Thinking back to education and academia. Many people over 26 in England. If you so had the pleasure were not just open to a method of criticism it was a mandatory procedure and participation of higher education.

Within the spectrum of understand for students who had to deal with this, there was an academic method that was passed down through millennia, inscribed into it, fused with it was an understanding that each participant had their own way. So it wasn’t a completely inadaptable method of academia it was thoughtful and thorough in its ability to evolve pupils.

I had not only the pleasure but the grace to accept these criticisms because this wasn’t about just getting better it was about being better, more effective, as well as efficient in your methods of understanding your craft and rendering your style, your characterisation, your principles and your thesis, to the class.

If you had a solid understanding of what it meant to be you, there was an ability to not be scathed by your peers. Knowing the back and forth existed, critiques were fair and part of the culture. If someone was too harsh it could be your turn to be just as critical. Being exposed to different temperaments, thesis and ways of creation allowed an adaptability towards yourself. To seek the answers inwards, for what was exposed without.

It’s known to academics in university a part of schooling is the allowance to think critically, you can be critical and not pierce someone you could also create from a space of deep understanding. Of yourself and delve more into why you think the way you do.

This is what I gained from my tutelage, how I have understood it 14 years later and create today. Knowing now being in an environment conducive to activities of producing art and design enriches you in many ways.

The participants who deal in critical thinking can aid in your betterment. Some people can be better as critical analysis and some can be great at rendering ideas and not be great at thinking critically. Both are useful in the environment of pedagogy, not just that these environments are useful throughout your life in terms of business as well as the theatre of art media and sports.

The one failing I see is the critical deciding to be writers and dropping art instead of being better rather than being a child genius. Allow your critical method and practical renderings be on par with one another.

The one trapping of my generation was the idea that those who were not great in school wouldn’t be as good in the working environment, further, still the working environment would be cold and cruel to them as they had an inability to create practically with no thought.

I surmise that these people would be great years down the line. The working environment shouldn’t discard them and all types are needed not just for better practices but creatively building stories and art.

My education was in computer animation. Simply put we were studying in what built the teams for 3D films and tv shows. Being great younger gave you an allowance to be consistent later. in the moment of creation because you were good enough to create animations or models people would like you could spend more time rendering within your processes. Breaking down the pipeline you had people who wrote, created sketches for characters and storyboards for animation. People that built the models for the environments and those who made the characters, people who animated these scenes and those who composited these scenes for directors. Each one integral.

When I look back to my tutelage I’m endeared to it, I also see the trappings and can critique it fairly. the ideas I’ve gleaned since then is my knowledge that people left or dropped out of animation because they couldn’t find a job or felt the competition to be too stiff. For myself, I could never reject animation and I embraced art, moreover, I wanted to make art more than animate.

Creating something physical meant more to me than making a tenth of a film. As much as I love cinema I pursued being better at art, in the academic way, which endeared me more to animation because I discovered how great my tutelage was and use what I learned till this day. Showing me my education was effective.

What I see now is the space between artists and their lack of involvement with one another. There are some silos, mainly of people who create alike, the knowledge though that people can think the same and make totally different things never slipped from my mind. Not to say there doesn’t exist, spaces where people make totally different things from one another – but go say there needs to be more involvement between artists to admire people that don’t make like them but think like them.

This involvement will better critiques and solidify for people techniques and new ways of making they wouldn’t have otherwise devised if they weren’t surrounded by peers who were different to them.

In my timeline I have spent years in other disciplines to get to the space I am now and create the work I am happy with. Knowing my creations don’t just come from one space but a multitude.

What’s left is the culture of criticism. I’m very happy with people who have a singular focus of creating a film or a product, those are devices of media.

What I am acknowledging though is the desperate need for artists to join in hands and be counted to the culture of individualism and summary. People can think like you and make totally different things. What I have noticed in fashion is just that, people can have the same tutelage and same reference point, not of pastiche origin and make different ‘products’.

The further point is to crystallise this understanding, to be able to critique each other to be better in their respective style of creation. We draw from multiple reference points and can illustrate lines of connectivity, delivering better more fruitful work.

The most fruitful critique is the one that comes from your peer , a person who understands you, your process and what the endpoint you’re trying to reach is.