[iDC] Praxis-based Ph.D.s
Christiane Robbins
cpr at mindspring.com
Sat Jan 13 15:28:43 EST 2007
I've been trying to find the time (!) to participate in this
discussion for a few days now.... and, yes, this evokes the previous
exchange!
This issue of the PHD in digital arts and experimental media is an
area of administrative and pedalogical quandary that I have been
working on for everal years now. Both Maggie and Tara are familiar
with my earlier proposals which have addressed the challenges
inherent in the realm of university wrangling for instituting “new”
degree programs in the territories of the interdisciplinary digital
media arts.
In this discussion thus far, I have found it interesting that the
issue of the increasing ( and accepted ) devaluation of the MFA has
not been raised substantively thus far in our discussions.
Let me admit my self-interested concern in that in 1989 I received my
terminal degree from a 3 yr. MFA program at CalArts. At that point
in time there were two discreet entities leading to graduate degrees
in Visual Arts and/or Cinema - the 2 yr. MA and the 3 yr. MFA. I
assume that these two distinctly different degrees remain obtainable
in universities and colleges today and in other areas which may be
regarded as “professional studies” or creative practices. My
understanding was that the MA was appropriate for those whose goals
did not include university teaching positions. On the other hand,
the MFA – the terminal degree was initially intended to be held as
equal to the PHD within the university hierarchy.
The problem is – the MFA rarely functioned this way within the
reality of a University environment. It is well known in University
administrative structures, such as funding ( including salary
tiers ) that an MFA degree simply does not hold the same currency
( in all senses) as a PHD.
Let me be clear, I am not against the creation and institution of a
PHD. In fact, I have been responsible for designing various
curricula proposals for the creation of such a degree program for the
past ten years. However, it is incumbent upon us all to recognize
the motivations for such implementation… which might include:
Why are these programs necessary to the careerism of today’s world ?
What does it means to be professionally sanctioned digital artists
whose seeming goal seems to be fully operative in the University
teaching/research posts or corporate research environments?
Is this a hyper-embodiment of 18th/19thc Beaux Arts Academy of Ingres
and David?
Is this a way to differentiate University ( primarily it appears to
be instituted in Research I Universities ) programs from those of
Arts Schools such as CalArts and or the Art Institute of Chicago?
(APOLOGIES for privileging the US centric references.)
Is this move a more accurate reflection of larger cultural and socio-
economic values?
How will this PHD be operative within the art market system – is it
necessary?
This institutionalized bifurcation of research and practice – how
will that be actualized within the PHD?
Maggie and Mary Anne – I’m certain that you and your faculty have has
these discussions and I ‘d be curious as to your/their responses.
These are merely a few questions raised for me. Further discussions
as to what practices these programs may embody and, subsequently,
produce … or continue to reproduce in terms of academic legacies and
the self-replication of research trajectories are necessary. How
does one reconcile this with the implicit underpinnings of creative
practices – how does one redefine such a discipline via the
mechanisms of an institutionalized infrastructure and ideologies ?
Is the PHD to be considered the same as the current MFA - with
simply more time allotted to as necessary to the consideration and re-
negotiation of 21st c information overload?
A more on the ground and pragmatic example of issues raised at USC in
the school of Fine Arts- there is only a 2 yr. MFA. A number of us
had been attempting to change that into either a 3 yr. MFA or a cross-
disciplinary PHD – for many of the reasons already proffered. While,
for the most part, the school’s faculty felt that the current 2yr.
MFA may be insufficient time necessary for adequate study, there were
other issues which came to bear upon their considerations ( I know –
there always are!) Not the least of which were financial
considerations of the costs borne by those who attend a private
university. At the School of Fine Arts, most, if not all, of the
graduate students are offered a full package of financial aid.
However, the challenge of raising additional funding for another year
and keeping students in school rather than generating a livelihood
seemed prohibitive. In considering a PHD these issues were also
raised. But, of course, with a PHD, a much wider range of employment
options seems probable, no?
Going full circle here in academic considerations – we might ask if
the MFA is even necessary any more, once we recognize it as somewhat
of charade in the advent of a PHD. Perhaps the field itself should
align itself with the sequencing structural requirements of the
University in general – an MA and then a PHD? A relevant question
here arises as to why this did not take place initially in the
creative disciplines?
All best,
Chris
On Jan 12, 2007, at 11:06 AM, Mary Anne wrote:
> Some responses to the discussion.
>
> Re, David's to Margaret: perhaps I didn't understand the response
> but I would say, of course, and simplistically say yes:
> the approach to creativity, research, art-making within an Arts
> Ph.D. program, and an M.F.A. Program, is to treat that "making
> (media) art is itself its own way of knowing."
> In a sense, such a degree is a critique of traditional hierarchical
> notions of "knowledge," "academic value," "intelligence," and what
> is of worth and supported within culture.
>
> Regarding Tom's discussion, it is a huge challenge to achieve the
> kind of development needed for serious work in a two year MFA.
> I have been teaching since the mid 80s as a theorist in an art
> department (previously at RISD), and the grads I am now working
> with at Rensselaer are, in most cases, older, and I would say, more
> developed as artists than I experienced during my early years of
> teaching. This may be a difference in programs, but it may be part
> of a "trend."
>
> Also in the age of the corporate university, our business models
> demand short, economically efficient terminal degrees. Three years
> is now recommended for a Ph.D.
>
> Given the type of work so many artists are exploring, the time
> needed to learn the tech or to get some background in another
> field, like science and technology studies, or biology has been one
> of the key factors leading to the development of the Ph.D.
>
> To address the core question of the doors being shut or open?
>
> If I have to choose either or, black or white, yes or no, open or
> closed,
> I choose open.
>
> What would a Ph.D. offer? I hope it would give artists some of
> the opportunities available to other fields:
> the opportunity, at least for several years, to work within a
> creative community that
> has resources, intellectual resources like libraries, technological
> resources, and,
> perhaps most important, time to focus on their work.
>
> I hope it would not make the MFA obsolete, and it really couldn’t,
> not for decades, not for all situations, literally
> generations of artists with MFA degrees would have to die out.....
> but for many current university professorships, and administrative/
> curatorial positions,
> and some technical/interdiciplinary work, having more
> than a two year degree (and previously a one year M.A. had been
> enough) is
> becoming "helpful," in some instances, necessary.
>
> So all this is the positive side of this development.
>
> Mary Anne
>
> On 1/11/07 7:53 PM, "twsherma at mailbox.syr.edu"
> <twsherma at mailbox.syr.edu> wrote:
>
> >
> > Hi Mary Anne and iDCers:
> >
> > Thanks to Mary Anne Staniszewski (and Margaret Morse) for getting
> this
> > thread started. I've been watching these interdisciplinary PhDs
> develop
> > over the past decade, first in the UK and then across North
> America. As a
> > practicing artist it has always struck me as odd that artists
> would want
> > to go to university for eight to ten years (BA or BFA, MA or MFA
> and PhD)
> > before beginning their practice full-time. Of course an artist's
> practice
> > is more synonymous than ever with information provision and
> research in
> > this era, so there isn't the same disadvantage being in a
> university that
> > there once was.
> >
> > I suppose there will be phds and PHDs in art praxis, in the same
> way there
> > are different kinds of MFAs. For those of us who work with graduate
> > students in three-year MFA programs, it is hard to fathom how people
> > develop their work sufficiently in a two-year MFA. Young artists
> rushing
> > to Brooklyn or LA or Toronto or London or Prague, sometime worry
> they will
> > lose their street smarts in a three-year MFA. You know, they
> don't call it
> > the 'terminal degree' for nothing. Artists functioning in a critical
> > academic environment often become so self-conscious and tentative
> they can
> > hardly go forward with their work (Marcel Duchamp said "art is a
> disease;"
> > and sometimes university-based art students are cured by the time
> they get
> > their diplomas).
> >
> > With PhDs in studio we will have a greater diversity of types or
> classes
> > of artists: those who take their BFA to the city and start making
> art;
> > those who take their MFA to the city and start making art; those
> few who
> > take their MFA into a university where they balance their art
> making with
> > teaching and service; those who take their PhD into a university
> to make
> > art or conduct research and teach and provide service to a
> university; or
> > those who take their PhDs to Brooklyn or LA or Toronto or London
> or Prague
> > to start or continue to make art. (I guess most of them would be
> called
> > "Doc" at the neighbourhood bar)
> >
> > Before becoming an academic I spent twenty years being an artist
> with very
> > little contact with universities. I conducted research and had
> shows,
> > made performances, published and interacted with other artists,
> writers,
> > curators, historians, scientists, business and government workers. I
> > moved in and out of several sectors, producing television,
> performing as a
> > broadcaster, consulting for a broad range of organizations,
> complementing
> > my work as an artist and writer. What I learned was that there
> were very
> > few borders between disciplines outside of academia. I'm told
> that this
> > is even more true today. Digital technologies and networks have
> knocked
> > down so many doors. Interdiscipinary studies continue to try to
> break
> > down disciplinary segregation in universities.
> >
> > The reason I'm working in a university is not to forge
> interdisciplinary
> > links (although there are opportunities to do so), but to teach
> from an
> > interdisciplinary perspective, to share what I've learned before
> and after
> > becoming a teacher. I wouldn't have the right to teach if I wasn't
> > employed as a university professor. On top of the 25,000+ MFAs
> issued in
> > the USA and Canada over the past decade, we will now have
> hundreds of PhDs
> > in hybrid forms of art making on top of the composers already
> holding PhDs
> > scrambling for the right to teach. A PhD that can teach studio
> and history
> > classes and land research grants and commingle with PhDs across the
> > university might do pretty well in competition with the minions
> of MFAs.
> > Job descriptions in university art and media programs are becoming
> > impossibly complex.
> >
> > The more degrees you have the more comfortable you are being in an
> > educational institution.
> >
> > While the boundaries between roles in a digital culture are fast
> > disappearing, the gap between the street and the university is
> certainly
> > getting wider. My question is are these PhD studio programs
> closing more
> > doors than they are opening?
> >
> >
> > Tom Sherman
> >
> > http://www.kunstradio.at/2006A/H5N1en.html
> >
> _______________________________________________
> iDC -- mailing list of the Institute for Distributed Creativity
> (distributedcreativity.org)
> iDC at bbs.thing.net
> http://mailman.thing.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/idc
>
> List Archive:
> http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/
Christiane Robbins
J e t z t z e i t
Los Angeles l San Francisco
CA l USA
... the space between zero and one ...
Walter Benjamin
The present age prefers the sign to the thing signified, the copy to
the original, fancy to reality, the appearance to the essence for in
these days ILLUSION only is sacred, truth profane.
Ludwig Feuerbach, 1804-1872,
German Philosopher
More information about the iDC
mailing list