For my first blog post, I wanted to reflect on a discussion my group had surrounding the ‘Crit’ and it’s place in creative learning. As part of the reading requirements, I learnt about signature pedagogies in art and design, which includes a section about the Crit. The Crit is described as ‘shared by many art and design subject areas‘ which ‘helps students to develop a critical and evaluative approach to creative work‘ (Orr & Shreeve, 2017).
My own experience of the Crit as a student was that the pressure and vulnerability these created had a negative effect on my learning. As a lecturer, I have found that Crits continue to have a problematic effect on both student’s well-being and development as practitioners due to the similar circumstances surrounding the Crit. The Crit as both a term and practice has been removed entirely from our course handbook and they are no longer employed as a method of teaching and evaluation. I wonder if there is room to embody this practice in a different way to feels more inclusive and a safe space for students to recieve more critical friendly feedback? On further discussion with the other students, there was a mutual agreement that Crits have historically been ‘terrifying’ and ‘humiliating’ experiences, and most agreed that the experiences did not enhance their learning experience or aid professional development. This is interesting because Orr and Shreeve acknowledge that the crit ‘is probably not practised in design studios outside the academy‘ (Orr & Shreeve, 2017) and therefore what benefit or purpose does this serve in art and design education? How can we develop ways to further critical thinking and evaluation in a way that supports students in an inclusive and safe space to express their work?
On discussion with another student, their reading of ‘The Design Critique and the Moral Goods of Studio Pedagogy’ (Macdonald & Michaela, 2019) clashes with Orr and Shreeves indication that Crits or Critques do not resemble a specific professional practice , by stating that they can ‘provide a framework around which novice designers can develop their professional identity’. (Percy, 2004)
My question on this statement is: has the Crit previously been used as a device to prepare students for unexpected responses or feedback to their ideas in life post university? and therefore the use of uncomfortable situations to simulate ‘real life’ seems to me quite problematic. I acknowledge the benefits to students presenting their work and receiving feedback, however the context and history surrounding the Crit is complex and should be addressed due to their potential to reduce a student’s confidence in their work and ideas, rather than enhance their creative voice. To continue questioning the use and benefits of the Crit I will read further into discussions on it’s history, and how it has not been adapted or ‘reshaped’ (Storihle, 2022) to accommodate changing attitudes towards this practice in contemporary arts education in Parse Journal and Peter Day’s article for University of Brighton’s ‘Networks’ Journal ‘The Art Group Crit. How do you make a Firing Squad Less Scary?‘.