<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<html><head><style type="text/css"><!--
blockquote, dl, ul, ol, li { padding-top: 0 ; padding-bottom: 0 }
--></style><title>[iDC] re: "Praxis-based"
Ph.Ds</title></head><body>
<div>Dear IDCs, we've have more substantive posts since my last
response. May I say that everyone is at least somewhat
ambivalent about the practice-based Ph.D. and some are totally
opposed. However, there are also acknowledgement of
possibilities that could be kept in mind in bringing this knowledge
format to realization: </div>
<div><br></div>
<div>--Pamela is truly in a interdisciplinary situation "a
joint position between a very</div>
<div>traditional school of art and traditional human computer
interaction<br>
institute in a school of computer science at a tier 1 research
university</div>
<div>in the United States. These departments/schools/institutes
represent</div>
<div>vastly different species in the landscape of higher
education." She goes on to identify specific differences
between teaching practices and student status in MFAs versus PhDs.
I find her practical comments and her final comments
encouraging:</div>
<div>"To conclude, I see the purpose of the praxis - based PhD
(of which the<br>
arts is not the only praxis-based Ph.D.) as the following:<br>
<br>
To close the gap between a type of discipline practice that refuses
to<br>
"mind the gap" and dive deep into its crevices.<br>
<br>
For programs to gain access to the university power and resources<br>
infrastructure that place emphasis on the PhD model of research and
pedagogy.<br>
<br>
To work with students in a hybid model that is both mentorship and<br>
apprenticeship.<br>
<br>
To support transdisciplinary scholarship in a hybrid practice that
extends<br>
beyond the individual walls of the university into a larger</div>
<div>internationally recognized community of practice."</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>--Chris raises several issues, but the one I want to highlight
here is her conclusion:<br>
"lets simply acknowledge the constructed dynamics and parameters
of the educational marketplace in which we are operative Š.
and let's see if we can envision, grant ourselves agency and
work our way / a way through it ( talk about a utopian notion!
) Perhaps those working their way through these newly formed
PHD research programs will make significant contributions in
this direction. Certainly, this discussion is one of the most
positive step I've witnessed." </div>
<div><br></div>
<div>--Henrik's longer post has other points, but he is
definitely against benchmarking. Further:</div>
<div>"Just with its [the Ph.D's] very structure it reproduces a
growing institutionalization of the</div>
<div>society. The way art organises knowlege has'nt got anything to
do with an academic knowledge system." Nontheless he is excited
to watch the academic sausages being made, along with the power
struggles involved. "Quite similar to art and style
discussion. Fascinating, as Spock would say. (((-:"</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>I responded to Danny Butt's most recent post already and perhaps
too harshly (I asked for more specifics about the inevitable process
of destruction the practice-based Ph.D. brings about he suggests)
since it is a clear expression of his stance, which I hope I am fair
in characterizing as strongly opposed. </div>
<div><br></div>
<div>I posted an appreciative addition to Simon's comments on artists
without degrees.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>--Kathy expresses a number of pragmatic concerns she has as a
chair of a department instituting a practice-based Ph.D. I think
her "off-wall concern" about collective Ph.D's is good to
think. She concludes: "I do appreciate a combined
synergistic approach to theory(research) and practice and have learned
much from the filmmakers/video artists who have worked to make clear
their engagement with the tools they work with, thus clarifying their
questions THROUGH their work. So, if this "practice" of working
and theorizing can be made clearer through this process of PhD work,
then more power to it. I hope that on each of our departments we can
make room for any and all of these approaches, and not succumb to the
limitations of professionalism and certification that lives well in
academia. Artists need to write and articulate their own processes
these days and I am excited by this approach."</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>--Thanks to Jack for referring us to James Elkin's "<font
color="#292526">Theoretical Remarks on Combined Creative and
Scholarly PhD Degrees in the Visual Arts."</font> I have to
admit I don't have it and it appears to be crucial reading.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>--Kembrew's educational corporate sponsorship prank is
delightful. Like many others, I teach about tactical art in my
courses and this example is a warning to us to watch it. One of
my students last quarter, Jessica, did a similar stunt for a more
limited audience re the campus Information Technology.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>--Saul's longer post concludes: "The real question do we
believe that purpose of the arts is to propose critical models capable
of resisting the instrumentality of positivism and pragmatism of
industry or are we to become an integral component of the culture
industry in which our own products will be determined by what the
market will support. .....- It seems to me that it continues
to be in our interest as a society to sustain the creative tension the
distinction between commercial and critical culture generates - I
believe that any program committed to educating artist at this time
must be one capable of producing students committed to critical rather
than functional ends." </div>
<div><x-tab> </x-tab>I
haven't dealt enough with the structure and content of the specific
courses we teach in my department(s) here or I wouldn't have to
explain this: I can safely say that I and all my colleagues teach and
do their research using critical, not merely formal and definitely not
corporate approaches. One strand of research represented by two
colleagues has a direct relation to social participation and cultural
change and others employ a variety of critical and independent
approaches. Being in a public educational system means that many
of our undergraduate students have never seen or known about art
before they reach our doors--"street" smarts are hard to
acquire in suburbia and the urban streets can be deadly. We eschew
commercial purposes in all our efforts--we belong to a research
university for a reason. If I have ever seemed to convey
otherwise, I wish you to know that no such message was intended.
If we succeed in our collaborations with sciences and engineering, it
will not be because we are furthering a corporate agenda.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>--Kevin's describes the state of teaching in the arts as
"non-discursive plurality." The challenges he outlines
suggest a deplorable situation in the arts. Mark's research
seems apropo as one remedy in identifying the "hidden agenda"
of art practice as a whole, bringing a latent discourse to life and
offering a coherence that is currently lacking. I can't speak directly
to Kevin's experiences because I come out of film studies, a highly
discursive discipline with a (perhaps too strongly) defined
methodology. I find Kevin's post moving and will keep his
closing comment in mind:</div>
<div>"In the same way that art or design research must struggle
to protect autonomous, exploratory, accountable research, it has to
find ways of using any newfound credibility to protect other
practices, other models that may not be able to justify their
existence within a research university structure. Traditional crafts
or individualized work MAY find shelter under lingering institutional
desires for a visible, if marginalized, arts domain to aid in the
construction of cultured citizens. But if these or other practices
express critiques of the founding principles of a university's
dominant practices, there will be little understanding, and possibly
hostility. Those who can find ways to practice as art researchers and
support themselves and their departments need to build in protection
for others.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>--Mary Anne (co-moderator) has commented on several of the above
posts in her last email. She ends her post in defense of the
positive outcomes one might expect from a practice-based Ph.D:</div>
<div>"...having Arts Ph.D.s would change/influence the confines
of what is academic knowledge/practice, ect.<br>
</div>
<div>Many traditional and text based fields are now using multi-media
formats as means of expressing/articulating ideas, which is more
representative of our multimedia social landscape and the different
kinds of literacies we practice daily."</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Trebor has set the 20th of January as the date this moderation
will end on. In a way, we have come so far, I don't know what
more will be said in the remaining time, but I might be
surprised.</div>
<div>Thanks. </div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div> </div>
</body>
</html>