In workshop five of the PgCert, we examined the role of the crit as a formative feedback tool in art and design education. We tried an interactive exercise from the ‘Critiquing the crit’ report, where we role played students or tutors in a crit scenario where found objects were presented for review (Blythman et al, 2007).
I decided to look into the report in a bit more detail to see if I could find any useful learnings and ideas I could use for future crits, or reviews as we refer to them. The report acts a sort of field guide to a crit, and goes through the types of crits, from desk to group crits as well as identifying the problems and benefits of a crit. What I found useful about the report was the case studies and good practise section (Blythman et al, 2007).
When I started my role I was in a situation where I had to lead a formative crit for the year 1 mapping ecosystems project due to lack of staff, at that point I didn’t know about all the units or details of the course yet. My only frame of reference was the crits I experiences as a student on my masters program about 8 years prior, which were largely positive exepriences. I tried to give as much useful feedback whilst keeping a neutral tone and opening up space for other tutors to comment. At the end of the crit a student said they expected the crit to be more brutal but was surprised at how it wasn’t, at the time I didn’t know if this was a good or bad thing. Having a resource like the report would have been useful especially for a new tutor.
I have already started to implement some of the principles of the report in my crits, such as recording learning, from the use of peer review forms and digital platforms like Mentimeter to record peer feedback (see above). I also try to create more space for peer feedback when time allows. And seek out opportunities for interdisciplinary crits such as our participation in the joint review event with tutors and students from other courses.
There is still much to consider such as the physical layout of the space and how this can harness intimidating or relaxed atmospheres. To finding ways to help students participate by either responding to work thematically or around themes to bring structure around a crit (Blythman et al, 2007).
What should a Biodesign crit/review look like going forward? They should allow more opportunities for peer learning and growth (Blair, 2007), maybe even seek collaborations with other living systems or organisms, what might a crit look like it it was evaluated by a non-human such as Physarum Polycephalum? After all there already is a non-human Physarum mold scholar at Hampshire college in the USA (Hampshire College, 2022).
References:
Blair, B. (2007) Perception/ Interpretation/ Impact, Networks. No. 1.p 10-13. Art, Design & Media Subject Centre, The Higher Education Academy.
Blythman et al. (2007) Critiquing the Crit. Higher Education Academy Available at: https://www.academia.edu/586074/Critiquing_the_Crit (Accessed: 2 March 2024).
Hampshire College (2022) Physarum Mold Visiting Non-Human Scholar. Available at: https://www.hampshire.edu/academics/faculty/physarum-mold (2 March 2024).