Feedback from Verifiers

On Monday we were given the Verifiers feedback from our tutors about our coursework.  None of it was a surprise to me, but in my opinion, a lot of it was a consequence of the way we are taught (or not, as the case may be). 

- Work displayed was very safe.
- We need to push the functionality of what we make, if functionality is the purpose.
- Work needs to be displayed better (privileging)
- We need to be more selective, and identify our best work
- Work needs to be stored on digital media and kept on an ipad so we can carry our digital portfolio with us at all times
- Photograph work in progress.
- Create a web presence.

Our tutors added to this that the final year students had their ideas in place, and now needed to work extensively and make a considerable body of work.  We need to make mistakes and use them as learning opportunities. 

The work displayed was very safe - this is because we do not have the learning environment where adventurous work is encouraged, supported and critiqued together.  We don't get feedback that encourages the imaginative try, and analyses how unsuccessful work has elements that might work in another context. 

Functional objects are badly made because we don't get taught how to make things properly.  Neither are we shown how to identify the key points of making something well, in order to go out and find the techniques ourselves.

We are not taught how to display work well, and neither are we given any guidance to look at museum/shop/exhibition displays to analyse how things have been displayed to give prominence to pre-defined elements.  When I was in Australia last year, "privileging" was a key skill in displaying our work.  I still find it incredibly difficult, although I am better than I was previously.  But here, it is not given any focus at all.  And when I asked for a desk with some wall space, I was allocated someone else's desk(!) in the window, with an 45cm high wall section under the window, and 45cm high partition at the back of the desk, when I had two 1m printed panels to display.  And when the person whose desk turned up, I had to push her work onto a small desk where her work fitted, as I need the bigger space and my work did not fit the smaller space.

Students struggle to identify their best work, because the tutors don't give feedback on which work works best and why.  We are left to work it out for ourselves, but without the skills of analysis in order to do so.  We don't get group critique sessions, and although we could do it ourselves, if you don't have the skills to start with, and specifically in my case, you are a newcomer to the group, it is pretty difficult to "do it yourself".

We were told to build a body of work with a clear voice/signature.  I agree with this, but feel I don't have the skills to identify my best work, and build on it.  I don't feel I am at this stage yet.  I find it particularly difficult when, at my last progress review, the instructions were to talk positively about our work, and to talk it up, as if it were a pitch for business or funding.  As a mature student, I have worked in plenty of environments where making a pitch and talking positively about a subject to an audience is a requirement.  So, at my progress review, this is what I did.  But really, it was an utter waste of time.  I think my presentation went quite well but it was just a load of bull.   I suspect that I met the requirements of the exercise but this just proves our course standards measure irrelevant baloney rather than whether we can deliver a meaningful product.  No wonder our work is pedestrian.

What I needed was to stand up and talk about what I was struggling with, and why, and seek comment and feedback from the group to assist me to move it forward and make my hand drawing more imaginative and appealing.  I think our students need to become much better at giving and receiving feedback on our work.  And if we need these communication levels, then we need to be selecting people who can meet the course requirements, rather than accepting everyone who applies.  I read last year's verifiers report which commented on the wide range of attainment (fail-very high firsts), to which our tutors had responded that then 2009 intake had accepted people with 200+ points (whatever they are) rather than >275.  As a mature student, I was accepted via different selection criteria to the normal post-A level route.

All in all, I totally agree with the Verifiers' feedback, although I am very disheartened by it, and still feel inadequate regarding what I can do to improve my work.