Methods of Critique for the Arts and Beyond

Methods  of  Critique  for  the  Arts  and  Beyond Speaker’s  Notes  for  slide  1:  In  his  book,  Art  Critiques:  A  Guide,  James   Elkins  describes  with  some  irony  both  the  simplicity  and  complexity  of   the  art  critique.    While  reducing  the  convention  to  its  most  essential:   an  opportunity  to  see  how  your  work  looks  to  other  people,  a  public   conversation,  or  a  way  to  give  and  get  feedback,  most  people  who  have   been  in  art  programs  will  recognize  his  discussion  of  the  more  fraught   aspects  including  metaphors  like  “storytelling,”  “therapy,”  and   “different  languages  all  spoken  at  once.”  In  his  book,  he  includes   diagrams  such  as  this  one  and  an  incredibly  long  list  of  words  for  “ways   to  fail.” Speaker’s  notes  (previous  slide):  Anecdotally,  I  can  say  that  many  of  us,   students  and  teachers  alike,  have  participated  in  critiques  that  were   demoralizing,  ineffective,  and  otherwise  felt  like  the  most  tragic  of   missed  opportunities.  The  unpredictable  and  co-­‐created  quality  of  crits gives  them  their  power  but  also  opens  the  process  to  the  risk  of  a   completely  unsatisfying  unfolding.   Some  unique  qualities  of  critique  as  assessment  that  Elizabeth  Soep identifies  are: • moment-­‐to-­‐moment  improvisation • reciprocity • an  orientation  toward  emerging  work • knowledge  is  co-­‐constructed  within  communities  of  practice Speaker’s  notes  for  the  previous  slide:  But  the  conversation  that  is  “critique”  is  of   unique  value  and  not  just  in  the  arts.  Embedded  in  the  process  of  critique  is  not   only  a  powerful  assessment  (in  its  broadest  form)  of  what  has  been  done  so  far  but   also,  hopefully,  road  signs  and  a  momentum  forward  regardless  of  where  it  falls  in  a   semester  because  of  the  cumulative  nature  of  making  art.  Ideally  the  critique  is  an   intersection  of  assessment  and  learning.  Elizabeth  Soep says  that  critiques  operate   with  a  third  view  of  learning  which  reconciles  the  model  of  acquiring  information   with  that  of  a  property  of  everyday  experience  by  framing  learning  as  a  process  of   situated  participation,  in  which  new  information  is  generated,  enabling  people  to   reorganize  their  relationships  and  shift  the  conditions  that  shape  minds,   circumstances,  actions,  and  products. Challenges? • getting  students  to  talk  during  critiques • fuller  involvement/participation  from  all  who  are  present • more  interpretation  in  critiques • less  negative  and  personal • more  articulate  instructors  and  students • goodwill  (and  generosity?) • a  fair  distribution  of  time • making  critiques  more  descriptive  and  interpretive • less  exclusively  judgmental • more  exploratory • productively  responsive Nevertheless,  critiques  are  not  easy.  Critiques  are  events  and  the  dynamics  are unpredictable.  No  critique  happens  free  of  the  general  lore  about  the  critique  itself, anxieties,  expectations...  Here  are  some  of  the  challenges  that  Terry  Barrett  gathered   over a  decade  or  more.    I  added  a  couple  of  my  own  in  blue. Progressive  Stages  in  Feldman’s  Model  of   Art  Criticism   • • • • Description Analysis Interpretation Judgment Jackson  Pollock  was  championed   by  the  critic  Clement  Greenberg Speaker’s  notes  for  the  previous  slide:  Most  often  in  my  experience,   critiques  are  free  flowing  conversations,  sometimes  dominated  by  one   or  two  voices  and  taking  on  the  dynamic  between  those  individuals.   Other  times  a  model  is  used  or  at  least  underpins  the  conversation.  The   Feldman  model  is  a  classic  model  of  art  criticism  in  general  that  was   formalized  in  the  1960s  and  reflects  a  modernist  sensibility.  This   modernist  inheritance  is  also  felt  in  the  positioning  of  the  professor  or   professors  as  the  authorities  even  when  they  would  prefer  to   encourage  the  voices  of  their  students. From  Julie  Jung: If  critiques  are  of  such  potential  value,  in  both  assessment  and  pedagogical  terms,  how  can  we  create  the  best  conditions for  productive   dynamism-­‐-­‐ones   that  address  the  professors’   genuine   desire  for  all  students  to  participate  more  fully   in  the   process  of  creating  meaningful   and  rich  dialogue?   I  would   like  to  offer   two  structures  that  evolved  out  the  critical   pedagogies   of  the  1970s  including   feminist  pedagogy.   The  Non-­‐Judgmental  Critique The  non-­‐judgmental   discussion   method   is  a  way  to  help  people   to  grow  in  their  own  unique   direction  by  reflecting   them  back  to  themselves. Assimilating   the  approach  is  a  process. It  will  only  work  if  the  intentions   of  its  method   are   understood,   practiced  and  internalized  through   repetition. Profs.  Judith  Roode and  Joyce  Lyon The  Non-­‐Judgmental   Critique  is  a  method   that  came  out  of  the  feminist  art  movement   in  Minneapolis   in  the  70s  and  80s   centered  around   the  WARM  Gallery.  It  evolved  as  a  collaborative  practice  between  Judith  Roode on  the  left  and  Joyce  Lyon,   on  the  ladder.  Roode initiated  a  women’s   mentorship   program  and  Lyon  was  my  first  university   art  prof  in  1985  at  the  U  of  M   and  shared  this  method   –and  its  continued   evolution-­‐-­‐with   me.   Stephanie  Trenchard’s piece  is  called  “Service.” We  are  going   to  get  a  partial  taste  of  two  methods,   understanding   that  we  aren’t  truly  following   the  protocol.  In  the  first  place, we  won’t  have  the  artist  present  as  they  would   be  but  I  will  share  the  discussion.   Having  an  artist  here  didn’t   seem  right  since we  will  be  rushed   and  not  able  to  really  complete  the  process  in  its  full  integrity   and  thereby   take  care  of  the  artist.  So  I asked   a  former  student   if  we  could  use  a  piece  that  I  thought   would   be  interesting  to  talk  about.  Stephanie  Trenchard is  a  glass  artist   and  this  is  a  video  she  made  –as  a  non-­‐traditional   student-­‐-­‐for  a  class  I  taught  last  summer  in  which  the  prompt   was  to  create a  piece  about   one’s  relationship   with  the  kitchen.  She  chose  to  make  her  first  video. W e  wil   s t ar t  wit h  t he  non-­‐ judgem ent alc r it ique   m et hod.   The  Non-­‐judgmental   Critique  Method: Members  of  the  group   each  speak  about   the  work.      (Basics:  Take  turns.  Follow  an  order.  Say  “pass.“  Repeats   are  good.) Each  observer   says  what  they  see/notice,  each  one  giving   a  full   description. Many  categories  of  observation   are  appropriate:  formal  visual  characteristics  (color,   shape,  type  of  line,  movements,   etc.)  as  well  as  literal   descriptions   of  what’s  included/what’s   omitted,   how  it’s  organized  and  presented. It  is  often  useful   to  look   for   what  repeats,  what  seems  emphasized. Initially  (and   this  will  be  difficult),   there  must  be  no   judgmental   comments Start  every  sentence  with  “I  notice”  to  avoid  issues  of  like  or  dislike. “I  like”  is  a  verbal  habit  that  can  curtail   awareness  and  acuteness  of   observation. (The  intention  is  not  to  avoid  judgments  -­‐-­‐not  to  be  “nice”-­‐-­‐ but   rather  to  have  judgment  develop  out  of  the  richest  and  deepest  observation  and  reflection. This  method  is   intended  to  help  one  focus.) Within  these  parameters,  nothing   is  too  obvious   or  off   the  wall  to  notice  and  say. It  is  important   for  everyone  to  participate. Each  person’s   contributions   to  the  process  are  unique   and   important. Repetition  can  reveal  shared  response. Difference  can  express  alternative  perspectives  or   complexity. People  having  their  work  talked  about  should   take  notes  (or,   better,  someone   else  should   take  notes  for  them). Follow  a  circle  order,   starting  with  a  different   person  each  time. Use  a  timer  for  each  person   -­‐-­‐each  person’s   work  is  equally  important. Don’t   worry  initially  what  the  work  “means”. “Meaning”  will  arise  from  the  process  of   paying  attention. This  process  is  a  risk  -­‐-­‐it  may  not  “all  come  together”  later  (although   often   it  does).  It  is  valuable  in  other  ways. Next  steps  would  be... 2.  What  does  it  remind  you  of  -­‐-­‐what  associations  does  it  evoke—to  the   speaker  and  in  the  person’s  previous  work? (If  you  can,  identify  the   elements  evoking  the  associations.) 3.  Any  feelings  the  work  calls  up. Review—what  was  beneficial  and  how  might  it  work  outside   the  arts? “Several  years  ago,  I  finally   acknowledged   to  myself   how  uncomfortable   I  was  around   most  aspects  of criticism.  I  had  been   involved  in  the  process  of   creating  art,  seeing  art  and  teaching  art-­‐making for  a  very  long   time,  but  I  had  not  found   peace   with  my  many  questions,   and  with  the  array  of   feelings  brought   up  by  both  giving   and  receiving   criticism.  “  Liz  Lerman about  creating  CRP The  second  method,   called  Critical  Response   Process,  was  created  by  dancer,  choreographer,   and  teacher,  Liz  Lerman to  get  the  feedback  she   needed   to  make  better  work  in  a  way  that  was   helpful.   As Lerman's website  states:  “Critical   Response  Process  (CRP)  is  a  feedback  system   based  on  the  principle  that  the  best  possible   outcome  is  for  the  maker  to  want  to go  back  to   work.’”  And   here  I  want  to  make  a  disclaimer  that   there  are  official  trainings   for  this  method   that  I   have  yet  to  be  able  to  attend  but  I  am  using   the   manual  and  have  watched  videos   of  the  process.   Hallmarks  of  Lerman’s work  and  her  method • Curiosity • Engagement • Generosity Lerman’s work  has  been  used  extensively  for  all  art  forms   and  even  beyond.   As  we  review  it,   you  can  probably   think  of  ways  that  it  could  apply  outside   the  arts.   https://lizlerman.com/critical-­‐response-­‐process/ Step  1:  Statements  of  Meaning. What  was  valuable,  meaningful,   evocative,  surprising,  curious,  memorable,  exciting,  effective  about  the   work  that  was  created?  Being  able  to  have  that  spirit  of  working  from   what’s  working  is  an  incredible  asset  to  bring  to  any  learning   environment. Lerman says:  “I  too  have  experimented  with  that  approach  (where  the   idea  is  that  there  is  no  positive  or  negative  implied)  using  it  here  in  step   one.  However,  I  keep  coming  back  to  the  need  for  positive,  affirmative   information...  after  all  these  years  of  doing  work,  and  after  many   positive  comments  from  others,  it  still  makes  sense  to  me  that  we  tell   each  other  at  least  one  thing  that  we  noticed  about  the  work  being   discussed  that  brought  us  something  special.” • Step  2:  Artist  as  Questioner. In  a  learning  environment  for  somebody  who   is  creating,  to  have  the  opportunity  to  articulate  what  are   their  struggles   and  desires.  It  allows  a  person  to  really  create  their  own  vision  and  voice. • Step  3:  Neutral  Questions. These  are  questions  that  have  no  opinion   embedded  inside.  So,  instead  of  saying  “Why  is  your  lighting  so  dark?”  we’d   ask  something  like  “What  informed  your  lighting  choices?”  This  allows   people,  without  defensiveness,  to  be  able  to  explore  why  they’re  making   the  choices  that  they  are.   “I  have  discovered,  though,  that  the  actual  process  of  trying  to  form  opinions   into  neutral  questions  is  precisely  the  process  necessary  to  get  to  the   questions  that  matter  for  the  artist.” If  you  cannot  ask  a  neutral  question  or  feel  very  strongly  you  must  give   feedback  that  is  not  neutral,  step  4  allows  you  to  offer  opinions.   • Step  4:  Opinion  Time. These  are  permissioned  opinions.  For  instance,   “I  have  an  opinion  about  your  lighting  choices,  would  you  like  to  hear   it?” If  somebody  has  gone  through  the  process  of  creating,  people   usually  want  to  know  those  opinions.  But  it  just  allows  us  to  prepare   for  the  opinions,  to  allow  ourselves  to  receive  it. Discussion:  What  was  beneficial  and  how  might  it  work  outside  the   arts?