Art PhD's

I actually have no problem with the studio PhD. While I do not think it should replace the MFA as a required degree for teaching on a college level, I see no reason why an artist should have to just end with an MFA. I know many people who have gone on after their MFA's to get PhD's in theory, philosophy, criticism and English. The thinking that everyone should get an MFA and be done with it, it limits the cross-discipline relationships that have become so important in contemporary art. As a student, I would not want a professor who stayed in the studio for six years straight and then came out to teach me. I want them to be well versed in technique, theory, writing, public speaking and have well-defined careers. I think on a broader scale- this is not just a question of whether or not artists should have to get PhD's, but also whether or not the MFA is seen as the beginning of a career or an artists "leveling out" point. The great thing about a PhD program is that it keeps the person active in a field for longer than just two years- I often question if this is enough time to really learn anything.
Being an artist is not like being an accountant. No one piece of paper is going to get you to the next level, that next pay raise. We really are on our own to personally make the decision to expand our knowledge base, gain further skills, get the shows and write the grants. So the question of the MFA versus PhD comes down to how much you want to grow. If that is what it takes to get the same respect as the sciences then i say fine, but it should be an option open to those who want it.

Art PHD

I think that the idea of a PHD in studio art is a administrative idea and used to help standardize and level out the degrees of the professor to better administrate to them. The MFA is a degree that allows the professor to work and continue with there artwork giving them valuable insight into the working of the art scene. In a PHD the artiest is doing more theory and criticism, and is driven away from the studio and the progression the there work receives in a focused study into there area.

How educated must ANYONE be?

This article really hits home for me as I battle with the decision to either continue with my MFA or to bring it to a screeching halt. I question whether or not all the education we receive in an institutional setting is all really necessary. There will always be an element of the real world and real situations that can just not be brought into the classroom. A doctorate for an artist seems like just another layer of education; something else to delay your life plans. I do not want to have to spend the majority of my life in school in order to be able to practice what I enjoy doing. While some of the skills that are provided in a doctoral program would seem to be beneficial to an artist they also seem like skills that can be acquired in a variety of ways. I am strongly against removing artists from the act of making/creating which is what a doctorate would seem to do. It is bad enough that institutions keep stretching out the length of their MFA programs, I can't imagine having to complete a doctoral program in addition to it.

This week's reading- Art PhD's

This week's reading, about the growing trend of PhD's in art, can be found at the following link: http://chronicle.com/temp/reprint.php?id=g48m608c8t6vfhnyx905zqztj8hgxy9d

Mosque wearing

The most interesting aspect of Azra Aksamija's work, for me, is how many different fields of study she attempts to incorporate both in her work and in the way in which she works. Aksamija has to have a large understanding of architecture, Muslim culture, American culture, fashion design, knowledge of the textile industry, and of religion and politics in order to work on her wearable mosques. I do wonder if it is a goal of hers to directly reference the architecture of mosques or of any building in these works. I do not visualize any sense of a structure or of a building when I view one of her pieces. I would be very interested in seeing the reaction to her survival mosque from different areas of the world. Depending on the culture that work could evoke some very strong emotions-both positive and negative.

material use

I would have to say, after thinking about it a bit longer, that my biggest problem with Stelarc's third ear is that I don't understand why he had it implanted on his arm. I really need to know more about his purpose in order to be more accepting of it. As far as medical need vs. no need compared to the use of other materials by an artist that could also be needed for another purpose, I would have to say that it is not much different. I have actually been thinking alot about how wasteful we are as artists, especially since I've come to IUP. It is something that really concerns me.

Stelarc and all his ears

Hi all,
After reading your responses to Stelarc's third ear project, a couple of questions:

Some of you mentioned that the medical resources used for the project could have been better used to help someone who actually needed surgery for health reasons. So, do you feel the same way about an artist who spends a large sum of money on lumber and builds a sculpture with it? After all - that lumber and labor could have been used for housing someone who needs a home. Or is that somehow different?

Also, now that living tissue can be grown outside the body in a laboratory, how do you feel about using this material for art? What are the ethical issues here?