 |
 |
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