[iDC] re: "Praxis-based" Ph.Ds

[mark bartlett]

A summary ago, Maggie respectively wondered whether I'd say more  
about my research. This raises a number of difficult issues. The  
least of which, though still not trivial in the context of the  
increasing commercialized/corporatized academy, is that of  
"intellectual property" issues. The "playing field" is the furthest  
from "level" since turn of the century prequel to our current robber  
baronism. And not all of contributing here have equal protections,  
which means there are many from whom we don't benefit because of the  
lack of genuine open discourse. and there are many who also put  
themselves at risk anyway, no doubt, either intentionally, or naively.

this raises the issue of whether some threads should be password  
secured.... It is naive to think of this medium as egalitarian on  
many levels.

More importantly, returning from the context to the content of this  
thread, at the very heart, from my pov, of what is at stake  
specifically "here," in this media, is that there is no possibility  
of representing my research results. It cannot be done in text alone.  
This is one aspect of the "literary" dominance of epistemology.

The text-dominance of the list-serv is part of the problem, it seems  
to me. I caused server problems for Trebor (apologies again)  when i  
first joined the list, when even knowing better, I habitually added a  
"cc" address to a post. This medium couldn't handle that form of  
dissemination. I assume attaching an image or a video would cause  
similar problems? These are very real aspects of the material  
conditions under which we labor here.

[and goddamn it, the power had gone out from blocks around in this  
part of Oakland, CA....]

I would like nothing more than to add an "image" by way of making my  
research available. Without that option, I would be put automatically  
in the position of what I oppose - "representing" in text and thereby  
snuffing the very thing I'm attempting to revalue.

That is a corollary to the proposition in my last post.

So, while the digital continues to evolve new communication options,  
we in list-serv world, remain mired in the 15th century?

THAT is an argument for hastening praxis-based phd-mfa's.....


:->


m




On Jan 16, 2007, at 6:58 PM, Danny Butt wrote:

> Dear Margaret, all
>
> Just a quick response Margaret - I am not at all strongly opposed  
> to practice-based Ph.D programmes - in fact the reason I am  
> studying them for my own Ph.D :) is that I believe they have the  
> potential to illuminate certain limitations in Euro-American  
> disciplinary research traditions. As you have already pointed out,  
> the new media environment and other dynamics are already showing  
> some of the constitutive tensions of these traditions (research and  
> dissemination; knowledge and expression; what constitutes a "field  
> of knowledge" to which the Ph.D contributes; etc.)  So the erosion  
> of these historical disciplinary binarisms is something I support  
> fully.
>
> The issue I was trying to raise is about strategy and institutional  
> realities as raised by Simon. The creative practice PhD seems to me  
> to be likely to have a large strategic impact on the larger  
> research environment, and the position of art schools in the  
> university sector. Further, many traditional institutions and  
> people have much to lose and little to gain from opening up to the  
> incursion of the practice-based research into the Ph.D. as such,  
> and so there are high levels of risk to organisations and to  
> disciplines including art and design in this move. In New Zealand  
> and Australia I have seen a number of quite negative reactions  
> which have begun to call into question whether such practices  
> should legitimately gain research funding (previously, some  
> practitioners have done so "under the radar", disguised as "real  
> research"). In light of such responses, we can expect new forms of  
> managerial oversight and pressures for regulation, and (for  
> example) traditional RS&T folks having measures of control over how  
> creative practitioners undertake their work. We know how this works  
> in institutional and policy environments :)
>
> So I just think for those of us taking on this fight, it's bigger  
> than even the very large struggles I know people like yourself have  
> made just to get programmes off the ground in institutions and  
> legislature. There is a need for more discussion about the effects  
> and an opportunity to build some much-needed solidarity in agenda  
> setting internationally (let's be clear - the hard science research  
> agenda is set internationally), so I greatly value this discussion  
> which is contributing to that shared understanding - and I'm  
> learning a lot here too :)
>
> x.d
>
>
> On 16/01/2007, at 2:14 PM, Margaret Morse wrote:
>
>> 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:
>>
>> --Pamela is truly in a interdisciplinary situation  "a joint  
>> position between a very
>> traditional school of art and traditional human computer interaction
>> institute in a school of computer science at a tier 1 research  
>> university
>> in the United States.  These departments/schools/institutes represent
>> 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:
>> "To conclude, I see the purpose of the praxis - based PhD (of  
>> which the
>> arts is not the only praxis-based Ph.D.) as the following:
>>
>> To close the gap between a type of discipline practice that  
>> refuses to
>> "mind the gap" and dive deep into its crevices.
>>
>> For programs to gain access to the university power and resources
>> infrastructure that place emphasis on the PhD model of research  
>> and pedagogy.
>>
>> To work with students in a hybid model that is both mentorship and
>> apprenticeship.
>>
>> To support transdisciplinary scholarship in a hybrid practice that  
>> extends
>> beyond the individual walls of the university into a larger
>> internationally recognized community of practice."
>>
>> --Chris raises several issues, but the one I want to highlight  
>> here is her conclusion:
>> "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."
>>
>> --Henrik's longer post has other points,  but he is definitely  
>> against benchmarking.  Further:
>> "Just with its [the Ph.D's] very structure it reproduces a growing  
>> institutionalization of the
>> 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. (((-:"
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> I posted an appreciative addition to Simon's comments on artists  
>> without degrees.
>>
>> --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."
>>
>> --Thanks to Jack for referring us to James Elkin's "Theoretical  
>> Remarks on Combined Creative and Scholarly PhD Degrees in the  
>> Visual Arts."  I have to admit I don't have it and it appears to  
>> be crucial reading.
>>
>> --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.
>>
>> --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."
>> 	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.
>>
>> --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:
>> "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.
>>
>> --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:
>> "...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."
>>
>> 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.
>> Thanks.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/
>
>
>
> -- 
> Danny Butt
> db at dannybutt.net | http://www.dannybutt.net
> Suma Media Consulting | http://www.sumamedia.com
> Private Bag MBE P145, Auckland, Aotearoa New Zealand
> Ph: +64 21 456 379 | Fx: +64 21 291 0200
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
>