Going beyond the MFA: Do Artists Need a PhD?

Just saw this in Chronicle newsletter.

It's not DL specifically, but I thought it would be of interest.

Paint It High and Deep - Brainstorm - The Chronicle of Higher Education

Roscoe

 

I, for one, think it's completely unnecessary. The last thing we need is another graduate degree in fine arts.

That being said, one of the comments below the story asked "Why not a D.F.A. instead of a PhD?" I tend to agree with that line of thought, if a doctorate is absolutely necessary. Visual artists with MFAs are artists first and academics second. A DFA degree could provide the appropriate degree for such candidates, and the PhDs would remain in the fields further removed from producing art, such as art history.

 

The master's degree helps the practitioner become expert in his/her profession or discipline. The Ph.D. calls for the researcher to push the theoretical boundaries of his/her discipline. Those theoretical constructs explain the practice and give the practice a framework upon which to build and prosper. Thus, there would seem to be room for the MFA and the Ph.D. It would also seem appropriate to award the M.A. to students on their way to the Ph.D., not an MFA. And it would also seem appropriate not to admit the MFA into the Ph.D., at least not on the basis of the MFA.

The DFA? As with similar practitioner doctoral degrees, one could argue it either way, I guess. Perhaps it could be a good bridge for practitioners to push into theory. That's what I'd do with a practitioner doctoral program.

 

I say that the DFA is more appropriate than a "studio PhD."

 

I'm not familiar enough with Fine Arts to know if it is a real academic discipline (as opposed to a profession or occupation). But if it is, then the Ph.D. would be appropriate to advance it and within it.