Last Day of Fieldwork

On our last day of fieldwork, we participated in a studio critique of advanced ceramics.  The pieces they had been working on were casts of their hands and forearms and a face that was cast from a mask.  The three elements of both hands and the face were supposed to be cohesive.  There was also an option of making one arm if it started at the shoulder.  The critiquing process started with the student describing their piece, analyzing it in terms of elements and principles of design, interpreting what it means, and a judgement of whether or not it is successful.  Since it is high school, the students talked mostly about their own artwork.  After the student spoke about their piece, the rest of the class was encouraged to give constructive feedback.  The teacher prefers this method and explains that it is the method she was taught when she was a student. 

What we observed was students being very uncomfortable talking about their art in front of their classmates.  None of the students talked about their work in terms of the elements and principles of design, but the teacher didn't seem to stress that anyway.  They seemed to like talking about the interpretation of their work because it helps viewers understand the work when they know the thoughts behind it.  Most students were happy with their work, but one student had a hard time with the feedback given by the teacher.  Her project was not visually cohesive, even though she explained that it represented different aspects of her personality.  The only visual link were different animals that were painted on with glaze.  The animals were stylistically inconsistent, as well as the treatment of the background.  It seemed as if the student didn't have an end result in mind, and only added the animals when the teacher reminded her that they should be consistent.  During the critique, the teacher asked how the piece could be changed to make the parts more cohesive.  Students began to offer ideas and suggestions, but the student being critiqued didn't seem to enjoy this part.  She seemed embarrassed and very uncomfortable.  All of the frustration made her cry after class. 

In Nancy House's article, "Using Critique in the K-12 Classroom," House explains that the difference between art criticism and critique is purpose.  The purpose of critiquing is to evaluate work, assess fulfillment of project objectives, develop critical awareness, and for everyone to learn from each other.  In the case of the ceramics critique, the challenge for the student that became upset was that her project did not meet the objectives that were made clear at the start of the project.    Her piece was not cohesive.  Although there are many methods that could have handled the critique differently, I believe that this critique was successful in determining where the project was lacking.  However, there needs to be a balance of criticism and praise so that the student doesn't become discouraged.  One of the roles of teachers in critiques, as described by House, is to have a balance between being overly responsive and not responsive enough.  In this case, if the teacher were to not address where the project was lacking, there would be a missed opportunity to discuss how the project did not meet the requirement.  There wouldn't be much benefit for the student either, because she would have missed out on the other student's ideas of how it could be improved.  There should have been more praise on what she did, because she left the room crushed and discouraged.  If the class had talked about how her work was successful, she would have had something positive to focus on.