Lesson 11 – Peer Review & Workshop

Schedule

Time	Desc
00:00 – 00:15	Intro
00:15 – 01:00	Peer Review Session
01:00 – 01:10	Break
01:10 – 01:45	Workshop: Refine Week’s Journal Work
01:45 – 02:00	Wrap up

🎯 Focus

Develop the ability to give and receive constructive critique on generative art journals.
Emphasis on clarity, reflection, iteration, and articulating algorithmic thinking.

Content

Brief

Today’s session is dedicated to peer review and collaborative critique.
The goal: help each other refine documentation, strengthen conceptual thinking, and deepen algorithmic clarity.

This activity aligns with the journal requirements (exploration, references, algorithmic thinking, reflection) and supports building a rigorous creative practice.

What makes good peer feedback?

Peer review is not about grading — it is about supporting process, clarifying ideas, and asking good questions that help the artist move forward.

Good feedback is:

• Specific (not vague)
• Curious (not judgmental)
• Actionable
• Connected to the artist’s intentions
• Focused on process, not just outcome

Avoid:
❌ “It looks cool”
✔ “This variation introduces interesting structure — what rule change produced it?”

🧩 Peer Review Framework

Peer questions are organized around the four required journal components.

A) Exploration & Experimentation

Guiding questions:

• What experiments did you notice? Are they documented clearly?
• Which parameters were explored? Are their ranges explained?
• Is there evidence of iteration (not just final images)?
• Are successes and failures shown?
• Do visuals (screenshots, sketches) help you understand the process?

Helpful prompts:

• “I’m curious what would happen if you pushed this parameter further.”
• “Showing more failed attempts might strengthen your narrative.”

B) Influences & References

Guiding questions:

• Are references specific and relevant?
• Do they explain why each reference matters?
• Can you see how influences connect to their experiments?
• Are they engaging with generative art history?

Helpful prompts:

• “This connection to Molnár makes sense — could you point out which rule echoes her work?”
• “Is there another artist who might illuminate this direction?”

C) Algorithmic Thinking

Guiding questions:

• Is the rule system clearly articulated?
• Do they show how code → visual output?
• Are constraints and parameters explained?
• Would pseudocode or a diagram help?

Helpful prompts:

• “Your description is clear, but adding a sketch of the rule flow could help.”
• “How does changing this parameter alter the visual logic?”

D) Critical Reflection

Guiding questions:

• Are they reflecting, or just describing?
• Do they analyze failures and surprises?
• Do they state why they made certain decisions?
• Are they posing questions for next steps?

Helpful prompts:

• “You mention wanting more order — what strategies might achieve that?”
• “Which aspect of this week’s work feels most promising to develop?”

🔍 Workshop Component

After peer feedback, students spend time refining their journal, focusing on:

• Clarifying rule systems
• Expanding reflection
• Adding missing sketches or documentation
• Strengthening connections to references
• Making experiments + variations more explicit

🧭 Suggested Workshop Flow

1. Silent Viewing (5 min)
   Look through peer journal entries without speaking.

2. Artist Intro (2 min)
   What was your focus this week? What were you trying to explore?

3. Peer Feedback Round (15–20 min)
   Use the guiding questions.

4. Artist Reflection (2 min)
   Clarify, but don’t defend.

5. Actionable Takeaways (3 min)
   Peers offer 1–2 concrete next steps.

🎨 References & Inspiration

Focus on artists using rule-based systems, iteration, process, and documentation, such as:

• Vera Molnár
• Sol LeWitt
• Bridget Riley (for systematic variation)
• Contemporary generative artists in your reference boards

📝 Activities

• Exchange journals with partners or small groups.
• Use the questions above to structure feedback.
• Identify gaps in your own documentation.
• Revise journal entries during the workshop period.

📂 Deliverables

• Updated journal entry for the week.
• One clarified or expanded section (exploration, references, algorithmic thinking, reflection).
• Optional: add sketches or diagrams that clarify your thinking.

📓 Journal Prompts

• What feedback surprised you or opened new directions?
• What part of your documentation felt unclear to peers?
• How will you adjust your process moving forward?
• What do you want to explore next week based on today’s review?

🔚 Wrap Up & Homework

• Revise your journal with today’s feedback.
• Add at least one new question or direction to explore next week.
• Ensure all experiments and references are clearly documented.