No one likes to be critiqued, but everyone is a critic.
As a design practitioner and teacher of design, I am involved continually in the analysis and evaluation of design. I critique my students’ work in the classroom and I critique my own work in the studio. My clients critique my work. I critique the work of other designers. Judges critique our work when we submit it to design contests. Our clients’ customers critique our clients based on our designs.
Critique is a normal and necessary part of the design process, yet I find that people don’t like to formally critique a work and they don’t like to have their work critiqued. How can we improve upon anything unless we critique? How can we innovate without evaluation and appraisal? How do we establish value in something unless we assess it?
Critique is simply an assessment, appraisal or evaluation of something. When we critique something we are analyzing it. We do this all the time in the normal course of a day: We critique each other’s driving, style, attitude, favorite movie, political position, religion, job performance, home run average and habits. We each have an opinion about what is good, better, best, bad and ugly.
I think that students and practicing designers don’t enjoy being critiqued because they understand criticism to be destructive or mean-spirited. Or they take it personally, as if it’s them, not the work, being evaluated. Or they don’t want to be wrong. Most critique tends toward negativity.
Criticism is often disguised as critique. They are not they same thing. Criticism involves disapproval of a work based on perceived or obvious faults and shortcomings. There’s a thin line between the two ideas that’s easily crossed. Critique should be objective, honest and useful. Criticism is most often subjective and destructive. Its intent is to tear something down. On the other hand, critique tests for weaknesses for the purpose of improvement and excellence. Criticism accuses; critique edifies.
In reality, critique should be neutral. It should not be feared as much as it is. It should be performed in order to asses what is right with a work and where it can be strengthened.
For critique to be neutral it should be based on established objective guidelines. For a design work, this is fairly simple. We look at the work and its outcome on the basis of the intended goals for the work, since all design has a purpose to it. Are the aesthetic principles supporting the function of the design? Are color, balance, rhythm, harmony, spatial relationships and value all working together to enable the design to accomplish its intended outcome?
If design is not whimsical but purposeful, critique of design should also be purposeful and not based on personal opinion. The kind of response that is, “I think it’s a good design because it reminds me of…” is not an objective criteria. Values, purpose, specifications, etc. are a much more just basis for evaluation. If critique is based on objective criteria it cannot be dismissed with the excuse that it’s just one person’s opinion and therefore invalid.
When all is said and done, honest feedback is better than warm fuzzy feedback. Critique should be honest, just, and balanced between strengths and weaknesses. It should serve to build up the designer (or student) and empower them forward into creative maturity and greater success.
