Talking to Eric Weeks, Associate Professor and Chair of Photography & Video at PCA&D, you get the sense of someone whose ideas about art and teaching have evolved slowly, but surely, over time. He’s become reflective, with a growing list of pedagogical guidelines that he tries not to violate: rather than beginning critique with a request/suggestion disguised as an idea (“I’d like to see…”), he wants to invite the student to consider other possibilities, nothing more, nothing less. Throughout a conversation on the role of critique in art education, emphasizing both the giving (a subject of next week’s post) as much as (if not more than) the receiving of critique.
Weeks acknowledges that his own experiences as an art student have informed his approach to critique, with experience of how vulnerable critique can be for the artist. Putting work out there is vulnerable. At the same time, speaking up is vulnerable, too. For both the giver and the receiver of a critique, a sense of psychological safety and a sense of community are key. Weeks creates a sense of community through both the space (encouraging students to invite friends from other majors into the photo lab/studio) and through interactions like all-department critiques.
Recognizing the power dynamics at play with instructor critique of students, he emphasizes peer-to-peer feedback in a critique. Citing his opinion as ‘one of many,’ he defines success in teaching critique as students’ willingness to ‘disagree in public,’ even with the instructor. He cited the example of a student who grew from a self-identified shy person who went on to lead critiques in their final year at PCAD. On some level, rather than seeing the goal as solely (or even primarily) critiquing the work, the critique process itself is the learning opportunity
De-emphasizing the receiving of critique as somehow more important than the engagement in analyzing and articulating our responses to art (see next week), Weeks recognizes the skills involved in contributing to critique. Students need to be able to translate analysis into language, to find the words for their response. They are also encouraged to analyze and reflect on how they process the work in question. In this, Weeks aims to be a gentle coach, guiding students to more constructive and productive responses.
Embracing a little bit of mystery in both the teaching of artmaking and artmaking itself, Weeks shares a quote from Keith Richards: “I know I do it, but I don’t know how I do it.” What’s clear from my conversations with Weeks is that he values how students look, think, and analyze the work in question, and how they value the perspectives of others. This open-mindedness stands as a core value that he identifies as central to being a working artist. Sifting through the ideas of others, identifying your own, and bringing them to life is the work itself.
Next week, we’ll explore this idea in more depth.