What do you consider a good critique, or a critique at all for that matter?
The word critique can be generally defined as an act of criticism, or an outside perspective / comment towards another’s work. The sessions of directing and indirect critiquing are the foundation of our learning and development, not only architecturally but in life. Through my experience I have seen the individuals that tend grow the most are those most open minded to criticism. No one wants to be picked and prodded to the point of personal disgust or embarrassment, this creates a nearly impossible environment for one to learn and more importantly, listen. Simply meaning that the approach of the one giving the crit is as important to the one receiving it. What I believe to be the key to getting the most of our subjective field of study is to simply open our minds for listening and closing our fears of taking critiques personally. It is with this mental strength and attribute that we separate ourselves from the careers of more technical and practical bases.
As with most things in life, the more time you put in to something the more you will get out of it. Bringing almost anything and everything to the table during a projects early development can not only show obvious past progression and effort, but it can be used as a key tool for future progression.
Critiques are not an environment for solutions, but more an environment to uncover and create problems. They create the uncomfortable zone for our minds to digest a perspective not of our own. When we are uncomfortable we tend to think differently, and when we think differently it is likely good things will come of it.
This is merely my own opinion of why we go through what we go through in our academic, and for some, professional career of choice. Since we know firsthand that opinions in architecture our some of the strongest out there, what might yours be?