Week 5: On feedback

We’ve spent this week examining structures for giving and receiving feedback. Including Liz Lerman’s Critical Response ProcessSM, the DAS Graduate School (2013) A Film About Feedback, along with theories of non-violent communication developed by psychologist Marshall Rosenberg.

The readings and film have led me to reflect on situations in my work when I’ve been giving or receiving feedback: times I’ve been part of rehearsal processes for performance works and invited to share my thoughts but unsure of what’s useful to share or the weight of my words; times I’ve viewed artistic works by friends and felt the pressure to be wholly affirmative. It also prompts a conversation with my partner about how the giving and receiving of feedback is fundamental to teaching (his practice), to building relationships in general and just living a life alongside other people (“Is this how you want the onions cut?”).

The Liz Lerman and DAS examples offer a set structure for a formalised process of giving feedback, particularly on works in progress. In my foraging, I come across a report by Kate Symondson¹ in which she evaluates the use of Lerman’s process during workshops organised by The Opera Group. I also review Lerman’s book in collaboration with John Borstel ‘Critique is Creative’ (2022)², which examines its use in a variety of settings and for generating feedback not just on artistic works.

My takeaways are that for these structured sessions to work, everyone involved needs to be invested in the process, to see its value and be a willing participant. Symondson emphasises that it should be initiated by the artist (or the person receiving feedback). The examples in Lerman & Borstel highlight the inherent problems of implementing these strategies in established groups with pre-existing hierarchies and communication modes. At times, I wonder if they’re overly controlled and sanitised. The emphasis on consent, on only giving feedback on the requested areas, on viewing the art in terms of whether or not it achieves its intentions, creates blind spots. What of the unintended effects and impacts; the unseen potential?

The formal feedback structures take a lot of time and energy and won’t always be practical or appropriate. But even so, I feel there’s a lot that can be gleaned from these processes and adapted for other contexts. While Rosenberg’s theory of non-violent communication – which I’m familiar with from the context of interpersonal relationships – trains you to focus on your own feelings and needs, I can imagine adopting some of these principles and techniques to frame how I offer feedback and how I receive it.

As someone who plays a supporting role in cultural production, my marketing and fundraising work is often produced for/with artists and functions as an extension of their body of work. I’m producing something on their behalf that is inspired by their creation, but using my own skills and experience to make sure it is effective. In terms of the feedback I seek from them on my work, it’s a complex conversation, one in which it’s not always clear who should define the parameters of the feedback. I may be the ‘expert’ in the form of the work I am producing, but they are the experts in their work (and often bring their own expertise in my role). And usually, I’m providing a service for which they are paying me, establishing a client-service provider relationship, rather than a collaboration with a flat hierarchy. I want them to feel their work and voice are accurately represented, while also producing something effective for the intended audience, and ensuring they have a positive experience working with me.

But more broadly, in terms of both giving and receiving feedback, here are some of the considerations I’ll be taking forward:

• Think about what your perspective is and how it’s shaped your opinion/criticism – how does this change the relevance of your thought? Can/should you qualify your feedback with these considerations?
• Pay attention to any caveats the creator offers and to what they say they want feedback on. Ask yourself: are they inviting feedback on this thing? Is it useful to them?
• Simply reflecting your experience of a piece – what stood out for you – without passing judgement can be useful (Jasmine did this for me while giving feedback on my unit 1 submission – I found it really helpful to see the main themes of my work through her eyes).
• It can be useful to express your initial thoughts to someone who isn’t the creator (even if just yourself) – to expel these, before formulating feedback.
• As the person receiving feedback, acknowledge that everyone is coming with their unique perspectives and contexts that shape how they receive your work. See feedback as an opportunity to improve the work but don’t take feedback as gospel. Acknowledge that people will have different communication styles and some may appear confrontational but you’re in control of how you receive it. Don’t make assumptions about someone else’s intentions.

¹Symondson, K. (2014) Report evaluating the Critical Response Process. Available at: https://www.kcl.ac.uk/cultural/assets/criticism-now-report-evaluating-the-critical-response-process.pdf (Accessed: 31 October 2024).

²Lerman, L. and Borstel, J. (2022) Critique Is Creative : The Critical Response Process® in Theory and Action. Connecticut: Wesleyan University Press.