I would like to make a short comment on what Lubomir Savov Popov wrote :

"My idea is that the same model can be applied in the arts. Painting  
a great picture is still not knowledge production. Reflecting on the  
philosophy behind this picture, the method of thinking of the artist  
(dissertator), and so on, can constitute the philosophical part/ 
dissertation. I have nothing against great artists. Actually, I  
admire them more than the researchers. However, I have a problem when  
someone paints a picture and wants to get a Ph.D. Here we face  
several questions: is it necessary to have a Ph.D.; does it helps in  
the artistic professions; etc. My personal opinion is that particular  
types of topics might facilitate the development of artistic  
philosophy and understanding, while other topics (and methodologies)  
might stagnate it. We can argue about this. However, let's look at a  
couple of precedent situations. If Corbusier, Wright, Gropius, and  
several other landmark architects have reformatted their  
publications, they could have easily complied with the highest  
requirements for obtaining a Ph.D. in architecture. They have created  
a new way of thinking, they have reflected on it, and they have  
critically analyzed past architectural developments. Even Mies van  
der Rohe who hasn't published much could have written down on paper  
all his talks and discussions and could have left us an example of  
dissertational excellence."

I could possibly agree on the fact that painting a great picture  
might not be knowledge production. But of course, the artistic  
activity (or the architectural activity, to stick to the examples at  
the end) is not captured by "a great picture", neither would  
architecture be captured by one single building.
I believe Dilthey has done a great job in demonstrating that the  
artistic activity is also knowledge production. He actually came to  
that conclusion by observing artists at work. I also did a couple of  
studies of material (e.g. notes, sketches, instructions, texts) of  
some craftsmen, and I would argue that there is, indeed, knowledge at  
stake (and I do not mean by that : technical skills, etc.). I also  
recall a presentation (that was very badly received) in which I was  
trying to examine the status of some (mostly architectural) sketches,  
and how they were indexes of a process of knowledge creation.

Best regards,

Jean