ARP – The Crit

‘I tell my students, when you get these jobs that you have been so brilliantly trained for, just remember that your real job is, if you are free, you need to free somebody else. If you have some power then you need to empower somebody else.’ (Morrison, 2003)

The Crit, why does it matter to me? Why does it matter to the world? What is the role and definition of an architect & educator, what is their duty of care. I see Architects as activists, agents for change ‘always changing, always evolving in dialogue with a world beyond itself’ Bell Hooks. As an educator I feel it is imperative to instill such values while questioning my own practice, challenging our understanding of the profession in social, political and ethical terms. 

Contextualising spatial practice within the current historical moment becomes an imperative, as my students and my own journey through architecture will be marked by shifting times where the profession must engage with global socio-economic and ecological imbalances e.e attainment gap in architecture studies https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/young-gifted-and-blocked-the-ajs-latest-race-and-diversity-survey

As future architects I believe we must be aware, take responsibility and learn to articulate and visualise our contribution to society and the environment, responding to these multiple challenges through critical innovation and sensibility.  A consistent teaching method for evaluation has been the Crit. Short for critique, it is a controversial (for some) method of practice, widely debated amongst academics, practitioners and students, being the subject of criticism in recent decades.

History of the Crit

Crits, now more commonly known as Design Reviews (UAL 2023, The Bartlett UCL 2023, London School of Architecture 2023) are deeply rooted in the education of architecture, arts and other creative disciplines (Anthony 1991; Webster 2005, 2006a; Marie and Grindle 2014; Newall 2018; Brandy 2018; Smith 2021). The term ‘crit’ has historical weight, master-apprenticeship relations can lead to power imbalances. 

In the early nineteenth century, the concept of the ‘jury’ or ‘critique’ system in education emerged, notably at the École des Beaux-Arts in Paris, educators or juries assessed students’ work privately, without input from apprentices (Anthony 1991, 19). This closed-door evaluation evolved over time, transitioning into an open format in the mid-twentieth century, allowing students to actively participate in reviews (Doidge, Sara, and Parnell 2000, 7). The tradition of crits and design reviews has persisted in architectural education, adapting to contextual, technological, and economic factors, such as the imperative to reduce costs for students facing high tuition fees. The landscape of design reviews underwent further transformation during the COVID-19 pandemic, necessitating the shift to online education for all formal teaching interactions, including tutorials, reviews, and juries (Grover and Wright 2022).

The design review stands out as a quintessential pedagogical approach in the education of architecture, design disciplines, and the arts. In these sessions, students frequently exhibit their drawings on walls and position their models adjacent to these drawings (Doidge, Sara, and Parnell 2000, 6–7), a process now extended to digital platforms using TV screens. Models and drawings, presented in various formats (printed or digital), serve as students’ responses to project briefs. Typically, this presentation unfolds before a panel comprising design tutors, guest ‘critics’—often other tutors or practitioners—and fellow students. In the traditional setup, tutors and guest critics sit facing the student under review, their backs to the peer audience (Smith 2011, 61). Students usually have a brief opportunity to introduce their projects, followed by verbal feedback from tutors and guest reviewers. While there may be an invitation for other students to provide comments on the presented work, this is not consistently practiced (we explore the limitations of this traditional approach below). Feedback thus emerges as a pivotal element within the design review process.

Design reviews take place at the end (final crits) or mid-point of a studio project (interim crits), however can come at any point where feedback is needed.

Design Review Criticism 

Criticism has increased over the years with emerging anecdotical reflections from previous student experiences:

At one crit during my fourth year at the [a UK institution], the student collapsed whilst his project was being energetically ridiculed by a visiting critic. The critic did not notice this event until a dreadful silence caused him to turn round some moments later. At [another UK university], girl students had sometimes burst into tears and locked themselves in the laboratories under similar circumstances… At Beaux-Arts, some students had committed suicide. My own route, as you have gathered, was to go mad.

Martin Pawley, British architect, critic and scholar, on ‘My lovely student life’ (cited in Anthony 1991, 1) 

As a result articles have been written to try to help students overcome the perceived and real challenges of design reviews, often talking about ‘survival’ tips e.g. https://www.archisoup.com/how-to-survive-an-architecture-crit How do former and current students feel about this pedagogical tool?

Design Review Value

Despite negative connotations, many students are aware of the reviews’ potential as a learning experience. Focus groups consisting of undergraduate architecture students from Liverpool John Moores University (LJMU) in England (Smith 2011, 48–49), participants mentioned some of the positive attributes of reviews, as some students said:

It [the crit] gives me the opportunity to say, ‘Why?’ and ‘How does that work?

I think that the way that we are reviewed now is good because it gives you a chance to defend your ideas.

Similarly, survey research conducted at different schools of architecture in London, Scotland and continental Europe reported that participants expressed the value of reviews, events where they can gain helpful and constructive feedback on their work and improve their presentation skills (Sara and Parnell 2011, 119–120). This research suggests that design reviews and constructive feedback in a supportive environment should have a positive impact on learning. Reviews provide an opportunity for students to 

1. develop critical and argumentative thinking,
2. see and learn from other students’ work, 
3. hear comments from guest reviewers, and in some cases, from students from other modules or studios, 
4. build potential networks across students, tutors and guest reviewers, and 
5. establish dialogue between students, tutors and guest reviewers, as a way to co-develop new understandings of ideas and co-produce knowledge.

Furthermore practitioners still view design reviews or crits as a fair reflection of the professional experience of an architect, presenting ideas to clients, stakeholders and member of the general public to demonstrate or defend their ideas.

If the practice of crits / design review both have value both for education and the profession, I must understand what are the specific issues surrounding the criticism and what can be implemented, detailing my own experiences, my peers and the current cohort.

Bibliography

1. Morrison, T. (2003) interview in O, The Oprah Magazine. Available at: https://www.oprah.com/omagazine/tonimorrison-talks-love/all (Accessed: 9 September 2019)
2. Hooks, Bell. (1994). Teaching To Transgress: Education as the Practice of Freedom. Routledge.
3. Anthony, Kathryn H. 1991. Design Juries on Trial: The Renaissance of the Design Studio. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
4. Webster, Helena. 2005. “The Architectural Review: A Study of Ritual, Acculturation and Reproduction in Architectural Education.” Arts and Humanities in Higher Education 4 (3): 265–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474022205056169.———. 2006a. “A Foucauldian Look at the Design Jury.” Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education 5 (1): 5–19. https://doi.org/10.1386/adch.5.1.5_1.———. 2006b. “Power, Freedom and Resistance: Excavating the Design Jury.” International Journal of Art and Design Education 25 (3): 286–96. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1476-8070.2006.00495.x.
5. Marie, Jenny, and Nick Grindle. 2014. “How Design Reviews Work in Architecture and Fine Art: A Comparative Study.” Charrette 1 (1): 36–48.
6. Newall, Michael. 2018. “Crits, Consensus, and Criticality.” In The Routledge Companion to Criticality in Art, Architecture, and Design, edited by Chris; Brisbin and Myra Thiessen, 14–31. London. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315623412-3.
7. Brandy, Ross. 2018. “To Fix Architecture, Fix the Design Crit.” Common Edge, May 29, 2018. https://commonedge.org/to-fix-architecture-fix-the-design-crit/?utm_medium=website&utm_source=archdaily.com.
8. Smith, Charlie. 2011. “Understanding Students’ Views of the Crit Assessment.” Journal for Education in the Built Environment 6 (1): 44–67. https://doi.org/10.11120/jebe.2011.06010044.———. (ed) 2021. Progressive Studio Pedagogy: Examples from Architecture and Allied Design Fields. London: Routledge.
9. Doidge, Charles, Rachel Sara, and Rosie Parnell. 2000. The Crit. An Architecture Student’s Handbook. Oxford: Architectural Press.
10. Grover, Robert, and Alexander Wright. 2022. “Shutting the Studio: The Impact of the Covid-19 Pandemic on Architectural Education in the United Kingdom.” International Journal of Technology and Design Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-022-09765-y.