A crucial component of The Great British Baking Show/Great British Bake Off (depending on where you live) is criticism. It’s a show that intends to separate the custard from the scrambled eggs by determining the best and worst baker each week, until only 3 remain. In order to do that, the judges engage in continual feedback cycles with each participant, as well as public judging of every single bake. In that regard, it’s not unlike art criticism, which is almost always public. Participants also are constantly critiquing their own work and their own skill level, and they critique each other (although this is generally always positive).
After watching all the episodes on Netflix several times over, some thoughts have bubbled to the surface regarding the criticism on the show.
Everyone expects the feedback culture, but may not be prepared for it
Something you hear from participants in the first episode of each season is “I didn’t expect them to judge the first bake that harshly.” Most people who are coming into the tent are not used to being critiqued by professionals on their bakes (why would they be?) and are therefore not often ready to hear negative feedback. There is an unacknowledged chasm between the feedback they’re used to, and the feedback in the tent.
Participants’ attitude towards criticism affects their chance of success
The people who hear criticism and are then motivated to improve in specific ways are more likely to last longer on the show than people who can’t move past the criticism itself. Both types of people may be initially affected to the same degree (that is, they may be devastated), but there is a subtle difference between people who are mortified to have done less than their best, and people who are at a loss for how they did so poorly. Some bakers say “I didn’t get it right,” and others say “it’s [the bake] not what they wanted;” the first is someone taking personal accountability, and the latter is avoiding accountability.
The feedback given is consistent throughout the season…
The judges approach to criticism doesn’t change throughout the season. The briefs typically get more complex, and the technical challenge relies more and more on the bakers’ skills rather than written instruction, but the feedback at its core is the same. Bakers are expected to complete the brief (the viewer doesn’t always know what’s in the brief), they are expected to bake competently, and they are expected to use their baking instincts to interpret ambiguity.
…even though not every misbake is judged equal
As the season progresses, bakers are expected to become increasingly competent in their baking and time management, so reverting to earlier mistakes or making basic errors is typically judged more harshly than a new type of mistake or error. As the participants are whittled down to those who are consistently better bakers, the overall skill level on the show increases. As that happens, the judges fine-tune their critiques.
Criticism is given with context and an intent to improve
The judges only give criticism with context. They always explain the error, and why it’s a problem. They give possible solutions or ways to avoid the same error. Their intent is to help the baker understand their baking flaws and improve on them. The participants who go the furthest listen to the feedback and apply it to their future bakes. However, that doesn’t mean that good bakers avoid doing things that failed for them before. Often a fairly advanced baker will circle back around to an element that they didn’t execute well the first time. They have taken the criticism into account and it’s given them the confidence to try it again.
The judges separate person, personality, and criticism
The judges (Paul, Mary, and Prue in various seasons) all have different personalities and different approaches. Paul presents himself as a straight-talking, no-nonsense man-from-the-trenches. He’s been baking apparently since he was 3 or 4 in his family bakery, so when it comes to instinct with baking (particularly breads), Paul is seen as an expert. He’s seen as strict and of the highest standard. Mary is the firm, but loving, nan on the show. People tend to adore her and feel mortified if they disappoint her. Mary is something of an institution to these bakers, so her gentle attention is like a soothing balm to their souls. She also wins people over with her love of booze and cheekiness. Prue is inexorable, like a glacier gliding through the tent. Her experience and unerring taste make her a formidable judge, although she doesn’t present as intimidating.
Paul has little patience for repeat mistakes, or for foolish mistakes, but if he likes something, he says so. Mary tends to find something nice to say about most of the bakes, even if she also has many critical things to say; it can sometimes come across a bit comic, but I suspect that for the baker in the moment, it’s a kindness. Prue doesn’t wait to deliver critical feedback. You know how Prue feels about a bake immediately, because she says what she means and what she thinks.
When each judge is going through the tent, they do make an effort to understand each baker and their motivation. They appreciate the different bakers for their different approaches and styles, and don’t hide that. However, when it comes to the judging itself, they judge the bake, not the baker. To add a check to their potential bias, one bake each episode is judged blind — the judges don’t know who baked what.
Criticism is both shallow and deep
In the technical challenge, since the judges don’t know who has done the bake they dive deeply into the technique and execution. They don’t compound the criticism with the bakers’ past wins and fails. However, when they judge each piece in front of the baker, they take the baker’s individual strengths and weaknesses at baking into account. They give feedback and advice based on what the baker is good or weak at. Each face-to-face judging gives the baker the most depth on their overall baking skill, especially when considered alongside all their other criticism. The blind judging gives the baker a sense of how their baking relates to their peers’ baking, but doesn’t necessarily build on their previous feedback. The most successful bakers find the value in each kind of feedback, and use it to move forward.
Not all highly competent bakers win
Every winner is highly competent, but not all the bakers who are highly competent win. To begin with, the show styles the bakers in the tent as the 12 best amateur bakers in Britian (for that year). So the bakers are all of a high standard from the outset. One bad weekend of baking can exit an excellent baker from the show. This is especially true once the semifinals begin. Because the judging is public and consistent, the outcome of each show feels accurate, even if it’s not predictable. Generally, you have a good sense of who is in trouble and who has done quite well even before the private tent discussion between the judges and the hosts. You may not accurately guess who exactly is star baker and who is going home, but you aren’t usually surprised — even if a favorite seems like they are in trouble. The build up of the critiques over the three bakes gives even the viewer at home the ability to feel part of the process.
The criticism is worth the gain
This show is so ridiculously pure. The bakers compete for bragging rights, a bouquet of flowers, and a cake stand. Bless their wonderful hearts and their soggy bottoms. I absolutely love that the official prize has practically no monetary value. Unofficially, bakers are on a (potentially) twelve-week crash course in hyper-accelerated baking improvement. They all go home better than when they arrived. The people who leave in the first two or three episodes obviously get the least benefit, but they still are exposed to high-pressure baking and are critiqued by professionals, at least three times. What they take home from that is up to them, but they are given the feedback fairly. The real gift the bakers win is highly individualized and priceless: the personalized criticism they recieve along the way.
The story of a seventeen-year search that’s helped me refine my ideas on art and futility.
It’s 11:48pm, and while I’m lying down trying to sleep, in my mind I’ve already sat back up and opened Google. Moments later, the screen casts its malarial glow as I hunch over my phone, scrolling, scrolling, scrolling. Hunting.
In 2002, I was sitting in a dark room watching slides illuminated on a screen, click, click, click. One after another — dates, details, click. Time flows by twice; once by the ticking of the clock on the wall, and once by the moments of humanity captured first on canvas, then on film and projected on the wall. The slides were slowly catching up to the clock, but forever fated to be a movement behind. That day, however, the slides couldn’t have been much past 1960. The historical moment was rife with possibility and restriction; the ongoing friction between political censure and personal freedom was building in the United States. The art movement was abstract expressionism.
Professor Pierce was describing the reason behind the movement, but also the unreason, the emotion. The artists drawn to this style of work, and the power behind the statements they made with color and shape; the emotion they could show with strokes on a canvas. I remember her saying “Elaine de Kooning was often overshadowed by her husband,” click and on the screen there was a luminous, arresting, unapologetic goat. I don’t remember anything after that, but the goat. The confidence and brashness in the strokes, the energy and movement in a still image. The very goatness of the goat. It was an immediate and visceral reaction. I was in love with the goat. Elaine de Kooning’s goat.
When I was still in the art department in university, I didn’t feel compelled to seek out the goat. I had the artist’s name, I knew the picture down to the ground. I felt calmly confident of being reunited at some point, but that it could wait. I had other things to pursue, and plenty to keep me occupied. My goat wasn’t going anywhere.
As time and life both do, things continued such. I graduated and went to live in Ithaca, NY, with my best friend in a tiny attic garret in Collegetown. By day, I worked at a bagel place (Collegetown Bagels), also by day I worked at American Eagle, and by night I worked at a deli. This is the economic burden of an art degree. Eventually, I was able to give up those jobs in favor of a first shift job at MacKenzie Childs, trimming handmade ceramic tile before it was fired in the kiln. The job was 7am to 3pm, with a 30-minute lunch. We stood, and we worked in groups around long benches. I had time to think at that job. I thought about the goat.
I went back to school to take a master’s degree in English. My focus was American literature during the 20th century. Without particular deliberation, I found myself drawn to the period when the goat was made. Coincidence, perhaps. The style of both types of works were heavily influenced by the tensions of the day. The sense of speed, of the lightest possible touch presented in a heavy way, the audacity to say this is art.
I dove deeply into the time period, and I remember my thoughts finding the goat often. Faulkner, Hemingway, Dos Passos, McCarthy (Mary, not Joe) — all wrote in a way that camouflaged their aching and back-breaking investment in their stories. Simple stories told simply and clearly, and complex stories told cleanly, and non-stories told not at all, but redefined the genre. They all were able to do this by being excellent at the craft. Words to sentences, sentences to stories. Similarly, the abstract expressionists were able to create these wild, breathless paintings only because they could faithfully reproduce what they saw. Degas said, “drawing is not what one sees, but what one can make others see,” and these artists captured something raw and lovely, preserving it, and showing others what it felt like to see what an artist saw.
At the time I was thinking about my thesis and teaching freshmen how to write college papers, the internet was blooming. Wikipedia was being enthusiastically cited by professors and teachers the country over as a source not to cite, Internet Explorer was the most popular browser (and Netscape Navigator was going rapidly and quietly into that dark night), and Google was ebulliently becoming the search tool of choice. Google Images had been around for some time by now, thanks to JLo, and using the internet was much more natural for students than it had been even five years before. In between searching out criticism and research on my intended thesis subjects, I had at my fingertips an avenue to the goat. I began looking.
The guiding philosophy of the web may as well be “try again.” Good ideas don’t die, they just evolve, and nowhere do you see that happening faster than on the internet. There is perhaps a delicate line we could draw between how art and the history of art itself mirrors these radical shifts and the evolutionary nature of the internet, but further thought there is disrupted by the gnawing need to find. The goat; where is it? It must be out there. It must.
Except, it isn’t.
In the late 1950s, Elaine de Kooning moved to Albuquerque, New Mexico, to teach. While there, she traveled to Mexico and saw (presumably among much else) bullfights. Thus, a series was borne of her reaction to the intensity and violence of the tradition. This is a famous series — famous being relative to those people who know Elaine de Kooning exists, and are aware of her work — featuring a series of ungulates with horns in dramatic, bold strokes and vibrant, charged colors.
An interesting thing about art on the internet is that if no one cares to put an image of a piece on the internet, it isn’t on the internet. That may sound obvious, and of course it is, but lesser-known works can be effectively invisible, in a practical sense they are unpainted. Particularly if the artist themselves are lesser-known, possibly people who have been perpetually overshadowed by their husbands. Many of Elaine de Kooning’s works on the internet are found on one website, and no other. No one website holds them all. There is no easy catalogue, no set reference. No positive negative, no way to say “yes, this does not exist.”
A few years ago while visiting the Carnegie Museum of Art in Pittsburgh, I pounced on a book on Elaine de Kooning in the gift shop. I regret not buying it, but at the time the wave of disappointment I felt on not finding the goat in that one book manifested as disappointment in the book. I’m sure it’s a very good book; it was wonderfully fat and gorgeous. But it was missing our goat. The index didn’t hold any clues, and none of the photo reproductions I skimmed through gave me the rush I was searching for. Disappointment dimmed in the face of frustration; I remember this day vividly, because the rest of it was tinged by the hurt I felt at again not finding this elusive goat.
There comes a point in the life cycle of everything you know to be true, when you have questions. When is a goat not a goat? When is a goat a bull? Is a goat a bull? Does the goat even exist? What if I got it wrong? What if I don’t remember what I think I remember?
A consequence of returning to this search over and over again has been a deeper understanding of Elaine de Kooning and her work. In 2002, I was interested in Elaine de Kooning for one reason — a goat, and the high I got the first time I saw it. The order of priority for me was simple: (1) feel that intense excitement and contentment again by (2) finding the goat. EdeK was tertiary and not important outside providing authority; she was a search term at best.
Finding the goat became the first priority after a few years, because the search constricted. I would look for the goat in 5-minute increments, months apart, while doing other things. I’d forget about the goat and the mystery of where it could be hiding for a few weeks or a few months, or the better part of a year, and then suddenly the frantic search would be on again. I would drown in the hunt, for brief bursts. Unblinking searches, flitting through pages and pages of images, scanning articles and biographies of Elaine de Kooning to find a reference — any reference — to a goat painting.
Slowly and steadily, gyring out of the haze of disregard, my appreciation of Elaine de Kooning began to make itself known. I realized that I had unintentionally absorbed information about her, the person and artist, that I hadn’t looked for. I hadn’t had any interest in her, yet I now had an investment, unwittingly paid for. There was no attrition in my interest and pursuit of the goat, but now the goat had become infused in the woman. It was a sign that had gained an important signifier and the two could not be separated. The search for the goat became an investigation into EdeK. The goat had a second, metaphorical, face and a mythology, and that was the story and work of the artist.
A fair amount of an art degree is rote memorization. You have to know what came before and why, before you can likewise capture the ever-changing present in a way that undeniably is of the “now.” You start with the facts before you can start with the ideas. You sit in a carrel and whisper over and over “Mark Rothko was born in Russia in 1903. He moved to the United States. He died in 1970. Mark Rothko was born in Russia in 1903. He moved to the United States. He died in 1970.” Other times you flip flashcards scrawled with “Guernica was completed in 1937. It is massive and the size is meant to overwhelm. It’s about the bombing of Guernica and war.” You sit in classrooms, knuckles under your chin, as you take notes on art movements and their position in the constellation of history. Sometimes you get the privilege of connecting the facts and the ideas into a nuanced understanding of the artists behind the movement, and the motivation behind the artist, but not always. Mostly, it’s because of time.
Time is limiting or endless. It’s relative, and the endless ocean of boredom of the youth melts into the ceaseless distractions of adulthood. I look at art history MFA programs, and sigh at the time investment. Few offer remote options; few consider anything but full-time study acceptable. I let myself have a daydream about having nothing to do but learn, and how wonderful and enjoyable that must be. I forget the mindless acquisition of facts. I forget how disagreeable pleasurable things can be when on someone else’s schedule. I forget the constriction of canon, the work that goes into doing the work — classes that prepare you to write a thesis or get a job. I forget that even now, when I give chase to the goat, I resent the tiny micromoments I have to search. I resent every person who has constricted my search by not being interested enough in EdeK to put her work on the internet, and therefore have narrowed my very specific pool even further. I forget that I can learn anything I desire, given a long enough timespan.
Does the goat exist? Why does no one else love it?
While my sessions devoted to the goat may be sporadic, they are all-consuming. I am pushed, forced to look. My need to find it strangles me. I can’t take a deep breath, I can’t pull my mind away from worrying the problem, I can’t think. I just need to think.
When my brain isn’t burning in its own meninges to find the goat, I can sometimes think about the goat. I can sometimes struggle past the urge to look, just for a minute or two, and think. I wonder at the irrationality and ego needed to continue to look. I don’t want to be wrong, and I refuse to be wrong. The goat exists. I would rather accept that I may be lying to myself about the goat, than choose an answer. But no, the goat does not exist. There would be references to the goat. Would Elaine paint a goat? So similar to the bulls, but not actually related in theme or emotion. Why would she paint a goat?
Elaine de Kooning was born in 1918 in Brooklyn. She had an unperfect childhood, but more or less ok. She drew in school. Smart and lively, Elaine floated around some, getting in good with a group of artists. Her relationship to Willem de Kooning was … complicated. 14 years older than her, he was arrogant and cruel and incidentally an alcoholic. His relationship to Elaine was frustrated by her natural abilities. Elaine relentlessly promoted her husband’s work and believed in his talent. She, too, was an alcoholic, and steeped herself in affair and affair. Willem knew. Willem didn’t care. Willem only cared that she was the better artist. Elaine de Kooning was long overshadowed by her more famous husband. She wrote about art and she taught art. She had incredible talent and made time to nurture an appreciation for art in others. She was prolific and vital. Finally, however, Elaine died following complications from lung cancer, in 1989.
Elaine de Kooning was drawn to portraiture. She started in elementary school, drawing her classmates, and eventually painted JFK for the National Portrait Gallery. She didn’t confine herself to painting people posed for portraits; she painted basketball players reaching en masse for the ball, she painted movement and light and restless energy. She painted landscapes and bulls. She painted the suggestion of a bull or a landscape, the lightest, most breathless whisper. What the viewer saw might be a bull. The viewer may also see the spirit, the violence of the bull, the figure a palimpsest obscured by the vitality. The viewer saw what the artist drew, and more than anything, Elaine drew life. She fearlessly evolved her work and her approach to it. Her work, taken as a whole, represents potential. She is a complicated, brilliant figure, and she created art.
For seventeen years, I’ve looked for a goat among bulls. The roaring frustration at the fruitlessness of this search hasn’t changed. It hasn’t pushed me to give up my search, because it grows from the catastrophic need to find. The twist in my gut that’s partly thrill, partly fear whenever I feel I’ve almost caught sight of the goat — something out of the tail of my eye — is too heady a drug. The resentful realization that the goat may be a bull and I’ve already seen it but didn’t feel it, has been an ugly and unwelcome chapter, but I can’t yet let it be the end of the story. Academically, I recognize that the search is almost certainly futile. I have, however, surrendered to the futility, because I’ve found other things along the way. My frantic pacing up and down the same stretch of road has shown me more, more deeply, than a quick, cursory, and successful search ever could have, because it’s been spread out over time. I’ve changed and grown independently of the search, and each time I return, I’m seeing with a new perspective. I’ve been given the opportunity to sink into a time, place, a body of work, a person’s life; sometimes so shallowly as to skip across the surface, but often. I’ve been given a chance to open my eyes and recognize that a cupful here, a scoop there has added up to something significant. I’ve gotten to know an artist, a person, and her work as a very real part of my life. A small part, but a contented part. A part that is pleased by knowing and that has a relationship with the knowledge gained. I haven’t lost the time and freedom to study what I’m interested in. Indeed, I’ve never stopped. But now I know my labor and I know my path. I welcome a journey towards a goat that will always recede, just beyond sight. There is a pleasurable futility to the goat search. If I never find it, I need never stop looking.