As a user experience designer, I spend much time thinking about how we communicate to build seamless and intuitive experiences that cater to users' needs. While the core principles of communication are universal, I have noticed how various disciplines approach and embrace feedback differs significantly. Understanding these nuances in critique can enlighten and enrich our work and foster collaboration and respect across disciplines. Below I will share some of my experiences in how artists and scientists approach critiques, shedding light on feedback's diverse and valuable nature.
1. The Artist's Canvas:
For artists, be it painters, sculptors, or digital artists, their work often stems from deeply personal and emotional expressions. Feedback, therefore, needs to be delivered with sensitivity and is typically subjective from the perspective of the view. Constructive criticism is often framed around the intention of the piece and how effectively it communicates the desired emotions. Artists are more open to subjective viewpoints and appreciate feedback that focuses on the overall experience the artwork delivers to its audience.
2. The Scientific Mindset:
In the scientific community, peer review and constructive criticism are the cornerstones of progress. Scientists are trained to analyze data objectively, allowing them to detach their emotions from the work. The ultimate objective in this process is empirical evidence, logical reasoning, and reproducibility. Feedback is expected to be thorough, detailed, and rooted in evidence. Scientists see critiques as opportunities to strengthen their findings and validate their hypotheses.
3. The Written Word:
Whether they pen fictional narratives, thought-provoking essays, or technical documentation, writers approach feedback to refine their storytelling and hone their craft. They often appreciate feedback that dives deep into the narrative structure, character development, and the text's overall impact on the reader. For writers, it's essential to understand how their words evoke emotions and resonate with their audience. My first clear approach to written critique was shared by Elizabeth Meadows, where a "reader" and "interviewer" discuss a piece of writing. At the same time, the writer remains a non-participatory observer. Only after the session has concluded can the writer ask for clarification.
4. The Melodic Harmony:
Musicians, composers, and performers have a unique relationship with feedback. Music is often a profound reflection of their identity, culture, and experiences. Feedback in this realm can be subjective, emphasizing how the music makes the audience feel. Musicians are open to experimentation and often welcome feedback that inspires them to explore new musical dimensions.
Bridging the Gap
While different disciplines may seem worlds apart in how they receive and give feedback, as well as the goal of the feedback, there are valuable lessons we can learn from one another. Understanding the emotional investment in one's work can influence how feedback is delivered. Being empathetic allows us to tailor feedback in a way that motivates and supports the creator. Additionally, emulating the scientific approach of detached objectivity can help provide more balanced feedback, particularly in user experience design, where data-driven decisions are crucial. Every discipline, in some way, revolves around storytelling. Recognizing this common thread can enable interdisciplinary collaboration and lead to more engaging and impactful creations. Artistry thrives in diverse expressions, and feedback should respect and encourage individuality rather than stifle it.
In conclusion, as user experience designers, we have much to gain from appreciating the diverse approaches to feedback in various disciplines. By being open to learning from each other, we can create more inclusive and user-centric experiences that resonate with audiences from all walks of life. As we embrace this diversity, we move closer to unlocking the true potential of our creations and fostering a community of collaborative and innovative thinkers.
Comments