Ivor and Olive Lewis on tue 26 sep 06
In researching this problem of criticism of Ceramic work I came across =
this passage in an essay, "Using Art Criticism" by Pam Mathews of the =
University of Toledo :-
"Art criticism involves time on the teacher=92s part and a commitment to =
learning something that we receive little training for during fine arts =
training or teacher certification programs in college. We have no =
in-services regarding art criticism offered>
In view of the comparative lack of response to my request for references =
to the topic of learning the processes and skills of Art Criticism, I =
would like to know how those of you who are graduates of, or teach =
within tertiary institutions relate to Pam Mathews' experience.
To put it simply, is this generalisation true?
A Kettner on tue 26 sep 06
___It seems that the passage is suggesting that there should be a
class that teaches art criticism or how to critique work. Some schools
offer classes in aesthetics were philosophy plays a big role in the
analytical break down of art, art movements, artist intentions, and so
on, and so on, and so on....
I disagree with Pams essay passage (hopefully it was not taken out of
context) because any institution worth its salt will have a robust
forum for art criticism or at least promote critical thinking skills
at the very start of a students education. Now, I have been in
situations were people just placate an artists intentions because of
the fear of "hurting some ones feelings." I have also seen some
critiques get pretty ugly and feelings get trampled. Each example of
different extremes recognizes that the teacher is the moderator and is
responsible for the critiques, hosting, controlling, and ending.
However, it is the student's responsibility to be an active
participant that asks hard questions and addresses what has or has not
been learned in the class. These things should be taught early on
during foundation classes and built upon as the student progresses
through the institutions rigors. However there are some lousy teachers
out there that do not have critiques or they let students get away
with the "feel good" critique.
In short, as a teacher you should be having meaningful critiques
because that is part of teaching art.
On a different note, one thing I saw a lot of during my education was
art that could not stand alone, you had to read the artist's statement
to understand the intention. How does that make you feel?
Arthur
On 9/26/06, Ivor and Olive Lewis wrote:
> In researching this problem of criticism of Ceramic work I came across this passage in an essay, "Using Art Criticism" by Pam Mathews of the University of Toledo :-
> "Art criticism involves time on the teacher's part and a commitment to learning something that we receive little training for during fine arts training or teacher certification programs in college. We have no in-services regarding art criticism offered>
> In view of the comparative lack of response to my request for references to the topic of learning the processes and skills of Art Criticism, I would like to know how those of you who are graduates of, or teach within tertiary institutions relate to Pam Mathews' experience.
> To put it simply, is this generalization true?
>
>
___________________________________________________________________________
> Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>
> You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
> settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
>
> Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at melpots@pclink.com.
>
Stephani Stephenson on tue 26 sep 06
I did not see Pam's original post on the topic as I clicked through
the thread on this piece,, but have this to offer in response to Ivor's
post..
In the school I attended there was an art core curriculum. Every art
major took 2 dimensional and 3 Dimensional design classes.
Those 2D and 3D classes provided a foundation . They were fairly
rigorous. 2D design taught by the drawing and painting prof, 3D by
the Sculpture Prof.
I would say these classes had less to do with bantering about
aesthetics and more to do with beginning to understand and utilize the
elements of design (such as line, shape, value, texture,color), and
some of the principles of organization (harmony, variety, balance ,
movement,proportion, dominance,economy,space)
and so on. This was accomplished through exercises, i.e. making
projects, (usually using inexpensive and accessible materials ), then
discussion and critique.
The critiques here were quite directed and specific, each exercise had
a specific purpose, though the student solved the design 'question' in
their own way.
Of course poeple responded differently, some quite methodically, others
intuitively, exercises allowed for a variety of responses, but the
intent of the exercise was kept at the forefront. The critiques were a
large part of the class and they were probably some of the most
fruitful critiques of any subsequent classes.
In particular, the 3-D class . The teachers were both quite
knowledgeable . they were also practicing artists. The 3D prof in
particular was skilled at moderating and directing the critique...
knowing when to let us free associate verbally and when to reign us in
an redirect us, knowing how to keep the critique on teck...it really
was not just a verbal exercise , but a mental one... how DO you view a
piece, respond to a piece, etc.....but always referring back to design
principles...
the overall perspective on this is that design tools are the artists
'tools' as much as the tools we use manually....and should be used,
maintained and kept in working order!
I think that the medium was not so important at this stage.
I also think that an important factor is not so much what medium the
instructor works , but how his or her mind works.
You need to be both perceptive and observant, allow for input but be
able to direct and 'facilitate'(an overused word). you need to be able
to cut through both visual and verbal garbage . To guide and
illustrate, and allow for directed discovery.
These foundation classes were backed up by the pottery classes . the
pottery instructor also critiqued work , in process, on a daily basis,
as well as at more organized class critiques throughout the quarter, at
the end of a particular assignment or exercise or at the end of a
grading unit. often times, something revealing would occur in the
studio and the teacher would call everyone together , seizing a
'teachable moment' : gather the group, illustrate , demonstrate,
discuss.
The pottery or sculpture class critiques involved questions of
forming, function, construction, technique as well as aesthetics,
design, historical reference, etc.
They dovetailed nicely with the 2D and 3D foundation classes. This is
where you might examine traditional pottery forms , etc.
Aesthetics was also part of the core curriculum. We had a visiting
philosophy prof that year who taught it and we read about what
philosopher wrote about aesthetics.. I will have to say I was unable
to comprehend much about it...it was too verbally dense, abstract
for me, it didn't strike a response in me, couldn't make heads or
tails of it. I would read it , then not retain one bit of what I read.
... but it may have proven valuable for some, and It would be
interesting to see what I thought of it now.
I think many instructors lead poor critiques because they simply do
not lead. In the early classes I taught my tendency was to be a pretty
good verbal moderator (I.e. I did a good job of directing the
conversation, getting quiet ones to talk, not allowing for domination
of conversation by others).
but I tended to be supportive perhaps unsure of my own critiquing
skills. Encouragement is a good and valuable tool, but only one of
many. Relying on the 'feel good' approach is tempting. Less
threatening for the beginning instructor and of course , 'nurturers'
in general. So you need to develop the critical eye and thinking as
well...
It would be interesting to hear from teachers...how their critique
style and skill have changed over the years.
the critiques I found absolutely useless were some of the ones in
grad school, which could and did deteriorate into cheerleading
sessions, emotional chest pounding or confessional sessions, or
usually, sessions where everyone sat around and tried to out -
intellectualize each other , getting further and further away from the
task at hand. Occasionally we would have a quite fruitful wide ranging
rambling critique, where the conversation would come full circle.
this is where the group matters. Group involvement and participation
is essential.
the better critiques for me were the directed, focused critiques.
Or, impromptu ones, where something was happening in the studio and we
seized the moment.
Occasionally I would encounter a particularly skilled participant
and/or moderator , one who's clear eye and mind would dissolve all
illusion about a work, discern it's strengths and weaknesses, and lead
the student and group to understanding and resolution!
yes, leading or moderating a good critique takes a good deal of
skill, I would go so far to say it can be an art in itself!.
Stephani
5 day workshop finished up yesterday
GREAT group
rambling this AM, need to get out, go for a good morning walk
Stephani Stephenson
steph@revivaltileworks.com
http://www.revivaltileworks.com
A Kettner on tue 26 sep 06
I have to agree with you on the grad school critiques. I found grad
school to be disappointing in the way popularity or defending friends
became more important than what was to be critiqued. A lot of the time
I had to go to the fine art side instead of the craft side to find
people for intellectual discussions. No, I am not starting to debate
fine art and craft, it just seems that the crafters I went to school
with were much more lax and less interested in talking about art.
Arthur
On 9/26/06, Stephani Stephenson wrote:
> I did not see Pam's original post on the topic as I clicked through
> the thread on this piece,, but have this to offer in response to Ivor's
> post..
> In the school I attended there was an art core curriculum. Every art
> major took 2 dimensional and 3 Dimensional design classes.
> Those 2D and 3D classes provided a foundation . They were fairly
> rigorous. 2D design taught by the drawing and painting prof, 3D by
> the Sculpture Prof.
> I would say these classes had less to do with bantering about
> aesthetics and more to do with beginning to understand and utilize the
> elements of design (such as line, shape, value, texture,color), and
> some of the principles of organization (harmony, variety, balance ,
> movement,proportion, dominance,economy,space)
> and so on. This was accomplished through exercises, i.e. making
> projects, (usually using inexpensive and accessible materials ), then
> discussion and critique.
> The critiques here were quite directed and specific, each exercise had
> a specific purpose, though the student solved the design 'question' in
> their own way.
> Of course poeple responded differently, some quite methodically, others
> intuitively, exercises allowed for a variety of responses, but the
> intent of the exercise was kept at the forefront. The critiques were a
> large part of the class and they were probably some of the most
> fruitful critiques of any subsequent classes.
> In particular, the 3-D class . The teachers were both quite
> knowledgeable . they were also practicing artists. The 3D prof in
> particular was skilled at moderating and directing the critique...
> knowing when to let us free associate verbally and when to reign us in
> an redirect us, knowing how to keep the critique on teck...it really
> was not just a verbal exercise , but a mental one... how DO you view a
> piece, respond to a piece, etc.....but always referring back to design
> principles...
> the overall perspective on this is that design tools are the artists
> 'tools' as much as the tools we use manually....and should be used,
> maintained and kept in working order!
>
> I think that the medium was not so important at this stage.
> I also think that an important factor is not so much what medium the
> instructor works , but how his or her mind works.
> You need to be both perceptive and observant, allow for input but be
> able to direct and 'facilitate'(an overused word). you need to be able
> to cut through both visual and verbal garbage . To guide and
> illustrate, and allow for directed discovery.
>
> These foundation classes were backed up by the pottery classes . the
> pottery instructor also critiqued work , in process, on a daily basis,
> as well as at more organized class critiques throughout the quarter, at
> the end of a particular assignment or exercise or at the end of a
> grading unit. often times, something revealing would occur in the
> studio and the teacher would call everyone together , seizing a
> 'teachable moment' : gather the group, illustrate , demonstrate,
> discuss.
>
> The pottery or sculpture class critiques involved questions of
> forming, function, construction, technique as well as aesthetics,
> design, historical reference, etc.
> They dovetailed nicely with the 2D and 3D foundation classes. This is
> where you might examine traditional pottery forms , etc.
>
> Aesthetics was also part of the core curriculum. We had a visiting
> philosophy prof that year who taught it and we read about what
> philosopher wrote about aesthetics.. I will have to say I was unable
> to comprehend much about it...it was too verbally dense, abstract
> for me, it didn't strike a response in me, couldn't make heads or
> tails of it. I would read it , then not retain one bit of what I read.
> ... but it may have proven valuable for some, and It would be
> interesting to see what I thought of it now.
>
> I think many instructors lead poor critiques because they simply do
> not lead. In the early classes I taught my tendency was to be a pretty
> good verbal moderator (I.e. I did a good job of directing the
> conversation, getting quiet ones to talk, not allowing for domination
> of conversation by others).
> but I tended to be supportive perhaps unsure of my own critiquing
> skills. Encouragement is a good and valuable tool, but only one of
> many. Relying on the 'feel good' approach is tempting. Less
> threatening for the beginning instructor and of course , 'nurturers'
> in general. So you need to develop the critical eye and thinking as
> well...
> It would be interesting to hear from teachers...how their critique
> style and skill have changed over the years.
>
> the critiques I found absolutely useless were some of the ones in
> grad school, which could and did deteriorate into cheerleading
> sessions, emotional chest pounding or confessional sessions, or
> usually, sessions where everyone sat around and tried to out -
> intellectualize each other , getting further and further away from the
> task at hand. Occasionally we would have a quite fruitful wide ranging
> rambling critique, where the conversation would come full circle.
> this is where the group matters. Group involvement and participation
> is essential.
> the better critiques for me were the directed, focused critiques.
> Or, impromptu ones, where something was happening in the studio and we
> seized the moment.
>
> Occasionally I would encounter a particularly skilled participant
> and/or moderator , one who's clear eye and mind would dissolve all
> illusion about a work, discern it's strengths and weaknesses, and lead
> the student and group to understanding and resolution!
>
> yes, leading or moderating a good critique takes a good deal of
> skill, I would go so far to say it can be an art in itself!.
>
> Stephani
>
> 5 day workshop finished up yesterday
> GREAT group
> rambling this AM, need to get out, go for a good morning walk
>
> Stephani Stephenson
> steph@revivaltileworks.com
> http://www.revivaltileworks.com
>
> ______________________________________________________________________________
> Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>
> You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
> settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
>
> Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at melpots@pclink.com.
>
Elizabeth Priddy on tue 26 sep 06
I spent 2 years in 6 credit hour design school crits
and spent 4 years studying philosophy and history of
art.
I replied to the original request for information
about how to study critique with a basic starting
point that was the crux of what I learned.
It is a place to start.
Good critique involves a clear understanding of design
fundamentals and at least an overview of the history
of the form of art in question and a knowledge of the
current work available.
Being able to tell where a work is coming from, how it
fits into the timeline, and how it is placed in the
current world of works are the nuts and bolts of
critique.
So you need a BRIEF bio of the work.
And then you need to know what the goal of the artist
is. Are they trying to design an answer to a problem,
like an ad, or a product to perform a specific task,
or to function as an object of decoration, or an
object of beauty or thought provocation.
Once you determine what it is and why it is, then you
move on to whether it does it's task well, is it
innovative, is it durable, does it work?
When addressing the what/why/work? aspects of the
piece in question, all sorts of tangents will come up,
from how it affects the viewer, what it is reminiscent
of (ripping off), whether it is successful on a
craftsmanship/quality level.
All of these tangents are fair game, but can distract.
A good ritique gets to the bolts and then decides
whether they are good bolts and then stops.
A good critique is not ongoing, in my opinion. You
get to a point, you get the crit, then maybe one
evaluation after that when you are ready to release
the work into the world and move on. Constant
evaluation is like nudging a bowling ball the whole
way down the lane. At some point the artist must just
roll along in the direction they are headed until the
ball stops. Gutter balls happen.
Critique should also remain impersonal. It should be
about the work and not the worker.
I have excellent critiques, no crying, not hurt
feelings, and better work coming from my students.
It's always worth it when done right.
E
Elizabeth Priddy
Beaufort, NC - USA
http://www.elizabethpriddy.com
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Snail Scott on tue 26 sep 06
On Sep 26, 2006, at 1:26 AM, Ivor and Olive Lewis wrote:
> In researching this problem of criticism of Ceramic work I came across=20=
> this passage in an essay, "Using Art Criticism" by Pam Mathews of the=20=
> University of Toledo :-
> "Art criticism involves time on the teacher=92s part and a commitment =
to=20
> learning something that we receive little training for during fine=20
> arts training or teacher certification programs in college. We have no=20=
> in-services regarding art criticism offered>
> In view of the comparative lack of response to my request for=20
> references to the topic of learning the processes and skills of Art=20
> Criticism, I would like to know how those of you who are graduates of,=20=
> or teach within tertiary institutions relate to Pam Mathews'=20
> experience.
> To put it simply, is this generalisation true?
Did I have 'how to do critique' lessons in college or
graduate school? No. Did I experience many years of
regular criticism, and participate in the process myself?
Yes. Are teacher-training programs (as opposed to
artist-development programs) different? I have no idea;
I was not in one.
I certainly had opportunity to see and do critique while
in school. We had some structured aesthetics discussion,
but use of the concepts and vocabulary in critique was
learned by doing. I could also see what crit formats and
processes seemed to be effective and which did not, but
it was largely left to us to extract that information. There
were no seminars on effective critique per se, verbal or
written, though we did get some feedback, mostly informal.
Would a course or seminar on teaching techniques
(including critique) be valuable? Yes, I think it might.
-Snail
Snail Scott on tue 26 sep 06
On Sep 26, 2006, at 8:03 AM, A Kettner wrote:
>
> On a different note, one thing I saw a lot of during my education was
> art that could not stand alone, you had to read the artist's statement
> to understand the intention. How does that make you feel?
I think it's a severe limitation on the potential
power of the work of art, if one has to break
out of its microcosm to go read a wall tag.
Reading is a vastly different mental process than
looking, and they often blend badly. The usual
result is a dominance of the written word over
the visual (or tactile or whatever) experience,
and an unbalanced experience of the work at
hand. A work of art can be experienced more
holistically if its significance can be expressed
entirely within the work itself. It also privileges
the curator's opinion over the viewer's, as
though when the viewer's understanding
diverges or clashes with the tag information,
the viewer is therefore 'wrong'. Now, that
viewer may not have properly understood
the artist's intention, but that doesn't invalidate
their experience.
On the other hand, an informative tag can
potentially enrich the experience without
competing, adding all sorts of interesting
contributions. It can fill in background or
meaning so that less-informed viewers can
latch onto some of the same ideas as the
more informed ones - not just about art
theory, but perhaps cultural background or
such.
It's also reasonable that a given artist might
want to do work which requires some certain
understanding by the viewer. Instead of
giving up on the idea, or trying to pack all
the necessary information into the work itself
(like one of those novels with way too many
explanatory flashbacks), the artist might
decide to offer that information, perhaps as
a supplemental wall text.
If an artist chooses to do work which is (say)
likely to be understood without explanation
by 90% of viewers and a wall text is added to
allow the other 10% in on the experience, is
it wrong to make work that is comprehensible
by only 10%, with a wall text aimed at the
other 90%? As I see it, an artist is always free
to aim their work at a chosen audience, with
the understanding that other folks won't 'get
it'; accepting that limitation in order to do the
work they choose. Not all work needs to be
broadly populist, and merit is not a popularity
contest.
In general, I prefer work which is self-
contained and needs no text. I value the visual
experience as a valuable form of less-mediated
perception and because visual and tactile form
convey a different type of experience than
reading about them can. I see useful and
rewarding applications for text as well, done
well and in the right circumstance, but not as a
substitute for a proper effort by the artist.
-Snail
Vince Pitelka on tue 26 sep 06
Ivor wrote:
In researching this problem of criticism of Ceramic work I came across th=
is=20
passage in an essay, "Using Art Criticism" by Pam Mathews of the Universi=
ty=20
of Toledo :-
"Art criticism involves time on the teacher=92s part and a commitment to=20
learning something that we receive little training for during fine arts=20
training or teacher certification programs in college. We have no=20
in-services regarding art criticism offered."
In view of the comparative lack of response to my request for references =
to=20
the topic of learning the processes and skills of Art Criticism, I would=20
like to know how those of you who are graduates of, or teach within terti=
ary=20
institutions relate to Pam Mathews' experience.
To put it simply, is this generalisation true?
Ivor -
It is true that studio art teachers are not specifically trained in how t=
o=20
conduct art criticism, and that is a very good thing. Art criticism is=20
essentially subjective. It involves each person's opinion, and there can=
not=20
be any "standard" of what constitutes good art. Every attempt at that ha=
s=20
been a failure.
Instead, it is the studio art teacher's responsibility to develop an=20
informed opinion by studying the history of art around the world, by read=
ing=20
the magazines and journals, by regularly visit museums and galleries, and=
by=20
watching the write-ups of the current exhibtions. It is essential to=20
balance the awareness of historical and contemporary work, so that both a=
re=20
considered in observing and critiquing student work.
That said, there are programs in art theory and criticism, which study th=
e=20
associated concepts through history. Such study teaches the student abou=
t=20
the history of art theory and criticism, but I'm not sure it makes her/hi=
m a=20
better critic. It certainly would teach them write art criticism in less=
=20
accessible language.
- Vince
Vince Pitelka
Appalachian Center for Craft, Tennessee Technological University
Smithville TN 37166, 615/597-6801 x111
vpitelka@dtccom.net, wpitelka@tntech.edu
http://iweb.tntech.edu/wpitelka/
http://www.tntech.edu/craftcenter/=20
Vince Pitelka on tue 26 sep 06
Elizabeth Priddy wrote:
> Good critique involves a clear understanding of design
> fundamentals and at least an overview of the history
> of the form of art in question and a knowledge of the
> current work available.
> Being able to tell where a work is coming from, how it
> fits into the timeline, and how it is placed in the
> current world of works are the nuts and bolts of
> critique.
> And then you need to know what the goal of the artist
> is. Are they trying to design an answer to a problem,
> like an ad, or a product to perform a specific task,
> or to function as an object of decoration, or an
> object of beauty or thought provocation.
> Once you determine what it is and why it is, then you
> move on to whether it does it's task well, is it
> innovative, is it durable, does it work?
I had to reprint this intact, because it addresses this issue much more
effectively than I did in my previous post to Ivor. Critiqueing work today
is not so much a matter of judging aesthetics/beauty as it is evaluating
what the work is trying to accomplish, and then determining whether the use
of design and technique are effective in that context. Discussing and
clarifying the "where it came from, how it fits into a timeline, and how it
is placed in the current world of works" helps the student to understand
their own work - they need to know this information, and it is the teacher's
job to clarify it.
Thus it is the teachers whole education and experience, rather than specific
courses in aesthetics and criticism, that teach them how to critique.
Participation in critiques teach you a lot as well. In the ceramics grad
program at UMass we had excellent critiques filled with intelligent and
challenging discussions. I also attended critiques in the painting program,
and learned what NOT to do in critiques. In several of those critiques I
refused to participate or just got up and left because the mood was so
destructive. Critiqueing by belittlement and humiliation is a complete
travesty of the process, and is ALWAYS destructive. People who try to
critque in that way are just covering for their own immaturity and
insecurities. A critique can be positive and still point out the flaws and
problems.
- Vince
Vince Pitelka
Appalachian Center for Craft, Tennessee Technological University
Smithville TN 37166, 615/597-6801 x111
vpitelka@dtccom.net, wpitelka@tntech.edu
http://iweb.tntech.edu/wpitelka/
http://www.tntech.edu/craftcenter/
Ivor and Olive Lewis on wed 27 sep 06
Dear Friends,
A great "thank you" to those who have done a lot of thinking about this =
topic and written very informative essays to the subject.
There is more than I can digest in one afternoon. So, since there may be =
more to come I would like to wait, then read and analyse what you have =
presented to me.
Best regards,
Ivor Lewis.
Redhill,
South Australia.
Lee Love on wed 27 sep 06
On 9/27/06, Snail Scott wrote:
>
> In general, I prefer work which is self-
> contained and needs no text.
I agree. If the work is going to be sucessful, outside of the
classroom, it should stand alone.
What is most annoying, is when an artist has no idea about
what his work is about, and just manufactures an explaination to cover
up his lack of understanding.
Artist are not necessarily able to write or speak about
their work. It is a rare person who can make the work and also
write about it sucessfully. These folks can be good teachers.
--
Lee in Mashiko, Japan
http://potters.blogspot.com/
"Let the beauty we love be what we do." - Rumi
| |
|
