As an outsider, non-drawer, non-artist etc, but as someone who helps people here find research opportunities, it seems to me that the difference between a portfolio of drawings and a PhD would be that a PhD sets the drawings in some sort of context, supported by a narrative.
That 'wrap-round narrative' might be likely to include theoretical / historical etc contexts. Also, since a PhD is meant to demonstrate the candidate's capacity for further, higher research, the whole thesis needs to show that capacity in some way, as well as demonstrating why the outcome contributes something new and original to the body of knowledge. No one, in any field at all, should be starting out on a piece of research certain of the outcome and drawing is no different in that respect from science lab work. The whole point is to find out something new.
Since every single drawing ever done is original and new, that of itself does not contribute anything to the body of knowledge. Hence the need to wrap a narrative around it, so that others can follow your thoughts and the new things you discovered.
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/redir.asp?URL=http://www.constructionhistory.co.uk>
________________________________
From: The UK drawing research network mailing list [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jill Gibbon [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 12 July 2011 09:39
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Why doctors in drawing
interesting discussion!
surely these are all good reasons to do a drawing PhD! A practice-based PhD isn't led by theory. It's the other way around. A PhD simply offers a framework inwhich we can articulate what we learn through the process of drawing.
I imagined my PhD as a conversation between practice and theory, initiated and led by drawing.
Jill
--- On Tue, 12/7/11, Kate Walters <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
From: Kate Walters <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Why doctors in drawing
To: [log in to unmask]
Date: Tuesday, 12 July, 2011, 9:25
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<[log in to unmask]" target="_blank">http:[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]<[log in to unmask]" target="_blank">http:[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<[log in to unmask]" target="_blank">http:[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 2:30 AM
To: [log in to unmask]<[log in to unmask]" target="_blank">http:[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]<[log in to unmask]" target="_blank">http:[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]<[log in to unmask]" target="_blank">http:[log in to unmask]>>
Reply-To: The UK drawing research network mailing list <[log in to unmask]<[log in to unmask]" target="_blank">http:[log in to unmask]>>
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 15:59:23 +0100
To: [log in to unmask]<[log in to unmask]" target="_blank">http:[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
|