“Whether it is experienced as a courtroom, a competitive talent show, or as group therapy, the crit is a rite of passage in architectural education—a drama in which students are asked to present and defend their work in front of an audience consisting of their peers, their teachers, and invited external experts. It can be both a tool of instruction, and a theatre of the absurd.” – Amy Perkins and Jeremy Waterfield

The lecture held at The University of Hong Kong with Amy Perkins and Jeremy Waterfield exploring the conditions of ‘The Crit.’ Better known as the critique session usually at the middle and at the end of semester of most architecture programmes. Set up as a presentation of the editorial, then a conversation between Amy Perkins, Jeremy Waterfield, Adam Jasper, Geraldine Denning, Ulrich Kirchhoff and moderated by Davide Spina. The room was filled with master students rushing to complete their finals, alongside with a spattering of faculty. It was deep in finals season, and everyone felt the pressure.

As part of the gta paper, the seasonal journal produced out of the Institute of History and Theory, ETH, this volume investigates the notion of ‘The Crit’ and the spatial and social circumstances which underwrites the power dynamics of architectural education. Described as a teaching tool, it is concurrently an exhibition and a presentation (of course, depending on the set up). The crit, short for critique, is a space of confrontation between teachers and students. It sounds similar to a ‘critical hit,’ an intense attack or damage in videogames, a phenomenon which happens on rare occassions. Students are indoctrinated in the ritual of a crit for first year, often tied to it is a social reading of the conditions that make up the room. There is a layered probing and ‘sussing out’ who is contingent to what roles of power, a sense of hierarchy. The journal furthermore shares the uncertainty of how to move forward in shifting the asymmetry of power relations.

The two speakers described a research consortium called ‘The Parity Group,’ conducted during the pandemic and in between two schools in Switzerland. The scopes of investigation which are based on hierarchical order specified by ranking of seniority, gender roles and the patriarchal system of architectural education. The performance of a crit is contingent on whether one becomes ‘an architect’ or not, to enter this elusive club to build for the future generations. A horrifying statistic is that 30% of the year 1 students of a Bachelor of Architecture cohort will leave architecture, most likely forever.

The presentation also described a series of spatial conditions that a crit begins to occupy. Drawing out relationship between the work, the chairs, the walls and tables, the curation of the day also leads to how the time-space continuum is designed. This means a performance of who starts the conversation first, who introduces, and how critics engage with the work. The presentation shared that it is either the students who move, or the critics who move to present, observe and celebrate the work. There were multiple diagrams and drawings, however none of them proved to be the solution or a ‘better set up’ to flatten the hierarchy.

Instead, the moment of seriousness, the moment of attention to the work was foregrounded to allow for deeper conversation. To grip all participants in a moment of listening and engaging the work, from the students to the critics is a special moment of theatre. There is a tacit knowledge embedded into this process to celebrate a work at a time, to cultivate conversation and bridge ideas between the critics. The tutor, the leader of the course, should choreograph how the critics engage with the course content, understand the frameworks of discussion before the students present.

During the discussion, Adam asked the audience if anyone really hates the process of the crit. No one wanted to reply, but rather, one student discussed how they loved the crit as a way of presenting their work. It is a stressful moment, and Ulrich Kirkoff talked about gaining consensus between the audience as well as the people in the room to have such frank and direct conversation. Soon after, the conversation divulged how critics are may not also be prepared to listen and come with their preconceived notions of how to design, build, draw and present architecture. As a multidimensional teaching moment, the advice here is to know your audience, know who you are selling to, and the contingent relationships your work is situated in relationship with.