I have been hanging out at universities over the last few days, and even though I’m not a student, I learned something new that I’d like to share with you.
Our son and our daughter-in-law both graduated within days of each other, which was considerate of them, and we were able to attend both ceremonies. Our daughter-in-law received a B.A. in sociology, and our son received an interschool M.F.A. in Theater and Critical Studies.
He’s not an actor. More like a writer. This interschool degree thing was the closest he could get to what he really wants to do, which is immersive experiences. There’s a lot of writing and world-building involved, as well as stagecraft and technology.
Over the last few years, he’s created lots of media as classwork, as have his fellow students, and they critique each other’s work. If you’re a writer, you have no doubt been in a crit group, or worked with an editor, or had your work reviewed on Goodreads. I’ve always felt awkward critiquing someone else’s work, and I haven't loved having my work critiqued either.
Our son introduced me to the Critical Response Process, which I had never heard of before, and which they used in his classes at CalArts. It was developed in the 1990s by Liz Lerman, who is currently a university professor, and has had a wide and varied career centered on using dance for storytelling. For instance, in the 1980s, Lerman created Nine Short Dances About the Defense Budget and Other Military Matters.
Some common responses writers have during the average critique are “Everything I make stinks. Nobody understands what I’m trying to make. Why am I even bothering?” Does that sound familiar? The point of Lerman’s Critical Response Process is to inspire the art maker and get them excited to improve on the piece being critiqued. It’s supposed to be a collaborative effort between the writer and the critic for moving forward rather than simply a flat judgment.
There are books, classes, and coaches available if you want to explore the Critical Response Process further, but here is the basic outline:
While similar to a crit group, test screening, and other kinds of feedback, the discussion is led by the Art Maker. The Art Maker presents their work, whether it’s a dance, film, manuscript, or ice sculpture, and the Responders comment positively. It could be something spontaneous like “That made me want to jump up and dance along!” or something carefully constructed like “You really used a lot of blue!” What the comment is NOT is the Responder’s opinion. When the Maker is ready for it, they may later ask for an opinion, but they usually start with more neutral questions. “Do you find this character appealing?” “Is this a realistic dialogue between lovers?”
By letting the Art Maker lead the discussion, the focus is on getting feedback for improving your work in progress rather than feeling so dispirited that you just want to throw it all away. No one wants to hear “I don’t care what happens to your romantic heroine because she’s so two-dimensional,” but a writer can explore readers’ reactions to the characters through thoughtful questioning.
I’m still researching this Critical Response Process. If you have already used it for your own writing, I’d be interested in hearing whether you found it less stressful and more inspirational than other critique techniques.
It’s always a good day when you learn something new, isn’t it?
Photo by Anastasiya Badun