I'm a relatively new architecture student, in my second undergrad studio. I enjoyed the crits from hell thread a little while back, but it got me thinking. Everything i've had so far seems more about nodding in agreement with the student; not too much challenging by the professors or fellow students, kind of just suggesting things rather than grilling students on their design process. I'm curious if this is the sign of a bad architecture school and/or faculty, or is it because it is low level stuff at this point, more about getting basic concepts across?
I would be a little worried if students aren't getting much criticism. Profs and critics don't have to be mean to be effective. There's a lot to be learned from questioning a student's approach. Maybe they're taking it easy on you for now... or maybe you'll get a guest critic out of the blue that'll tear you a new one...
Yeah, Nothing will prepare you more for the real world of back stabbing contractors and know-it-all clients. In other words it's meant to thicken your skin.
I don't think I've every had a design class, out of 20 design classes in architecture, where there wasn't someone seriously on the verge of crying. That's not always the faults of the critics, either. Much of the time it's the realization by the student (in some cases, myself) that their project was mediocre at best and that so much time, so many nights, did not produce a spectacularly successful design.
But that's how you learn, by making good or bad and reevaluating it all during the crit and after. They are a crucial ingredient to beign a good designer.
Everyone want's to hear they made the best thing in the world, but that'd be a lie. Good critics don't have to be mean, but they do have to be honest. If your critics just nod, I'd make some trips to other (reputable) schools, preferably for final crits, and see how different they are.
yeah, seeing the AADRL Phase II Juries last week made me think about this. Even though presentation quality was not all equal, the projects that evoke the most response seem to be getting at something more than projects with not much critique. All prjects received critique, but it seems the less there was, the less developed the idea was. When there is prolonged discussion on a project, it seems jurors take battle positions and show their colors a bit. The project actually evokes them taking/defending their position, which I always find interesting. It can be UNinteresting when the conversation dives into the self-indulgent, but I only can say that this happened with one juror in particular.
i noticed a distinct different in schools' approach when i returned to school after a decade to pursue my masters and then do a little teaching. in my undergraduate there was a culture of purging, tear-down, cry-inducing criticism. i was surprised in pursuing my graduate degree and then in teaching side-be-side with other instructors how much more nurturing the design studio environment is these days.
which is better? hard to say. a middle ground probably. the old hard-ass style instilled a sort of discipline, but one often (not always) based on fear and feelings of inadequacy more than on an understanding of constructive ways forward. the nurturing criticism is usually constructive, but i also saw a lot of encouragement of people for work that was simply lazy, substandard, and/or not serious. hard call.
I'm not big on humiliating someone in front of an entire class. The last studio I taught, about a year and a half ago, was a foundation studio and at that point in a student's education, I believed it was more important to instill some confidence, so yes, the reviews were probably a bit too kind. Lazy is lazy however, and I'll let a student know personally if their work is substandard. After the students had a few projects under their belt, however, the gloves come off.
If you want a more rigorous critique, ask for one.
I know of a guy in my school, who, for his third year final jury had pretty much worked his ass out for the presentation.
On the final day the Jury was pretty much ruthless with everyone, just rubbishing everyone's utopian ideas, and finally they got to our man. He explained his design for quite some time... but in the middle of it the jury just walked away .... I mean they just walked away .. no questions, no explanations .... just a bored look on their face!!..
the guy just fainted on the spot !! dont remember if he threw up .. but he fainted ... and again the jury coudn't care less !!
for the record:- .. he got through the year .. but just made it !!
Jan 29, 06 11:37 pm ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
Easygoing Critiques
I'm a relatively new architecture student, in my second undergrad studio. I enjoyed the crits from hell thread a little while back, but it got me thinking. Everything i've had so far seems more about nodding in agreement with the student; not too much challenging by the professors or fellow students, kind of just suggesting things rather than grilling students on their design process. I'm curious if this is the sign of a bad architecture school and/or faculty, or is it because it is low level stuff at this point, more about getting basic concepts across?
move to a better school
definitely not nearly enough schadenfreude
by far
I would be a little worried if students aren't getting much criticism. Profs and critics don't have to be mean to be effective. There's a lot to be learned from questioning a student's approach. Maybe they're taking it easy on you for now... or maybe you'll get a guest critic out of the blue that'll tear you a new one...
mpsyp
Anyone who leaves arch school with their original a-hole didn't get their moneys worth.
Easygoing Critiques ???!!
You mean .. there is something like that ?? wow ...
Yeah, Nothing will prepare you more for the real world of back stabbing contractors and know-it-all clients. In other words it's meant to thicken your skin.
I don't think I've every had a design class, out of 20 design classes in architecture, where there wasn't someone seriously on the verge of crying. That's not always the faults of the critics, either. Much of the time it's the realization by the student (in some cases, myself) that their project was mediocre at best and that so much time, so many nights, did not produce a spectacularly successful design.
But that's how you learn, by making good or bad and reevaluating it all during the crit and after. They are a crucial ingredient to beign a good designer.
Everyone want's to hear they made the best thing in the world, but that'd be a lie. Good critics don't have to be mean, but they do have to be honest. If your critics just nod, I'd make some trips to other (reputable) schools, preferably for final crits, and see how different they are.
i got a very nice critique friday. fortunately, it had nothing to do with architecture...
yeah, seeing the AADRL Phase II Juries last week made me think about this. Even though presentation quality was not all equal, the projects that evoke the most response seem to be getting at something more than projects with not much critique. All prjects received critique, but it seems the less there was, the less developed the idea was. When there is prolonged discussion on a project, it seems jurors take battle positions and show their colors a bit. The project actually evokes them taking/defending their position, which I always find interesting. It can be UNinteresting when the conversation dives into the self-indulgent, but I only can say that this happened with one juror in particular.
i noticed a distinct different in schools' approach when i returned to school after a decade to pursue my masters and then do a little teaching. in my undergraduate there was a culture of purging, tear-down, cry-inducing criticism. i was surprised in pursuing my graduate degree and then in teaching side-be-side with other instructors how much more nurturing the design studio environment is these days.
which is better? hard to say. a middle ground probably. the old hard-ass style instilled a sort of discipline, but one often (not always) based on fear and feelings of inadequacy more than on an understanding of constructive ways forward. the nurturing criticism is usually constructive, but i also saw a lot of encouragement of people for work that was simply lazy, substandard, and/or not serious. hard call.
I'm not big on humiliating someone in front of an entire class. The last studio I taught, about a year and a half ago, was a foundation studio and at that point in a student's education, I believed it was more important to instill some confidence, so yes, the reviews were probably a bit too kind. Lazy is lazy however, and I'll let a student know personally if their work is substandard. After the students had a few projects under their belt, however, the gloves come off.
If you want a more rigorous critique, ask for one.
I know of a guy in my school, who, for his third year final jury had pretty much worked his ass out for the presentation.
On the final day the Jury was pretty much ruthless with everyone, just rubbishing everyone's utopian ideas, and finally they got to our man. He explained his design for quite some time... but in the middle of it the jury just walked away .... I mean they just walked away .. no questions, no explanations .... just a bored look on their face!!..
the guy just fainted on the spot !! dont remember if he threw up .. but he fainted ... and again the jury coudn't care less !!
for the record:- .. he got through the year .. but just made it !!
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.