Artists with PhDs: On the New Doctoral Degree in Studio Art

[Isaac]

Fourteen Reasons to Mistrust the PhD, "Artists with PhDs" online site.


Artists With PhDs: On the New Doctoral Degree in Studio Art, 2009.

[RSL]

I can think of only one thing more absurd than a PhD in "art": a PhD in "art appreciation." How about a PhD in "coffee appreciation," or a PhD in "Bourbon appreciation?" I could list many other "appreciations" in which PhD's probably could (and maybe soon will) be offered, but not one of them is more absurd than "art appreciation."

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... How about... a PhD in "Bourbon appreciation?"...

Where can I apply for scholarship? 

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

I have experienced first hand the kind of thinking that encouraged the creating of this absurd Ph.D.

For several years I was a member of the Committee on Promotion Tenure and Review of the University at which I taught (math and computer science) for 35 years. One tricky situation came up when our resident artist (a fine one, in my view) was up for a promotion. Some members of traditional academic departments could not understand how to assess the work of a painter who had no advanced degrees and no peer-reviewed published research papers.

I was one of the few who could argue effectively that conventional academic criteria were inappropriate for an artist. In this case the artist did get a promotion.

But this certainly speaks to #14 on the list. Nobody has any idea how to evaluate a Ph.D. in Art.

Hmmm. While we're at it, how about a Ph.D. in blogging? Or in creating Selfies?

By the way, my own Ph.D. is in Mathematics, the first one given by Tufts University.

[ripgriffith]

As was said in one of the links, the degree is for artists who want to teach, and if the degree provides a grounding in pedagogy, then I'm all for it.  Being an artist doesn't necessarily qualify you to teach art.  Perhaps to run a master class, yes, since all that requires is for you to pontificate about yourself and the greatness of your art, but to actually teach the subjects of art, no.  Teaching is it's own skill, not easily come by, and some education in that direction (perhaps even leading to a Ph.D) would be a valuable thing.

[RSL]

Fine, Rip, (though I don't agree about the need for instruction in pedagogy) but what you're talking about should be called a degree in "art instruction," not "art."

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

Fine, Rip, but I should point out that the conventional academic Ph.D. does not require ANY instruction in how to teach, which is one reason so much college and university-level teaching is so inept (one of my pet peaves).

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Correct, Eric. My business school proudly promotes itself as the school with the largest number of Nobel Prize economists. And yet, when we complained how come none of them is teaching us, the school replied: "Trust us, you don't want them to teach."

[langier]

Education beyond their intelligence...

[BernardLanguillier]

Fine, Rip, but I should point out that the conventional academic Ph.D. does not require ANY instruction in how to teach, which is one reason so much college and university-level teaching is so inept (one of my pet peaves).

Indeed, having done a tiny bit of teaching about fluid mechanics in engineering school when I was doing a tiny big of research about pretty much something else, I can testify to this!

I have not noticed a higher ratio of good instructors among very highly educated scientists compared to people with more average academic backgrounds. Better public speakers... yes, more developed egos... yes, better instructors... no.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Justinr]

Indeed, having done a tiny bit of teaching about fluid mechanics in engineering school when I was doing a tiny big of research about pretty much something else, I can testify to this!

I have not noticed a higher ratio of good instructors among very highly educated scientists compared to people with more average academic backgrounds. Better public speakers... yes, more developed egos... yes, better instructors... no.

Cheers,
Bernard

The best teachers are those that have had to struggle themselves for they are aware of the problems in understanding and will have some idea of how to guide you round the barriers to appreciation of the subject. If a fellow has a PhD then it is an indication that he has have some natural talent for whatever he studied and so may fail to comprehend why others find it difficult, not a good mindset for teaching. As a practical example I started swimming at a young age with no instruction or encouragement, I just got in the water and did it, but for the life of me I can't teach others how to do so.

[BobShaw]

Degrees in art are pretty common in most of the world.

[SZRitter]

Degrees in art are pretty common in most of the world.

Yes, but a PHD is unheard of for fine arts outside of art history.

My 2 cents, without reading the article, but holding a BFA in Photography is as follows: A PHD in arts makes sense form the stand point of knowing all the technical knowledge involved. For instance, to obtain a PHD in painting, you should know the ins and outs of most techniques, how to be able to explain them, an expert in technical concerns such as color theory, and be versed in production techniques for reproduction. You should also demonstrate competency in the usage of all above techniques.

To hold a PHD does not mean the person is a great artist, just that they know a certain level of technical skills. Much like any of the fine art degrees (coming from a person with a BFA but a sad, pathetic ability to create "art").

[Petrus]

In these parts of the world when the higher education was standardized (sort of) about two decades ago, it meant that university level art schools (music, visual arts, dance & theater) started to give masters degrees to the graduates. Also it meant that the students had to be able to get doctor's degrees also like everybody else in other fields. At first it did sound funny, but we have gotten used to it. For artists it means a dissertation about some aspect of their craft, and also a series of performances or exhibits connected to the dissertation. For musicians it is usually a series of 4 public concerts. Fair enough, I see no reason why they could not be called Doctors of Art.

[Chris_Brown]

By the way, my own Ph.D. is in Mathematics, the first one given by Tufts University.

What was your thesis on?

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

What was your thesis on?

Golly! It was so long ago it's hard to remember. Something like "transfinite ordinals and the finite number classes." If I can find my copy, I'll correct this post.

At the time I wrote it (about 1970), I think there were about a half dozen people in the world who might understand it. That would include my adviser,  and, I guess, me. I never had a chance to make use of it in any course I ever taught.

[Kirk Gittings]

I have both gained an MFA and taught in a few universities with MFA programs. I think even the MFA stretches credibility in that art is not quantifiable in the same way that say art history or science is.