Rationale, participating in design reviews are often considered an important part of ‘becoming an architect’ (Sara and Parnell 2011; Doidge, Sara, and Parnell 2000; Webster 2006b). Testing ideas, providing and getting feedback, design reviews can be seen as a ‘ritual’ in which students are supposed to gain ‘critical design thinking’ from someone who ‘acts’ or ‘thinks’ like an architect, in this case, design tutors or guest jury, seeming like an ‘act of initiation’ or a ‘rite of passage’, as
Since the crit is the principal place in which critical design thinking is made visible and explicitly valued, it has the potential to both facilitate learning a fundamental architectural skill and act as a liminal stage in the passage to becoming an architect. Sara and Parnell (2011, 102)
Personal Reflection
How do my fellow peers, Studio tutors who have autonomy of their crit delivery and what of their students, how do they feel about this rite? First I reflect on my own experiences, ‘self reflection is central. In traditional forms of research – empirical research – researchers do research on other people. In action research, researchers do research on themselves’ McNiff, J. (2010). When I begin with emailing my peers, I share my experience:
Tutors Peer Reflection
I am overwhelmed by the response from the other tutors, from social situations it is almost a cliché for architects to tell of their ‘horror’ experiences, each trying to outdo one another, it was refreshing to read about it in the context upon effects upon the person and how it has affected or evolved their pedagogical practice. I asked the following:
1.What are your memories / experiences as a student of the ‘crit’ from your Architecture education, how inclusive were they?
Crits have always been some of the most challenging moments in the academic year. As a student, I felt I had to develop my work the most I could within the given time beforehand. This encouraged a culture of many all-nighters. There was the social challenge of public speaking. During my first year, at times, I had to present to the whole year of about 100 students. There was the unforeseeable reaction the critics might have to your presentation. This could come as praise and a feeling of reward, plane good criticism, or public shaming. I definitely felt that some students were more targeted than others by critics. There was not an awareness and acceptance of mental health considerations. Some students were also targeted based on their appearance, gender, or level of confidence.
I remember being always very nervous ahead of the crits, but once I started presenting my project the nervousness would suddenly transform into excitement and a burning passion.Despite being a scary event for us students, where we were asked to confront our fear of public speaking and exposure to international practitioners, the ‘crit’ was always quite a celebratory moment. The crit would take place in the theatre and the entire student cohort would attend the entire crit session. Students were asked to be active participant in the discussion, sharing their feedback on each project. The tutors would encourage students to share their opinion, before or after the guest’s input and feedback. The inclusive way of conducting crit was a core aspect of the university’s ethical stand and pedagogical agenda where students’ participation played a fundamental role.
my university time in Italy there was no such thing as the Crit, I have only experienced what was very new for me during my post grad MSc at GSAPP at Columbia University. I had already a MArch and work experience at the time, so perhaps it was a different experience to me than It might be for young students, but I remember it a as overall positive experience. I must say there wasn’t much students’ involvements in the discussions but the guests crits but internal from the school and invited were mostly (not always) respectful but most importantly relevant and useful to the project and the student.
Crits were not inclusive. They were led by lecturers, usually white men, with authority. The atmosphere was intimidating many times. I remember feeling scrutinised more than having positive or constructive feedback.
A mixture of excitement and trepidation, as an engaged student I was usually relatively confident that feedback wouldn’t be completely negative but I would always nominate to go early in the day when I knew critics attention and attitudes would likely be at their best. They were often held in a large open format, creating a spectacle which anybody could engage in. At times this meant witnessing some overly harsh responses to student work with critics occasionally not allowing students to respond to comments. This created a negative and humiliating atmosphere which in very rare moments caused some students to become visibly emotional. It should also be mentioned that I had friends who refused to take part in any crit as a result of experiences they had had at other schools.
Crits never felt inclusive in my student experience (2009-2015). At the Estonian Academy of Arts where I did my BA, it was clear that students are not to speak nor express their opinions about others’ projects during the crits. I remember being very dis-intersted in others’ projects and not finding it important to engage with other people presenting their projects (although I did care about my colleagues as friends and also knew their projects, but the crit didn’t feel like a time to engage with their work). At my BA course, crits were also highly patronising events where there was a strict hierarchy, which included panel members joking between themselves if a presenting student said something ‘wrong’ or ‘naive’. It didn’t feel like a respectful environment at all and in hindsight, it makes me think that this is why by the end of the 3rd year, we lost our respect towards the crit too (started turning up late, were not careful in prepping etc). At my MSc course at Delft, the crits felt respectful and were very interesting to listen to and engage with, however, they still didn’t feel like a time that I am expected to offer my opinions.
My first crit in architecture was carried out in groups. I have a positive memory of it. I was very vocal and was bringing some of the confidence that I had gained in the previous year completing my Art Foundation. Presentations in Art Foundation had no associated risk. We weren’t marked based on how we presented our work. Instead, there were about holding conversations around people’s work. My second crit in architecture was done individually. I was instantly nervous even though I was relatively confident following tutorials that the project was positively perceived by tutors. We were marked afterwards, and there would be this unpleasant waiting around at the end of the day for the marks to be pinned up. I’m not sure what exactly I can pin it down to, but I immediately became someone that lost confidence in public speaking generally. It became a high-risk affair regardless of whether I would be assessed or not. In my mind, public speaking means I will be judged.
2. Have these memories / experiences affected how you now conduct your ‘crits’ and any procedures you implement to make them inclusive to all students?
Yes. These experiences have made me not want to repeat them. Within my studios, I try to make crits become more celebratory and encourage students to be proud of what they have achieved. Opening up the floor to their peers for comments also breaks the hierarchy and makes everyone more relaxed.
These memories have certainly impacted the way I conduct ‘crits’/reviews…sitting all together in a circle, rather than in a ‘frontal’ arrangement of seats contributes to the creation of an inclusive and generous atmosphere when discussing the presenter’s project, where everyone is invited to have a say…inviting the guests and tutors to take a secondary sitting position, whilst allowing the students to sit in the front rows helps shifting the connotation of the event as a more inclusive one…asking the students to initiate the feedback session with a couple of comments makes the students feel engaged an important participant in the discussion.
My personal experience with the crits is informing the way I try to conduct my crits and the way I ask my invited guests to act during crits. Most importantly I tried to ensure that any comments made during crits are useful to the progress of the student project. Comments can be positive or negative, and at times might be tough, but they must be to the benefit of the student learning experience. And also encouraging student sto actively participate during crits can be an important way to make the experience more inclusive and less intimidating. The truth is, however, that there is barely ever enough time to have a meaningful discussion on the student project if there are, say, two or three crits in the session and the students often feel they only have time for a very quick comment rather than engaging really in the discussion.
Yes! Definitively do not want to replicate these. I think and approach them as a positive experience for students to be able to share their developments, their work but also, their questions and what they do not know or feel confused about. I aim to break the hierarchy usually asking for student feedback first, before me or any of the guests speaking. And sitting not in the front row – when possible.
Yes, I always attempt to establish a comfortable atmosphere, use a conversational tone and only invite critics who I know will take a positive position. I will often have a chat with guests beforehand to set the tone for responses and cover any particular subjects or approaches which may need to be avoided. I have also taken to inviting students from other years to be guest critics in order to give a relatability to the feedback.
100%, although not always meaningfully or successfully. We are always asking students to comment or ask questions first, we are also trying to encourage them already during normal tutorials to offer their opinions on their peers’ work, so that the crit isn’t the first time for them to express themselves. We are trying to prepare them for crits more profoundly and talk explicitly about why these events might be useful, and joyful, and what sort of preparation should go into it. But there are also patterns that I bring into organising crits that I myself was subjected to (anxiety, which to an extent is maybe OK; hierarchy (I still take the role of the host, as well as sit in the first row) etc.). I don’t think I have had a very meaningful chat with applicable conclusions nor learning session about the importance, impact, potential of the crit during my time as a teacher (evem though with colleagues we kind of do talk about it often).
It has affected how I conduct crits. I let students know that it should be conversational. I sometimes also allow students to influence how the crit runs, so for example, at the internal studio review this year, students expressed a strong preference for everyone including tutors to stand, which we did. That soon changed as soon as they got tired of standing. The point is that we allowed them to say what they were comfortable with to help take the edge of the nervousness.
3. Do you have any advice or guidance you would pass on to students who are about to experience their first ‘crit’?
Think of the ‘crit’ as a place where you are all coming together to discuss ‘a’ design. Avoid understanding the ‘crit’ as the space where ‘your’ design is being critiqued. This is not a ‘jury’, it is rather an event that supports everyone’s understanding and growth in the design practice as a spatial practitioner.
See the ‘review’ as an opportunity to ask questions and ask for guidance to support with the aspects of the project in which you feel ‘stuck’.
Prepare the oral speech ahead of the review so as to be confident and clear about the narrative through which you want to present your project.
Ask friends to support you in the display and set-up of your presentation, ask them to take notes for you and record the key points of the discussion.
Bring both digital and analogue materials, models and tests to give a holistic understanding of your project.
Bring your passionate self at the review and honour your work whilst being open to the comments arising.
Sleep the night before the ‘crit’ so as to arrive fresh and energised at the review.
Dedicate some time to breathe and focus on your objective. Use breathing techniques, pranayama, and/or ‘meditative practices’ the morning before the review, this will help you nurture a calming inner environment and a positive attitude towards the review.
After the review, ensure to celebrate the review, your work and the discussion derived from it with your friends. This is key to acknowledge the big step you have achieved.
A couple of days after the review reflect upon the feedback received and the points raised during the discussion. Take notes and plan how to best move forward implementing those comments into your work.
Sleep well the night before. Eat well in the morning of the crit. Don’t leave printing for the same day – something always goes wrong with the printer! Don’t let stage fright take the best of you – you may discover public speaking is not that bad in a supportive environment! The crit is your moment to get the most out of your tutors and peers – use it for your benefit.
My advice is: any comment, any feedback should only be to the benefit of the project, listen carefully but learn to ‘critically’ decide what’s best for your project. You don’t have to take on board every single suggestion you receive during a crit. If something is absolutely critical you will (hopefully) understand.
To enjoy it as much as possible. To sit in the place of their classmates, and think what kind of feedback would they like to receive. To think about feedback that is constructive and not destructive, and to think of the ‘crit’ not as an experience where students hear from the tutors, but where students share their work and through it establish a conversation with their tutors and fellow students.
Remember that it is an opportunity to share your work with your peers and receive constructive feedback. The presentation is a celebration of the efforts you have made and is a moment for you to reflect upon your portfolio as a whole, it is an achievement which will be recognised by your tutor and your peers. Treat your work and that of others with respect, it represents a significant undertaking, and an expression of one’s personality so listen respectfully to presentations and engage in conversation, as this will build better projects, critical voices and personal confidence.
The crit is about you and your work, and should never be about the critics. If the critics’ comments remain unclear, you have every right to ask for clarification, or just recap what was said and how you understand it to confirm this is what was meant. It is you who should be walking away from a crit with new useful insights on your project. Be open to all sorts of comments and ideas, don’t feel like you need to defend everything you’ve done – try to engage in the crit as a conversation, and engage with an open mind. Most people, critics are very interested in your work and how to help it along and make it even better – help them do it by preparing well, talking calmly and putting effort into editing and structuring your presentation.
Don’t overthink it and see it as an opportunity to have a conversation about your ideas. See it as an opportunity to get other perspectives to yours that can help develop your own thinking. And if you have a preference for how the space can be organised to make the experience comfortable, share it with your tutor and peers. They might also be thinking the same.
Students – Pre first Crit / Review
This year due to personal circumstances I am teaching in Stage 1, this has given me the opportunity to meet and speak with students to understand what is their perception and feelings about the crit before they encounter process.
Students frequently approach design reviews after enduring extended periods of intense work, including days or even weeks of long working sessions or ‘all-nighters.’ This heightened workload can contribute to a range of emotional and psychological states among students, including feelings of intimidation, fear, defensiveness, anxiety, fatigue, and stress. Recent pedagogical studies, such as those conducted by Dannels and Martin (2008), Marie and Grindle (2014), and Flynn et al. (2019), have documented these prevalent emotional and mental states experienced by students during design review sessions.
Thoughts and impressions from the cohort prior to their first Review:
The feedback from the students demonstrated that the stigma surrounding the crit remains as seen by the comments and links to satirical videos of trial like reviews. There is a continued perpetuation of the myths / stress surrounding crits which are ultimately damaging to students mental health. It seems that we must demystify the crit, perhaps by implementing dry runs are allowing students to witness crits in action.
Students – Post first Crit / Review
Following the first reviews we (media tutor and I) sat with the students for a post review conversation with the studio, at their request. They were interested in hearing our thoughts. We sat informally (tea, coffee, snacks etc.) and invited questions and comments about the day. Many of the students commented that the perception they held prior to the reviews did not materialise. They mentioned how the reviews were not as ‘scary’ of ‘judgmental’ as they imagined, the prior ‘pins ups’ were helpful to managing expectations. We asked how we felt it could be changed e.g. students giving their opinions first or ”tutors not speaking until the end? The students responded by requesting ”more time for tutor feedback’, the majority of their questions related to types and forms of feedback they receive, wanting to know ‘how it is formulated’ and what is ‘essential’. As a result I will add this element to the design charrette workshop.
Students – How do other students feel about the crit process through the rest of UAL?
‘Crit is for critique not criticism, feedback should be productive and informative’ ‘lack of consistency of how crits are run across UAL.. why are students still not told why we are doing them and how are we doing them?’ ‘how do we critique work how do we critique work about someone’s identity without attacking their identity about without attacking who they are ….this is why a lot of students are avoiding crits’.- Minna Ellis (CSM Officer, 2022-24)
‘rebranding of the crit, at goldsmiths is called a ‘conviena’, three independent crit collectives have been created after reaction of bad crits’ ‘ I think that has changed the way that teaching takes place all of a sudden there are Stakes involved right money Financial risks you walk in the door and you owe people money already so like you’ve got to come into these crits and kind of get something out of them it creates this transactional model of Education where like you want something’ – Sophia Nasif (LCC Officer, 2022-24)
whether a crit can ever be a safe space and also whether it should be because I think sometimes like critique is not always a pleasant experience I think sometimes growth is painful and like you’re hearing information that you might not agree with but that is ultimately even if you reject the critique that comes your way and your like you discard it important that you figure out how you feel by receiving information that you disagree with….maximum equality if you have maximum Freedom with no equality that’s the jungle if you have maximum equality with no Freedom that’s prison what you need is like both at the same time’ – Zarina Muhammad (The White Pube)
“If you have ever encountered art school, you have heard of crits. ‘Crits,’ the shortened version of critiques, are famed for being difficult, intimidating, gruelling, and “character-building” by some. And yet crits are universally recognised as an integral part of becoming a successful artist.”
What a ‘good crit’ should look like, how crits should be conducted, and how to make them more inclusive for students from minority or marginalised backgrounds. Indeed, Blair writes, “with the exception of architecture, there has, within design disciplines, been minimal research into the role and function of the crit in student learning.” Crits therefore have thrived in art schools through a combination of ‘always having been done’ and as a word-of-mouth inheritance of them as a teaching method, without a great deal of academic scrutiny as to their role.
‘The design sector has drifted apart from the limited skills taught by the design schools. Having to deal with professionals that come from clearly outdated school benches, the industry started to take the matter into action, to make available the designer that is needed for today’s market’
This lack of research has meant that assessment in architecture and creative arts schools has traditionally adopted a ‘one size fits all’ approach by using the ‘crit’, where students pin up their work, make a presentation and receive verbal feedback in front of peers and academic staff. In addition to increasing stress and inhibiting learning, which may impact more depending on gender and ethnicity, the adversarial structure of the ‘crit’ reinforces power imbalances and thereby ultimately contributes to the reproduction of dominant cultural paradigms.
Bibliography
- Sara, Rachel, and Rosie Parnell. 2011. “Fear and Learning in the Architectural Crit.” Field Journal 5 (1): 101–25. http://www.field-journal.org/uploads/file/2013 Volume 5/Field 5(1) Sara & Parnell.pdf.
- McNiff, J. (2010). Action Research for Professional Development. London: Sage Publications. https://www.jeanmcniff.com/userfiles/file/Publications/AR%20Booklet.doc
- Dannels, Deanna P., and Kelly Norris Martin. 2008. “Critiquing Critiques: A Genre Analysis of Feedback across Novice to Expert Design Studios.” Journal of Business and Technical Communication 22 (2): 135–59. https://doi.org/10.1177/1050651907311923.
- Marie, Jenny, and Nick Grindle. 2014. “How Design Reviews Work in Architecture and Fine Art: A Comparative Study.” Charrette 1 (1): 36–48.
- Flynn, Patrick, Miriam Dunn, Maureen O’Connor, and Mark Price. 2019. “Rethinking the Crit: A New Pedagogy in Architectural Education.” In ACSA/EAAE Teachers Conference Proceeding, 25–28. https://doi.org/10.35483/acsa.teach.2019.5.
- Blair, Bernadette (2006) Perception, Interpretation, Impact – An examination of the learning value of formative feedback to students through the design studio critique
- Flynn, P., O’Connor, M., Price, M., & Dunn, M. (2022). Rethinking the Crit: New Pedagogies in Design Education. Routledge.