 |
 |
The list has livened up! Thank you George for your kind words,and also to Richard for your own reponse. I will try to address some of what you both say. To begin with I don't think that I said I believe "the notion of an entirely practice-based degree is supportable", I rather questioned the conviction that it is not. The idea that practice should be alienated within a "non-academic situation" while research remains the prerogative of Richards academic "custodians" seems as intellectually arrogant as the arrogance George attributes to some practitioners. Richard, I agree with you - words are very ambiguous - which seems to mitigate any claim that propositional language has a distinct advantage over visual imagery. Interpretation is the key and written text can be - and usually is interpreted in many different ways, as is art. I would point out here that surely the very first form of communication, other than the! grunts and general pre-verbal vocalisation of primitive man, was wall drawings - imagery that did not involve the written word but nevertheless was "read" and understood. If the academics are the custodians of research does this make research itself a prisoner of academia? Maybe yes - a political one I think. The established conventions of the PhD form the bars and the visiting rights are awarded it seems by those who have equally "vested interests and ingrained modes of thinking" as those George wants to challenge. The idea that research funding is in danger of being given out simply to support studio practice seems, from my limited experience of such things, a little bizarre as - and George is surely aware of this - you do not get accepted onto a PhD course easily, practiced-based or otherwise. The work you are expected to do as part of the degree framework and requirements, and the amount of time you spend away from the studio in order to pursue this is no small amount and this I think is appropriate given that a candidate has chosen a PhD over and above any other way of producing the intended body of artwork. I myself was made fully aware of this before I was accepted at Loughborough and I chose the PhD for many reasons including those that Steve pointed out in an earlier post. Why should not the academic framework enhance and push on the level of practice in a way that is both constructive and fulfilling for the artist him/herself while at the same time be! generative of new ways of working and insights into practice that can be communicated to others in the field, and does the academic framework necessarily have to have an additional written component in order to do this. I am not saying it should be categorical either way - I myself have an academic background as well as practical one and therefore the integration of the two comes naturally and is not a real issue. In general however I would not like to think that a purely practice-based PhD is "unthinkable". Those other people in the field may or may not be practitioners themselves, but those that are do not I think deserve to be denigrated as lacking in humility because they uphold the idea that art practice which is intended as research deserves to be evaluated as such, do not to have a research degree themselves. Besides the obvious question as to how on earth do you get research expertise in the arts if the academics are bent on ! keeping artists off campus goes hand in hand with the distinct possibility that those same academics are as lacking in a sound basis for apprehending an artwork as the practioners that George talks about. I never said, I think, that there should be any level of relativity in which all art intended as research should naturally be judged as successful in its objective. After all I see no reason why practice-based PhDs should be any more or less successful in general than conventional ones. It is the move toward credibility of practice - for those who seem at present entrenched in their lack of acceptance of it that I would advocate. Stalemate? It is not a radical change in the whole structure of a PhD in order to let in the enemy at the gate, I am simply saying that there must be scope for debate about practice and its relation to research which is more along the lines of Richard's "both sides" as opposed to intellectual closure. I must say at this point that I do take ex! ception to George's remarks about whether a practitioner may or may not have earned a PhD. No one I would imagine - perhaps naively - would go through a PhD research period unless they really wanted to and no-one would receive one unless they both did - and were seen to earn it. Perhaps however I am being naive again. It seems to me that there is an enormous scope for research at PhD level in any number of disciplines, a practice-based proposal in fine art being only one. It is an approach that I myself have chosen and I am comfortable with. The straitjacket does not come from the PhD level of practice itself but rather from the "conform or get out" kind of attitude which seems indicative of someone encased within his own self imposed bonds. I look forward to any more comments, Best wishes to all list readers Jac _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp