Critique – whether it is self-critique, peer review or expert tutoring – is an integral and one of the most valuable components of a formal art and design education. For first-year students, however, it can be one of the most difficult aspects of their design school experience. For both sides to benefit from the process, it should always be remembered that critique is a collaborative activity, the art of giving feedback being equally important to that of accepting it.
The professional practice of giving and accepting formal and informal evaluation of the design work is an important aspect of learning design. It is an inherent part of all design programmes and of design culture itself. Critique not only plays a fundamental role in education but it also directly informs the very practice of making through its focus on the improvement and development of the design project.
In design education, critique is an event in which students present their designs and critics provide feedback. At these events (often called ‘crits’), the designer presents their work, which is then criticized by the educator and/or peers, its virtues and limitations debated, in order to be improved. Brad Hokanson, Graphic Design Professor at the University of Minnesota and Associate Dean for Research and Outreach for the College of Design, describes the process in the following way. “Information must be gathered and analyzed and a guiding principle or idea must be developed and communicated to others. Designers must expose their work to the criticism of others and answer critiques with the quality of their arguments and improvement in the design. Critique looks at an idea—created through analysis and an inventive process, which is shared by the learner/designer—and advances its quality.”
In his article “The Design Critique as a Model for Distributed Learning”, Hokanson maps the studio critique system to various mainstream educational concepts. In his opinion, it can be compared to problem-based learning, where complex challenges are posed to learners in various domains, which in its turn helps develop the learner’s ability of higher order thinking. However, if problem-solving is the only purpose of the critique process, it will bring design down to a mere “process for developing domain knowledge through problem solution, and not as a means to intentionally develop problem-solving ability or, central to design, the defining of problems.” Thus. For this reason, the closest similarity to the system of generative critique is probably cognitive apprenticeship as outlined by Allan Collins, an American cognitive scientist, Professor Emeritus of Learning Sciences at Northwestern University’s School of Education and Social Policy. According to Hokanson, the critique model as an educational process has developed from formalizing the process of traditional apprenticeship, just like “architecture evolved from the crafts of masonry and building.”
The forms of critique most commonly used in design education include desk critiques, peer crits, and group critiques.
The desk crit is a personal interaction between a designer and critic (be it professor, visiting expert or peer) involving collaborative work on a design in progress – and in fact, it normally takes the majority of scheduled class time in a design studio. During the desk crit, the student presents possible design choices, while the professor explores their implications and offers possible alternatives, guiding the work towards a more successful conclusion. Ideally, effective critique provides not only objective answers but also directions focused on developing the designer’s ideas and thought process.
It is quite predictable that access to instructors for one-to-one critiques is limited. The main limits on the use of individual critique – time and class size – remain is a continuing source of pressure on design departments, as lecture classes and objective evaluations are much simpler and more financially viable. However, other members of a class are generally available at any time for a peer crtitique, which involves sharing opinions and evaluations of the design works and ideas between co-students.
The great benefit of the peer critique is that it develops both the designer and the critic. “Both roles have cognitive benefits to the individual designer and to their broader understanding of design,” Hokanson explains. “Designs are developed conversationally, building from the initial ideas of the designer, but tested and improved through the argumentation like process of a critique.” When reviewing his peer’s design solution, the critic gets an opportunity to extend their own skills.
Although a peer crit is the least formal critique format, it nevertheless forms the basis for an extended professional understanding of the use of critique. Those who prioritize teacher’s critique and ignore peer feedback often end up performing less successfully in the course, as social relationships and professional identities are developed mostly within the mutual exchange of peer feedback in or outside class.