I find the issue of shared meaning, important to keep in mind to differentiate what might be a common or general reading of the work, vs. the one off association. It feels important for post-critique analysis specially.

So would it be said this was done more for the group vs for the artist?

It would be interesting to see this document in this format but also in the format as it was developed to see what ideas were discussed first and then developed, what was d the last meaning etc

I wonder how important the time off in between critiques is for the purpose of arriving to multiple meanings / exhausting meaning? How would it have changed if the critique didn't have those breaks in between? Did the breaks allow for nuances to emerge, or did people keep coming back to the same themes over and over again until it was agreed that there was no more to be discussed?