Variations of the following prompt are provided for the Trickery (mid-term) and Appropriation (final) projects.  Below is an overview of expectations as written for the students, for updated versions please see Canvas.

When artists work in a studio, a useful part of the environment is the ability to give peer critique, suggestions and even evaluations of how a work is functioning.  In lieu of a physical studio, this component of the course and project aim to create a virtual studio that enables the same type of communication.

The peer critique will take place entirely online, (therefore you can do it from anywhere you have an internet connection if you are away during Reading week) using a really wonderful UBC created program called ComPAIR.  There is a link on your left that will automatically register you into the program when you first click.  Please be sure to log in to ComPAIR with your own sign in on Canvas, if you do it with another student signed in it will not work.  Please be sure there is no one else signed in to any UBC space when you click the link initially, otherwise you will not be able to use the program in your own student registration.

Part 1:  Upload your Project to ComPAIR

To start the online peer review process, please upload a rough or complete draft of your work, and please provide a working title for the work.  It is a visual artwork and should communicate with the viewer visually, therefore do not add an explanation of your idea.  If the work is unfinished, you should add a description of what you still have left to do for context.  But remember, do not add too much explanation, your project should explain itself visually!  At this point you should have your idea, sources, and a rough cut of the formal decisions of your composition.  A rough draft JPG file of your project should be uploaded to ComPAIR for your peers to see and critique.  A file cannot be more than xx for ComPAIR, so please reduce/compress the size of your file if it is larger than this.

Part II:  Online Critiques

You are asked to compare student projects and give thoughtful feedback. The online critiques will have NO BEARING on your grades, and are a tool to help you grow with the project and generously create a sense of community, not count as peer grading or competitive in any way.  This is about making people better and reach their potential in the project.  You are graded on how generous you can be to another student in improving their work.  A review of the process is as follows:

• The peer review is set up to do two comparisons (2 projects) of peer work, three times.
• Therefore, you are to complete three sets of comparisons, viewing 6 works, writing 6 feedback boxes of approx 150 considered words each (total of 900 words).
• For each comparison pair, you have three specific questions to answer. They are provided on the comparison form.
• After completing the three question comparison, you are able to give feedback to each student you have compared.  This feedback box is vital!  Please deliver generous and thoughtful constructive feedback so that the student may improve or understand where things may have gotten distracted.  The feedback box answer will be delivered to the student who has created the work, please be tactful and appropriate in your answers. Comments are meant to be constructive and helpful for the student who receives it; understand that text can come across quite blatantly, and you are to be mindful in how it reads. All judgements are to be backed up by hard proof found in the work.
• In the feedback box, write one succinct paragraph for each work (at least 150 words each) describing how you dissected the image, and how you interpreted the meaning.  You should also consider if the assignment goals of ‘trickery’ were achieved, and how they were achieved.  Did the artwork meet the criteria using trickery as a tactic towards complicating meaning? Did all formal and process decisions demonstrate this understanding? Were there any decisions in execution that you felt were arbitrary or distracting?  Was there a personal investment and creativity in approaching the subject matter?  And finally, are there areas of the project that could have been improved, and even suggestions/examples on how they could do this.

Part III:  Read Feedback & Make Improvements

You will receive feedback from your colleagues to help you to improve your work.  You are allowed to change it as much as you want from the input you received, and in some cases, you may wish to start again, (as long as you learned from your previous iteration of the project what you wish to improve).  Please read your feedback to see where there might be disjoints in how your project is functioning to a viewer.  From here, you can adjust.  You are allowed to make changes on your project after this peer review, that is actually the point!

• You are graded on your feedback to others.
• Critiques are anonymous (unless you use your actual name, but you are not required to) and involve the entire lecture class.

Comparison Questions

1. Which of the two projects in this comparison demonstrates a more effective use of trickery/appropriation?
   Which project used the concept of trickery in photography, or appropriation in moving image, as a way in which to complicate the ‘trick’ or ‘appropriation’ they created? Which project using the idea of ‘medium specificity’ or ‘appropriation’ of the digital as an enlightened approach to the message?
2. Which work shows greater attention to detail in its execution decisions?
   At this point, which of the two projects carries a more succinct composition and arrangement of content to the idea they are executing? Which project does a better job of rendering their idea?
3. Between the two projects, which work uses the idea of ‘trickery’ or ‘appropriation’ in a more complex way?
   Which project complicates or take a risk in what it is using trickery/appropriation for? Which project alludes to larger and/or more complex cultural/social/emotional/political issues in its rendition?