[iDC] IDC list <idc@bbs.thing.net>
Margaret Morse
memorse at comcast.net
Sat Jan 13 22:38:35 EST 2007
Dear IDCs,
We need more models of the practice-based
Ph.D., including more from myself. Thanks to
Mary Anne and the on the art-practice Ph.D.
degree within a polytechnical institute and Simon
on the British Ph.D. model, plus more summary
approaches to other programs by Chris and Mark.
Danny raised the professional school
model; I wonder myself whether the profession of
artist is akin enough to the guilds of engineers,
lawyers, doctors, public health officials,
academic administrators, etc. to make the
professional degree an option. The art market
plays out more selectively and differently than
the market for the services above. In the US,
professional school students often owe
significantly higher tuition, paid by their
corporation or through loans recouped through
later earnings. On the other hand, would the
Plymouth model, CiAA and other instantiations be
an example of an existing, successful
professional model of the practice-based Ph.D.?
I am wondering why it is taking me so
long--other than my health--to get down to
business and describe my department's Ph.D.
proposal. On one hand, I am worrying about how
much to reveal of what is a 107 page formulaic
(format mandated for Ph.D. proposals in the
California system) and not entirely processed
proposal. I am not sure how truly a public
document it is yet. Furthermore, the emails keep
coming (thank deity) and I don't want to get
behind in something I am (very light- handedly)
moderating.
So, I will share my take on the posts.
Then I need to prepare highlights of the proposed
UCSC Film and Digital Media Ph.D.--obviously
another day's work. Two things are different
about it than what has been discussed so far
below: 1-rather than having to choose one
possibility in the mix of academic and creative
research offered by Danny Butt, we have allowed
for all three. One option is indeed an art
project itself as creative research without an
additional thesis. Furthermore, academic
research itself may be expressed in media format.
I will copy the section on this and our rationale
in the Ph.D. description. 2- We envision the MFA
as one possible gateway to the Ph.D. Would this
satisfy Tom or Mark? I believe Mary Anne's Ph.D.
also envisions this possibility. (Our MA would
be the default degree for those who do not
qualify to proceed to the dissertation project.)
In the meantime, provocative questions have been
posed and positions taken. I'll identify and
compile three of the areas of discussion raised
so far below:
1. The MFA versus the Ph.D.
Tom Sherman: "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?"
Mary Anne answered with positive
contributions a practice-based Ph.D. can make.
Chris raised the problem of the
devaluation of the MFA again fairly vehemently in
a later post, posing a barrage of questions
around:
--careerism and the "professionally sanctioned
digital artists" who seek academic and corporate
positions
--whether the practice-based Ph.D is a model of
academic art akin to 19th institutions?
--is this a mean of differentiating art in the
research university from art schools?
(marketing?)
--How will this PHD be operative within the art
market system - is it necessary?
--"Is this move a more accurate reflection of
larger cultural and socio-economic values?"
The issue of 2 year/3 year MFA came up earlier
(Mary Anne)-the 2 year inadequate for anything
but a breathless learning project but mandated
economically by both institution and students,
the 3 year preferred as providing a more adequate
creative/academic foundation. Should the MFA--
never accepted at equivalent value to the Ph.D.
in academia-- be enhanced in value or abolished
in favor of the MA-Ph.D. system? Chris: "But, of
course, with a PHD, a much wider range of
employment options seems probable, no?" Mark's
suggestion, a Ph.D.-M.F.A. dual degree.
Both Tom and Simon question the motives and necessity for most Ph.Ds.:
--Simon: "If the [Ph.D. applicant] candidate
answers that they wish to establish a new
approach to
creativity, where academic research becomes a
central element in their working practice and
they wish to contextualise significant aspects of
what they do in that environment then I assume
they appreciate what a PhD is for."
2.What body of knowledge does this practice-based
Ph.D. signify or draw on? Is there a
contradiction between academic and creative
practices?
--David raises a question about knowledge claims of a practice-based Ph.D.
--Danny's first question brought up the
research/practice relationship with a degree
program, reiterated in Chris's question
"institutionalized bifurcation of research and
practice - how will that be actualized within the
PHD?" Danny posed three options:
"1) The PhD is fundamentally a research training
qualification, and in different countries and
institutions the research/creative practice
homologies are more or less developed. Is the
practice component seen as i) research in itself,
ii) somehow equivalent to research but not
exactly the same, or iii) not research but a
reflexive form of practice which requires
academic writing to secure its contribution to
knowledge (or transferability)? In my view, there
are no right answers to these questions but they
are more or less determined by the institutions
responsible for the money, with governments
taking a much stronger role in the Commonwealth
countries than in the US, and a range of
different approaches among the non-English
speaking countries which others will know more
about than me. The point is that one needs to
have a viable definition of research, and be
prepared to make a strong case for the role that
practice plays in the research qualification.
--Danny's subsequent question on how practice
should be evaluated and the url of a Ph.D. design
list. Simon notes the importance of benchmarks.
--Chris: Further discussions is necessary 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. 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?
--Mark: Beyond the sociopolitical effects of
devaluing an MFA, Mark questions "imposing
inherently wrong academic models, which
effectively snuff out what is in fact, not just a
series of courses and academic thresholds, but a
culture of knowledge making practices that as
with all cultures, are constituted by informal
modes of producing themselves."
Furthermore, he is constructing "a
genealogy for a specific epistemological practice
that has emerged since then, but has not yet been
recognized as a coherent discourse network (
roughly in Foucault's sense)... Artists,
traditionally, have objects but not knowledge."
He, like Chris, sees this as 19th c as the
epistemological model. Meanwhile, " The
post-1840 discourse network for which my work
establishes a genealogy, constitutes a
counter-tradition. It does indeed exist, but has
not been recognized as a coherent discourse, in
part because its elements lie scattered about and
have never been collected.
historical contexts that need to be addressed,
and on which to build and make the case for
constituting structures, curricula, and
evaluative strategies for praxis-based
knowledges, at a theoretical - epistemological -
level. I think this would be pragmatically useful
for program proposals, along the lines of
including a "history" section. And I think it is
imperative to do so. My point is that there is a
need to historicize these projects of
curricula/structure design, that the genealogy
i've extracted is but one among many, and i would
like to see a taxonomy of such genealogies
developed." I welcome Mark's project and await
news of more of his findings in his book or when
he is ready to share them. Note that both Danny
and Simon could be cross-referenced here.
3. This area of question that is more diffuse and
harder to formulate having to with whether the
world and /or media art have changed in a way
that makes the practice-based Ph.D. more
plausible and useful
Mark notes "The higher status that literary
knowledge has, is a historical problem." Does
print and literature indeed still possess higher
status? Have more styles of learning and modes of
communication become part of the ground of
everyday life and academia?
--Robert suggests that there is something
different about studying new media--mentioned in
my previous post. Digital arts certainly elide
the legitimacy of borders based on medium.
--Tom: Digital technologies and networks have
knocked down so many doors. Interdiscipinary
studies continue to try to break down
disciplinary segregation in universities.
--Simon: In the case of practice based PhD's this
process is still in development. It will probably
never stop if such PhD's are of value, but as a
new approach to formal research this PhD model is
in an intense period of discovery and
uncertainty. Evaluative methodologies are in flux
and debate over what is
and isn't appropriate rages (as well as any academic debate can rage?).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/attachments/20070113/fbd330db/attachment-0002.html
More information about the iDC
mailing list