[iDC] Praxis-based Ph.D.s

[Myron Turner]

I don't disagree with Dew's point (quoted below).  I didn't reject the 
artist as intellectual.  After all, Dew is right.  Look at this list.  
But I did place a qualification on the place of the intellectual in the 
life of an artist:
> I could never argue that being a practicing artist and  professional 
> intellectual are incompatible, but the Blakeian in me believes that 
> they are an uncomfortable fit and that in this relationship the artist 
> is the more likely partner to suffer.
I think Simon, with whom I also agree (also quoted below), put the 
dichotomy much more wittily and clearly than I did.  One can be an 
artist and an intellectual.  But the artist, like Walt Whitman, has the 
right to assert:  "Do I contradict myself, well then I contradict 
myself" (please don't hold me to the accuracy of the quote)  It's there, 
in the space set aside for self-contradiction, that the uncomfortable 
fit resides.

I would also like to correct another wrong impression I may have left. 
Danny Butt wrote: "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."  There cannot be anything 
more exciting for a young artist than the crucible of exchange found 
among one's peers.  I know this from my own experience as a young writer 
and it was something I missed as an artist, having come to it so late. 
But I don't believe the Ph.D. is either necessary or sufficient to this 
vital experience.  My main concern is that we don't encourage a 
narrowing of the audience for new media by training artists who put 
theory before practice and end up talking only to themselves inside the 
ivied walls of academe.  As I said in my earlier post, it can make a lot 
of sense for a mid-career artist to enroll in a Ph.D. program.  But I 
think that younger artists, if they can do without the financial 
supports of the university, should stop at the MFA and give themselves a 
chance to breathe and to test themselves in the "street" (to use Tom 
Sherman's term).


Myron

dew.harrison at rgu.ac.uk wrote
> I have to disagree with Myron Turner by saying that artists ARE intellectuals (particularly after Duchamp!), they are creative and critical thinkers who enjoy the rigour of a good debate - look at the postings on this list! 


Simon Biggs wrote:
> A possible solution to this tension between an intellectual and
> non-intellectual approach to creativity is not to assume a Jungian attitude
> but rather a Laingian. That is, accept the schizophrenic nature of the beast
> and assume both approaches, although not necessarily at the same time. This
> allows for a reflective approach to creativity that helps the artist
> critique what they are doing and see it in context whilst also allowing them
> the space to do stuff that doesn't really make sense in relation to any
> methodology. As a practicing artist I oscillate between these positions
> several times a day. I can't imagine any other way of working. I often argue
> that one of the great things about being an artist is that you do not need
> to be right, you do not even need to make sense...you only need to be
> interesting.
>   

_____________________
Myron Turner
http://www.room535.org
http://www.room535.org/woodblocks
http://www.mturner.org/XML_PullParser/