During our final workshop, we focussed on forms of assessment & feedback, encompassing the ever-present art-school crit (or critique).
Commonly structured as a group consisting of peers giving and receiving formative feedback and facilitated by academic staff; the crit can be a daunting and even damaging space for students during their educational journey. The intention of a crit may be pure, i.e. providing developmental feedback for students to improve their artist practice. However, due to a combination of both archaic traditions using the crit as a place for students to ‘cut their teeth’ and get a taste of ‘the real world’ (whatever that means!), plus a lack of student engagement in critical thinking, their usefulness has diminished in the eyes of the student. (Sherwood, 2024)
These concerns are outlined in Sherwood’s (2024) report ‘Crits and Inclusive Learning at UAL’. Through collating student and graduate testimonies, there is an obvious pattern of hope for a positive experience, but that experience falling short due to both staff and students not having the tools to maximise benefits of the crit. Further testimonies from both staff and students are summarised in Blythman et al.’s (2007) report, noting issues ranging negative emotional impacts, differing life experiences, language barriers, lack of contribution, and conflicting feedback.
So, why do we continue to use crits as a legitimate form of feedback?
Group crits provide the opportunity to create an authentic space for students to give and receive constructive peer critique… for me, the emphasis being on ‘peer’. As educators we often centre the transfer of knowledge around ourselves, rather than the students themselves. We should be giving responsibility to students to both lead these conversations, as well as take ownership of their own learning. Through collaboration and peer-led learning, we can give students autonomy for real-life experiences. I mention more on this in my Case Study 1.
However, without giving staff appropriate training, and students appropriate support, these crits can derail into destructive critisim, rather than constructive critique, or even nothing at all. Ellis, et al.’s (2024) handbook outlines structuring the crit in a way that sets boundaries, includes all present, balances types of feedback, and provides alternative ways to contribute.
From my experience in facilitating crits, I have found students seem more receptive to both contributing and receiving feedback when in smaller groups, in an inviting space, and feel like there is no power imbalance present. Students are eager to cross-pollinate across multiple year groups and courses, and I believe this is where the most successful crits lie. To implement Ellis, et al.’s (2024) handbook, I am aiming to be clearer with setting ground rules at start of session, think more creatively about the format in which feedback can be given, such as providing anonymous digital noticeboards, and providing more tangible evidence of their feedback for students to reference back to.
References
Blythman, M., Orr, S. and Blair, B. (2007) Critiquing the Crit, final report no. LTR – 021007. rep. Brighton: University of Brighton.
Ellis, M., Sherwood, C. and Tran, D. (2024) Supporting inclusive and developmental crits: a guidance for staff at UAL. rep. London: Arts SU.
Ghassan, A. and Bohemia, E. (2015) ‘The Global Studio – Incorporating Peer-Learning into the Design Curriculum’, FORMakademisk, 8(1): Art.5, pp. 1-11.
Sherwood, C. (2024) Crits and Inclusive Learning at UAL: An Arts SU discussion paper. rep. London: Arts SU.