This Sunday evening, I have been thinking about my relationship with feedback while reading about Liz Lerman’s Critical Response Process. I would love to share some of these reflections with you.
Since we began preparing for our first critiques, I have been reflecting on Liz Lerman’s Critical Response Process (CRP) and how it might influence the ways we support one another’s work. I can’t stress enough how fortunate we are to be such a diverse group, coming from different countries, cultures, ages, and stages of life. Because of these differences, we may have distinct ways of giving and receiving feedback. What feels constructive to one person might leave someone else second-guessing; however, I don’t think this will be the case for our group, as we are all sensitive and emotionally intelligent individuals.
My background has certainly shaped how I experience critique. I graduated from the Secondary School of Fine Arts in Poland, where feedback was often direct and harsh. We would jokingly call it “Soviet-style” discipline — quite strict and not very encouraging. As a young person, this could be difficult to handle, and I would sometimes have to hold back tears by the end of a lesson. Reading about feedback methods now, I realise that our teachers were not using constructive feedback approaches or trained in methods like those Lerman proposes. The focus was on evaluation — what was “right” or “wrong” — instead of exploring meaning or intention. This experience taught me technical discipline but unfortunately made me more cautious and anxious about sharing my work. I should also add that when I began my BA in London, one of my tutors may have recognised traces of that “Soviet-style” learning, as I often appeared frightened whether we took part in one to one or group critique.
I am perhaps more thin-skinned now because of those years spent in art institutions, but I believe that if I had been introduced to CRP earlier in my education, I could have developed greater confidence as an adult and produced stronger work. Better late than never!
Reading about Lerman’s approach feels refreshing and hopeful. The Critical Response Process encourages dialogue and is judgement-free. It begins with “statements of meaning,” which help everyone recognise what is working well before discussing potential changes. I also appreciate that the artist has the agency to ask questions and decide whether to hear opinions. This structure incorporates sensitivity and builds trust, which feels especially crucial in an intercultural setting like ours.
I have already noticed that when one of us presents their work, the cohort often begins by expressing what they found intriguing, followed by neutral questions about the process. It makes me think that we have, in some ways, been practising aspects of Lerman’s method without realising it (although perhaps skipping the second step — the artist as questioner).
I believe that using CRP could help our group continue to build a caring and inclusive critique environment — although we are already extremely sensitive and considerate. It offers a shared language for feedback that values curiosity, respect, and growth. For me personally, it also represents a chance to unlearn old habits of harsh criticism and to replace them with a more empathetic and reflective practice.
This reflection was written by me with language support from ChatGPT to help improve clarity and grammar.
Leave a Reply