• Created by Unknown User (kimurray@mit.edu), last modified by Unknown User (xamyzhao@mit.edu) on Mar 02, 2013 12:50

You are viewing an old version of this page. View the current version.

Compare with Current View Page History

« Previous Version 10 Next »

GR1: Analysis

Observations & Interviews

The Architect

  • An architecture student doing graduate-level training for professional architecture work
  • She feels that one of her biggest challenges as an arts student is the subjective nature of feedback
    • Hard to determine which feedback to listen to
    • Some art is MEANT to invoke a negative response -- how do you consider such feedback?
  • Most of the feedback she gets comes from gallery critiques, shows or critique sessions
    • Galleries are short and often more social than feedback-oriented
    • Critique sessions involve getting a number of people into a room where they may make comments, or take a pen and leave annotations/sketches on copies of the art in question
    • All of these sessions have time limits, so it's hard to get sufficient feedback
    • Success/feedback in such sessions often depends on how well you sell/present the work

    • [ArtBark group] This is very interesting, since it indicates that traditional feedback methods are frequently inefficient, and feedback from these sessions is typically hard to organize/interpret.

  • She normally receives a wide variety of feedback** Type of feedback depends on reviewer
    • Emotional reactions are common
    • It's often very useful to hear simply whether people like/dislike your work
    • Structure/technique
      • Sometimes people like to sketch to illustrate a point
      • Such feedback often results in professors arguing/discussing with each other
    • A lot of people like giving references e.g. your work reminds me of..., your work should be more like...
  • Not a lot of students may utilize feedback since they're often on a tight schedule and don't have time for many iterations** More frequent feedback would be helpful
    • Online feedback would be helpful
  • Undergrad students may want to be able to keep variations/previous versions of their work for use in portfolios
  • Wants review audiences to have limited visibility of each other (e.g professors shouldn't be able to see what her friends think of her art)

- Most feedback comes from gallery critiques or mentor meetings

- Galleries are short and often more social

- Mentor meetings give a limited perspective

- The artistic process is very personal and some artists are hesitant to over-share

- The artist wants to gauge the emotional response, but it's hard to measure

- Varieties of sources are useful, but you your review audiences to be organized meaningfully (i.e. professor's do not see your friends reviews, etc.)

- The process involves many drafts and versions, and you sometimes want to show all of the stages in case you lost something along the way

- Feedback is directed at many different categories: Conceptual (What is the intention?), Contextual (How does this fit in with what we have seen before?), Technical (The actual skill).

-  The artist often wants to know which work relates to yours or what your work brings to your audience's mind in a semantic sense

- Sometimes the artist wants their work to reflect a sense of collaboration of viewer input

- Hard to direct feedback to specific visual aspects 

- Sometimes the work is more phenomenological, so visual feedback can be difficult

User Classes

  • Roles
    • Arts professors
    • Arts students
    • Professional artists
    • Non-artists
  • Types
    • Host
      • wants feedback
      • roles: arts professors, arts students, pro artists
    • Commenters
      • givers of feedback
      • all roles

Needs & Goals

  • Efficient feedback
    • Artists don't want to spend a lot of time getting feedback (e.g. at gallery critiques)
    • Artists would like to get feedback online
    • Artists would like to get feedback frequently
  • Constructive feedback
    • Commenters should be able to include references (e.g. this work reminds me of..., try to make this work more like...)
    • Commenters should be able to provide graphical examples (e.g. sketches) and annotations (similar to pen/paper or sticky notes in traditional critique sessions)
  • Variety of feedback
    • Artists would like to reach a wide variety of commenters (e.g. friends, professors, professionals)
    • Artists may be interested in collaborating with others
  • Organized feedback
    • Artists would like to organize feedback by type (e.g. emotional, like/dislike, technical)
    • Artists would like to set privacy/viewing settings between groups (e.g. professors should not be able to see comments from artist's friends)
  • No labels