The PhD in Art Practice

[hmblumer]

What is the general consensus on GradCafe?

 

Is anyone familiar with arts PhDs? I know James Elkins has a good amount of work surrounding the graduate education in art for MFA and has started researching how PhD programs function.

 

Two to three years does not seem to be enough time to complete certain research based projects (for me at least) and I was curious to get other people's opinions.

[Alpha-numeric]

Do you mean a PhD in studio art or what exactly?

[kafralal]

I will probably consider doing one in the future. I'm am particularly interested in exploring some of the longer, partially peripatetic, low residency-ish ones in Europe.

 

Alpha-numeric, as far as I understand it, for an art practice PHD you take artistic research even farther than what you can do in a masters and it usually culminates in both a body of artistic work combined with a medium sized dissertation (in lieu of a single longer dissertation.)

[Alpha-numeric]

It sounds like an expensive substitute for a studio and a library card.

[kafralal]

You could choose to describe an MFA that way too!

[Alpha-numeric]

Yes, that's true but an MFA may be the first time a student is able to work with a group of peers who are truly committed to what they're doing. A PhD just seems like overkill. If someone's work is going badly post-MFA I seriously doubt A PhD will fix that. It's perhaps time for reflecting on what someone's priorities are. Of course I'm only referring to studio work. For art history and other paths of research I think a PhD can absolutely be worthwhile, I just question an institution's motives for implementing such a long-term studio program (smells like money).

Edited March 19, 2014 by Alpha-numeric

[kafralal]

I don't think you do a PHD because your work is going badly. It isn't about fixing things, it is about going deeper. There are a variety of programs that make it difficult to generalize--criticism such as "smells like money" would be best leveled at specific programs.

[Alpha-numeric]

Sounds like a MFA the way you describe it.. Also, I know there are some programs in Europe but I haven't heard of any in the U.S. so, are you interested in PhD's that could potentially be offered in the U.S. or programs abroad? Given the current state of higher education in the U.S. I'm highly suspicious of PhD studio programs spreading as yet another way to fill universities' coffers.

[0000]

Yes, that's true but an MFA may be the first time a student is able to work with a group of peers who are truly committed to what they're doing. A PhD just seems like overkill. Of course I'm only referring to studio work. For art history and other paths of research I think a PhD can absolutely be worthwhile, I just question an institution's motives for implementing such a long-term studio program (smells like money).

 

I agree.  A PhD is a research degree.  While I think developing research skills is an important part of an MFA, the depth of research required for a PhD seems like a bit much for art practice.  At least in the US there is no incentive to get one since it won't offer up any new opportunities.  Post MFA, an artist has all the time they want to go into more depth on a particular project so I don't see the point in getting a PhD unless in the pursuit of that degree you will develop skills that you would need and otherwise not obtain while getting an MFA.    

[poorstudent]

There are three PhD in Art Practice program in North America: University of California San Diego (started in 2002), York University since 2008 and University of Western Ontario since around 2007 (the latter two in Canada). There are plenty of PhD in Arts program in Europe. 

I am currently only months away from finishing my MFA program at a university where there is a PhD in Art Practice program as well. From my direct interaction with the PhD in Art Practice students, many of them friends, I know for sure, it is not a good direction for artists. Some really regret they started the program but after two years of intense investment of time (while not making art at all) it is hard to drop out. 

Here are the realities: you will not make art in your first two years or even longer. You will have no time at all. You will study for your minor and major comprehensive exams then you will work on writing your prospectus for your thesis. The amount of reading and your writings demanded by your course work is exhausting.  When they tell you that part of your program is two mid term show in your minimum 4 year studies, you will practically scramble to carve out some time to produce work to be ready for your show in the last minute as your academic studies are so demanding. Also, the academic learning addresses a narrow field both in the US and in Europe (except England and Ireland). Your mandatory readings will be from cultural theory meaning Lacoon, Bartes, Foucault, Derrida, etc. If it is not your cup of tea and you have a broader interest, then you will be disappointed because you will not have time to read or do anything else. 

A big disadvantage of being a student in PhD that for granting agencies and public galleries you are just that, simply a student, and you are not eligible to apply for many grants or public exhibitions because students are excluded from those opportunities (in case you are a miracle student who can carve out a tiny bit of time to make a tiny bit of art). This will hinder your art practice tremendously. If you want to teach studio at a university when you finish after 4-5 and sometimes six years of study (years when you hardly made any art), it will be a disadvantage of not having a consistent practice of continuous art making and public exhibitions. 

When I came to this program as an MFA student, I was thinking to continue in PhD (and I have every chance to continue as I am top student). I don’t consider it anymore. I am still interested in doing a PhD but in a solid, established field such as university art education, theatre and performance studies, media studies etc. and doing it low residency while I am teaching and making art. Doing a PhD which is not directly in art practice will not render me to be a mere art student and I will be eligible to apply for grants and professional exhibition opportunities just as any other artist. It will be still demanding and will require a lot of energy to make art and complete a PhD in low residency but my PhD will have also a much better prestige than an Art practice PhD.

I hope this information will help you.

 

[Cigarettes12]

I think there's also one in Harvard but it's film oriented.

Whether it seems LESS like working than an MFA that I'm not sure- I think I saw someone teaching in Canada in a non-prestigious university with the degree- also now the person is no longer working there and I think she split her time teaching at 2.

I'm trying to get the degree for financial reasons : drag along, that type of thing....I was interviewed a couple of years ago by an okay one and turned down- I ended up going for an art history degree- what I would say is that the quality of what you can get is pretty much key - 'Art History' won't necessarily save you- if it's something in the middle of North Dakota or something like that and the program has no age on it, there's no library, little goes in and out even if they put a lot on you I'm not sure you would really have much.

[Nico Lin]

On ‎3‎/‎29‎/‎2014 at 3:59 PM, poorstudent said:

There are three PhD in Art Practice program in North America: University of California San Diego (started in 2002), York University since 2008 and University of Western Ontario since around 2007 (the latter two in Canada). There are plenty of PhD in Arts program in Europe. 

I am currently only months away from finishing my MFA program at a university where there is a PhD in Art Practice program as well. From my direct interaction with the PhD in Art Practice students, many of them friends, I know for sure, it is not a good direction for artists. Some really regret they started the program but after two years of intense investment of time (while not making art at all) it is hard to drop out. 

Here are the realities: you will not make art in your first two years or even longer. You will have no time at all. You will study for your minor and major comprehensive exams then you will work on writing your prospectus for your thesis. The amount of reading and your writings demanded by your course work is exhausting.  When they tell you that part of your program is two mid term show in your minimum 4 year studies, you will practically scramble to carve out some time to produce work to be ready for your show in the last minute as your academic studies are so demanding. Also, the academic learning addresses a narrow field both in the US and in Europe (except England and Ireland). Your mandatory readings will be from cultural theory meaning Lacoon, Bartes, Foucault, Derrida, etc. If it is not your cup of tea and you have a broader interest, then you will be disappointed because you will not have time to read or do anything else. 

A big disadvantage of being a student in PhD that for granting agencies and public galleries you are just that, simply a student, and you are not eligible to apply for many grants or public exhibitions because students are excluded from those opportunities (in case you are a miracle student who can carve out a tiny bit of time to make a tiny bit of art). This will hinder your art practice tremendously. If you want to teach studio at a university when you finish after 4-5 and sometimes six years of study (years when you hardly made any art), it will be a disadvantage of not having a consistent practice of continuous art making and public exhibitions. 

When I came to this program as an MFA student, I was thinking to continue in PhD (and I have every chance to continue as I am top student). I don’t consider it anymore. I am still interested in doing a PhD but in a solid, established field such as university art education, theatre and performance studies, media studies etc. and doing it low residency while I am teaching and making art. Doing a PhD which is not directly in art practice will not render me to be a mere art student and I will be eligible to apply for grants and professional exhibition opportunities just as any other artist. It will be still demanding and will require a lot of energy to make art and complete a PhD in low residency but my PhD will have also a much better prestige than an Art practice PhD.

I hope this information will help you.

 

Good insight, I am currently having similar struggles contemplating whether or not to go for one of these programs, not to mention they are so rare and obscure to come by. 

[staxdo_21]

@poorstudent Your response was so helpful to me. I studied drawing and sculpture and went on to earn a Post-Bac with the intention of going on to an MFA. However, I had a pretty terrible experience in my Post-Bac program, which was basically a money mill for the school at the time. I thought about it for many years, and I believe I can continue making work on my own that is focused and impactful without that terminal MFA. However, I am contemplating an MA in art history. My main concern is that the process and the profession will take me away from the actual art making, as there has been some feedback of that very issue. 

The other issue is that many of the jobs I have interest in require an MFA or MA. I'm probably better set up to return for an MFA but, of course, with the economic uncertainty of the times, I am trying to make the most pragmatic choice.