feedback and transgression

“Reviewing a feedback session” is one of the three important parts you need to care about when having a feedback session (the other two are “preparing for feedback” and “creating agency”).

Understand the feedback to consist of preparation and performance, both of which should ultimately be reviewed by you. You can see the entirety of this as an operetta consisting of three acts, with the final one again being under your control. Review the entire situation and cadence in order to understand your personal key takeaways: your preparation, your performance, and the specific feedback.

This can help you transcend the emotionality of the actual feedback round, and let you come to your own conclusions on how to proceed. Sidestepping the post-mortem won’t make the feedback less important, but risks appropriating the feedbacker’s words, without filtering them properly through your own set of values. Doing so will let you understand and form your own set of values.

Consider the following:

Replay: If you recorded the conversation, take time to listen to it after some days or weeks. You’ll most likely spot parts that you didn’t notice during the actual conversation; undercurrents that your memory might have suppressed. Even if you don’t have an audio recording, the notes that you (or a colleague) took will usually bring back specific memories of the conversation. Retrace the conversation with the goal to understand the intention of what was said; this is important to judge whether the feedbacker’s propositions matter to you.
Look for facts: Find statements that describe the feedbacker’s factual experiences: “Your work obviously references the composition of X, but by removing y, it seems to miss the original artist’s point”. “You appropriate a political cause where I don’t personally see your experience or credibility”. These might be perfect opportunities to dive into the mentioned references or criticisms: the better you know (and can express) your work and the thinking behind it, the more you’ll be able to discuss it at eye level; this in turn will help you to dig ever deeper into your art’s rabbit hole.
- Filter out personal statements: Learn to differentiate hollow from deeper factual feedback (“I simply love your work!”, “I really don’t like this way of work”, “Maybe you should try a different medium, since this one doesn’t seem to work for you” are examples of statements with low actionable value, and thus offer little reason to change your course. The feedbacker’s personal opinion might feel important to themselves (and you), and might actually be important. They might be on to something that they can’t express verbally – yet obviously, specific reasons for their thinking would let you trace their intentions way better (and let you judge whether they are applicable to you).
- Filter out negativity and allegations: Understand that even the worst and most destructive feedback can be turned into a learning opportunity – by stepping back and unemotionally working through whatever “facts” were delivered. Understand which of them might be meaningful to you.
Judge the feedbacker’s performance: Find out whether you, your intentions and reasons were noticed (eg. “Compared to your work from last time, I see that you focused X”, “Could you explain your reasons for doing Y?”, “What references did you have in mind when doing these works?”, “Are you aware of the work of X, and how yours relates to it?”). Judge whether strategies were offered to continue from here (if not, ask yourself what actions you could derive from the feedback). What artists, art works, curators, exhibitions, books or magazine articles were recommended (or are now on your radar without having been recommended) to progress further? What can you learn about the feedbacker and their character that might help you to be better prepared the next time? Will you be able to anticipate their future reaction?
Judge your performance: Judge whether your work introduction and answers were satisfactory, or whether your nervousness, lack of preparation etc might have let you slip. How can you improve your performance for the next round?

Artists constantly receive feedback for their work, entirely independently of whether they’re looking for it. Feedback comes in many forms and attitudes, and for all sorts of reasons. It’s most often thought about as a tool to increase insights into one’s work practice: a feedbacker offers thoughts about your creation. Depending on the feedbacker’s knowledge about art history, politics, symbols, metaphors etc, your understanding about your work might increase – which ideally leads to you creating stronger, deeper, more focussed and simply “better” work.

The challenge with feedback lies in the multiplicity of art: because art isn’t monolithic, there can be no clear definitions of what creates a “good” artwork. Resultantly, the feedbacker’s knowledge might simply not be relevant to your aesthetics or vision. In the worst case, their opinions and preferences don’t match yours at all. In case of the feedbacker being in a position of power (eg. an art school teacher), you (a student) might be strongly inclined to favor their comments over your own opinion. This can also happen if you feel insecure about your creation: you might be on to something, but might not yet be strong enough to see or believe in it.

That’s why feedback benefits from people who are radically open-minded, and transparent about their intentions; an ideal feedbacker won’t have their advice be formed by their specific aesthetic and semantic opinions and preferences, but will be able to offer meta advice: if that is the direction you want to head towards, this might be able to get you there. This includes knowledge about the creator’s progress: the better a feedbacker understands the creator’s intentions and history, the better they might be able to offer advice on how to improve their work, according to its (and not theirs) inner logic – aesthetics, semantics, materials, etc. In contemporary art, the worst feedback is one that aims towards specific aesthetical goals, and wants to transfer them to a creator.

The ideal feedback setting is similar to a therapeutic safe space: both parties can rely on openness and transparency, aimed to increase enlightenment.

Intentions

Feedback benefits from understanding the intentions of both the feedbacker and the person seeking feedback:

Ideally, a feedbacker would want to help you get deeper into your work, and would be able to do so in a respectful way that considers you, your condition and previous progress. Realistically though, feedbacker’s can have all sorts of intentions; some feedback isn’t given to help but to vent (maybe your work rubbed someone the wrong way). Some feedback is given in order for you to adapt someone else’s artistic principles. Understanding the feedbacker’s intentions will help you in judging whether it might really help you in deepening your own way, and strengthening your voice.
Ideally, a person receiving feedback would want to deepen their understanding about their work; to expand knowledge of its semantics, get insights about the history of the chosen aesthetics, etc. In reality, some people look for feedback simply because they want the feedbacker’s attention and appreciation; they might not actually be interested in growth.

Implicit and explicit Feedback

Feedback can happen explicitly or implicitly:

Explicit feedback is defined by a clear setting, enabling everyone to understand the context in which opinions are given (eg. at portfolio reviews, when talking to a curator, …).
Implicit feedback on the other hand happens without this kind of framing (eg. during a studio visit by a peer, or a chat over coffee). Since it usually happens without introduction, implicit feedback often emerges unexpected and unwanted, and can be harder to spot and digest – especially if it’s transgressive.

In educational settings (art schools, workshops, etc), feedback is used as a major tool to convey insights, and thus to help you learn about yourself and your work. But even in institutions, feedback isn’t always explicit (as in scheduled feedback sessions): it can appear in casual comments by colleagues, assistants, teachers or curators, and isn’t always based on the feedbacker’s preceding analyses or self-inquires. Quite often, feedback is given seemingly as instantaneously as the artwork hits the feedbacker’s nerves. Since implicit feedback surrounds artists a lot, it is good practice to look out for this sort of “impromptu feedback”, and to increase once competency in recognizing it. Some people can register and analyze new work extremely quickly and sensitively – but most don’t have this capacity.

Feedback doesn’t simply include the potential for transgressions; in extreme cases (depending on the power dynamics, individual sensitivity and empathy) the act of offering feedback can itself be transgressive, especially if it is “offered” in ways that are too offensive to you. Even though often unrealistic, it’s healthy to expect the upholding of safe space principles for any kind feedback, independently of whether it’s given in explicit or implicit settings – whether it’s a family member suddenly discussing your work on the phone (when you didn’t expect it), or your professor during a scheduled feedback session. Feedback should only happen when you are ready for it – a safe space can’t exist if there isn’t knowledge about mutual control and respect. When someone pushes to give you feedback, it can be smart to understand them as an aggressor, independently of their position and power.

Emotional Attachment

Technically speaking, feedback returns information to the source of a signal: your work can be seen as the signal, and you as its source. As creator, you’re probably attached to your creations (your “signals”): you had specific reasons that led to their creation, and likely had to overcome obstacles during the creation process. This might have required all sorts of experiments and frustrations, but might also have shown potentials for further investigations. You might feel unsure about some of your choices, and happy about others. Creating an artwork is a complex, and often unstable process: quality ideals need to be established, knowledge of craft/materials/processes needs to be increased: at first, every artwork is a bold statement – potentially bolder than you. That’s why feedback situations are inherently challenging: your work, and thus your ideas, your intellect, your emotionality, your whole self, is put under the spotlight. Feedback can put you at a crossroads: do you believe in yourself and your work, or in the feedback that might want to see your work transformed?

A Moebius strip without clear distinction between outside an inside

Processing Feedback

Processing feedback requires you to balance trust in yourself with trust in someone else:

Purely believing in yourself likely results in ignoring the feedbacker’s potential valuable advice.
Purely believing in the feedbacker’s words risks disabling your voice – the sole reason why you initially wanted to make art.

How you navigate these topics is both deeply personal and philosophical, and always has tremendous consequences for your work. That’s why it can be a good practice to actually ask the feedbacker: Should I really listen to you? What if I don’t? Couldn’t worthwhile work emerge from pursuing my voice further?

Contemporary art thrives on diversity – your voice might be a relevant addition to it. For this reason, teaching and discussing contemporary art practices often differs from teaching traditional crafts, where quality ideals are predefined and often static. In the arts, quality is an extremely dynamic and personal attribute – it’s a multitude. Feedback and self-esteem are closely related. Feedback and luck are closely related as well: if you’re insecure about your work, and get to be a student of a highly successful, yet sadistic artist-teacher, a lot of your voice and ideas, your hopes and dreams can be erased or diminished before they ever got to exist.

Judging Feedback

Feedback can result in you feeling small and irrelevant – or praise your work to the heavens. Neither helps you to grow. To transcend this, establish a proactive attitude: judge what was offered.

Judge feedback according to its sensitivity to (and knowledge of) your goals, its sensitivity to the work you offered. Judge the feedbacker’s sensitivity towards you, your history and progress. Although feedback seems to imply the transfer of authority (from you to the feedbacker), this must never happen: as the work’s creator, you depend on your sensitivity towards (and authority over) it. Feedback should help you get closer to your ideals, not to subvert or change them.
Feedback can even be challenging when it’s positive: you might want ways to increase your game, but only received praise; understand that good feedback will always offer ways to increase your knowledge. Judge feedback according to the art historical references you received, and the amount of new information you can process.

Feedback and Autonomy

Some feedback settings will feel as if your work gets judged, stripping you of autonomy over it. Never lose this autonomy: judge the feedbacker and their advice’s quality and empathy, and ultimately work on setting up a network of trusted feedbackers: people on whose knowledge and advice you can rely on, and who care about safe space principles. Pursuing this search puts you in control (of the search, and ultimately of the setting and participants), even though you might still feel small and irrelevant.

Tag: feedback and transgression

How do I review a feedback session?

What’s the anatomy of art feedback?