Talking about Art and Using Critiques in the Classroom

Chapter 3 of Talking About Art, by Terry Barrett described critiquing processes that are helpful in the art classroom in ways that teach students to interpret and talk about art.  Important questions to ask are:  what do you see?  What is the artwork about? And how do you know?  These questions help students interpret artwork and encourages them to provide evidence.  Barrett explains that the description and interpretation should occur simultaneously.  The chapter also discusses the difference between the artist's intent and the viewer's interpretation.  Barrett described a situation in which a student was reluctant to participate in the critique and argued that his artwork had no meaning because he didn't put meaning into it.  The teacher and other students had found many possible meanings, but he maintained that there was no meaning.  The student that had made the artwork believed that it was wrong for a viewer to assume that they know the meaning, but another student argued that the viewer brings their own ideas to artwork and create their own interpretation.  The teacher handled the situation by telling each student that they were making good points in their debate, and cited a professional that had similar ideas about artist's intent being essential to interpretation.  In the end the teacher agreed to disagree with the student, and the class had learned a lot from the discussion.

"Using Critique in the K-12 Classroom," by Nancy House, discusses different methods of critique.  House explains that the difference between a studio critique and art criticism is purpose.  The purpose of art criticism is to help a public audience understand art.  The purpose of a studio critique is to improve the artwork and share ideas.  Studio critiques should be similar to art criticism by including more description, interpretation, and theory than just focusing on technique.  Jane Stevens refers to typical studio critiques as "ring around the tub" and describes them as boring and tedious because the students discuss the works by moving around the room.  By the time they get to the last works, the students are bored and participate less.  House gives examples of alternative critiquing methods such as the PQP method.  This method encourages students to give praise, ask questions, and offer proposals of how they think the work may be improved.  House also describes the teacher's role during critiques.  They should balance being overly responsive and not responsive enough, provide expert knowledge, and ensure that important issues are covered by leading the discussion.  House warns that teachers should not influence the conversation with personal bias.