I am responding to your lesson as an assignment on lesson critiques. I noticed that the lesson is just a studio lesson. Have you considered activities such as pre-studio's? This would generate discussions and reviewing Goldsworty's art. They are designed to help students further understand the artist as apposed to just choosing a peice of art that the students think are aesthetically pleasing. If they are going to choose an artwork by Goldsworthy they should ask themselves critically why they choose that particular piece of art. When they choose this art are they copying it? or is it just an example of a style they want to produce with their own environment. I have a problem with drawing Goldsworthy's three dimensional environmental in two dimension. Your statement of the issue was clearly Goldsworty's theory, getting in touch with nature and using only the materials from the land. If a student is to draw Goldsworty's art I think they would be missing his actual process and feeling of working with the environment. Their is an essence of change in Goldsworty's artwork that will be ignored and I think students will never completely understand environmental art and it's purposes. It is good that you want to discuss art with your students but, without more structure to base the discussions on what will they discuss? Formal qualities? emotions? Issues? What are they going to develop from this studio? Who are we teaching? Age group? I feel like I am missing information here and only getting part of a lesson, let me know if this is true. I am interested in the topic and would like to see the whole lesson if you have it. As for the studio aspect I think, my total opinion, that your lesson should be reflective of your issue statement. That should help you decide what you are going to teach and how you are going to teach it. Thank you for letting me respond to your studio lesson. I hope I made some helpful suggestions.