformed viewer would—someone who doesn’t know the backstory or process, or know what the artist meant to do. The uninformed viewer only has the artwork from which to make observations and assumptions. The artist, therefore, must use the elements and principles of design to convey what he/she/they would like, instead of relying on words if it is unclear.

Every project has a critique of the final product. With each, students become more engaged with, and adept at, this process. Each time they receive a grade on the quality of their critique (see rubric) both in how they critique other’s work and how they receive critique on their own.

The critiques progressively incorporate the vocabulary and techniques that the students are building. Though not specifically required to deploy the vocabulary, I will often guide the students into using it by clarifying or restating their points. Eventually, they use the terms fluidly.

The format of the critiques varies. I have a multitude of approaches, but here are a couple of examples from my intro and advanced classes.

Intro class: Students present their own work by answering a question about a requirement of that particular project. (i.e. “How did you approach creating hierarchy in the composition of this piece?”) Then students critique the work in terms of whether or not that particular goal was met and why/why not the approach was successful.
Intro class: Students choose a work (not their own) that does something related to the project really well. (i.e. conveys mood, has dynamic linework, employs color theory, etc.) Each student then talks about the work they’ve chosen and then we open up to further comment/critique for the piece. We do this throughout until all the pieces have been critiqued.
Advanced class: Students are asked to assess all the displayed work (their own and their peers’) on one section of the rubric I use to grade the projects (see rubric). This both reinforces their knowledge of the artistic components they need to be thinking about, but also sheds light on where their knowledge/understanding/experience is not as strong.
Advanced Class: Students are guided through writing an artist statement about their work and the critique proceeds through the lens of that artist statement. Students are able to get direct experience with crafting a relevant artist statement that is complimentary and relevant to the art.