Let me begin with a little background. My roots are deeply imbedded in the discipline of graphic design. I have been involved in practice, education, research and service related to graphic design since the early 90’s. In the world I come from analysis/critique is ever present. Usually this is verbal but sometimes it is written. I attended a private, art/design school for my undergrad in graphic design. Critical response, thinking and writing was ever present. When I finished undergrad and entered practice this did not change. So, the topics we have been reading about and discussing are familiar to me.
In the worlds of visual design there has been quite a bit written about the analysis and evaluation of the designed artifact. In graphic design we often think, speak and write about our work in terms of creating a “visual language.” So, many of these writings draw upon theories from linguistics to create frameworks to help us better understand and respond to the work of designer/artists. Some are adapted from architecture, psychology and anthropology. Other writings/frameworks seem to spring more directly from the creators themselves.
So, far our readings and discussions have focused primarily on critical processes for a viewer. But, I think that it’s important for us to also have some understanding of how the dialog of critique involves the creator. Here is an article from this perspective that I read in undergrad that I have found useful. It is not directly related to the type of readings or discussions we have been having. But I do think that there is some value here.
http://andthencametango.wikispaces.com/file/view/Toward+a+Process+for+Critical+Response.doc
3 comments
Comments feed for this article
January 17, 2013 at 11:15 am
jeffreybardzell
Thanks for sharing this! We will spend two weeks talking about criticism from the creator perspective starting at the end of this month, but I downloaded and read this article and it was definitely relevant and interesting.
January 17, 2013 at 11:20 am
jeffreybardzell
I like how she chronicles her resistance to criticism and her efforts to reform her own practice to make it most functional. For example, she writes that initially, the practice seemed brutal, but later,
A quote like this is fundamentally compatible with what Carroll is saying in Chapter 1:
This suggests to me that designer crits in the studio should not start with “the problem I had was…” but rather start with, “the underlying value of this piece is X, and here, here, and here, that comes through loud and clear; but there and there, I think it does not. If you could do something about the latter two, I think the value of what you are trying to do will really come forward.”
January 17, 2013 at 8:44 pm
raynezhou
That’s a good point. Everything we are doing now should be tried to apply onto interaction design. It seems that some principles within these fields are similar or even the same.