The critique process yesterday was much more informative than I have ever experienced in my ceramics classes here at UD. I learned how much more practice you all have had at presentation! I appreciate that the instructor tried to involve everyone in the process and that she kept us thinking about how to ask and look at things. I do wonder at just how far away from the original assignment some people strayed....the instructor seemed to allow these interpretations of her question " what makes something natural and what makes it artificial? " but I wonder whether some of the pieces actually addressed that issue as assigned?

Realizing that "conceptual" is a big deal around here, I was not surprised to see a lack of balance of interesting composition of most of the exhibit . I was however, rather surprised to learn that very few of the concepts were actually conveyed as the creator intended. It seems that the concept is just a spring board or a starting point for creating a piece. Since the answer to my question, "Does it matter that no one understands your concept? does it bother you? " was usually "No, let the audience interpret as they will", it sort of begs the question: what is the point of conceptual if you can't convey the concept?

After reading our assignment and links about art critics, I am convinced that it should be impressed upon art students to consider FORM, DESIGN, COMPOSITION, BALANCE, VALUES,LINE, PROPORTION,RHYTHM and SPACE/JUXTAPOSITION, NUANCES and CRAFTSMANSHIP /SKILL if we are to actually consider a creative work, a piece of art.