Notes on ‘The design critique and the moral goods of studio pedagogy” (2019) Jason K. McDonald and Esther Michela, Brigham Youn University, USA
I feel uncomfortable with ‘design’ thinking which I see as being very task orientated, focused on usefulness and instrumentalised in some way… all things which I understand as making bad art – not always – but often. So straightaway I feel alienated by this article but I am interested in studio pedagogy so I’m going in…
p.2 ” The intrinsic ends of practice as defined as goods in the sense that, when achieved, people have experienced something that they recognise as good, and that allows them to define themselves as good practitioners, at least within the context of the cultural frameworks that lay claim upon them… And these goods are moral, both because practices have internal expectations of better or worse ways of accomplishing their own ends, and because pursuit of practice-specific goods is accompanied by “implications for others who lives are affected by what [that practice] bring(s) about”… I am instinctively not that comfortable about the idea of morality in the mix here, but of course it is in the mix, in every mix and the way it is contextualised here is helpful.
Summary from the article of the ‘moral goods’ of critiques:
FEEDBACK: getting feedback leading to the development of stronger work
INDEPENDENT THINKING: wrestling things out with your tutor, a space of challenging ideas together or in opposition
UNPREDICTABILITY: openness to new possibilities. Unplanned / unplannable teaching space.
IMPROVISATION: parallels to improv actors, improvising with students a conversation contingent on their input, ideas and work. This ideal of the “emergent environment” is important for the teacher interviewed, own sense of ‘self-cultivation’ – it’s a learning environment for staff too.
MECHANISM FOR INTERVENTION: a way of inputting into students’ process as it is underway as opposed to the beginning or end.
Interesting the description of th double-edged sword of critique: p.3 “a duality of potential help and potential harm”. This idea of harm is expanded on p.15 “if instructors think they know what is good for students, but their ideas are somehow limited or even inaccurate, they might overly emphasise their biased views and miss the bigger picture of what their practice might actually be able to accomplish”.
P.11 “…ONLY ONE WOMAN WAS INCLUDED AS A PARTICIPANT IN OUR STUDY. WHILE THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH THE PERCENTAGE OF WOMEN TEACHING AT THIS PARTICULAR UNIVERSITY….” Emphasise mine. Only 1 out of 6… I struggle with how I can take this article seriously at all… IN 2019… YIKES.
I wonder what differentiates feedback and critique? I would like the authors to define what they mean by critique as it isn’t contextualised enough for me.
References:
‘The design critique and the moral goods of studio pedagogy” (2019) Jason K. McDonald and Esther Michela, Brigham Youn University, USA