Using Critiques in the K-12 Classroom

In Nancy House's article she discusses the purpose of critique in the art classroom.  Some points which she makes that I also agree with are that a good critique should include positive reinforcement about successes in a work, as well as constructive criticism as a means for making improvements. House also points out a few benefits to both teachers and students in holding critiques:

• to evaluate work
• to assess if a projects objective was fulfilled
• practice for practices sake
• to develop critical awareness
• to learn from self and others

Through engaging in critiques in a K-12 classroom students are able to find out about ones own strengths and weaknesses as well as expanding ones visual aesthetics awareness beyond the arts.  In the article, House also mentions a few different types of approaches to art criticism:

•  Feldman Method- focuses on formal issues such as color, space and design elements
• "Ring around the tub"- personal conversation
• Hartung's Method- students are given cards with descriptive words that they place next to the best example of the word.
• Hildreth Method- "put your two cents in"  students are given pennies and cash them in, in order to discuss a work being critiqued
• Thompson Method/ PQP- Students in this method of art criticism are first praised for successes, questioned further to gain understanding of the work/process, and then other students propose what they would do if it were their work of art.
•  Written responses to works of art
• Number Works- Place numbers on each piece of art to be critiqued.  Students then choose a number from a hat.  Students share one positive statement and one bit of constructive criticism about the work they have chosen.  Then others are encouraged to comment and continue with the critique.

 Of these methods I find the "ring around the tub" to be the least appealing, and not because of it's name.  In this method, the class starts out by critiquing one students work at a time, moving down the line, and normally proves to be long, tedious and boring.  I feel that many teachers still structure their critiques like this, and that all the time spent on them could be much more beneficial. The Feldman method I find to be important to include.  Most critiques have at least some focus on formal issues.  I believe the Hartung method is most helpful in getting students to start thinking about how we look at art and how we associate words with visuals.  I also see useful qualities in the number works method in which everyone's work of art is guaranteed to have at least some response. I also like the emphasis on having at least one positive statement as well as constructive criticism that can aid the artist in producing stronger work.  The Thompson method also appeals to me because I appreciate a structure that starts with praise, or pointing out ones strengths.  After that, questions are asked in order to better understand the artist and the work, and a proposition is given as to what other students would do to strengthen a work if it were theirs.

Aesthetics as Critical Inquiry

In another article of his Tom Anderson illustrates ways of talking with students about art, but more specifically through methods of aesthetic inquiry for secondary and post secondary art education.  Instead of using critcards as suggested in the previously mentioned article, here he suggests a more open conversation on the meaning and value of art.  Students start of with their immediate interpretation and at a point the teacher then presents some more contextual information.  The teacher in this situation sets up for a debate but guides the conversation, occasionally jumping in providing additional insight that helps defend arguments.  A blackboard should be used to document points backing up each argument.  An area between the two should be used for


questions and reasons.  At a certain point this debate is cut off, and it should be noted that not in all cases is one answer better than the other, neither is there only one correct conclusion.  Even so, the teacher should direct the lesson and conversation towards the questions presented on the board. Through the presented method students learn how to use practical inquiry to form aesthetic theory.  The author suggests with this approach the conversation should end pointing out that questions answered about aesthetics in this way are answered as theory or persuasive argument.

In order to further address the question of meaning and value in art, students for the following class will bring in two objects, one which they consider an art object and the other they believe is not.  The following class has a discussion starting with the most basic question of why a particular object is art.  Point out where students suggest supporting ideas that correlate with current ideas in aesthetics, but don't immediately dismiss others.  Anderson also suggests writing assignments for students to do outside of class. Such assignments should have direct connection to the class conversations.  Some papers would include what is art, or if a debated artists work was really art.

I really like the overall idea of these open conversations structured with different questions.  As long as the classroom is a safe place where students are made to feel comfortable speaking, I believe this can structure a valuable learning experience.  This kind of back and forth dialogue can also better help students understandings of the new concepts associated with this method of learning.

Talking with Kids About Art

In his article, Tom Anderson suggests a model for art criticism that can be used with K-12 students.  It has been suggested that this approach to talking about art works well with all age levels, and even though I have not yet seen it in practice or tested it out myself, after looking at the structure I could imagine it to be so.  What the author suggests is a collection of four "critcards" that begin with asking questions about the appearance of the work, or immediate reaction, starting with the most basic or obvious features.  The second card is also a description card but deals more with the contextual qualities leading one to the meaning making part or the interpretation card.  The fourth and final card is about evaluation the work as far as ones personal experience with it, aesthetics, context, and finally if it was worth making and examining.  Below are images with the suggested format for the critcards.

Add caption