If I am completely honest with myself [And I know others brought this up both before and after the crit] I am slightly confused as to the difference in format between the tutorial, seminar and critique??
Each time although this felt slightly more formal and that Ken was involved in seeing our practice for the first time, I didn't see any real change in the format. I thought my critique went OK, I received a different variety of references from Ken and there were aspects that he felt made sense and most importantly it is a sustainable project I can continue. As for my peers, well it was the usual few who contributed to the critique in either adding on feedback or supporting what I was saying. It is really starting to become noticeable that people are not participating in group discussions and language barrier or not we are on an MA together! [To get onto an MA you must be able to speak English?] I wouldn't even mind an attempt but it is just starting to appear selfish and that peers are not supporting one another outside nor during structured conversations.
The relationship between Tschumi's transcripts and my conscious selection of this style of presenting wasn't picked up, which I felt disappointed about as I feel I was one of very few who actually considered how their work was presented in a way that fitted the context [taking into account Petes feedback]. I suppose I entered the critique knowing what I had done, what I had read and what I wanted to do next . . .with this in mind what more do I want from my tutors at this stage?
The idea of a critique was discussed during the afternoon and I completely agree [Being a lecturer myself] that a critiques have become at some institutions yet should not be an opportunity for the tutors to just become egotistic and belittle students. Maybe having three years of critiques at Ravensbourne [on my BA] where work was sometimes just starred at with awkward silences or the noise of tutors brain ticking over was all you could hear, leaving you feeling more lost than when you started. These are very much more informal and relaxed and it was picked up that we are treated as professionals and not 'students'. I would though perhaps appreciate a change in the structures so that there were clear differences in expectations as to support the work load. I would like to propose the following:
Tutorial: a 1:1 timed slot with your personal tutor that is an informal conversation about what your working on and how is it all going.
Seminar: a group discussion with peers alongside a tutor where each of us has an opportunity to discuss issues [not discussing the entire project] an opportunity to ask peers questions and get a range of feedback.
Critique: a formal presentation of work where each student is required to pin-up and present in a professional way [timed] discussing a body of work in front of both tutors and peers.