Somewhat reminiscent of the feedback exercises from the induction week we gave anonymous feedback to the exhibited works around the room. However, the process was somewhat expanded upon, two columns indicate the ideas (lightbulb) and the aesthetic quailities (eye).
Firstly, we gave what might be perceived as negative criticism, focussing only on what the piece lacked. Perhaps some might have found this somewhat more difficult, being hesitant in trying not to harm a peers' feelings. I rather saw the merit in highlighting what the peer can improve, and relished in the honesty of others.
Multiple improvements that I had not thought of were highlighted, such has creating a wedge-shaped design which would better show the condensing of culture into commercially available products.
Multiple improvements that I had not thought of were highlighted, such has creating a wedge-shaped design which would better show the condensing of culture into commercially available products.
The second round of feedback was entirely positive, this sheet was somewhat more full, as I rather think that most found that giving positive feedback as a more comfortable experience.
Admittedly I was relieved when the positive commentary came around, giving polite feedback to others is much more satisfying, while perhaps the negative response is a colder and functional experience.
Like some previous briefs we held an anonymous voting process for our favourite outcomes. I was initially worried that a voting causes a hierarchy of aesthetic quality, however I was most delighted that my [large and relatively complex] work drew first place with Wills' [whose work was quite minimal and gestural]. This is reassuring to know that as a group we appreciate a wide variety of approaches and the individual aesthetics of each student.
No comments:
Post a Comment