Critique on the Critique:
A Dialogue
Right. It is very frustrating, being in an art institution, how something so essential as a proper, substantial critique can be lacking or even absent in our studio classes. I’ve simply had enough of the production mode mentality that is heavily instilled in these courses, as if art making must be boiled down to creative quantity over quality! I believe that some instructors confuse and mishandle pedagogy as way a to impose a superficial transference that would, in their hope, mirror back to them through their students’ artwork. My example of this is the non-existent-existent case of Professor A. and B. In times of class critiques or individual studio visits, A. and B. would more often than not voice their own artistic preferences, suggestions that hint at an underlying direction for the student to pick up. If the student translates A. and B.’s artistic vision then the latter is self-satisfied. When their expectations are not met, the latter would either maintain an indifference, marked by an unfavorable disposition toward that student’s denied potential, or by spotting a (favorable) capacity they deem in need of being realized, A. and B. would insist the student follow their advised set of tactics that, according to them, are absolutely necessary to ensure the success of the finished piece. Never mind the process the artist is engaged in; what is crucial is the end product. Throughout our studio course, the rapport between student and teachers is maintained, with A. and B. encouraging the former with vague, awkward niceties and the student, at odds from the absence of any real, personable and critical dialogue, continues to produce … too blinded to consider that the cyclical motto of “Just make a ton of work!” does not substitute for nor facilitate an understanding that comes with a commitment to learn. I cannot speak for all students, so my use of “student” is couched in an abstract and obviously personal way.
I can only attempt to assess what might be needed to solve this institutional dilemma and I believe this can be done best through discussion. Although we do not have the answers now, nor would I suspect to uncover one after this discussion due to the gravity of this topic, I nonetheless believe we will have an easier time recognizing what is evidently lacking in our studios.
…
Jessica and I are both seniors in the Fine Art department. Abi, since you are a junior in the Entertainment Art department, you might have a different perspective on the subject of critique...
I might have a different perspective, yes, but I agree with and share your sentiments concerning the importance of strengthening our faulty relationships with our teachers and, I will add, our peers as well. These issues need to be addressed. My experience with critique has been lackluster, with no one participating, either in talking about their work or responding to the work of others. The problem is that most people confuse criticality for harshness and so critiques drag on with uncommitted pseudo-comments such as “This is interesting” or “This IS interesting.” The usage of the word “interesting” has become a common cover-up for those, even professors, who are terrified to confront works or concepts that demand greater engagement, so really, anything and everything could exist under the umbrella term of “interesting,” because it carries no direct negative or positive connotation. The only thing that can be acknowledged from this word usage is that the artist in question has succeeded in doing something “different,” although, even then, “interesting” continues to be used even when the work itself is banal and conforming. When I confront my peers about this unacknowledged, silent dismissal, they respond that they choose to be vague in order not to offend anyone and this fear holds them back from speaking plainly how they really feel. It seems like my studio is comprised of individuals who share a self-restricting inclination to be comfortable with practicing ambivalence. Only a few (if any) in the class really challenge themselves to be vulnerable to the art of failure; the trials and tribulations of pedagogy require, like Paulo Freire asserts, faith, love, hope, and critical thinking. Critiques, or any institutional interaction that does not involve this practice of open, loving, honest vulnerability, are shallow inconveniences, only taking in what lies at the surface as opposed to what exists at the depth of the matter.
The instructors, students ... everyone must be held accountable to contribute to the greater whole, the collective vision of their artistic community. It must be done with everyone pursuing an individual praxis, a sort of noble philosophy that could benefit everyone. I believe this is what Freire means when he writes on employing a praxis; to embrace an engagement that culminates in conscious thought and word, freeing the individual as well as those who are affected by its impact from a deadening monotony that those in power use to oppress the masses enslaved in a modern ritual, a way of being that impedes actual living...
...
How is the critique handled in the Fine Art Department?
Is there a sort of model the class abides by?
here is no absolute model we follow throughout our courses. The nature of a critique is partly dependent on the instructor’s preferential method of directing the class, as well as his or her stylistic tastes. Of course, the standard critique touches upon a methodology that concerns looking and speaking about one’s work and the work of others. The typical experience is like being involved in a clinical procession, with the art being examined for its flaws. Whatever direction is given is only for the artist to take into their practice so that the failures of this piece or future pieces can be remedied. It’s a deadening ritual that offers little to the actual conceptualization of the artist’s practice. I’ve yet to meet a fine arts instructor who has attempted to truly radicalize this normalization of critique. (I wonder how Gilda Snowden or Rick Vian conduct the crit…) That being said, there were sessions led by instructors, whose style of teaching I find to be favorable but by no means extraordinary. It’s above sub-par but nonetheless it’s an appreciated attempt.
For example, I’m thinking about how Professor C. an adjunct, implements critique. He establishes a structure in which the artist being critiqued is not allowed to speak for the duration of the process, until permission by C. is given. The beginning is spent with the class silently taking in the presented artwork for five minutes. From there, willing members of the class voice their observations on the piece. Interpretation and objective assessments intertwine and assertions are made as to how the piece works aesthetically and conceptually. Sometimes it seems the projected thoughts of the class provide a level of performativity, one that runs to cram into the allotted time, determined to be as close to effectively efficient within the short, 20-minute session. Questions are not directed to the student until it is appropriate to do so. It’s appropriate to do so when C. initiates the questioning. This point is when the second phase of the critique begins; Professor C. dominates the discussion. C’s approach is specific, based on a trained eye and an encyclopedic mind. C. relates the object at hand to the history of art, more importantly, how it relates to the trends and attitudes prevalent in the contemporary art market. How C. sees it, the student’s “particular” style is far from idiosyncratic as it is largely shaped by modern culture, a hybridization of ongoing aesthetic practices and ideals. The object that is presented is dissected as to its origins and broken down into small, interconnected parts that reveal a plethora of references which C. names off. They are obscure references that only someone well versed in art-press-release-speak, understood in the pages of Contemporary Art Daily, Artforum, and October, would recognize. C. lists his referential knowledge in quick succession, as if he’s in some show-and-tell and his impressive yet inaccessible know-how brain is in the spotlight, ready for and expectant of applause. Although I am poking fun at him, I am not totally deprecating C’s eagerness to broadcast what he is clearly well informed about to the class, because I see how valuable it is to facilitate a level of awareness in regards to the current goings-on in the art world, especially to those who are unacquainted with it. However, the manner in which C. discloses this information is solipsistic, since he seems to be going through what he knows in the form of a self-entertaining, discursive exercise, rather than utilizing this know-how to bridge a dialogue with the class, activating the space of critique as opposed to deadening it with one-sided astute meanderings…
The critique is in the process of concluding when C. grants the student permission to respond to what has been said. What is interesting to note at this point is that the choreographed structure of the critique shifts to one that is even less sound and more sporadic due to certain factors. One: up until the last phase of the session, the structure is largely ensured to fit C’s preferential style of critique; directing the class how one leads the blind. However, the last stage of the crit is marked by C’s relinquishing of control. From here, the student must take an initiative to steer the conversation according to what he or she desires to get from the class. Generally, this is when the potential to realize the unsaid or some profound truth falters. The student oftentimes is unable to formulate their thoughts coherently, which leads to the next factor… Two: There is simply not sufficient time to develop one’s thoughts or ideas. The last phase of the crit is ridiculously rushed, so much so that whatever could be said, even when intentionality is present, is foiled by the session’s structure. While C’s proficiency to draw out sources is given ample time for the sake of elaboration, the student’s own conception of his or her piece, as well as his or her impression of the critique, is hastened to the level of an afterthought.
....
Critique is an art within itself. To be adept at it, one must be able to articulate or at least voice the intentions they had when first making the piece. The student who believes that the impact of the piece performs just enough and could be rightly interpreted in lieu of an explanation... is full of shit. In believing and practicing this false ideal, the student does a disservice to the classroom by acting solely in their own interest, which is (also) solipsistic and pig-headed, a non-approach void of any praxis. I also believe that the practice of confrontation should be actively taken up by the student, so that they can utilize expressive theatricality when asserting their views regarding the feedback. It’s an odd thing to assert, but passivity in the crit should be eradicated. Ideas cannot end at the 20-minute mark, before the student speaks. Everyone must continue to challenge and be challenged, especially within the transference of teacher and student. Art is passionate, yeah? Critique should be passionate as well, accompanied by the highs and lows of actual feeling. The times I really felt an emotion during a critique, (specifically ones conducted by A. and B.) was when a deep-seated boredom kicked in and I was incredibly restless and resentful, desiring nothing but to leave this joke of an institution. Must revenge always be a bad thing? The crit is not brain surgery. There should be nothing clinical about it. Why not make use of being on the hot seat and tip the scale of authority? Insert that much needed drama, embrace that inner provocateur, Joseph Beuys...
Interesting observations! I think a rebuttal one might get when it comes to the matter of passion within the classroom is that the crit should be an exercise of criticality, not of emotions. However, it’s hard not to agree with you. I mean, being an artist entails the commitment to be attuned to one’s emotions (even aesthetic dispositions boil down to whether one feels emotionally bonded to their decisions and tastes). Essentially, being an artist entails the very unique requisite of having to translate one’s own self-absorption and self-indulgence to fit a cultural currency. Culture makes a business out of emotions and fabricates new desires all the time. Little seeds of need are implicated in culture’s construction of wants. The enterprise of culture is calculative, yes, but it’s not clinical. If students are not given the permission to articulate their conflicting feelings, then the end product (which is never really the end product, but the beginning piece that will mark future series to come) will only be as adequate as its semblance to an emotion. An artist makes a business (a dirty word to most creatives) of transcribing human complexities into creative form. Why not embrace that?
…
I’m not sure why, but my experience with the critique is usually the most constructive when it’s led by an adjunct. Whether this factor is dependent on the quality of discussion is hard to say, but it is also the case that within my department there is not an adequate amount of full-time or adjunct professors to formulate such an objective statement... Maybe the practice of style is best implemented when there is a level of distance. Perhaps most instructors who are full-time exploit their secure positions by doing the unremarkable, adequately parroting terms and phrases that perform an appearance of artistic labor without ever really embarking on an interaction or a confrontation that is outside the impersonal, that requires personable sacrifice. In this way, I feel that the trend among those who are typically full-time is one of cyclical standardization, assured of old systems and ideas of art that do not respond well to contemporary malleability, since the old ideals constitute absolutes, like the dichotomy between the “visceral’” and “cerebral.” Such language halts the possibility of developing conversation because a distinction is drawn. This obliterates the potential for avant-garde interpretation and understanding, possible only outside these excessively overused, archaic ideals.
Critique in itself can be quite challenging, since the object or the concept of the work carries with it a wealth of complexity, and reading the work (the art that is presented) is partly contingent on understanding these significant details. I say partly, because I believe that, along with having a level of prior understanding, or at least a sensitivity to how the role of art history and theory can impact the piece and consequently the artist, those involved in the critiquing should also be willing to forgo the pursuit of showcasing their intelligence if it means that honesty will be prioritized. I agree with Jessica in that over-domineering intelligentsia succumbs to its own big-headedness that misses accomplishing anything of sustaining value. A one-sided conversation in which the professor talks to himself is entertaining… as a performance piece. Remember Lucky’s speech in Waiting for Godot? It’s a mad man’s academia unraveling on itself.
…
I am also thinking about the way Michael Asher guides his critiques and the trajectory of the student’s use of evaluative language, impacted by temporality. The element of time is drawn out until the point of transformation has reached the couple-hour mark. It’s like Donald Winnicott’s temporal persistence with his patient in Playing and Reality; the usual two-hour therapy session must pass so that the core of free associative learning can begin. From there trust can be established and surface-level politeness will subside in favor of honesty, even a brutal one at that. To be in a shared space for hours on end for the purpose of critique requires nothing short of commitment, love, and an overall vision.