Critical Response Process

This process was created by Liz Lerman, a choreographer grapher, performer, writer, teacher and speaker.

Here's how it works:

Step 1: Statements of meaning

Rationale: “…artists want to hear that what they have just completed has significance to another human being… It makes sense, then, that the first response artists hear should be one addressing the communicative power of the work just presented.”

Artist reads her work and Readers give statements of meaning that answer any of the following questions:

• What was stimulating, surprising, evocative, memorable, touching,  compelling, unique or meaningful for you?
• What is your initial impression of the work?

STEP 2: Artist as questioner

This is the first of two rounds of questions.

tHE ARTIST ASK QUESTIONS TO THE COMMUNITY. THE TYPES OF QUESTIONS ASKED WILL VARY ON based on where the artist is in the writing process and the type of feedback the artist is looking for. 

Examples: 

• Were there any parts of the poem that were confusing?
• could you see the poem?
• How did you experience the opening?
• WHERE WERE YOU SURPRISED IN THE POEM?
• What places in the poem do you think could be expanded/contracted?

Step 3: Neutral Questions for the artist

You want to give feedback that the artist has somewhere to go with. You want to help the artist craft a stronger poem. You are not trying to counsel the artist to write like you. YOU ALSO DON’T WANT TO DISCOURAGE THE ARTIST FROM WRITING OR SHARING HER WORK. 

In a typical workshop, respondents give artists feedback that is often rooted in their worldview and poetic aesthetics. If it is different from the artist’S, The feedback is not always helpful or kind. This also CAN BE THE PART OF THE WORKSHOP THAT IS THE MOST HARMFUL TO RESPONDENTS. I HAVE HEARD POETS TELL OTHER POETS WHAT THEY SHOULD NOT WRITE ABOUT OR TELL A POET THEY DIDN’T GET A POEM BECAUSE THEY DIDN’T HAVE A SIMILAR LIFE EXPERIENCE. Sometimes, HARSH FEEDBACK IS GIVEN AND OTHER TIMES SHALLOW FEEDBACK IS GIVen. 

wHEN THIS HAPPENS, THE WRITER HAS SHARED WORK HE BELIEVES IS MEANINGFUL, AND SOME RESPONDENTS HAVE NOT HONORED AND RESPECTED THE SACREDNESS OF THAT KIND OF SHARING. and the writer may not receive feedback that improves his poem, which defeats the purpose of a writing workshop. 

HONEST, CRITICAL FEEDBACK should be given. But it must be done so in a way that builds up the writer rather than tear the wear down. Shifting to asking questions rather than making statements (i.e. “it’s not progressive to write about race.”) improves the quality of the feedback. It stretches you as a responder and grows you as an artist.

Here’s how it works:

“Responders can ask the artist informational or factual question.” if RESPONDERS HAVE OPINIONS, THEY CAN EXPRESS THAT OPINION IN A NEUTRAL QUESTION. nEUTRAL IS A KEYWORD. 

fOR EXAMPLE, Instead of saying: “The Poem is too long” (an opinion) or “why are your pieces always so long? (“a question that couches an opinion), a person might ask:

“what were you trying to accomplish in the final section?”

“Tell me the most important ideas you want us to get and where is that happening in this piece?”

AGAIN, THIS TYPE OF QUESTION BENEFITS THE RESPONDER AND THE ARTIST. foR THE RESPONDER, THESE TYPE OF QUESTIONS HELP THEM BETTER SEE AND EDIT HER OWN WRITING AND ENCOURAGES HER TO READ A PEER’S WORK MORE THOUGHTFULLY. 

FOR AN ARTIST, IF THE RESPONDER HAS SIMPLY SAID THE POEM: “THE POEM IS TOO LONG,” HE COULD COMPLETELY DISMISS THE COMMENT BECAUSE HE DISAGREED. BUT BY ASKING HIM WHAT HE WAS TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH IN THE FINAL SECTION, HE HAS TO THINK MORE DEEPLY ABOUT HIS INTENTIONS WITHIN THE POEM. AND THAT QUESTION HE CAN APPLY TO HIS OTHER WORKS.

BOTH THE ARTIST AND THE RESPONDERS CAN GROW AS ARTISTS IN THIS PROCESS. 

STEP FOUR: PERMISSIONED OPINIONS 

iN THIS PORTION, “THE FACILITATOR INVITES OPINIONS.” bUT THOSE OPINIONS MUST FOLLOW A PROTOCOL. 

1.rESPONDERS MUST NAME THE TOPIC OF OPINION. 

2. tHEN, ASK THE ARTIST FOR PERMISSION TO STATE IT. 

eXAMPLE:

1. I have an opinion about costumes. 
2. do you want to hear it?

“The artist has the option to say “yes” or “no.” The artist may have several reasons for not wanting to hear the opinion: perhaps he has already heard enough opinions about the costumes and wants to move to something else; perhaps he is very interested in hearing about costumes, but not from that responder, or perhaps the opinion is irrelevant because of factors not yet established by a neutral question, i.e. the costumes used for the showing have nothing to do with those planned for the ultimate presentation. “

“iN MOST CASES, HOWEVER, THE ARTIST WILL SAY “YES” BECAUSE THE PROCESS HAS LAID THE GROUNDWORK FOR THIS MOMENT. 

ASKING THE RESPONDER EVERY TIME IF SHE WANTS TO HEAR AN OPINION MAY SEEM “STILTED AND UNNATURAL,” BUT IT ALLOWS THE ARTIST TO MAINTAIN AGENCY THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE WORKSHOP. AND ALLOWS THE ARTIST TO NOT RECEIVE FEEDBACK THAT HE FEELS IS NOT RELEVANT OR USEFUL FOR WHATEVER REASON HE DECIDES.  

“fOR THE RESPONDER, FORMING THEIR INITIAL STATEMENT OFFERS A KIND OF WARM-UP AND MENTAL PREPARATION FOR IDENTIFYING AND STATING THE OPINION ITSELF. fOR THE ARTIST, IT AFFORDS A CHANCE TO READJUST [HER] FOCUS TO BECOME MORE RECEPTIVE TO A NEW PARTNER AND NEW IDEA. Finally, it serves to maintain the Process’s dynamic of dialogue through an exchange that keeps both speakers focused and listening.”

Source: CRITICAL RESPONSE PROCESS BY liz lERMAN AND John Borstel, 1ST EDITION.