[iDC] Praxis-based Ph.D.s
Danny Butt
db at dannybutt.net
Wed Jan 17 16:56:51 EST 2007
Once again there are too many people's posts I desire to respond to
more deeply which I can't, so a couple of quick points:
1) To pick up on Chris Robbins' excellent post of a couple of days
ago, one of the most powerful boundary-crossing aspects of artistic
practice (particularly when compared to design) is the heterogeneous
nature of the authentication/approval mechanisms for work. If you
work in a scientific field there is more or less a clearly understood
hierarchy of journals where one seeks publication, and although some
of these (e.g. Nature) obviously have a higher "public profile" and
orientation there is still an ideology of scientist-driven peer
review being the authentication mechanism for the quality of the
work. (Grants are a different story). In the visual arts, what
constitutes success and reputation can be quite diverse and
incommensurate across fields: one seeks the approval of i) an
audience, ii) of curators who provide opportunities and context; iii)
writers/critics/historians whose approval may result in the interest
of the first two groups; and iv) one's peers. (And oneself for those
who like to make that distinction). The different expectations within
and between these groups makes a single mode of evaluation (and of an
assessment of "whether or not practice-based Ph.D's are a good
thing") troublesome.
For me, an enquiry through practice that is in the PhD form has to
be, contrary to Myron's suggestion, precisely oriented toward one's
peers, because this is the core of the apprenticeship/reflexivity
that allows craft and disciplines to develop. But this may mean that
the results of the enquiry, or the people trained/disciplined through
that enquiry, are not always making "good work" as we might expect
the gallery artist to be, just as we cannot expect scientific enquiry
to always be successful or practical in its outcomes. This is why the
professional doctorate is, I think, a better formal fit for the
practising artist/teacher than the PhD, and it would be great if that
could be developed. But for reasons many have mentioned this seems
unlikely given the cachet of the PhD brand. (Again, I am not against
the practice-based PhD and I think it is particularly important for
artists doing interdisciplinary work with researchers from other
fields).
2) Regarding the dilution/numbers issue raised by Shelly and others:
I don't think there's any way of making this argument without
effectively saying that you want to turn back the clock on providing
access to tertiary education to a much wider range of people than
were allowed in in the 60s. Take a look at some of those graduation
photos from the storied institutions and tell me if they look like
fun places to be if you weren't white and male. I am personally
committed to a defense of the craft of academic research, and
creative practice, which is compatible with the expansion of
educational opportunity, and I think it's dangerous to attribute
one's subjective experience of "decline" to more people being allowed
in. Unfortunate homologies with current border-control discourse etc.
3) Margaret, in response to your question about the material, from my
POV everyone knows that the list is archived and therefore it is
available for citation and circulation as one would use any web
resource: I plan to follow up much of this excellent discussion in my
own academic work. I usually like to ask people for permission before
quoting them in more formal settings given that we knock these emails
out in a different temporal mode to academic research, and we all say
things we might not want ending up in our professional journals.
I guess a wiki might be useful if we wanted to synthesise a
collective statement, but I am not sure that in such a diverse group
that would be possible or useful unless we had a clear goal for the
document (e.g. uptake by a professional body). I think people's
diverse styles of framing the problem is precisely where the
importance of this discussion lies, and a wiki would only dissipate
that IMHO.
Warm regards to all,
Danny
On 18/01/2007, at 5:55 AM, shelly silver wrote:
> My experience with mixed theory/practice MA programs is as a
> visiting critic or a member of a jury of student work. It is here
> that I noticed the lower level of work produced.
>
> I think it's also useful to note the ballooning size of graduate
> departments. Some are quite small (which I think is appropriate),
> others number in the 100's, a practice which I find questionable.
--
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
More information about the iDC
mailing list