Land+Living: Trial by Jury

Commentary — May 5, 2005 Posted by James

The Crit: Cruel and unusual punishment (?)

Yesterday I had jury duty... at the University of Southern California Department of Landscape Architecture. I had the opportunity to critique (along with Mark Rios, Mia Lehrer, Clark Stevens, and other jury members) the final presentations for a landscape architecture studio co-taught by David Fletcher and Tom Leader.

I will provided an overview of the student projects next week... the studio was very interesting and the work of a high caliber... but today I want to talk a bit about the design education hazing ritual known as the "crit."

Critique, review, jury; these terms create anxiety amongst those who have pursued a design education - like standing before a firing squad. It is a test of ideas and presentation as well as an assessment of endurance and resilience. More than anything, it is intended as a learning experience.

My introduction to the crit was a shock… quite frankly, it was a set up. The introductory project of first year studio was a brief design exercise, I cannot remember the exact assignment. The project itself, it turned out, was irrelevant. The true purpose was a baptism by fire for us ignorant architect wannabes. We pinned up our work, excited by the newness of the experience, anticipating the opportunity before us.

The first victim was chosen - the sacrificial lamb for the class. After less than a minute the professor dramatically dropped his head, held up his hand and bellowed, "STOP," abruptly ending this eager young designer’s presentation. And so the lesson began. He was ripped up one side and down the other: his presentation was unfocused, his drawings incomplete and pinned up haphazardly and aslant. This was a lesson in how to present one’s self and one’s ideas - how to respect your own work so that your audience will respect it as well. The bar was set, and none of us had measured up… but now we had something to shoot for.

I suspect that many students are introduced to the crit in a similar manner. It is a sharp learning experience designed to push the younglings quickly out of the nest. In this way, it worked. The process of design is meaningless without communication - you must be able to clearly, effectively and aesthetically present your ideas.

School is a place to test ideas and to push the envelope, often the only reward for going out on a limb is to have your project trashed at the hands of an impatient jury. More thoughtful juries will engage in debate, discussion and criticism, though it may feel negative to the presenting student, a heated debate is a sign of a provocative project and provides a fertile ground from which to learn.

Of course there are jurors who derive perverse pleasure from flattening a student, using the crit as a means of feeding their own ego by delivering monologues filled with big words and obscure references intended more to impress their colleagues than to educate the unwitting victim. This seems to me to be the biggest problem with the jury method, tainting the experience and skewing the perceptions of what reviews are really about.

The problem with the system, beyond its nerve-wracking gut-wrenching nature, is that it sets up an atmosphere of animosity. It can feel like the jury is out to get you. The posture of defensiveness and a cloud of emotion can prevent useful lessons from being understood. To top it off, the design school culture of late nights and caffeine-sugar-drug fueled self abuse leaves most students exhausted and sapped by the time of their review.

Techniques were occasionally employed during my education in an attempt to deal with some of the problematic issues of reviews. Due dates set several days before the crit helped students to be at their best, refreshed and better able to present and to learn from the review. Cocktail party style formats worked with mixed results, allowing for one on one interaction between the presenter and the juror and removing the stage fright aspect of reviewing as well as the showboating of high ego jurors, but denied group interaction broader discussion.

To wrap this rambling quasi-sociological examination of the critique, I offer some advice for students:

Know what your project is about. This seems obvious, but it is so easy to get wrapped up in the project that you lose sight. Prepare a statement that briefly outlined what is important in your project so that the jury "gets it."

Be creative with presentation techniques, but be sure to organize information carefully so that the jurors can follow your thoughts. The further you deviate from traditional methods of representation, the more self-critical you must be.

Have fun. They jury is not your enemy, and they are not grading you. Loosen up, lighten up, and don't be intimidated. Be respectful and confident.

Listen. Learn from criticism and compliments. Correct misconceptions, but don't be belligerent.

Just remember, one day you may end up sitting on the other side. I have actually been on a competition jury where my vote had the power to grant a project to a designer who once reviewed me... that's a bit of advice for jurors as well. ;-)

6 comments

Comments (6)

Anon — May 5, 2005
Crits

One may only hope that jurors take heed of your Karmic warning! Having just undergone a crit process at USC (and passing) I am venturing out into the "real world". The experience of the crit has taught me little, save but for one lesson: networking alleviates ills of inadequate work. Unfortunately, the process for our exam was far from the anonymous & unbiased occasion that was promised. Instead several outside factors were employed. Individuals who were supposed to fail (due to late submissions) passed flawlessly. Others who submitted great work were failed. It is important to understand the agenda of the panel to whom you are presenting. If they do not appear to have one, you might want to be even more scared. The best advice as a recently judged individual from a USC panel is to get to know your panel. By establishing a network with these professionals & professors you will solidify your submission and ensure a 'fair' review.

arkEtect — May 9, 2005
Crits

I disagree with Anon (recently judged USC grad); I fail to understand their comments on getting to know one's panel. " is important to understand the agenda of the panel to whom you are presenting." and "The best advice as a recently judged individual from a USC panel is to get to know your panel." In many instances it's nearly impossible to have some sort of communication with one's peer panel, as these people are licensed, experienced or recent grads, whom you've never had the pleasure of meeting. Futhermore, each individual panel, brings with them distinct and specific ideals, agendas, and manifestos to collaborative discussions which occur during these so called "hazing ritual known as the 'crit.'" Therefore, a student cannot be asked or even expect to understand and involve themselves into the intricate understanding of what each individuals' expectations or comments may be. As I read this (and as one whom graduated within the last 5 years, and has served on serveral juries) I was initially disturbed, and then reflective on the editorial of the individual. I have been fortunate enough to also partake in the juried, crit process in universities abroad. The significant and major difference, is that the need to trash the project of an individual student by an impatient jury, or jurors who derive perverse pleasure from this, is almost non-existant. The idea of a critique is meant, as stated by the writer of this editorial, a learning experience. This is the reason why almost always more thoughtful discussions and debates, as well as criticism, "though it may feel negative to the presenting student" seem to be the primary focus of these events abroad. There is always a focus on the "good" notions of projects, and the relevant conditions it has touched on with relation to current social and ancient architectural trends. Therefore the "need" to focus on the ills of students work, (while not completely neglected, for good or bad) is lessened. I think most individuals whom decide to partake in this design school process become better thinkers and stronger individuals for having grown tougher skin because of it. In closing, I suppose I don't disagree with the event itself, yet find the need for views and jurors to ask proper questions, and seek the inquisitive nature of students' work, which ultimately flush out the "true" nature of the project.

Anonymous — May 14, 2005
There is no place for fear in learning.

I am a licensed architect. I experienced first had the inadequate "instructors" at the universtiy I attended and the hideous "critique". There is no place for fear in learning. Architecture schools continue to be unable to provide a supportive learning environment. I liken it to child abuse, people who were abused as students continue to abuse when they become teachers. Have these so called faculty ever thought of acutally instructing thier students on how one prepares an archtitectural presentation? How about some examples? We do the profession a disservice by pushing people out at the school and intern level. Even if they never become practicing professionals and go and work for IBM, they will support the profession if they see it has value and brings richness to the community. What we have experienced is an educational system that failed us, and we are all pooere for it.

Amy Morie — May 17, 2005

Having participated in the Brownlab studio, I feel that the response generated by this particular crit fails to encompass the whole of the studio effort. In this studio, many of the problems seen with the "attack-style" crit reported here were thankfully absent and more than compensated for by the learning environment. Like the majority of professors I have been fortunate enough to study with at USC, David Fletcher and Tom Leader worked hard to foster individual creative vision while encouraging group work, interaction, and information sharing - especially during the analysis phase, when all students worked together to document and research the site using an easily-shared production method. David and Tom's instruction included individual attention to presentation skills in the form of taped presentations, one-on-one instruction in the student's chosen methods of representation and presentation, and close involvement of stakeholders that exposed students to the tangible political, social and cultural aspects of the project. With such a fostering environment, the "hazing" effect of some jury members is a negligible effect - one that is in many ways good for the student as preparation for professional life, but one that with good instruction is merely a minor ripple in a body of strong work.

James — May 17, 2005
Brownlab

Thanks for chiming in, Amy! I am still working on that write up from the Brownlab crit... and while this post was inspired by participating on the jury for Brownlab, it was most definitely not a response to that particular crit. As you mentioned, I thought that the overall positive atmosphere was amazing. I think that any good jury starts with the professors setting the tone throughout the studio process right up through the final presentations.

Erin Lau — May 19, 2005

As another student who participated in this particular studio (as evident in the first photo on this page) I have to agree with Amy, who commented above, that the experience of the review was quite a departure from the dreaded trials students often go through. While this article is not necessarily meant to single out our particular studio, I do feel that our studio can be used as an example of a creative approach to the crit process. For one thing, not all of our critics were landscape architects, there were also architects, artists, community leaders and even a musician. While this did make for a large jury, it allowed the students to get advice from various fields. Whoever spoke up from the jury was obviously indicating that a project resonated with their particular field, and that knowledge was invaluable for each student. I agree further with Amy that the studio structure, fostered by David Fletcher and Tom Leader, was instrumental in the overall sucess of the review- as durable site analysis boards introduced the jury to the context and an ipod recorded each students crit for later, instructive listening. Even if our review had been characterized by a bunch of grumpy old architects who rip students apart, I guess it would have been a good introduction to dealing with people along the road who are inevitably not going to like your work. In the end, the best reviewers don't make things personal, they refer to the project, and give the students viable examples of how it could be better, and if they like it, they explain why.