Comments on: Group Critique: Friend or Foe?

By: Annie Heckman

Annie Heckman — Thu, 06 May 2010 21:27:59 +0000

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.

By: Robin Dluzen

Robin Dluzen — Wed, 05 May 2010 21:12:41 +0000

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?

By: BRian Maller

BRian Maller — Wed, 05 May 2010 08:01:30 +0000

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.

By: Jason Foumberg

Jason Foumberg — Sun, 25 Apr 2010 13:31:06 +0000

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?