I feel like critiques can be used a variety of different ways and for different age groups, but I think that since I am faced with the dreadful word of critique almost daily that my research was based more on an adult level. I first thought to myself that I have been taking art classes throughout my entire educational career and still have not been taught how to critique, what a critique is, or the most effective ways to approach it in each scenario. Is this normal? Probably not. So the first topic that I researched was the different types of critiques there were. So I stumbled onto an article called, “Methods of Criticism and Response to Criticism”, written by Wayne Attoe. Even though the article is critiquing architecture I thought, “A critique, is a critique, is a critique”. In the article the author brings to my attention that the first critique happens with your self when producing art. It first happens when on one shoulder the angel goes, “HEY! I’ve got a great idea!”. Then the devil taps your other shoulder and says, “No you don’t”. I then got to thinking that critiques happen all of the time, especially with your self. These are the most important critiques out of all of them. If you don’t approve of your idea to get the ball rolling then nothing will come of that very first idea.
The author then talks more about the role of the critic. Who is this critic? EVERYONE is this critic! Even when carrying a piece of artwork home on the train, everyone wants to stop and make comments. EVERYONE wants to tell me how they have taken an art class or have picked up a crayon before. Even just seeing this piece of art they think that they are entitled to right then and there critique what I have been spending the past week on. In the article that I read, the author explains several more different types of critics and critiques, one of them is an interpretive criticism. This is one that is personal, and the critic acts as an interpreter for the artist. Within this interpretive criticism the critic can then either try to change the audiences’ mind and sway their opinion of the piece or provide a completely new perspective on the piece. In another article that I read dealing with criticism by Donald Brook (“Art Criticism: Private Experiences and Public Objects”), he would say that this is experience driven. That based on the critic’s experiences relates to how highly they will think of this piece. If they have seen this concept before, or can relate it to a work of art that they saw in a gallery last week, or even an experience that they had with their Uncle Fred at a family reunion picnic. This is how they try to sway one’s belief based on a personal experience that they have encountered.
Another type of critique that Wayne Attoe mentions in his article is descriptive critique. This kind of critique doesn’t try to sway the audiences’ point of view, but it merely just describes what is in front of them. This descriptive critique can then be broken down into three separate types of critiques. These are: depictive, biographical, and contextual. This is when the critic can describe what they see. What is the piece made out of? What other artists’ work is this piece similar to? And In this environment what is it saying?
I feel like a critic could dance around all day about what they are seeing, or what they think they are seeing, however in a classroom this becomes monotonous and flat out boring. There should be some kind of objective for the critiques. The critique should also be about if they were able to complete their original objective and what that objective was. In the classroom, or even on the street, the critique shouldn’t be the end of the piece. The critique should be the beginning, or even on a continuum while making the piece. I feel like I have plenty more to say, but I would like to know what your thoughts are on what a critique should involve in an adult classroom setting???
