Beopen+ed

As universities everywhere partially open up their doors this autumn, they have to cope with many issues of the coming academic year, trying to reinvent the education process in response to the coronavirus pandemic and the consequent restrictions. Many creative hands-on courses are struggling to come up with safe ways to prepare their students, but departments and institutions teaching music, theatre and dances are probably hit the hardest.

In the era of social distancing, the performing arts industry itself is not going to function as before, given the health risks of live performances in indoor spaces with live audiences. Many venues are threatened with closure and the public may remain wary of attending live arts events even when restrictions are lifted. With coronavirus posing a threat to the future careers of today’s performing art students, drama schools, university arts programs and conservatoires are perceived as training people for jobs that are disappearing. This might be unnerving for university arts programmes and conservatoires, for a recent survey shows that as many as 40 percent of incoming freshmen are considering a possibility of passing on attending colleges this year, while 28 percent of returning students haven’t decided yet if they come back to the campus.

It is true that future performances and professional communities or performing arts rely on the talent pool coming out of higher education but the fact that supply is enormous cannot be ignored. “If there’s possibly no freshman class this year, that’s not going to impact, down the line, the number of dancers available to audition,” says Susan McGreevy-Nichols, executive director of the National Dance Education Organization. The same goes for music, according to Jesse Rosen, president of the League of American Orchestras.

Therefore, with this uncertain future pending, many of the age-old methods of training musicians, actors and dancers need to be drastically reshaped.

Like other arts institutions that offer dance, drama and music degrees, administrators of New York City’s Juilliard School, have spent the summer devising new classes and techniques and setting up safety protocols for rehearsal studios and theaters. For the first weeks of the fall term, the school is offering online classes, followed by a gradual progression of on-campus classes. Trying to pursue “the making-lemonade idea” President Damian Woetzel hopes to invite some big-name artists for guest lectures via video, which would be impossible under different circumstances, because normally all the stars would be touring the world.

Similarly, the Berklee College of Music in Boston, USA, which will be completely remote this autumn, is including virtual master classes with prominent artists who are stuck at home like most everyone else due to the coronavirus restrictions causing the closure of the venues. The college will be completely remote this autumn.

What makes distance learning especially challenging for performing-arts schools is a need for technology and tools that aren’t available outside of specialized classrooms. Training students to perform might be tricky as each art has technical demands, such as safe flooring, adequate unobstructed space, and the precise timing of music and sound — impossible over laptops with different bandwidths. For example, it is impossible to leap into a partner’s arms in online dance classes. However, instead, they can focus on nuances and overlooked details, such as how to use faces or how to position hands.

Australia’s National Institute of Dramatic Art (NIDA), whose alumni include Mel Gibson and Cate Blanchett, adapted their public performance schedule to take place in the digital space across a variety of platforms and are currently gradually reintroducing the students to the campus after developing a series of protocols that enable much of our training to continue.

In addition to ‘new normal’ practices like temperature checks at entrances, the wearing of masks in public areas and air-conditioning systems switched to ‘extraction’ mode, coronavirus-safety protocols in institutions training musicians and actors includes for example, banning on-stage kissing or teaching in small “bubbles” of players, which could slowly be integrated with other groups as restrictions on social distancing ease.

Apart from day-to-day operations, schools of the performing arts also to develop solutions to immediate practical problems around recruitment and assessment.

At the Royal Central School of Speech and Drama, University of London, some applicants had not yet attended an interview or audition for autumn 2020 entry at the time of lockdown. To get around this, the institution created video instructions to for the applicants to record themselves performing their monologues and song choices. The interviews were held online and course-specific questions were answered by the staff during virtual open days.

Although the Royal Birmingham Conservatoire (RBC), UK, hopes to deliver the majority of the curriculum face to face by the second semester, it is possible for incoming students to do their first semester online. The administrators hope to “give them an in-person experience online”, holding over until later any elements of the course that required face-to-face interaction.

Assessment poses similar challenges. At RBC they decided on accepting all kinds of online offerings, instead of keeping final-year students in limbo until they were able to hold live examinations in a hall. According to the principal, Julian Lloyd Webber, some of the students had only an iPhone and no recording equipment but that didn’t stop them from creating things of “incredible standard and imagination”.  “The internet is so much a part of musicians’ future that it was very helpful for them to have to do this,” Lloyd Webber believes.

This is echoed by Jesse Rosen who is sure that digital proficiency that students will be gaining now will help them in their future careers. He claims that musicians that can create visual works for live-streaming or sharing online could be a major boon for orchestras and music ensembles that desperately want to increase their reach and audiences.

There is every reason to believe that performing arts will adapt to the current context and thrive again, and it will be today’s students, flexible and adaptive, capable of working across all platforms, with a blend of traditional skills and new techniques and understanding, that shape the future.

Last year, one of the world’s most prestigious art schools, The Royal College of Art in London, announced plans to expand its curriculum in order to transform the accepted paradigm of an art and design university, by injecting key scientific disciplines into the mix of creative courses traditionally on offer. RCA’s new ambitious five-year campaign programme, named GenerationRCA, sends a clear message that today’s designers must be trained to tackle larger interdisciplinary issues. The world is too complex and interconnected for designers to not be proficient in a variety of disciplines, from traditional craft-based skills to the science and technology that are an integral part of our daily lives.

As announced, the RCA will continue along its recent path of introducing exciting and provocative new programmes such as Environmental Architecture, a year-long masters that focuses on the city from a sustainability perspective, and Digital Direction, another year-long program that concentrates on digital storytelling in the creative economy. In the meantime, future programmes will center on nano and soft robotics, computer science and machine learning, materials science and the circular economy.

According to vice chancellor Paul Thompson, the launch of the GenerationRCA is the most significant development in its 182-year history. “Founded in response to the first Industrial Revolution, today the RCA stands as the vanguard of a new era in art and design, which promises breakthroughs in robotics, autonomous vehicles, nanotechnology, and artificial intelligence,” he said. This watershed moment reveals that some art educators finally understand that science and technology need to be part of the curriculum in order for art schools to survive the digital age.

Historically, art and technology are separately boxed by our education system and ideological gap between the two is undeniable. However, such interdisciplinary programs are not completely absent from the academic world. There has been much discussion over last decades about how STEM education needs to expand to STEAM, incorporating art and creative thinking into more right-brained areas of innovation. Aware that art can spark an excitement about learning that goes beyond the artistic to embrace science, math, technology, and engineering, prominent tech and science schools like the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, New York University and Carnegie Mellon have integrated design and arts education into their curricula. As is true in the best learning moments, a connection to art can ignite the drive for more learning across disciplines, more creativity and motivate students to continue seeking new solutions.

But so far, the science sector has been more open to welcoming art than the reverse. Although there are art and design schools that do digital arts education well, like UCLA’s Design Media Arts curriculum, which uses technology-powered art processes, very rarely a traditional school adopts science and technology as a core focus.

Despite the many possibilities that science and technology present, few art programmes embrace the new paradigm. It is noticed that art teachers are often reluctant to implement computer technology in art education, either because they don’t have the skills to use the technology or because they prefer the traditional approach and techniques. According to the 2019 State of Art Education Survey, 52.2 percent of art teachers want to learn more about teaching digital art effectively, but only 21.9 percent of art teachers feel comfortable actually teaching a digital arts curriculum. Some traditional creatives are not only unsure how to integrate technology into their teaching, but also hesitant to see coding and other technology-led processes as artistic practices.

Prof. Mick Grierson, a research leader at the newly opened Creative Computing Institute at the University of the Arts London, admits, “There are plenty of people who, for decades, have been in the art and design community but haven’t really been able to find a home for their technology-led creations and practice,” he says. “So of course, they naturally migrated to a STEM environment because it’s easier for them to talk about the materials they use and the approaches they take.” “It’s like the art school has handed the baton of creativity over to the computer scientists and programmers, who often make terrible art,” echoes digital artist Alan Warburton.

Back in 1990, Deborah Greh, St. John’s University educator, clarified that using technology as a tool to develop art works should not overshadow art principles, concepts and techniques. Too often artists are enchanted by the novelty of the tool itself, its formal and aesthetic possibilities, so they sacrifice substance in the process, neglecting the fact that art needs something to day. It doesn’t really matter, if a work of art is analog or digital – the qualities that make it meaningful remain the same, and that is something only art schools can teach.

Today, digital art still is not treated as seriously as analog art, and experts admit, universities will need to adopt an even broader shift in thinking to change that.

“The biggest problem that digital art forms have faced is that scarcity equals value, and being readily available means these works essentially are worthless,” says Grierson. This is echoed by digital artist and educator Vicki Fong, who believes that digital art is often perceived as being more about production. “People are using digital skills to speed up the process, so more art is being made at a much quicker rate, which doesn’t necessarily increase the quality,” she says. All this is the negative impact of the traditional creatives and art educators being slow to embrace computerized art and admit that it should belong to the realm of art rather than STEM environment.

Predictably, artists won’t just naturally begin incorporating technology into their work without schools teaching them how. As curator Julia Kaganskiy told Artnet, to succeed in technology-led art teaching schools should integrate both technological thinking and practice. “As software, algorithms, non-conscious cognitive agents and cybernetic thinking increasingly shape the world around us, artists need to have a strong grasp of the practical and philosophical implications of this transformation,” she says. “I’m not saying that every artist needs to learn to code, but they should probably read some media theory and software studies texts, maybe even some posthumanist philosophy.”

The process of integration of science and technology into the art school curriculum still has a long way to go. As technology infiltrates every element of our life, educators need to do more than just prep students with basic graphic software. One thing is clear: the artists and designers who embrace technology as part of their art training will no doubt be more in demand than those who do not.

According to Sumita Singha, a practicing architect and academic who has worked in India, France, Spain and the UK, strangely enough, diversity and equality are ‘taboo’ words in architectural education. Considered to be liberal and creative, way above what is considered ‘political correctness’, most architects do not see the elephant in the room. While architecture is getting better at talking about equality and diversity, it still remains a profession of middle-aged white men, and architectural education appears to be symptomatic.

Diversity in architectural education takes many forms – it can manifest itself as diversity in people, be it students, academia or practicing designers as the education’s final product, in the course or curricula, and the way it is taught.

Rich architecture is impossible without influences from diverse bodies of knowledge and experience brought on the table by representatives of various cultures, sexes and ages. For built environment to reflect the society, architecture should be a representation of the population as a whole, which means architectural education should be as inclusive as possible. Unlike some other professional courses, where the output is  standardized all over the world, such as medicine or engineering, architecture is specific to the context, with factors like aesthetics, environmental conditions, etc varying widely in different cultures. This makes the architectural course extremely demanding and complex.

At the same time, with its widely accepted culture of excessive working hours, a growing debt problem, and elitism, architecture is considered to be one of the most challenging courses. It takes one from seven to ten years to qualify as an architect. It is estimated that each architecture student spends more than 34 hours per week in studies and pull all-nighters more often than not. Material outlays, study trips and numerous associated costs make the course exuberantly expensive.

The UK is one of the leading countries to provide architectural education for both home and overseas students. Recent data shows, that although Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) students and women are well represented on architecture courses in the UK, there is a bid drop out of both female and ethnic minority students.

Research shows, that approximately 37% of architectural students are women and the percentage is increasing. This increase, however, is not reflected in the architectural profession, with the majority of them leaving the profession after qualifying. Women represent only 13% of the total amount of practicing architects. Less than 8% of women own their practices and number of female professors or Heads of Schools can be counted in one hand.

“Diversity in student body of UK is well represented in architecture,” writes Singha. “However expression of Architectural Diversity – both in the end products of graduates and buildings – is not. The first woman was admitted to the Royal Institute of British architects (RIBA) in 1898 after a hotly debated council meeting where Ethel Charles, holder of its Silver Medal (1905) won by a margin of one vote.  However, it was only in the year 2000 that RIBA adopted an Equal Opportunities policy for its staff.” Thus there has been, and still is, a lack of role models for aspiring female or BME students.

International survey reveals that among the most common reasons why women leave the profession there are many factors, such as pay gap, poor promotion prospects, discriminatory attitudes and sexist behaviour. Research from Strathclyde University suggests that sexism is something female architects face during their years of study – e.g. at ‘crits’, where students pin up their work and invited critics make points and suggestions about the work. The teaching and evaluation in architecture courses remain extremely ‘personalized’, occurring on a one-to-one basis, rather than through essays or exams. Predictably, as the tutors are mainly white older middle class men, instead of being an important source of ideas for the students, crits “turn into an arena where sexism and machoism prevail”. The solution can be found in student-centered teaching methods, such as a more extensive use of peer assessment, which implies inviting other students to critique other students.

As for BME architects in the UK, the percentage is too small to be a part of the statistics.  The BME students feel under-represented and undervalued in the profession and this is due in no small part to architectural education becoming more elitist, caused initially by high fees.

Experts believe that the fact that skilled people drop out of studies because of financial challenges and biased attitudes or leave the profession after they have qualified means serious implications for the future of architecture in general. The shrinking talent pool has a wider impact on the diversity of the profession and its output. As Harriet Harriss, dean of the Pratt Institute School of Architecture in New York, says: “The effect of reducing diversity-of-access to an architectural degree will result in the profession failing to represent the society it seeks to serve, and deplete both our relevance and credibility.”

In addition to the diversity issues as evaluated on the premise of gender or ethnicity, there is a problem of the syllabus and the teaching remaining too ‘euro-centric’. One area often lacking diversity is architectural history and theory. Kendall Nicholson, Ed.D., a licensed educator, trained architectural designer, and an avid architectural researcher, points it out that with figures like Vitruvius, Thomas Jefferson, and Le Corbusier being often the subject of the courses in question in the US, architectural history and theory is taught as traditionally European, male and modern. “And this is where we find implicit bias,” he writes. “While these names should be part of the body of knowledge, I would argue that an architect’s required awareness of history and theory should be more expansive. By excluding architecture found in non-European cultures, the curriculum, perhaps inadvertently, communicates that they are of less importance.” Additionally, these curricula often fail to recognize the contributions of female architects and designers. This is echoed by experts in the UK. “I find that architectural teaching in the UK is stuck in the past.  It is kind of strange, I look around – I see there are students from all backgrounds, not just white, and then I look at what they are studying and the language being used – it  could be from the 1940s,” says Lesley Lokko, architect, teacher, author and cultural commentator.

In other words, architecture students, no matter their origin, are taught that Western designs are more progressive than the ones offered by the vernacular traditions of their own countries. The diminishing of the cultural input of non-Western cultures is not the only result of these experiences. What is more important, after qualifying these students tend to design in the Western style. According to renowned writer, historian, and teacher, author of the concept of critical regionalism, Kenneth Frampton this leads to the fact that the architects of the so-called Third World tend to ignore comparable alternate patterns of their own culture that could with minor adaptation have been employed equally effectively in both Western and non-Western worlds.

Many architectural schools and courses are taking steps forward to diversify their curriculum. The latest edition (2014) of US’ student performance criteria issued by NAAB requires programs to ensure students have an understanding of “History and Global Culture” as well as “Cultural Diversity and Social Equity”, which is a significant evolution from the 2004 requirement that students demonstrate an understanding of “Western Traditions” and “Non-Western Traditions.” To follow these guidelines, the University of Virginia teaches courses like “World Vernacular Architecture” that feature examples from Cambodia and Morocco, while the University of Colorado Denver supplements the textbooks in architectural history with “required readings on architecture of the Middle East, East Asia, Americas and Africa.”

Architecture students of today are the architects of tomorrow. For this future not to be narrow-minded, the profession should continue to struggle with diversity issues. Without recognizing that the educational aspect of architecture seems to push the profession backwards, it would be hard to create inclusive architecture that acknowledges and respects vibrant and diverse influences of practitioners from all backgrounds.

Illustration by Sunra Thompson

Not long ago, writer and director of the Open City charity organization Phineas Harper wrote in his Twitter that the architecture profession has to face up to the fact that it has grown to be “more elitist than the most elite university in the world.” The assumption is not at all new.

‘Elitism’ in architectural schools is a recurring criticism among architecture students. According to the student survey by the UK’s Architect’s Journal, 44 per cent respondents name cost as the single biggest issue facing them and their peers, while 45 per cent believe they will never be in a position to pay back their student debt after graduation.

On top of that, Peter Lampl, founder of charity The Sutton Trust, raises concern that “not only will graduates be saddled with tens of thousands of pounds of debt, but they’re also having to shell out thousands of pounds each year for laptops, study trips and printing.” Hidden extras such as model-making, printing and study trips, as well as computers and books are becoming increasingly normalised. The research reveals that students in the UK spend around £2,000 a year on these costs.

This forces students to turn to their parents for financial help, with 81 per cent of those polled saying that their families have contributed to their education.  The extent of parental support was so significant that they acknowledge there is simply no way they could afford to study architecture without help from their parents. As one of the drop out students confesses, this not only puts greater pressure on parents, but it can also be demoralising for students wanting to be self-sustaining adults. Many students admit that the prospect of huge levels of student debt, followed by a career of modest salaries and long hours, make them start having doubts.

Predictably, students from poorer backgrounds are often left on the margin of the profession. Costs of the course, accommodation, private institutions and equipment price many talented students out of a potential career in architecture, especially when you relate that issue to the level of fees that are prevalent in the profession. According to Sumita Sunghi, this is one of the reasons cited in the 2003 CABE study of Minority Ethnic students and Architecture, as to why BME architectural students tend to drop out of studies.

The 2018 data shows that for students from BAME backgrounds, the drop-out rate is higher, at 17 per cent, than the overall percentage of drop-off among UK respondents (10%). Sonia Watson, CEO of the Stephen Lawrence Charitable Trust, which supports students from disadvantaged backgrounds into the industry, is concerned by the figures. She says: “We have always known that the huge cost of qualifying as an architect can deter young people from disadvantaged backgrounds from considering architecture as a career. The sad thing is that the rise in costs and the need for extra financial support to continue their studies seems to be hitting those from BAME backgrounds the hardest.”

Students from ethnic minority backgrounds appear to be more inclined to end their pursuit of becoming an architect early. The costs are not the only barrier to the profession. As they do not receive financial support, many BAME architecture students live at home, which means it takes them a lot longer to get into university and their sleep time is reduced.

Students raise concern that, with the cost of studying architecture ever increasing, the prospect of becoming an architect seems unattainable to those from less privileged backgrounds. It is “sending them the signal that ‘architecture is not for you’,” says Ashley Meyes, 24, Sheffield School of Architecture, Part 2 graduate, acknowledging that she wouldn’t have entertained the idea of studying architecture for 10 years if she knew what she know now. Mellissa Kirkpatrick, 23, studying on the Part 2 collaborative practice course at Sheffield University, thinks it is evident that “within architecture schools there is a move back towards it being an ‘elitist’ profession, and a sentiment that architectural education should be more of a luxury for those who can afford to go the full way to qualification, rather than essential education available to all.”

Phineas Harper draws attention to another fact he has discovered as the former deputy editor at Architecture Foundation. According to Harper, although at least 90 per cent of people in the UK receive their education from state schools, which are free to attend and funded by the government, fewer than half of architects featured in Architecture Foundation book are from state schools. This is significantly lower than the 68 per cent of new students at Cambridge University last year who went to state schools.

Harper made the comments as the UK government received intense criticism for using an algorithm intended to determine the A-level grades, which are used by universities to select new undergraduate students. The algorithm was introduced this year, as it was not possible to hold exams due to the coronavirus outbreak and the consequent lockdown. As the statistical model took into account teacher’s predictions, mock exam results and previous year’s A-Level performances at each school, pupils from state schools were disproportionately affected by the downgrade compared to those from private schools. As a result, many students missed out on university places receiving lower grades than they were predicted by their teachers.

With the existing system of teaching architecture, rewarding those who already have the most, the numbers of students abandoning their hope of becoming architects seems likely to rise.

Another form of design critique used in studio format learning is intermediate group critiques that are similar in form to final reviews or “juries”, yet are much more generative and positive, possessing the same coaching functions as individual critiques. Unlike juries, group crits are focused on advancing the work of the individual designer and benefiting the group via generalizable comments.

Whatever the format, a critique should have well-defined goals. Mitch Goldstein, Associate Design Professor at College of Art and Design, Rochester Institute of Technology, warns that it is crucial to know what the point of the crit is, for the process to be generative: “Some crits are for exploring concepts, some are for finessing details, some are not even crits at all, but are really celebrations at the end of a project.”

Goldstein is the man behind the howtocrit.com website where he shares his wisdom on how to give and accept criticism during design education. According to Goldstein, effective critiques must focus on the work, and not on the designer. “It is incredibly important to understand that the purpose and value of a critique is to improve the work — critique serves the work, not the person who made the work. A critique of your work is not a critique of your humanity, and making bad work does not make you a bad person,” he explains.

This is echoed by Gaia Scagnetti Ph.D, Assistant Professor in Communication Design at Pratt Institute, New York. She points it out, that in art and architecture, critiques often connote negative experiences, charged with destructive and personally abusive juries. In her paper “A dialogical model for studio critiques in Design Education”, she cites a New York Times report from 2006, where a graduate describes the crits in Yale University as ‘a gladiator spectator sport’. Scagnetti discloses that while there is no evidence or studies demonstrating that destructive critiques benefit learning outcomes or prepare for the working environment, motivating feedback have proved to produce a positive impact on students development. “Many scholars have addressed the need for critiques to avoid the climate of fear, defensiveness and anxiety that have been traditionally associated with critiques,” she writes, noting that the emotional experience associated with harshly negative juries can remain alive even years later for those who repressed their emotions to prove they are strong enough to endure them.

Scagnetti also expresses her concern that only few schools offer faculty training to reform their critique culture and assess their learning outcomes. Lack of opportunities to learn the strategies for educationally successful critiques often result in overwhelmingly negative or excessively positive critiques, as well as simplistic ones that present criticism without evidence. Meanwhile, critiques that focus primarily on minor details, facts or factual errors are often distracted from larger, more important issues. Neither of these are helpful.

However, a critique is not a competition but a collaborative generative activity, and a positive, formative atmosphere is essential to make it effective. Successful critiques either advance the discussed work or challenge the designer’s thoughts, leading to new insight for future work. The outcome of a successful design critique is brilliantly formulated by Goldstein. “You should not get “torn apart” in a crit. Crits should not be “brutal” — crits should be honest and useful. If you walk away feeling like garbage, or like you were beaten up, it was not a useful crit. It was a belittling one.You should walk away from getting a crit feeling empowered and excited to make the work better, not defeated and miserable from the experience.”

Critique can be challenging for young designers. According to Goldstein, the hardest thing about critique is that one has to accept critique without taking it personally, without getting heated, and without getting defensive, otherwise some helpful remarks may remain neglected.

Many design students get a wrong impression that success in a critique means that people like their work, and that success in the next critique is showing how carefully they follow the critic’s suggestions. Juliette Cezzar, Associate Professor of Communication Design at The New School’s Parsons School of Design in New York City, Former president of AIGA NY, believes that ability to take criticism is a critical skill to learn when at a design school. “It’s a gift exchange, not an oral exam,” she writes about a critique.

She explains that instead of sorting people into “good” people who like their work and “bad” people who don’t, young designers should start seeking out people who see things differently. “The person who doesn’t get you or what you made is the one that is most likely to come up with the idea or the insight that you can’t come up with on your own. People who see things differently are gold.”  She advises, that to call a critique successful, the designer should take away two or three insights, ideas, or suggestions they are excited about but couldn’t think up on their own.

Goldstein, in his turn, urges participants of a critique to sift through the opinions and evaluations they are exposed to. “Since you are going to get a lot of opinions about your work, you will have to decide what feedback you do and do not care about. Just because someone told you something, does not mean you have to act on it (this includes your instructor). Everything is up for interpretation — but also note that ignoring what everybody says probably won’t help your work improve.”

So, what role does critique play in design education? Scagnetti describes a critique as an educational process, in which students learn to become members of a community of practice, mastering self-analysis and reflection. Here, the relationships between different members of that community are negotiated, and the ethos of an individual as a designer is voiced. Critique nurtures independent thinking, helps develop social relationships and professional identities, as well as promotes the culture of egalitarian participation space, which will later equip students with the power to change the culture of the working places they will encounter after graduation.

The role of critique in modern design education definitely transcends its assessment function. Critique supports reflection and engagement among designers of all types, from graphic design and architecture to UX design, while sustainable feedback makes students less and less dependent on the teacher feedback to evaluate their progress, and more focused on self-evaluation. Over time, exposure to critique can help develop thinking skills of the designer, their capability to analyze, anticipate, and respond. All things considered, one can’t but agree with the words of Brad Hokanson, who claims that a instilling a habit of critique and an ongoing practice of generative evaluation of creative work is in fact a general goal of design education.

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.