I would just like to add that my PhD gave me the tools to understand  
and push my practice further I could have thought possible before.   
Contrary to embedding me in the academy, it has allowed me to break  
free and pursue my practice rather than pulling me back into word  
based research.  I have to acknowledge that this success is due to an  
exceptional supervisor who thinks beyond the academy - but in most  
cases it should be possible to keep the practice leading the theory  
and not vice versa.

Incidentally, my practical and theoretical strands were quite distinct  
- running in parallel rather than merged into one enquiry. Each strand  
resonated with the other, leading me step by step towards an  
interesting and ultimately indeterminate conclusion.  It is this  
indeterminacy that keeps me continuing with my practice.

Karen

Karen Wallis
[log in to unmask]



On 12 Jul 2011, at 10:13, list|marianne wrote:

> Dear all,
> Thanks so much for your responses.
>
> And Nina, for me, yes you're right: drawing and drawing practice is  
> very
> broad, very rich, often cross-disciplinary and including your  
> categories
> below. I'm personally very interested in drawing as research, and,  
> also,
> research as an end in itself: the finding out - or making sense of -  
> what is
> and what can potentially be.
>
> What I worry about, or currently struggle with, is when artistic  
> practice as
> research  becomes embedded within the academy , its structures and
> languages, it is - at least until a new a new framework is  
> established (?) -
> necessarily validated by already existing frameworks borrowed from  
> other
> disciplines that does not necessarily - or fully - allow for the  
> research to
> be entirely intuitive, contrary, risky  (Eduardo you may correct me?)
>
> I think I'm worried that the position of the artist and, more so, the
> artwork,  as autonomous is at risk when your work and research will be
> validated as true or false by external forces. What happens to the  
> "what can
> potentially be"  made visible through free art practice when it must  
> argue
> for itself through already established theories and knowledge  
> frameworks?
> Does it limit the language of art, its scope and its possibility?  
> Does it
> make practice less broad and more predictable?
>
> Kate, I never studied fine art, did an MA in a different subject and  
> was
> surprised at how I was continually asked to absolutely - with no  
> deviation -
> follow the structures already set out for my work to pass.  I  
> continually
> wondered how new thoughts and new ways of thinking could be made  
> visible
> when testing possibilities for doing things DIFFERENTLY were actively
> discouraged.  It seems to me that this stifles research and our  
> potential
> for discovering and disseminating new ways of being, doing,  
> thinking? It
> also seems that it make research (and therefore potentially  
> practice) quite
> exclusive - by and for those engaged within academia and capable of  
> speaking
> its languages?
>
> What is your PhD in? Curious! If I ever were to do one, it wouldn't  
> be in
> fine art either.
>
> All best
> Marianne
>
>
>
>
>> From: Nina Baker <[log in to unmask]>
>> Reply-To: The UK drawing research network mailing list
>> <[log in to unmask]>
>> Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 09:35:15 +0100
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: [DRAWING-RESEARCH] Why doctors in drawing
>>
>> This interesting statement makes a neat link with the thread I  
>> started on the
>> use of drawing as a research tool rather than an end in itself. As a
>> non-drawer, would I be correct in thinking that drawing is (VERY  
>> broadly) for
>> one or more of:
>>
>> Artisitic creativity
>> Researching
>> Recording
>>
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Dr Nina Baker
>> Research Support
>> Room AR332/F25 [1st floor]
>> Department of Architecture
>> 131 Rottenrow
>> University of Strathclyde
>> Glasgow G4 0NG
>>
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in  
>> overalls and
>> looks like work.
>>
>> Thomas Edison, inventor (1847 - 1931)
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> http://personal.strath.ac.uk/nina.baker/<https://nemo.strath.ac.uk/exchweb/bin
>> /redir.asp?URL=http://personal.strath.ac.uk/nina.baker/>
>> http://www.constructionhistory.co.uk<https://nemo.strath.ac.uk/exchweb/bin/red
>> ir.asp?URL=http://www.constructionhistory.co.uk>
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: The UK drawing research network mailing list
>> [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Kate Walters
>> [[log in to unmask]]
>> Sent: 12 July 2011 09:25
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: Why doctors in drawing
>>
>> I would like to support this thread. If I know in my brain what I  
>> am going to
>> do before I begin the result is lifeless and teaches me nothing  
>> new. A good
>> drawing for me is one where I discover something I couldn't  
>> possibly have
>> arrived at in any other way. I do not have a Ph.D and I am not  
>> thinking of
>> doing one, but I am interested in being part of the discussion  
>> around this
>> question. Kate
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Anne Cholewa<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>> To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask] 
>> >
>> Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 7:59 AM
>> Subject: Re: Why doctors in drawing
>>
>> Hello, I mostly just lurk here, fascinated, having moved on from my  
>> own
>> drawing practice into other fields. But I wanted to add my  
>> appreciation of
>> what Marianne has said. " Mapping out, to validate as research,  
>> what I will
>> draw, how I will draw it and why – before I even start, would put  
>> an end to
>> all the work I made (and some of the best work I made)..." ... that  
>> is exactly
>> why my PhD will not be practice based.
>> Annie
>> From: Venantius J Pinto<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>> Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 2:30 AM
>> To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask] 
>> >
>> Subject: Re: Why doctors in drawing
>>
>> Thanks Marianne for your very succinct and mindful articulation.
>> Marianne wrote:
>> "For me the knowledge established by doing seem to come through,  
>> yes, but
>> often after the act of doing. Mapping out, to validate as research,  
>> what I
>> will draw, how I will draw it and why – before I even start would  
>> put and end
>> to all the work I made (and some of the best work I made)..."
>>
>> +++++++++++++
>> venantius j pinto
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 12:19 PM, list|marianne
>> <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>> Thanks Eduardo for your very considered response.
>> I am particularly heartened by  your point 6. and IADE’s desire to  
>> actively
>> participate in redefining critique from within. (I assume this  
>> includes the
>> complete question of what constitutes critique in relation to  
>> artistic
>> research within the academy)
>>
>> I don’t have a phd and currently no desire to undertake one. I am  
>> very aware
>> of the need for me to have one if I want to progress any further  
>> within the
>> academic system (I’m currently a visiting tutor/lecturer).  
>> Nontheless, the
>> questions I wrestle with is the potential of the intuitive,  
>> aesthetic, the
>> position of not-knowing (while intimately knowing) and of  
>> purposefully doing
>> wrong to see what right may come of it, will be stifled within a  
>> system that
>> requires you to argue for and validate your work (often before or,  
>> at least,
>> as it progresses) within an already established evaluation framework.
>> For me the knowledge established by doing seem to come through,  
>> yes, but often
>> after the act of doing. Mapping out, to validate as research, what  
>> I will
>> draw, how I will draw it and why – before I even start would put  
>> and end to
>> all the work I made (and some of the best work I made) out of a
>> need/desire/interest to just see what would happen if...or, how to  
>> solve
>> this..
>>
>> I’ll look forward to see what comes out of current discussions and  
>> would be
>> really interested to be kept informed of any work that may come  
>> from IADE in
>> this regard. Expecting that a new language and validation format/ 
>> criteria may
>> have to be hammered out, in order for art to find its OWN place  
>> within the
>> system?
>>
>> At them moment I’m only able to provide a ramble through my own  
>> thoughts
>> (apologies!) but current issue on TEXTE ZUR KUNST is devoted to  
>> discussions of
>> what constitutes artistic research and how it may sit within  
>> academia.
>>
>>
>> All best
>> Marianne
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Eduardo Corte Real
>> <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
>> Reply-To: The UK drawing research network mailing list
>> <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask] 
>> >>
>> Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 15:59:23 +0100
>> To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask] 
>> >
>> Subject: [DRAWING-RESEARCH] Why doctors in drawing
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi  Marianne,
>>
>> Sorry  for the late reply, I don’t see emails during the weekend  
>> and  Friday
>> afternoon  I’m devoted to my students’ problems (when they have it).
>>
>> My  answer to your email will naturally skip the two options you   
>> gave me. I
>> will  focus on the reasons we are asking for people with PhD.
>>
>> There  are a good number of reasons to ask for someone with PhD  
>> for  this
>> specific  position (and I stress specific)
>>
>>
>> 1.  Drawing at IADE is like Mathematics in Engineering Schools.  
>> This means
>> that Drawing is understood as a strong disciplinary area that  
>> develops
>> cognitive/intellectual capacities in students who will be Designers,
>> Illustrators, Animators or Photographers. We see drawing as one of  
>> the “basic
>> science” of Design and Visual Culture and therefore we would like  
>> to have some
>> “scientists” on that rather than practitioners. However we are  
>> really looking
>> for people that developed doctoral research from (their) praxis and  
>> are still
>> practitioners and preferably see their practice intertwined with  
>> their
>> research .
>> 2.  IADE is an independent university school and therefore is  
>> committed to do
>> research and teach according to research requirements.
>> 3.  The Bologna “revolution” introduced teaching/learning by  
>> project in all
>> areas. We think that a doctoral research is THE paradigmatic  
>> academic research
>> project that we can use as a reference especially since artistic  
>> research is
>> already being accepted as academic research.
>> 4.  Like in the UK, in Portugal doctorates may be awarded by  
>> project (here
>> even by a body of work sustained in a written document according to  
>> an
>> academic style). But for this we must have supervisors and  
>> examiners already
>> with PhD. This is relatively new in Portugal but we are determined  
>> to pursuit
>> this path, and of course we would like to have people who followed  
>> the same
>> path to help us in doing so.
>> 5.  We will prefer people as you say would allow us to comply with  
>> the good
>> things resulting from «requirements for universities under new  
>> systems and as
>> part of “knowledge economy” needing to account for knowledge  
>> production/verify
>> research” AND as “more interesting artists and lecturers».
>> 6.  In fact, we strongly believe that, as peers, we can create/ 
>> define/validate
>> research that might be both artistic/projectual and scientific.  
>> Being more
>> refined, I would say that we are strongly committed to do two  
>> things: a)
>> redefine Critique so that its higher level may be equivalent to  
>> academic
>> dissemination. b) redefine and validate artistic research as academic
>> research.
>>
>> By the way, thank you. You  raised some of the  problematic issues  
>> this List
>> is about – if we look at the title.
>>
>> warm regards,
>>
>> Eduardo