On the “new” PhD in Visual Arts
In the current issue of C magazine, which just came out this week, I got the opportunity to review James Elkins‘ new volume on the advent of the Visual Arts PhD in the magazine’s inaugural book review section. Artists with PhDs: On the New Doctoral Degree in Studio Art is a thorough overview of several perspectives – largely from artists who also work as critics or professors – on the relatively recent proliferation of PhD degrees being offered in the visual and studio arts (though, as one essayist, Judith Mottram, shows early in the book, doctoral degrees in studio art are not all that new in the UK, where programs were established as early as 1975 and more than 1,000 students are currently enrolled in doctoral or PhD programs).
While Elkins has previously been a staunch critic of the notion of university
programs for curators and art critics, here he takes a more even-handed approach.
As I wrote in the review:
Rather than engaging in a simplistic ‘for or against’ argument about the development of studio art PhDs, Elkins wisely sidesteps these questions of legitimacy in order to delve into what is at stake in the creation and proliferation of these degrees. As he writes in his introduction, “The question is not whether the new programs are coming, but how rigorously they will be conceptualized” (ix). Just as master of fine arts (MFA) degrees, which were introduced in the United States after World War II, initially provoked opposition from artists and academics but have since become ubiquitous, PhDs in studio art, Elkins argues, are on a similar trajectory towards acceptance and now, while they are still being implemented in Canada and the United States, is the time to question how they might best serve students and practitioners (vii).
This week, several art critics closer to home weighed in on graduate programs for artists, starting with The New York Times‘ Roberta Smith. In her profile of the Bruce High Quality Foundation University, a free art school run by an artist collective in New York, Smith writes that:
In this context the growing interest among art schools and universities (mostly abroad so far) in offering a Ph.D. in art makes the blood run cold. It also seems like rank, even cynical commercial opportunism. It’s too soon to tell, but I’d like to think that the economic downturn is doing serious damage to this trend and maybe even put budding artists off graduate school entirely.
Soon after, Toronto’s Andrea Carson of View on Canadian Art echoed and endorsed Smith’s observations, arguing instead that artists seeking the supportive environment that grad programs seem to offer should be able to find such a network in the contemporary art world, particularly through gallerists, curators and critics.
While I agree with Smith that there might be a degree of cynicism and exploitation involved in American PhD studio art programs, which often charge obscene tuition levels to students, the context in Canada is quite different. As Stephanie Vegh points out in her blog post on the topic, the two existing Canadian PhD programs in studio art – at York University and the University of Western Ontario – subsidize or fund their students to the point that tuition is effectively free. And, given that these and many other grad level programs in Canada fund their students throughout their education, unlike Smith’s prediction that the recession would put people “off” graduate degrees, there has actually been a great influx in grad applications at Canadian universities this year as those without stable work have returned to school instead.
Though Elkins‘ book is mainly concerned with the pedagogical issues at stake in these visual arts PhD programs – How does one teach someone to be an artist at the PhD level? And what should a visual arts or studio dissertation look like? – I’m still interested in an issue that no one seems to be addressing: what are the social, economic and political conditions that these programs are responding to? As someone just starting my PhD in art history and visual culture at York (also a newer program where what constitutes “visual culture” has still not been decided), I have a vested interest in how these doctoral programs are structured. I also am in the unique position of working and teaching alongside the first doctoral degree in visual art students in Canada and seeing the application and admission processes.
At present, all of the PhD candidates at York, in both art history and visual arts, are women. That demographic tidbit alone raises all kinds of interesting questions about what motivates these PhD applications and why women are more likely to enroll in advanced degrees. What are men artists doing differently? Is it just that, socioeconomically, they continue to have greater advantages as professional artists? And what is happening in the contemporary art world so that this level of specialized education seems appealing and necessary to so many artists, art historians and critics? Is it a scarcity of jobs that makes university positions seem so appetizing? or is something more significant at play?
I don’t have answers to any of these queries (though I do have opinions on a few of them), but I’m interested in hearing others’ thoughts on this and on following the discussion as it develops.
omg. So interesting. Thanks for this post, Gabby. Having done my fair share of visiting artist studio visits to MFA programs and stints as external examiner on MFA thesis projects, I have come to the conclusion that, for the most part, a masters in studio art is a systemic mind f*ck for students and faculty alike.
I'm big on research and education and rigorous thinking and participation in the larger cultural discourse, and all the good things that come from getting educated about your art practice. But nobody in their right mind would suggest that the best way to be an artist is to read a bunch of theory and apply it to your work (or, worse, vice versa). Yet, that's what an MFA degree demands. Only, since the profs and students are mostly in their right minds, the demand is sort of tacit and oblique and strained. Students are left reading and making and not really knowing what is expected of them in bringing the two together, and faculty are hoping that the students will somehow rise above the murk and find their own path that surprises and delights without being a)overly pedantic or b) ignorant. Add to the that the inevitable infantilization that comes with submitting your art practice to a grading scheme and owie! it's a mess. Now translate that into a Phd. A Phd that is increasingly necessary if you want to support your art career with teaching. arg.
okay rant over. I know its happening all around us. I'd rather try to make it better than stick my head in the sand and wish it would go away. so I'm looking forward to reading your review and also picking up the book. Elkins is a nutter (how does he manage to write so many darn books all the time?) but I love his work.
“What are men doing?” I’d love to participate in the discourse about the “new” PhD in Visual (Studio) Arts. I’ve done my tour of duty academically ( AOCA, BFA, MA, and currently enrolled in a Doctoral program ) and as a practicing studio artist for 45 years. At age 67, my problem is not recognition. It’s the burning question of how a “bricks-and-mortar” institution can engage the artist in his/her environment without borders ( i.e. the artist’s “home” studio) and not have to do “on-campus” studio work.
Unless academic institutions step into the real world of an eClass ( eStudio) environment, the solution will always be a step-down hybrid of on-campus/correspondence studies, regardless of what technological name they give the program. Having done masters research in communication and technology, it has become evident that Canada has a long to way to go before catching up to the Europeans (and some Americans). Yet, it is an opportune time for a Canadian university to “catch the wind of a new creative spirit,” the new PhD in Visual (Studio) Arts. Let the discourse begin ….. but don’t delay.
re: women in art history at York
what is UP with that? I want a sociologist to do their MA thesis on women in art history programs and produce some science on just what the heck is going on.
Thanks for the comments/rant, Sally. I have less experience seeing the MFA/PhD in studio arts in action, but it sounds more like a trial than a supportive community.
You should take a look at Elkins' book, if you get the chance, though. He just edited it and wrote the intro, but there are a few chapters on methodology that are really interesting. Including one that talks about scientific methods being applied to PhD studio art methods. I wasn't entirely convinced by it, but it did manage to convey that the lines between the two disciplines are much murkier than we think.
And I agree that someone needs to do a sociology report on women and art history graduate programs. Especially in light of the AGYU's Waging Culture report, which showed that women artists are more likely to have more years of higher education and are still likely to make less money than men in their same demographic categories.
I can't respond to this post in full, but I read your review in C and enjoyed it, Gabby, especially your rephrasing of the question to (I'm paraphrasing) "What is this PhD phenom responding to in the wider community, exactly?"
Thanks for the kudos, Leah – I'm glad you enjoyed it.
I've been getting lots of questions recently from people outside of school about what the PhD in visual arts at York looks like, so apparently the news is out that degree exists, but it is still a new and strange idea to many. It'll be interesting to see what the first set of grads think about the program.
Though this is 6 months after the original post, I hope you receive it. I am currently working on my MFA in the US, and researching PhD programs in the visual arts (ps. I am ALSO a female artist). You present a lot a topics for discussion, and I cannot spend the time to go into any prolonged discourse concerning them (because I have several theoretical essays to read for class in 2 hours), but I do want to mention a few thoughts I have on the situation.
(Let me preface this by saying that I see myself as both an artist and critic/theorist.) Elkins's "Why Art Cannot Be Taught" definitely has some interesting things to say about the subject, that I would tend to agree with. For the most part though, I think that the "death of art" from Modernist and Postmodernist standpoints have brought the entire institution (formal and informal)of art to a recognition that something needs to change (as can be seen throughout culture as a whole–especially in main stream television and film). As generations of young artists are trying to build their careers, society is screaming that post-secondary education is an absolute must to even survive, and that a Masters is the only way that anyone will be able to live a truly comfortable life. So artists turn to universities for practical reasons. At an undergraduate level, students are usually put through rigorous formal training, and are splashed with art history–but in a manner that does not completely explain the works from the ARTIST'S point of view. Students graduate with a BFA and an understanding of "ART" that is so disparate from that of the rest of the art institution that if they are really serious about pursuing this career they feel the need to study at an advanced level to truly be able to "get it." Or, they go out and get a job completely unrelated to art, because they are not properly equipped. Over the past few decades this has had somewhat of a butterfly effect throughout the institution, therefore requiring further education, and so on… Also, the prevalence of visual media in contemporary pop culture (the computer monitor I am staring at right now, for example) is affecting generations of young artists and they/we are beginning to see the social, cultural, and historical implications of visual culture in our globalized world, and need a place to really study these things–hence the development on PhD programs like UC Irvine with certificate programs in Critical Theory!
We are at a real turning point in history, and most people don't even realize it. Though there may be some negative aspects to the PhD programs, I think that ultimately, they are presenting us with an opportunity to better understand the world we live and and put ourselves in a position to actually do something about it. The general attitude of these young generations seems to be that of "f*ck this sh*t, we don't want this kind of life/world anymore, so stand up and do something about it"–and I feel this attitude is more than just a prolonged adolescent rebellion. And even it it is not, that doesn't make it any less significant.
phew… so that was longer than I expected, but it's hard to find people to talk to about some of these ideas (at least, at the institution I am currently involved in–which is precisely why I am pursuing a PhD in visual studies… wow.)
just to clarify, at the time of writing the chapter for the Elkin’s book, there were about 1000 completed PhDs recorded in ADIT. The number of enrolled students in the UK at that point was about 200/250 or thereabouts across the art and design fields, with about 50 completions happening each year. The UK clearly has been leading the development of study at this level but activity does date back to the 1970s and 1980 and I would encourage people to look at the ADIT (Art & Design Index to Theses) to find out more about the sorts of work that has been carried out.http://www3.shu.ac.uk/c3ri/adit/
Thanks for this, Judith. That’s an important clarification and having access to the ADIT numbers is really useful.
I became interested in a Fine Art Ph.D. as a participant of the McNair Scholars program which assists first generation and minority college students in gaining entrance to graduate school. We are encouraged to apply directly into Ph.D. programs, as they are most likely to be funded, and provide jobs that lead to elevation out of poverty. As I do research on programs and move up in my undergraduate program, I feel that these emerging programs are sorely needed. I just saw the head of my department speak to a group of students, parents and professors, trying to explain the MFA terminal degree. People don’t get it, and frankly I don’t either. Successful artists and professors are gaining the equivalent experience, I think formal programs should be welcome. An opportunity for people to continue their education while teaching. The challenge is designing programs that are rigorous, but open for creative expression. It is an opportunity to transform academia.
Forget about PHD’s, MFA’s are insane enough! When do stop going to school and BECOME an artist? Well, if you’re just kidding yourself about having real talent, the answer would appear to be never with the advent of the new PHD program.
For a person with real intellect and talent, the four years that an undergrad degree gives you is beyond suffice. Of course one doesn’t ever stop learning. You continue to read. You write. You talk with other artists and critics and everyone. And most importantly, you make art.
All the greats have proven themselves by the age of 25. The less than great spend half their lives in school. Learning less about how to make better art, than the rules, getting indoctrinated, and making art about art that is utterly incomprehensible to anyone without a degree. Not by shear talent do they get the shows, but because they’ve proven their ability to learn this highly coded language which gives them access to this exclusive artistic club. The work in these MFA shows does little to prove any creative superiority, but rather a more abundant supply of funds and lifespan (one would have to suspect).
The MFA’s and PHD’s are a rather interesting substrata of the artist. If extreme generalizing will be permitting, it could be said that the MFA is very intelligent and creative-wise, rather average. If the the highly intelligent artist could only get together with the highly creative type with the average intellect- the kind who draws in their sleep, but in a rather juxtaposesque way- and form a duo, they could both actually generate some critical acclaim and make money and forget school. But the pot smoking cartoonist won’t move into a converted loft space with design furniture. And the MFA frankly seems content pretending that getting a show at Diaz in Toronto actually must be important in the art world.
Go ahead, make your generic MFA art. The kind of thing you could swear you’ve seen before ten other times. The same contemporary art that an MFA is making this very second in Beijing, Sydney, Los Angeles, Beirut, and New York.
Hi Gabrielle, Thanks for writing about this, as I’m weighing my options to do a PhD.
Despite completing an MFA, I harbour a reluctance to encourage the continued acedemicization of the field of visual arts. A culture of language has begun to infect the process of art-making to the extent that an MFA is further down the rabbit hole in terms of predicating practice on the correct lexicon of theorists. So frequently, the depth and quality of one’s grasp of this lexicon throughout their academic career outweighs the actual mastery of process.
I did my MFA because I was lucky enough to find my direction while finishing my BFA and I wanted the umbrella of time and space to let it mature in a nurturing environment rather than stunt while I was working to pay off student loans. It worked (at the cost of deeper debt), but because I believe: a) craftsmanship to be at least equally footed with concept; b) depending on what one considers language, art skews whorfianism, it wasn’t without a lot of friction between myself and my advisory environment.
It says a lot when the technical staff, and their qualities as instructors, is subordinate to the academic faculty. It teaches students to have faith in this hierarchy outside of uni, and in their behaviour. To disregard those that are also a part of their learning environment. This system has produced a crop of “emerging artists” to expect to launch right into some sort of prize position as a theorist, and never have to hoof it in someone’s studio.
I worked for years after my MFA as a studio assistant, gallery technician, and freelance fabricator. Many MFAs do (here may be part of the gender divide in art: in my experience, chicas tend to flesh out the majority of arts admin, and dudes tend to fill up the technicals ranks. I don’t believe in the necessity of it, but I have seen it), and every summer we’d have a new crop of recent BFAs enter the workforce feeling entitled to enter the rank and file of the stable horses at the commercial galleries, but settling for a job amongst us “techs” and considering us as less-thans, not knowing our own pedigree of education. Sometimes they’d spend two weeks painting walls and complaining about being “real artists” only to constantly seek advice from the veteran technical staff on how to use a screw gun. (here’s a hint. Reverse takes things out, and drill bits don’t work on screws).
That all being said, as a PhD is an authentic contribution to knowledge, I believe there is a space in academia for doing one as an artist. Our knowledge is pertinent to the world and, although in recent times has become subject to the ensnarement of language, deserves the focus and dedication that doing doctoral work requires.
Last thing: “all the greats have proved themselves by the age of 25” is utter horseshit and reeks of the same attitude that only considers rockstars of merit, and ignores the innumerable contributions of seasoned session musicians. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/08/AR2007110800952.html
I think you’ve got a point Jamie. I did an MFA a few years ago, in Newcastle, England. Although it gave me useful insights into creative practice it was a heavy financial burden and did not open any doors to success in the real world of galleries and sales. Looking back it was a poorly led, hands off programme which was a useful source of income and kudos for the university art department. The time, effort and money I spent on it would have been better applied to simply making art and continuing to develop a market for it, itself a creative set of problems to solve. There are many stories of natural talent either wasted on over academic thinking (which uses completely different language/logic based mental faculties – see McGilchrist, I. 2009 for a comprehensive study of brain lateralism and its effects on culture) or not finding a productive outlet in the competitive, personality driven gallery world. I’m now completing an MPhil in cultural geography which has nearly killed my artistic output but very much looking forward to getting back into full-time art making which is where most of the important intuitive creative thinking happens. Elkins makes some clear and important arguments against the knowledge claims of art practice PhDs but he is heavily invested in the academic art world system and not keen I suspect to call it what it mostly is: anti-art and too obscure.