[iDC] Praxis-based Ph.D.s

[shelly silver]

Dear All:
I've been on this list for a while, and am always impressed with the 
level of discussion. It seems that many people on this list are those 
that will be formulating the praxis PhD programs.  These programs 
sound exciting, but I have reservations, most of which have been 
pointed out already by Simon Biggs, Kathy High, Robert Labossiere and 
others.

What I'd ask people on the list, who both teach and are active in 
their art practice is this.  Imagine that you had just gotten your 
undergraduate or MFA degree.  Would you look forward with 
anticipation to having to get your PhD before being considered for a 
teaching job?  Would this necessitate going directly for a PhD before 
your practice was even established - possibly before you even knew 
what that practice is? What would this mean to you financially? 
These questions might eventually apply directly to some on the list 
who don't have a PhD and are not yet tenured.

I teach video and film to undergraduates at Cooper Union and graduate 
students at the School of Visual Arts.  I love the idea of a PhD 
being there as an option, I've been more than tempted myself.  But as 
soon as it becomes a prerequisite for teaching, perhaps even at the 
adjunct level, won't this change the mix of who teaches?  In my 
experience, it is crucial to have active artists as part of the mix 
of people teaching in art schools.  If academic research is of no 
interest or use to these artists, the entry bar will be raised such 
that these artists are excluded. Margaret Morse's impressive list of 
artists and filmmakers to be studied at UC Santa Cruz (Barry, Godard, 
Marker, Deren, Brakhage etc) are all worthy of deep academic study. 
But how many of them have/had terminal degrees?  As Simon asks, what 
MAKES a great artist or a great teacher of the arts.  I'd say that 
the paths are many, and that these paths should be left open as much 
as possible.

The results I've seen of work coming out of mixed theory/practice MA 
programs have been disappointing.  Much of the work was either 
illustrating academic arguments or suffered from  poor conception and 
craft.  I'd assume this was because of a lack of focus or time.  I 
didn't get to see the papers or research they were doing.  It is 
possible that the writing was of a very high level, or that there was 
not enough time to do either properly.

It would be optimal if a PhD could be an additional option for 
artists, as opposed to the only path for entering academia/teaching, 
but it seems that once a more advanced degree is available, that 
degree eventually become the prerequisites for University teaching. 
In my experience, researching several Praxis-based PhD programs, the 
emphasis has been on the academic thesis as opposed to the creative 
'practice' component, which is much harder to quantify/evaluate from 
an academic point of view.  Perhaps that will change, at this point 
it's a bit a round peg and a square hole.

Is there an alternative way to facilitate the many collaborations and 
links between other fields/departments/etc without a PhD program? 
Why can't these links be made without a PhD program - Jill Scott's 
project Artists in Labs is just such a project, with no degree 
attached.

All the best,
Shelly Silver

-- 

Shelly Silver

info at shellysilver.com
http://www.shellysilver.com