Please Describe the Purpose and Structure of Critiques in this Course:

After each course Marwen’s teaching artists complete a reflection survey. The awesome range of uses and formats for critique are evident in the summer term responses to the prompt- Please describe the structure and purpose of critique in this course:

    como funciona el cialis

  • Individual critique with the instructors, as well as repeated exposure to each others’ works in progress. Periodically, I would have the students walk around the room to view each other’s drawings. This let the students learn from each other, comment on each others’ drawings, and stretch a bit while producing at least 20 drawings per day.
  • We had one critique that was structured like a typical critique, with each student having a few photos on the board, and we went around to each person, talking about the photos. This critique was done when there were only a few days of class left, so students could get feedback on how to improve their series, and see how other people might interpret their photos as a series. We also did some more informal peer feedback, where students would swap contact sheets or prints and give each other feedback one on one.
  • For crit, we looked at one students work at a time. I prompted with questions such as what do you think was the artist’s intention? What stands out the most to you? What is the color scheme?
  • Purpose of critique was for edits that and could be made for the script and then on the blocking of the show once then images were in the space. What is working? What would work better? Was the leading question and these questions were explored and answered at the final 5 minutes of the day. These critiques were quick and affirming.
  • We took a day before transitioning into to color, to critique the professional work of our favorite comic book artists. Their responses gave notice to drawing styles and color usage that helped inspire many of our completed pages.
  • We looked at the cialis generic online field drawings in between our field drawing workshops, as well as the rough animations we made the first day. After we started the final, students worked at separate speeds so the individual crits were in small groups or with just us [the teaching artists].
  • We critiqued the work of other artists on a daily basis in order to understand the ways in which contemporary artist utilized the themes/concepts/ideas/processes that we would be working with. The students were then asked to critique their own work individually, as well as the work of a partner, in order to better understand the unique characteristics of each artist and their work.


  • Since this was middle school, and actually half of the class were going into the seventh grade, I didn’t do a heavy critique. We had pizza and watched everyone’s animations on the last day. I asked the students if each person accomplished the goals in terms of animation cialis 20 mg price canada style and technique, and then had each students explain a process they used.
  • Group discussions
  • It was minimal – mostly just sharing and listening. The comfort of our classroom was very much compromised by a few of our students.
  • Critiques were tailored to address specific steps in making paintings.
  • Critiques were meant to give each student and the class a chance to reflect on their piece and the activity. Three questions were asked each student: What was successful? What was Challenging? What would you change and why? After the student answered the questions the class was allowed to then make comments.
  • As mentioned before, we looked at artwork every day the first week, using a loose and casual critique method (what do you notice? what stands out to you? how was this work different than yesterday’s?)
  • Yes, used the projector to view the final projects. It was done to share what each student accomplished and gave them a time to talk to everyone about the work they made.
  • We critiqued at the end of each of the two major projects, in order to allow students to speak about their work and that of their peers. Both times we hung up all of the work and let the conversation happen organically- it was a particularly participatory group, so they didn’t need very much prompting. We also had peer to peer time where students in pairs generated ideas and feedback mid-way through the second project.
  • To provide students the opportunity to present their work in order to assess the clarity of what they wanted the work to represent. And for peers to assess the meaning of the work being presented. It also allowed for the teaching artists to provide feedback to students based on individual discussions, in comparison to what they presented to their peers.


  • Already described in previous question. [Through one on ones, small peer group discussions, group discussions about students’ work, group responses to slides. The best discussion (I think) was at the end, when we set up the sculptures in a semi-exhibition and went around to each sculpture; the creator said a few things about what they were thinking and then students responded as did I.] I would add that during these discussions, I found that I was able to offer them new ways of looking at things that changed their interpretations in a helpful way (for ex. I moved the sculptures around to show them in relationship to other sculptures/contexts.)
  • The purpose of the initial critique of the abstract, unplanned work (described previously) was to help students understand that every work of art has value and that the audience brings a lot of meaning and story to each piece while looking at it. The fact that the students wrote down their thoughts made it easier for everyone to participate. The other critique was more formal in that it was focused not only on interpretation, but also on skills and process-based choices. It was also more teacher-led and was not entirely productive
  • As previously stated in this survey, [I had the students casually share their work in progress each day there was a new batch of work. I did this by having them lay out the previous day’s work and then walk around the classroom to personally take in what peers are up to. I would then jump in to point out certain qualities that really worked well and address those to the entire class. I also opened the floor for anybody who wanted to share an experience with success/frustration/ discovery/ excitement.] I opened up several very loose style critiques that allowed the students to share and absorb each other’s work in progress.
  • Informal. [we] would talk to each student about their projects and nudge them as needed – especially with regard to the constraints of 3d printing, in addition to aesthetic and use considerations.
  • I incorporated some informal critique where we shared in-progress work before making another version. There was not all that much critique, however.
  • Every day we did a collective group critique as well as individual conversations an reflections.
  • We did not do any formal critiques of final images rather focused our energy on discussing the creation of collaborative work.
  • Critiques are informal, they are to help with decision making, keeping on task, progressing in a positive manner.


Kate Adams About Kate Adams
Kate Adams is an artist, teaching artist, and mom. As a Marwen staff member she oversees Marwen’s teaching artist professional development, student assessment, and program evaluation. Through her artwork she explores concepts of home, generations and change. You can reach her at

Add your comment



© 2012 Marwen Foundation
Powered by WordPress, Endless & Sneek