Yes, as there should be a difference between an art school and academic education, program-wise, content-wise and methodology-wise.

Are you saying "university " level should be different from an "art school?" Art school's now offer PhDs in collaboration with universties, but not all artist teacher's would need a PhD unless teaching at doctoral level.

Yes, but I hope my definition of the art-school was clear (I meant high-schools with major topics in art). Usually PhD is not the only prerequisite for teaching at the PhD level, but a professorship and many years of experience. Early PhDs should teach at the university level, while non-PhDs, as everywhere else can work in higher education. The problem of artists teaching at Fine Art Academies (offering MA courses, or even PhD courses) which are not developing methodology, they would once doing a serious research, is - students that have arrived from high school education are offered almost the same classes at the university level (which then has no point and usually they feel bored). In Croatia we have lots of cases where non-educated artists (which have their degree in political sciences, literature or only two years of university level program, such as High art school, but have managed to prove they are self-educated artists) are teaching students which are already having higher degrees then they are.

Interesting. Do you mean professors who have a PhD from another discipline are teaching art students who have higher degrees in art than they do? What is the requirement in Croatia for a PhD in fine Art (let's say painting?). How long has Croatia had a PhD? Do you have one? Arer university levels now divided into Bachelors, Masters and PhD degrees as promoted by the "Bologna Process?"

Nice provocation, by why put it in such absolute terms Paul Hackett? The real questions are much more complex, tied to an explosion in art degrees. A century or more of confusion about art as a technical skill rather than an intellectual endeavor. Tragic confusion about aesthetics that get lost in rambling ideas about taste. While students graduate left and right without clarity about the social, philosophical and political context they are working within.

The shift towards PhD came slowly in other area. The value of the PhD is that it is a degree that goes beyond the standard of a masters degree, a material contribution to a tradition and a bit of analysis to set it within a historical context. The PhD asks for an intellectual contribution to knowledge, a theory in practice contribution to the social discourse of the discipline itself. In that.... it has great potential to reshape the practice and the discourse of art, to break the stranglehold of disciplines that attend to historical continuum of material culture. Refocusing the value and validation of practice within a context of thinker/makers, a community of peers I think would be healthy for art and design at this point in time. The potential impact is that instead of validating output, we are refining the theory/intent and method of artmaking itself. Having an even footing with the rest of disciplines is worth consideration as well.

So... artists teaching in Universities should be leaders in their field. Nobody would argue that I should think. They should be deep thinkers and/or master makers. A good teacher is engaged and has some sense of the metaphysical purpose, and the role of art in society. A PhD is one path, intelligent engagement within the field is another. Changes in the future, are to be expected...

Timothy, I put my question in absolute terms in an attempt to solicit thoughtful answers such as yours. I agree with all you say. I would be interested to hear how you would assess or establish that an artist has achieved an "intelligent engagement within the field"? Is it not possible to say that the PhD does this eminently well?

Jessica, Ana and Tomothy, within higher education professors and lecturers are expected to publish and to undertake research. How should this fit into the role of the art educator within higher education? I argue that the Ph.D. is essential in training and exposing an artist to this form of research rigour. What do you think?

Jessica, I agree in complete PhD is essential in art education. (to answer previous questions, yes, in Croatia we have Bologna process, but the art area is, in regard to degrees somehow low,. I myself hold PhD in Philosophy) while, at the same time we have "old system" professorships at art academies; high-art school, which is 2 years or even completely different area BA diploma, teaching to MA art students). Worst of all socialistic diplomas and academic positions were political, rather than expertise related (many politicians had and still have suspicious PhDs, some even without having known where they got their BA or MA, and we have a large corruption inside academia; last year three faculties were under suspicion of selling exams).

I assume nothing would be a problem if they agreed to accomplish their serious research, but unfortunately, it would take another 30 years until hey go to pension a fair educational art system would be established (the largest problem is there are artists with PhDs that are unemployed, and as PhD is not a prerequisite - they cannot challenge positions in art academies.

Let me reformulate, PhD should perform at least as a control mechanism of quality in higher art education.

Hi Paul,

Emerson has a notable focus on the liberal arts as the appropriate framework for an interdisciplinary approach to the arts (something I have a lot of time for); how is it done there? How does it differ from what is done at the Boston Museum School or Harvard GSD? Does it differ radically from MIT or RISD for instance?

Hi Timothy,

I see you worked at Carnegie Mellon as a research fellow. I know around 2005 they were discussing a PhD in Art.Do you know if they did, or are still interested in developing a program?

Hi Paul, I agree in hold a PhD is essential in art education as myself completing PhD in Art. And art educators within higher education need to make publications and conduct research just same with any other fields, at the same time, exhibit their creative works at joined or solo shows. The expectation on academia in making publications can be met by the number of exhibitions these art educators have had.

I suppose its worth asking if the PhD in Fine Art: visual art, design, music and theater are available all over Europe? Maybe those responding can confirm one way or another for their home country?

Hi Peng Liu,

It sounds as if you are saying that the amount of exhibitions could satisfy the requirements for publication. If so, could you explain why you think exhibitions would be equal to publications? Thanks

Paul, I think that artists with PhDs teaching PhD canddates in fine art should be expected to publish and to undertake research. I believe in a combination of exhbits and written publications. I agree that the Ph.D. is essential in training and exposing an artist to theoretical issues , organisation, writing skills and research rigour. I question however, whether an excellent painter who is a very good teacher is not a valuable contributor to a PhD program. I think it might depend on whether there required courses as in the US or without as in the UK. Supervisors of PhD candidates in art ought to have PhDs in art. I think very soon there should be enough graduates to fill those positions.

Let me start by saying I am not one who likes to 'disagree' but... To answer the question I personally do not believe that artist teaching at a university level should have a PhD (possibly because I am only an M.F.A. holder). To me there is a difference in a degree that is studio based verses theory based = people who create and people who define. If we have too many defining we will loose our true creators.

I often ask myself how my studio focus would differ had I taken years to submerse my self in theory and philosophy? Would I still be an artist?

I do however believe that every educator should conduct research, publish, exhibit, and continue to educate themselves through studio practice and research.

I believe only 4 Universities in the USA offer a PhD in Visual Arts and about 40 in the UK and Europe.

Questions.

1. What constitute a 'research output' in fine art? How about design, or music? Theater?

2. if we have studio based and history/theory based don't we need something in between that tests theory in practice?

3. What does it mean to innovate through art practice? If its not about ideas, technique, method or technology (standards in engineering, medicine) what is - it about?

4. Problem: Three senior faculty one new hire with a PhD and one publication. One Prof who is seven years shy of retirement with a PhD from 1998 who hasn't done anything more than a conference presentation or two over the past ten years and another professor with an MFA from 1982 who is not only internationally recognized in her field with a regular exhibition schedule and current work, she has received critical attention for over twenty years. The third has published two books on his subject that discuss historical practice, and technical and methodological innovation. He has research funding in hand to rediscover lost historical technique. Within his field he is a major international voice but he has an undergraduate degree. - who is the appropriate first supervisor or second supervisor and why? Who is not qualified to supervise?

Hi Allison,

PhDs in fine art are studio based. I don't belive theory can be severed from practice. I think they are entwined. I do not understand what you mean when you say "If we have too many defining we will loose our true creators. " What does creating mean to you?

Tomothy, Emerson does not have Ph.Ds so if you are talking about Ph.D. students at Emerson in comparison with Harvard, RISD, etc., then this does not apply.

Paul

The question you raised was how to establish '"intelligent engagement within the field".

'intelligent engagement' is not something that only occurs in post doctoral study is it? It is a fundamental tenure question at any institution. So, lets go with what is known. What are the standards used at Emerson and does it differ from what is done at the Boston Museum School or Harvard GSD? Does it differ radically from MIT or RISD for instance?

You are what you have done and if you have spent your time "researching" the arts by writing and not producing it -there is only a limited amount of time in life- than not only are you not qualified to teach art, you are also not qualified to even call yourself an artists. The world is board with academics making empty arts and the value of the artwork and the quality of the artist's voice is only in proportion to his or real output.

Arthur

Are you ruling out making art as an artist and reflecting upon what you are making and how your work is contextualised within the art world and the greater world at large? In a way, aritsts obtaining PhDs in art practice are taking back the artist's voice from what philosophers, art critics and art historians traditionally determined. It is not for everyone but I believe the PhD in fine art is an exciting choice that artists ought to be able to make if they are interested in expanding their practice in this manner.

I simply disagree. You do not need a PHD to make art and no one well ever need one to do so.Making art in controlled "practice based" environment breeds exactly that what we are all bloody bored of: academic art.

As far as those interested in "expanding" their practice in this manner. That is fine, but they should not mix up "expand" with "defeat".

Art came first and then we started talking about. This is now institutionalized and now we can chase degrees we don't need rather than inspirations to produce artworks.

Risk something: Create art don't studiy it and become a student of the school from which you will never graduate from, but allows be enriched by.

:-)

Arthur,

I have been a painter for most of my life. I am not saying that anyone needs a PhD, especially artists. But for many people exploring unknown terrain is an exciting oportunity to augment their understandiing of themselves, their art, and the world. This of course can happen in many other ways. You do not need to agree. Are you an artist (musician, visual artist, etc)? Could you explain why you equate "expand" with "defeat?" Thanks

No one needs a PhD to practice anything, not art, engineering, law or medicine.

That said, there isn't a practice in the world that doesn't benefit from reflection and discourse amongst those that have made a life long commitment to that practice. The social benefit of a discursive community of practitioners can be considerable. For me that is the point worth chewing on, the PhD is about practitioners making a contribution to the discourse of the discipline itself, along with knowledge that is embodied in materials and artifacts.

The complicating factor in all of this is that engineers, lawyers and doctors are not surrounded by other disciplines that define innovation, import and the actual value and direction of practice. The fundamental question is how to shift that, the PhD may be one way to move things in a new direction. "May be', which doesn't mean its necessary for practice.

But... we were talking about the PhD as prerequisite for teaching.

I think we tend to identify a good artist with a good teacher, where that is not necessarily the case. Many great artists make terrible teachers, and many others choose teaching as a way to help and guide others develop their projects, but not so much produce projects of their own. Traditionally, this second choice has been disregarded as some sort of "empty-academics", but I believe there is no point on that. A great artist is not necessarily the best person to accompany the reflection on someone else's production, where that may actually be the main objective of the teacher-not-so-great-artist.

In that sense, a practice-based PhD would make sense for the teacher, as it would give her the insight and ability to research on new methodologies and discussions regarding the field. Her contributions would help contextualize art practice, use it in innovative ways, and also seek deeper discussions on certain subjects by exploring them from an artistic point of view rather than from history of art or philosophical points of view.

Edwin, those are great points that you make and I agree with you completely.

Timothy, you make good points. Artists also now often wish to work alongside other professionals who do have PhDs, such as planners, engineers.... and I believe that the PhD helps to make artists more acceptable to some non-artists.

Edwin and Paul,

I agree with both of you but also would like to add that the PhD may also benefit an artist who is very good, does not want to teach, but wishes to explore his own work in a different way. I don't think the PhD in fine art should only be equated with a tertiary teaching degree.

I simply disagree with you Arthur. I would never say that someone has to have a PhD to be an artist or to create art. I do say that often within the profession of being an artist (I am not here talking about a hobby artist or art therapist ) it is useful to have a PhD, and MFA, MA or BFA. Some artists produce 'better' work with and others without formal qualifications. PhDs in Psychology (for example) do necessarily not make you better practicing psychologists. However, they do mean that you understand the process of research and you develop a specialised knowledge base at a higher level than someone without the extra years of academic training. The PhD (if tough in an appropriate academic environment) should help the holder to better teach in tertiary education and to mix with other highly trained professionals. The PhD in fine art has the potential ability to achieve these ends for artists.

Arthur, researching in art is not necessarily about looking at books or other secondary sources of material. Usually it is about exploring art practice with skilled and eminent art practitioners. Theoretical art explorations usually come under art history, art criticism, etc., and these have little to do with the practice-based fine art PhD.

There a lot of good reasons to get a PhD. Relegating it to a baseline teaching certificate sort of misses the point of a research degree. Where there is a research culture and funding to develop new work in the field it makes good sense to seek out new hires with said degree or equivalent experience.

You make a very good point Timothy.

Jessica I see that you and Paul have just published a book on the subject tell us about your intentions and the outcome from the comparison of US/UK arts-based PhD programmes? What are the common threads in the various programes? What does a successful programme look like? Is there any innovation if so, what form does it take? Are there research cultures emerging that are worth looking at?

Timothy,

The book has not been published yet. We are in the early stages of putting it together. I will be better able to address your questions as we proceed. As you probably know the PhD in the US is very limited at this time...but new programs are cropping up. My intention is to contribute to the discussion surrounding this research degree and to encourage US artists to be more aware of the possibilities that a PhD in fine art might offer.

How will it differ from what Graeme Sullivan and James Elkins have done/are doing?

It takes a more historical perspective of the degree and will include interviews of artists who teach in MFA programs at influencial US art schools.

Art schools rather than universities?

OK! Hands up all those who wouldn't have hired Michelangelo because he lacked a PhD

In France PhD dry the artist skill and make them work in the same way. Artists working and publishing have the level to be PhD but they have not to be. They rather to spent the PhD time to develop their skill and experience. PhD ask peoples to be under university compliance. University is unable to support strong operational experience. Oftenly art come from experience to concept rather counterwise. I feel that this need to apply for PhD is another way that institution want to conform minds.

Academic research is only the shadow of real art experience.

Does the long list of XXth century artists discovering new horizons were involved in academic works ? none of them....

Artists must be very curious and cultivates, bring a lot experience in a free way, and don't apply previous rules but find their it in themselves.

PhD can be a requirement or not too. On my own experience, I am happy to keep on working rather to submit my mental organisation and energy to be compliant to academy. This doesn't mean I reject academy but artists must keep their freedom in actions and thoughts.

Interesting thoughts Rossanna and Stéphane.

I think one question worth asking might be, was Leonardo literate as well as visual? Was he able to communicate his intentions and methods without the support of curators, critics? Another question might be what is it about the 20th century that normalized the ideas of the artist as elite craftsman dedicated to working with the hands alone? How did we get to this idea that writing undermines creativity?

Stéphane. you raise some interesting issues. Is it only art that comes from experience to concept?

Dear Timothy,

In the Ecole Normale Supérieure des Arts Décoratifs art is teached like an experience which produce ideas. This way is much fruitifull than Paris VIII where students come from concept to experience. In this case expienced are much more narrow because conceptual attitude doesn't deal with complexity of reality which bring unexpected outcomes... That's art ?

I guess I wonder if there are experience without ideas? (Does it matter which end you start to look at the horse from as long as you experience the whole horse?) It is clear to me that a 'pure' conceptual/theoretical form is -clean-, it is philosophy and has to stand up on the basis of its own logic. It is when ideas move into the world that yes..... unexpected outcome occur. I am not convinced this is art however.

As I understand it, art is about moving what I sense and know about the world into a realm of wonder, potential discomfort and ideally a kind of free-fall where we have to reconsider our presumptions about the world.

Speaking as an artist in the middle of a practice based PhD, I can feel a shift in my own perceptions of creative process in that reflexivity has come to the fore. It's quite possible that this was happening long before I started the research, but having the 'academic frame' is allowing me to delve deeply within my own creative process and find reassuring inter-connections. I have to say though that I feel and probably always will feel, like an outsider with academia, that is, a university setting rather than an art school environment. The way I think and see the world is quite different to most of my colleagues and is not always acknowledged as being valid. Such are the issues with visual thinking. Hopefully, in this emergent field of practice based research, this will change.

Thinking, feeling, looking, exploring, failing, re-imagining, discussing, experiencing, reading, reaching and delving into make art. These don't require an academic framework, which may or may not benefit creativity.

Alison, what great comments. I agree totally with you that the PhD and being in a university setting offers a great deal but also brings challenges. No systems are perfect and it seems to me that for some people the PhD offers a great opportunity to investigate within (and sometimes outside of) an academic frame.

To me a frame, whilst sounding like a constriction, offers a guide within which all of the wonderful processes, as noted by Elaine, can be explored and in a reflexive manner. Some people do not want, need or like this guide and that's fine, but some folk do. We live in a pluralist world.

Whose got a Phd among theses artists ?

Picasso

Dali

Duchamp

Warhol

Pollock

Haring

Basquiat

Koons

Beuys

Dubuffet

Masson

Kenneth Angers

Maya Deren

Kubrick

Welles

Chaplin

Smithson

Weiner

The residents

David Bowie

allmost were around art school ...outside and inside...

No phd enlight the art history, because this frame hardly the creative process by a compliancy to academic requirement !

Sometimes it is better to run out from university when when students get the sufficient tools to be skill..

And when I think it is worth of it, I invite students to run out if they are very concerned within their own creativity, it is different if the purpose is to help and guess others creativity...

As academic we have to balance between inside and outside idiosyncrasic skills and compliant skills... that's artist task !

Perhaps it's because I have over 40 years of creative practice that I felt I needed a new challenge; one where I might relocate my thinking, confront fresh ways of looking with a slightly different set of tools. So far, it seems to be working out; I haven't yet 'morphed' into an academic and my creative process has expanded to include other areas I might not have considered. For me then, this justifies the difficulties of this journey, and there are many. I agree that great artists of the past didn't need PhDs. Indeed, it might have been detrimental had they chosen this route. But then we'll never know. Each to his own. I'm grateful for the opportunities which this particular 'frame' offers me and intend to make the most of it.

I agree with you Alison, that it comes down to each for his / her own needs and wants. What I find difficult to understand is how some people question this and prescribe that art cannot be part of the academy, rigorous research or be taught at college, especially at the PhD level. Surely art is many faceted and artists do what works for them. Thank you for your enlightened comments.

I have seen so much dry propositions behind academy, we can't declare that artists teaching in University must have PhD. Broad outside experience can bring skills and knowledge we don't find in university. For example : some artists works needs productions how to you drive it if a dry university experience. In France that's happen so much where our Phd feel uncanny with real facts of artistics tasks. Now Art schools in France ask Phd for theorical courses but practice courses remains all kind of artists duties. And no diploma artists can teach in higher degrees, because they are requested on their experience and biography.

I agree that broad outside experience is valuable and a different type of experience is available outside of the academy. I do not understand your use of English Stephane, I am sorry as my French is terrible and much worse than your English which is very good!! I think you are making the point that when Phds in fine art exist they may become a pre-requisite for teaching at PhD level. Is this correct?

Hello Paul...

You are right. PHds in art school are now pre-rerquisite for aesthetical course and

to lead graduate level course.

Thus a lot of teaching artists apply for Phd regardless strong experiences.

So Stephane, Do you think it is good that PhDs are needed to teach graduate level courses?

Stephane,

Do you mean art theory courses must be taught by someone with a PhD in art history or art criticism? Is there a PhD in France for art practice (painting, drawing, sculpture, etc)? Do you have an MFA in painting? Are you saying the course leader in fine arts at the masters level now needs a PhD ( in what?)? What is required for undergraduate teaching?

no need really for general subjects...not the case for a specialization subject or matter..I think it helps also have some kind of education trainning sometimes. because teachers can be very good at something doesn´t make them professores, sometimes there's need effort both students and teachers if the teachers really doesn't have a quality for teaching even when is really good artist or masters a matter

When an artist became an educationist, he should be higher qualification of academic achievement such as Ph.D. degree. in the process of research achievement in academic he is also learn so many academic needs. So It is my perception for academic career an artist must be Ph.D.

I am currently an undergraduate at Curtin University, studying Fine Art and Visual Culture. Previously I studied physics at Murdoch University. In the past I have had teachers who have a range of qualifications, but the most important quality for a teacher of any subject to have, is the ability to both impart knowledge to their students and to allow the student to surpass them.  It has been my misfortune over the years to have studied under several 'teachers' who fail at these basic requirements, despite having a string of letters after their names. I therefore believe that a Ph,D. should not necessarily be a requirement for teaching.