Group Critique: Friend or Foe?
[originally posted on 4/23/10]
Robin Dluzen
Group Critique
What is the function of critique? I suppose, in art school, there are two functions. First, it is an opportunity for an artist to witness firsthand how his/her work is perceived by an audience. In my opinion, the second–and this is the one that pertains to students—it is an opportunity to utilize one’s peers for gaining advice on reaching one’s goals of making successful work. This second function is what I am concerned with here.
Perhaps I should frame my experience of critiques. Very often, the critique does not come about through the artist’s own wishes, rather it is a requirement that presents itself whether one is confident and ready for it, or not. So the artist drags his/her stuff out and displays it in front of the group. From here, the critique could go in any direction, depending on context, specific group members and the artist’s relationship to them, or any amount of personal musings of any individual member of the group. This, admittedly, is a risk we all have to take; a risk that at best, it could be minimally helpful in attaining your goals, it could also be totally useless, or at worst, it could be an opportunity to get visibly upset and/or irritated in front of a large group of people including one or more prestigious faculty members, and say things you wish you didn’t.
So how does this all go so bad? Direct, democratic means of feedback sound like reasonable enough intentions, right? Well, under the guise of democratization, a hierarchy rather influences and determines the critique as a result of individuals working solely out of their own self-interests. As in life, the loudest guy wins over a consensus through mere volume, or number of theories/French philosophers cited in proving his point. And not only that, often the outcome of the critique is a vague consensus, halted in agonizingly stunted political correctness, which favors the familiar and the institutionalized over the controversial and the risky. Dave Hickey explains in Sarah Thornton’s Seven Days In The Art World: “My one rule…is that I do not do group crits. They are social occasions that reinforce the norm. They impose a standardized discourse. They privilege unfinished, incompetent art.”[1]
So often those doing the critiquing look for familiar dialogues in which to operate, and therefore an uneasiness occurs when presented with anything that deviates from an institutionalized form. This results in proposing that an artist must mimic a well known artist who works in a similar vein, in order to be able to speak about what you do with more authority. Following the advice of this kind of critique could result in an art student making work for other art students, a marginal, temporary group of viewers. This is, of course, if one is not already impressing the critiquing audience with some fantastically obscure technique or subject; obscurity is often a “get out of critique free” card, with which one can do whatever and still be regarded with respect (that is, until one is employing at length the obscurity to the point that it becomes gimmick; then you are in a whole other kind of trouble). And if you are not so far out of the realms of the familiar that the critique-ers are uncomfortable, then you are inevitably subject to the most inane of questions: “Do you think your work is contemporary?” which means, “I want you to know that I don’t like your work and I just want to be the guy who asks a tough question in front of everybody.”
So the question remains, why is it that people are just saying whatever they want in critique without any regard to the usefulness of their comments? This happens as a result of the separation that is set in place by the artist presenting his/her work in front of a critical audience. Those in the audience are reinforced and therefore emboldened by their strength in numbers. This can be a good thing: it could incite much needed constructive criticism. However, in my experience, it has the tendency to often be a bad thing, allowing for any and all useless comments that are not, in fact, constructive at all, and are merely a place to reiterate individual tastes, or an opportunity to expectorate one’s musings on some recent book or radio program completely unrelated to the art which is in front of him/her. In fact, may artists leave a critique feeling as though the objects presented were not even looked at, much less referred to.
There must be a reason, though, that this formula is still standard in art schools. Maybe critiques are more helpful for those critiquing and learning how to speak up about art than those who have work critiqued; or perhaps this is just reinforcing regurgitation skills.
What are the options, though? In what manner can actual, useful conversations about art in the academic context be prompted? Of course, in my experience, one-on-one, face-to-face conversation almost always works; when the gap is closed between the critique-er and the critique-e, and the hierarchy abolished, it (arguably) forces one to be held accountable for one says, for the critique-er is no longer superficially performing, but is actually being pressured to become engaged. But practically speaking, a model based on this kind of engagement could potentially be a nightmare to implement. How would you do it, just make everyone pair off everyday for one-on-one critique? That is a lot of responsibility for an individual artist, and we know no one likes to be held that responsible. Maybe there is no better model than the group critique, and we should take whatever this practice teaches us, even if it’s miniscule, like everything else in a graduate art program: through not truly knowing exactly how to structure higher education in a subjective field, schools just throw everything they’ve got at you, and you should be glad, and it is certainly worth it, if anything at all sticks.
About the author: Dluzen is about to complete a Masters Degree in Painting and Drawing, and is profoundly grateful for opportunities offered her through that institution, and has found this endeavor to be invaluable to, and irreplaceable for, her practice.
[1] Thornton, Sarah. Seven Days in the Art World. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., 2008.
I recently participated in a round of group crits and experienced similar frustrations you’re laying out here. In the course of the crits, seemingly helpful advice was given by many people (or, at least they thought it was helpful), but the artist always seemed on the verge of tears, as if they were taking a group beating. Sometimes an individual crit, like you recommend, can be less anxiety ridden, but in the group crit, a consensus arises from the collected voices that might not otherwise come about. When I was a student I was often bored to death by the formlessness of the graduate seminar discussions, but in 1 out of every 10 classes, a transcendent discussion emerged. I guess we take our chances. Should there be a crit handbook? A set of rules?
My advice is to go in to a group crit knowing that many people don’t know where your coming from. I would think about how to make the panel understand what you;re doing in very simple terms.If you don’t know what your doing you should just say that instead of restating something you read and possibly don’t understand just to sound smart.It’s also refreshing to here students tell professors they are wrong…SInce there are no truisms in art you have the right to disagree with whatever you want and that may help people better understand what your doing.
I think the points of the last two posts are worth considering; does good artwork bring about a consensus from the critique-ers, or is artwork that creates disagreement or argument indicative of a more valuable practice?
Interesting post — I love critiques and studio visits, even though I have had a handful of really awful ones, like most artists. I tend to think that both critiques and individual studio visits can be difficult (or take away small chunks of your soul) for artists when the aim of the critiquer(s) is geared heavily towards a judgment of the success of an artwork rather than interpretation of it. That is to say, if you have a group of people trying to come to grips with whether something is flat out good or bad, I find it to be boring at best and destructive at its worst. But if you moderate a critique with some sense of interpreting the potential meanings of a work of art when it stands on its own, and then reflect that information back to the artist and try to get a sense of his/her poetics, it can be a beautiful, constructive discussion (probably happens in the 1 out of 10 ratio Jason mentioned).
Hickey is right about the problems of critiques, but I don’t think they could be avoided because of it. It’s isolating oneself intellectually to do avoid group response, and relying on closed-door solutions that are still potentially normative in a more piecemeal way.
I like how you point out how a supposed fluidity/lack of hierarchy actually allows bullies to take over critiques. And there are all types of house rules and conversely rambling possibilities, and sometimes I think that professors may let the bullies go if they’re driving home a point to someone who won’t accept that they’re artwork might not communicate what they want it to say. And while I think flat judgment is a crummy way to run critiques, I’m still grateful to my professor who walked up to a (crappy) drawing of mine and said “You can’t allow something like this to exist.” It was terrible at the time and crucial for me in the long run.