[iDC] Praxis-based Ph.D.s

[Mary Anne]

Four comments, of what could be so many, given all the thoughtful commentary
I have been reading:

1) I have previously outlined the benefits of the Arts Ph.D.
But like Kathy High, our department Head, I have many
questions/reservations/critiques of the Arts Ph.D.
For me, these are the questions/reservations/critiques that I have regarding
the U.S. 21st century university system in general, and the experiences I
have had as both grad student and faculty.

Many of the concerns expressed here, apply to so many fields:

-fitting original/creative research into what can be the confining limits of
   an academic discipline
-tailoring work (both grad and fac) to fit in universities run more like
 for-profit corporations than educational institutions, that ideally should
 be public trusts
-establishing value in terms of archaic patriarchal positivist "metrics"
 "benchmarks"


2) I have always said to my students both undergrad and grad, that an art
degree does not make you an artist (the key point here is in these
parentheses: this could be said for full realization/great achievement in
any field). 

But, as I said previously, the degree context can provide studio resources;
a chance to  attain theoretical and historical knowledge of field/s; time to
focus on the work; and a connection with aesthetic/cultural/professional
communities.

Before the consolidation of the art school/university system, which now
facilitates the latter:
The Roosevelt Administration's Work's Progress Administration, the WPA, gave
artist jobs in the thirties and forties in the U.S. and helped lay the
groundwork for the expansion and creation of artist
networks/communities/institutions in the states.

3) For some history of Arts/Music degrees in the U.S.:

In the visual arts, the M.F.A. has "traditionally" been the terminal degree.
In 1960, the College Art Association approved a resolution that the M.F.A.
would be the terminal degree for teachers of studio art, despite the fact
the some universities such as Ohio State had already instituted Ph.D.s in
the visual arts. (See "Professional Practices Committee Reexamines M.F.A.
Standards," College Arts (CAA) News, November 2, 2002, 3-4.
 http://www.collegeart.org/caa/-news/2002/Nov/mfastandards.html (September
30, 2005).


For the Music/Sound Arts: Since 1945 the Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) in
music theory and composition and Doctor of Musical Arts (D.M.A.) in
performance have been considered terminal degrees for the field of music in
the United States. A Masters in the Arts (M.A.) or a Masters in Music (M.M.)
is usually completed before the Ph.D. However, there is also a Master of
Fine Arts (M.F.A.). These Masters are not considered terminal degrees.
  

4) Finally, regarding Henrik Schrat thoughtful response to mine about
Arts Ph.D. being a critique of traditional notions of "knowledge," "academic
value," ....what is of worth and supported within culture.

Henrik wrote: "I would wish so! But I am not sure if it is not just the
other way round? That art subdues to a knowledge system it is ­ or was ­
never a part of. ..."

I see your point, but ideally, having Arts Ph.D.s would change/influence the
confines of what is academic knowledge/practice, ect.

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.


--Mary Anne