The Liberatory Critique

The academy, or high-art institution, exists to transmit the values and principles of the dominant cultural paradigm to its students by way of teachers who support this agenda. The academy-trained artist is trained in a manner reflecting this closed set of ideals, the form and function of “legitimate” art being limited — as prescribed by the teacher. In contrast, the student interested in becoming a community artist and cultural worker must seek out a set of skills, knowledge and competencies that transcend the “normal” physical, intellectual and spiritual confines of today’s academy.

The field of community arts supports the fundamental tenet that a community defines its own creative prerogatives. The community artist is receptive to and nurtures “multiple truths,” unique concepts of beauty, and standards of excellence that may be very different from those normally advocated by the academy. Unfortunately, the academy-trained artist too often relies, intentionally or not, on the ideas of the elite or ruling class. The student’s proclaimed intent to empower the “other” is therefore betrayed by his/her reliance on a system of knowledge — and methods of teaching — that by their existence produce “otherness.”

The cornerstone of the academy-based educational experience is the “critique,” a process of assessment and ritual of indoctrination that at best is subjective — the antithesis of the liberatory educational model practiced by professional cultural workers. Within this context, the “expert” (i.e., teacher) privileges a certain paradigm — in recent times the Western aesthetic and its core ideological principles and practices. Unacknowledged is the existence of alternative ideas — or the threat they may pose to the legitimacy of the status quo. The student is consequently left with two ways of responding to this quandary — join the club and defer to the “powers that be” — or work in perpetual isolation as an outsider.

Both alternatives have a profound affect on the artist’s relationship to community.

The critique is the key, recognized method of evaluation within the visual arts, measuring the quality of the students’ efforts (or more specifically their artwork) against the standards of the teacher, program, institution and field. Considering their importance, it is interesting to note that critiques often lack a structured, logical, goal-oriented process that is embedded in the overall design of the course.

The Traditional Critique

Artworks are displayed on a white classroom wall, usually in no particular order. Students sit facing the artwork and teacher. Only faculty members, students and guest artists may participate — but no “outsiders” are allowed. The objectives of the course are outlined in some cursory manner in the syllabus. The core philosophical tenets of the dominant Western aesthetic (and the course goals supporting these tenets) are neither displayed nor otherwise acknowledged. The criterion or basis for this assessment (critique) process is not documented or explained, although it is presumed by the teacher to be commonly understood and unimpeachable. Additionally, the values of the teacher are not identified, explained, contextualized, discussed or debated.

The maker of the artwork being critiqued is sometimes asked to share her/his intentions with the class. Regardless, the ideas and values of the student are considered subordinate to those of the teacher, department and institution. If the student’s agenda contradicts the teacher’s (unarticulated) agenda, it will most often be openly discredited or ignored. Also, since the art object is always the subject of a “Western” critique — the “process of making” holds no real value other than as a means to an end. Therefore, dialectic and/or collaborative art and the consequential production of new ideas via this collective “making” process are deemed irrelevant.

Critiques are usually schedule to occur at regular intervals throughout a semester, usually when artwork is considered “final.” Sometimes artwork is reviewed “in progress” — these discussions referencing some future, final object. Critiques may last as little as five minutes or one hour per person, but very rarely longer. Mid-semester and end-of-semester group critiques (15-20 students total) usually last one or two exhausting days.

Students in the class are invited to critique the work of their peers. They do so by expressing their own individual opinions, thoughts, feelings and ideas about the artwork displayed. Most often student responses fall within the prescribed limits modeled by the teacher during previous discussions. That said, little consideration is given to the kind and quality of the students’ abilities as critical thinkers. Training designed to enhance these transcendent, consciousness-raising skills is not provided. Students are therefore discouraged from thinking critically about, advocating for, relating to or otherwise building an inclusive, respectful, mutually supportive community of divergent ideas.

Within the above “everyone has an opinion” scenario, the teacher appears to cede power to the students — allowing a free-for-all of ideas that, like the instructor’s, are never interrogated. This dynamic often leads to undisciplined, contentious engagement — or frustrated silence. Students mirror, shadow, deflect, defer and ultimately “play the game” of conformity. With no real alternative, students concede…inevitably looking to the teacher to take control and restore order.

Short of outright rebellion, the voice of the individual artist is denied. Students are judged by their ability to emulate established norms and found wanting if they do not. Throughout the critique process, no one, even the artist being critiqued is held accountable for his/her opinions — accountability requiring a clearly stated set of goals. Consequently, a sense of shared responsibility to a community of ideals is denied — except when students form a “coalition of silence” out of fear and loathing for the process.

For community artists wishing to engage the world in healthy, mutually beneficial ways, the “old way” of critiquing must be replaced with a critical pedagogy that nurtures the artist’s unique voice in relationship to a broadly inclusive community of peoples, values, ideas and opinions. To do otherwise is to instill resentment and anger by community towards the academy-trained community artist, who by his/her ignorance, supports ideas that are contrary to the needs and interests of the community and, consequently, reinforce a history of oppression.

The following critique or assessment format represents one way of engaging visual art students and community in a liberatory dialogue. It was developed at the undergraduate level in collaboration with Christopher Shipley, John Peacock, Bob Merrill and other Literature and Culture Faculty, Maryland Institute College of Art (MICA). This format and process has now been applied and further developed as part of MICA’s M.A. in Community Arts Program.

Steps to the Liberatory Critique

There are eight interlocking steps to this investigation.

Step #1

Critique participants silently familiarize themselves with the artwork presented and mentally record their own personal reactions for future reference and discussion. It is important that critique participants acknowledge their own first reaction without interpretation or judgment. These “unconscious” responses serve each participant as an important “point of meditation,” allowing for real self-critical analysis.

Instructor: Participants in this liberatory format ideally include not only faculty, students and guest artists — but members of a wide variety of communities, along with members of the community the artist is making artwork about and/or with. By doing so, the notion of the “expert” is now expanded, the former voiceless “subject” imbued with the power to construct meaning and significance of both the artmaking process and resulting art object(s).

Step #2

Critique participants (except the artist whose artwork is being critiqued) each describe what they see when viewing the piece of artwork in question. Individually and as a group, audience responders take inventory of each and every component (regardless of perceived significance) comprising the sum total of the artwork.

“I see...”

This step includes a listing of items, objects or qualities existing in the artwork, including formal elements (color, texture, line), relational dynamics, historical precedents, symbols, signs, etc.

The first step to becoming an accomplished critical thinker is to see the world’s particulars with an unbiased eye. At the very least, we must learn to recognize our biased view of the world — including that which we acknowledge (see) and that to which we are oblivious (do not see).

Instructor: For this “new seeing” to occur and related thinking skills to be developed, we must borrow the eyes of others. In fact, a wide variety of people, experiences, expertise and cultural perspectives in the liberatory critique process. The simple act of listing what we literally see and acknowledging what we do not see when looking at a piece of artwork is life changing. Seeing along side of and through the eyes of others as part of a respectful, inclusive “community of equals” is to develop a new relationship to the world.

The process above is relational (as opposed to the object-centric nature of the traditional critique process), therefore a large investment of time is required. Relationship building is a lengthy, ongoing process requiring mutual respect — every participant possessing a different relationship to time, mode of communication, learning style, etc. Therefore, the liberatory process requires the academy to rethink institutional structures as it relates to time, course schedules, credit hours and teacher contracts.

Student Observations (Compiled): The student whose work is being critiqued is a black male from Jamaica, approximately 40 years old. The work is hung with clear pushpins in each corner of the piece. The center of the artwork is just below the artist’s eye level or five feet from the floor. The lighting in the hallway gallery space is a soft white with no glare. Students and faculty sit and stand between three and ten feet away from the art. No community members are present or any other nonacademy participants.

The work is square in shape, roughly three by three feet, flat against the wall. There is no frame or matting. The support system is unstretched canvas, with paper and other opaque overlays. An orange “Baltimore Crab” with the line quality of a talented youth or inexperienced adult adorns an eight-by-ten-inch subsection of the piece. Another section above and to the left represents a Baltimore street scene of muted brownstones with shadowy nondescript figures in various poses. Toward the bottom left edge, wire segments, two to three inches long stretch across most of the width of the canvas in a undulating row. Each of 30-35 wire lengths pierces the canvas as would a sewing or hypodermic needle, except there is no syringe or holes for thread. Thick blood red paint stains the surrounding areas.

The various parts of this painting/drawing/collage are linked by a color, line, composition and mark making “logic.” None of these distinct parts dominate. A real sense of equanimity persists, even as these sections vie for quiet attention. The overall color scheme includes reds, hot pinks and oranges muted with varying degrees of whites and grays. Black is used as a structural component, present throughout but serving more as a physical counterpoint to the ethereal qualities of this art.

The artwork reflects certain aspects of traditional abstraction. It possesses the added qualities of a postmodern collage; images rendered by the hands of different artists but, as choreographed, ultimately bowing to contemporary, high-art principles. Additionally, semi-realistically rendered persons and objects — each subordinate to the aesthetic qualities of the piece — populate the piece.

There is a gash, 12 inches long, running top to bottom in the left half quadrant of the painting. This jagged cut puckers along its edges, engorged with a thick red residue, embedded with stones, glass and other seemingly foreign objects, surrounded by a stretched surface of pinkish “skin.”

It takes approximately 30 minutes for audience participants to list most aspects of the painting before tiring of this exercise. Left to their own devices, many participants prefer to stop this listing process after two or three minutes with only a small fraction of the available information “lifted up” and acknowledged. Some participants attempt to skip immediately to a “meaning making” and/or “judgment making” process. Oddly enough, most everyone is surprised and pleased by the comprehensiveness of the list that is ultimately compiled.

Instructor: It is easy to see that if persons not of the academy had participated in this critique, outcomes would have been very different. As ideas born of the academy, abstraction and postmodernism are learned ways of seeing — ideas not necessarily reflecting, for example, the lived experiences of community members or their perspectives on the people, places and "world views" depicted in the artwork. What kinds of things unmentioned previously would have been noted? No doubt another level of seeing, a different dimension of sorts, would have revealed itself.

Step #3

Critique participants (except the artist) each describe what they feel when viewing the same piece of artwork.

“I feel...”

These “felt” reactions are noted without justification or judgment. Whether emotional or intellectual, this data allows the artist being critiqued to gauge the impact of her/his work; serves as the basis for future interactions between the artist and critique participants; and provides fertile ground for all involved to acquire a better understanding of their own values, biases, personal history and social, cultural, racial and other influences.

Instructor: Locating one’s feelings in relationship to a piece of artwork is an act of both intimacy and vulnerability — not necessarily related to the artwork itself — but to fellow respondents participating in the critique. The artwork viewed stimulates a response (powerful, weak, good, bad, happy, angry, etc.) in each member of the audience — every stroke, color, line or thing depicted provoking a lifetime of emotional, physical and intellectual “memories.”

Student Observations: A female student questions the artist about the depicted gash or wound, aiming to address its yet unexplored symbolism and perceived negative connotations. Other students express a sense of confusion, uneasiness and/or sadness by certain elements and perceived contradictions. Yet, most respondents are “pleased” by the work’s aesthetic qualities. Most express real respect for the artist and his art.

Student #1:“The piece overall was one of sadness, loneliness, and desolation for me. I felt trapped, disgusted by the insinuation of needles. I liked the texture created by different surfaces that were adhered together.”

Student #2:“I felt that it was disturbing and upsetting based upon the large wound/slit with broken glass in it and the translucent cheesecloth covering…the community in which the artist worked.”

Step #4

Critique participants (except the artist) try their best to articulate why they feel a certain way about the piece of artwork being addressed.

I have a personal history and unique belief system (including my own values, biases and opinions) which lead me to react in a certain way to what the artist has presented…

Within the academy, the practiced mantra of “anything goes” encourages multiple interpretations by an audience. In fact, the traditional critique justifies myriad uninvestigated “truths” — truth being the sole purview of the object, a “thing” existing outside the parameters of a public “living” discourse. The community artist must, therefore, acquire the skills, knowledge and competencies enabling each to recognize, celebrate and act on truths born from a communion between (and about) the artist and community.

Instructor: There are infinite available responses to a piece of artwork. That said, there are powerful cultural and political pressures forcing the nearly inevitable acquiescence of the viewer to one dominant viewpoint. It must be remembered that the oppressor requires the oppressed to remain blind to their his/her ideas, opinions and feelings— and the importance thereof. The coming together of many peoples and ideas, this community of experts, negates the authoritarian teacher, purveyor of “the right way.”

Student #3: I remember thinking that the crab looked out of place, and thinking it was an ironic placement when paired with the violent images in the other two drawings... I was saddened that the side of Baltimore that the crab represents is probably not what the artist(s) of the other two pictures gets to experience.

Instructor: The question of irony and ironic placement depends upon what “is.” What is believable in modern times, given the contradictions of life pitted against the notion of truth? Are communities in stress defined by unknowable or nonexistent truths? How might community residents (as opposed to academy-based students and faculty) respond to this question? Are the privileged in sole possession of authentic truth? How do we bridge the gulf of discordance that irony seemingly commands? These questions are extremely important to the community artist. The time required to fully address these matters is extensive, well beyond the normal parameters of the traditional critique. In fact, they encompass a whole new curriculum of possibilities.

Student #5: The images were drawings of Baltimore community members and represent things of certain pride. For example, the crab drawing can be seen as celebratory and/or the naiveté of what some people see or don't see. It is a sad piece and the three-dimensional wound represents abuse, violation, etc.

Instructor: This respondent picks up on the contradictory or dual aspects of community as represented in this piece. The juxtaposition of pride and sadness, celebration and naiveté leads to important, lengthy discussions about the dominant culture and its definition of and control over certain communities.

Student #6: “I remember someone wondering about the artist including two pieces that his students created. My curiosity was about how he juxtaposed them and how they took on new meaning when put inside his work, especially wondering how the person who created the crab, which I read as a source of pride, felt when they saw the final piece, with their piece of “positive” artwork amongst a more negative view of Baltimore. And how they might feel about the artist as an outsider, making these comments about their community after only having lived here for a little bit.”

Instructor: Without the active participation of community members in the critique — and all other assessment/evaluation methodologies — it is impossible to gauge the response of the community or indeed respect the community’s right to define its own standards and desired outcomes. That said, the conversation above illustrates academia’s predilection to hold closed conversations about “others” and what they may think, feel, believe, etc. The doors to and from academia and the community must swing both ways and include the voice and viewpoints of the world as a whole.

Student #7: I couldn't help but think it (the gash) was a vaginal representation and the broken pieces in it were piercings. I also took the wound as representing the vaginal birthing canal of Baltimore, having been ripped and torn and left with broken shards of the careless. It was a difficult but beautiful piece for me to look at.

Instructor: This comment points to a more encompassing investigation of subjugation and abuse. The study of oppression not only includes racism — but sexism, ableism, hetrosexism, adultism and more. What was seemingly lost on male audience members was a very important topic for discussion by female members — male dominance and its historically destructive tendencies.

Step #5

The artist speaks for the first time and responds to the critique.

“I heard ____________ and ____________ regarding my work during the critique.”
“I feel ____________ and ____________ about the critique of my work.”

This step acknowledges the complex nature of interpersonal communication, a “call and response” process lifting up unique perspectives and new understandings. Together, the artist and audience close the circle on a newly formed community that is based on authentic investment, understanding and reciprocity.

Instructor: The academy-based artist assumes, having adhered to the Western Aesthetic, that his/her artwork will be seamlessly understood and celebrated. The fact that the artist is comfortable with multiple interpretations by the audience is disingenuous — the audience being packed with like-minded, like-trained practitioners all beholden to the same set of principles and practices. Yes, responses may vary, within the limited realm of the Western Aesthetic. But they are in reality a variation on the same theme. A real diversity of opinions is nowhere to be found. Consequently the artist is not challenged to transcend or transmit anything other than the “norm.”

The academy-trained artist therefore acquires a deaf ear to the voice of others and his/her own underlying belief system and motivations (or lack thereof) for engaging a diverse world of peoples and ideas. The self-defined “apolitical” artist is never not political; in fact he/she is entrenched in unconsciously oppressive, politically charged practices.

Artist Being Critiqued: “I was happy that my fellow students were commenting because it meant that I had successfully created an interactive piece of art, a piece where someone could view and the work elicit a response. I am aware that I may not always agree with these responses, but I understand that once art is created and placed in the public domain, it is open to any kind of interpretation.”

Instructor: Interactive artmaking supports the practice of community dialogue, the backbone of community arts practice. This communion or intimate relationship between community members points to something larger than the sum of its parts; promotes the importance of process and ongoing authentic engagement; and models the kind of respect required of a inclusive community.

Step #6

The artist attempts to explain his/her intentions regarding the work critiqued.

“To the best of my knowledge, I am attempting to...”

Within the academy, the student is rarely encouraged, willing or able to interrogate his/her own motivations for making art and related life experiences, ideas or values. The traditional critique rarely measures or evaluates the artistic output of the student against the student’s own self-defined standards or beyond the ill-defined aesthetic considerations of the academy.

Instructor: Deeply resonate, self-critical analysis must be nurtured over time and applied to all aspects of the student’s creative output and work in community if she/he is to be a successful community artist. Accountability to something beyond oneself requires self-knowledge and a deep understanding of and relationship to…others. It takes a community to educate an artist.

Artist Being Critiqued: I learned that there are layers of interpretation and each layer has its individual character...I take responsibility for any interpretation but…my intent is also very important. Therefore, the viewer bears some responsibility for their interpretation.

Instructor: What is our relationship to each other as humans? What is the artist’s relationship to her/his audience, and the audience to the artist? What is the community’s relationship to its members? These relational dynamics represent a new set of challenges for the academy-trained artist. No less challenging is the academy’s unmet challenge to conduct research and publish findings about the community arts field — the kind of research usually associated with the university.

Step #7

Critique participants react to the artist’s declared intentions and give suggestions (if any) on how to “improve” the artwork.

“If your intention was to do ____________, I think your artwork would be enhanced by doing ___________ and ___________ ...”

The audience is now positioned to provide the artist with legitimate suggestions for enhancement that are based on in-depth analysis of how the artist wishes to dialogue with the world.

Instructor: This communion benefits not only the individual but also the interchange between individuals and the community as a whole. The traditional practice of artmaking is turned inside out and upside down, the individual partnering with others within an intimate relationship of equals.

Student #8: I noted during the critique that I saw a vagina stuffed with broken glass. At the time I contextualized this as a "feminist" reading of the work, but I think everyone should be a feminist — so perhaps it was more a humanist reading. I recalled a song lyric by a feminist musician “…my cunt is built like a wound that won’t heal…” (Ani DiFranco, “Out of Habit”) that was very influential to me in my middle- and early high-school years.

I remember asking the artist if he was accountable to my reading of it and hearing… “I suppose you could read it that way but that was not my intent to depict or reference such thing.”

Artist Being Critiqued: For this particular piece I won’t change anything based on the critique. But there are situations where I will make changes to a piece of work because of an observation someone may make. If I decide the observation is important to an interpretation relating to my intent, I will definitely make that change. Once the work is complete, then any stated observation becomes an interpretation.

Instructor: We learn from each other and in doing so refine our understanding of and relationship to the world. Truth is born from this coming together — truth no longer an abstraction or the possession of the privileged and powerful. In this case, the artist and audience agree to understand each other with honor and respect.

Step #8

Critique participants conjecture on how the proposed changes might alter the impact of the “modified” artwork.

“If certain modifications were made, I believe the ‘voice’ of the artwork (and artist) would be changed in the following ways...”

This envisioning process stretches the intellectual capacity of the artist and participants who together seek unique solutions to new questions and problems. The artist and his audience practice an ideation process grounded not in isolation but in relationship to the “we.”

Instructor: Having unearthed the historical, intellectual and philosophical groundings of the artist and his/her audience of respondents, the artist is now prepared to recraft her/his artwork to better address a his/her intentions as they relate to “us.” This final step represents the physical manifestation of knowledge and truth — in the form of art.

Conclusion

A traditional academy-based education is limited in most cases to the study of the self in relationship to the…self. Today’s academy encourages the artist to look inward for creative inspiration, marginally aware of the external world — accountable only to his/her own muse. The traditional academy-based critique supports this often narcissistic, self-congratulatory nihilism.

Within the world of the community arts, truth exists in relationship to the other. There is meaning — by way of accountability to a people, place and/or community.

I advocate for a collective rethinking of how the academy orients its students to the power and relevance of community. The reward is a universe of creative possibilities.

This essay is part of the Community Arts Convening & Research Project, 2009-10, funded by a Nathan Cummings Foundation grant to the Maryland Institute College of Art.  The essay was reviewed and selected by the project's Editorial Board: Stephani Woodson, Arizona State University; Amalia Mesa-Bains, California State University Monterey Bay; Paul Teruel, Columbia College Chicago; Marina Gutierrez, Cooper Union; Jan Cohen-Cruz, Imagining America; Ken Krafchek, Maryland Institute College of Art; Lori Hager, University of Oregon; and Sonia BasSheva Mañjon, Wesleyan University.

Ken Krafchek has been a member of the MICA faculty since 1985 and received the Trustee Fellowship for Excellence in Teaching in 1998. Since 1987, he has placed college students in a variety of afterschool and community-based arts programs serving children and adults from the local Baltimore community. As director of MICA's Office of Community Arts Partnerships (CAP), he supervised its creation in 1998 and led the ongoing development of new expanded programming. He supervised the creation and design of MICA's new M.A. in Community Arts (MACA) and serves as its first graduate director. Administered by MICA’s nationally recognized Center for Art Education, MACA provides visual artists with a unique set of learning experiences grounded in art-based youth and community development practice and theory.

Original CAN/API publication: December 2009