The HOME Feedback Method is a carefully thought out system, where each round depends on the one(s) before, thus, there is an overall dramaturgy of the whole session as well as a guideline for making an argument for the feedbackers.
After the maker’s artistic offering, the essential, obligatory question for their consent to receive feedback and a brief personal reflection of each participant, the first collective round is the description of the sharing. As easy as it seemed in the first place, it soon turned out to be quite difficult, as the feedbackers are asked to use unloaded language as much as possible. Although I understand the approach, this creates some issues, as this is a skill that has to be learned and trained thoroughly. So people new to method need explanation to some extend and multiple sessions to practice this competence. Naturally when we first met the method this first descriptive round took a whole lot of time, going into detailed observations while finding the right words for it. The more the group becomes acquainted with this procedure, the easier and the quicker it will get.
Apart from that, in my opinion this descriptive part takes quite some time to outline and discuss about ‘unnecessary’ details. In this first round the group might not know, which description they might need in the later phases of the process, so the strategy is to throw in everything as many, as particular bits of information as possible. In my experience a lot of those details are not very relevant in the bigger picture of feedbacking the work, yet they take up a considerable part of time and space in this process.
After reconstructing the showing it is time for processing all the information we gathered. Building on the preceding description, the group identifies which dramaturgical operations were used. I find this super interesting and enriching, both to engage with it as a feedbacker, as well as the maker whose work is analyzed this way. 
Together with the following round, the identification of concepts, I connect this phase a lot with the notion, we have been engaging in within different modules, ‘thinking like a dramaturg’. The processing round works like an x-ray, it lets us see the structure within, the cornerstones on which the work is built and which building blocks were used. I experienced this as the essential part of the whole framework. It is unbelievably valuable to get this x-ray image handed to you without any judgement. Consequently it is on the maker what to with this info.
However, I believe that this phase works quite well in the context of our program, because we simultaneously engaged deeply with the notion of dramaturgical operations in another module. We have built some collective knowledge beforehand, on which we could base our processes and therefore thrive together, feedbackers and makers.
The next phase gives the group the opportunity to bring a magnifying glass to a specific aspect of the work. With a recommendation, an invitation to consider a specific issue, perspective or component. These topics had to be mentioned in every preceding phase, which I consider profound argument. It gives these considerations a depth, a reason to be acknowledged. I read this as an effort to contrast subjectivity and random claims. I do appreciate the highly formalized language that is used. “I would invite you to consider…” gives a clear frame, it supports upholding a safer space and prevents language to be used unintentionally.
A similar notion, I find, in the following round of permissioned opinions and references. Where it is obligatory to ask for consent to share personal thoughts, either an opinion or reference or anything else that needs to be shared at that point. Whereas I do value the asking for consent to bring in any subjective reactions, I find it hard to consent to something that I don’t know what it is going to be. In my experience so far with this method, no maker ever said no to an offered opinion, but we were using it mostly in a laboratory setting, where it was more about the feedback framework that about the work itself. I believe this approach could change in the open field of artistic sharings and at this point the question of consent will get essential and could turn out to be problematic, when not further specified than a generic question.
To wrap up the session, the word goes back to the maker, who was quite silent and mostly listening up to that point. This is a very powerful tool, as it prevents the maker to go into defensive mode during the feedback session, yet they have the last word, a chance to state what stays with them, to thank, to conclude the session. As I am engaged with the topic of power dynamics, artistically and socially, I find this a clever way of balancing hierarchies, which a crucial aspect of feedback giving.
Generally, I believe the HOME method has a quite high threshold to be accessible. It can thrive in a frame like the master’s program, where we have time to develop skills together, common knowledge and a specific, informed language as a group. Yet, I don’t see it as a method that quickly can be used with random peers.
Maybe because of the method is grounded in coding, is busy with analyzing, data processing and classifying, it sometimes feels a bit dry (and I’m aware that this is loaded language). Besides all the benefits this can bring, the described dramaturgical x-ray image, that I highly appreciate, I am missing some soul, some subjectivity, some associations, dreams and intuition. I am aware that there is a small space for it in the method, but it feels too narrow, too jammed between the rational rounds.
Examining this framework gave me some valuable ideas on how to proceed with creating my own method. I am excited!