John S. Powers used to rely on a mix of intuition and impulse to create his art.
Then he spent four years doing what very few artists do: earning a doctorate.
After completing his Ph.D. from the University of the Arts in Berlin, he found that his sculptures, many of which are exhibited in public spaces, became more thematically complex and reflective of his scholarship.
Red Object II, for example, was installed last year in Berlin on the foundation of what was once the Palace of the Republic, which housed East Germany’s Parliament. The sculpture’s rectangular metal frame is draped with red flags, which Mr. Powers received during interviews with workers who had emptied the building before its demise. His sculpture is meant to remind viewers of the thorny political history of the site as a new building rises in its place.
But his scholarship feeds more than just his art, he says. It has also influenced his teaching at the Cleveland Institute of Art, where he is an associate professor. “There’s this whole package now that wasn’t there before,” he says.
The opportunity that Mr. Powers had in Germany to merge artistic practice with doctoral-level scholarship is something that increasing numbers of artists in academe want to see duplicated in the United States, where the master of fine arts has long reigned as the discipline’s terminal degree.
Many leaders of schools of art and design and of arts programs at universities describe the spread of visual-arts doctorates—whether practice-based, scholarly, or some combination—as being “inevitable” in the United States. The doctorate, they say, will very likely displace the M.F.A. They cite as evidence a growing body of scholarship on the subject, developments abroad, and recent sessions exploring the visual-arts doctorate at scholarly associations and at colleges.
Meanwhile, critics of arts doctorates raise economic, philosophical, and ethical concerns about the degree. Many of the concerns are similar to those raised in other academic fields: Is it acceptable to enroll students in graduate programs with uncertain futures and employment prospects? What is the real value of a doctorate? What is the nature of advanced study in a practical discipline? And how wise is it for American universities to duplicate the programs of foreign universities, which operate under different economic models?
“I agree with every objection I’ve heard, every single one,” says James Elkins, professor of art history, theory, and criticism at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago, and editor of the 2009 book Artists With Ph.D.'s.
“The thing is,” he says, “it can’t be stopped.”
‘A Little Provincial’
Advocacy for doctorates in the visual arts has been mounted before, as have concerns about the potential effects of such degrees.
A decade ago, much of the pressure in favor of the degree came from faculty in visual-arts departments who argued that their chances of professional advancement, particularly to administrative positions, were stymied because their highest degree was the M.F.A. Skeptics pushed back, arguing that it was careerist and cynical to justify altering the structure of postgraduate education in the visual arts for the sake of personal ambition.
Supporters of doctorates for artists have shifted their arguments, now citing the need for American colleges to remain competitive internationally. About 40 doctoral programs in studio art are available abroad, most of them in Britain, Europe, and New Zealand, says George E. Smith, president of the Institute for Doctoral Studies in the Visual Arts. In 2007 the institute, in , in Portland, Me., admitted its first cohort of visual artists seeking Ph.D.'s in philosophy and art theory, and they are finishing their dissertations. A handful of programs in the United States offer studio-based, practical doctorates, more scholarly focused Ph.D.'s, or some combination.
“Every day the world is more and more globalized,” says Mr. Smith. “We’re looking a little provincial in terms of what we offer in advanced education to visual artists who want to go forward.”
But it would be a mistake to fashion American postgraduate education in the arts in the image of Europe, says Morgan T. Paine, an associate professor of art at Florida Gulf Coast University. Graduate education in European countries is typically far less expensive for students than it is in the United States.
Even though the visual-arts doctorate was successfully expanded in Europe, there is no guarantee that programs would be as popular or economically viable in the United States, he says. “Betamax video, the metric system, and Jerry Lewis were all things that others thought were terrific and great,” Mr. Paine says, “but they never manifested here.”
The intensity of the debate and the level of scholarly attention to the arts doctorate have continued to rise: 2011 marked the first year that it became impossible for one person to read all the scholarship on visual-arts doctorates, says Mr. Elkins, of Chicago.
In recent months, the College Art Association, the chief disciplinary society dedicated to the scholarship and teaching of the visual arts and art history, hosted a two-part workshop, “Ph.D. for Artists: Sense or Nonsense?” The School of Visual Arts, in New York City, sponsored a panel discussion last year that was titled, “The Reluctant Doctorate: Ph.D. Programs for Artists?”
Skeptics have also started to soften. Jeffrey D. Nesin, provost of the School of Visual Arts, said he was “pretty dug-in” when the idea of doctorates for artists was first presented to him about a decade ago, when the chief reasoning for the change was to help artists get promoted within academe. As the arguments in favor of the idea have shifted, Mr. Nesin has felt less compelled to defend the long-accepted idea that the M.F.A. is the discipline’s terminal degree from what he saw as a poorly reasoned attack.
Since then he has asked himself why he should feel such animus for those who want to pursue their education. “I no longer think it’s an absolutely foolish nonstarter idea to think about the most advanced study possible,” he says.
Making the M.F.A. Useless?
Creating doctoral programs in the visual arts has costs and risks for institutions and students, both sides of the debate agree. Supporting fellowships for students and creating studio space can be expensive, which may explain why such programs have tended to crop up at comprehensive research universities instead of at schools of art and design. Research institutions also give artists more opportunities to work across disciplines with scholars in such far-flung fields as environmental science and anthropology, which even critics of arts doctorates say is a positive development.
Once graduates emerge from these programs, however, it remains unclear whether there will be jobs for them—inside or outside academe.
“We had some anxiety about this as a faculty,” says Irene Gustafson, director of graduate studies for the new Ph.D. program in film and digital media at the University of California at Santa Cruz. The program has enrolled seven students over its first two years and expects to build up to a total of 30. “We wanted to make sure they came out trained and equipped for an academic job, if that’s what they want to do.”
Nil P. Santana chose to attend the low-residency program at the Institute for Doctoral Studies in the Visual Arts, both to strengthen his knowledge of art theory and to equip himself for an academic job. An instructor of graphic design and photography at Abilene Christian University for 10 years, Mr. Santana is counting on his doctorate to give him a leg up in his career. His dissertation uses the philosophy of Martin Heidegger to analyze video-based art.
“Hopefully,” he says, “I’ll be able to be on the tenure track after five years of work.”
Even though it is premature to envision waves of doctorally trained artists flooding the academic job market in the near future, the prospect is enough to worry many artists working in higher education. Students with Ph.D.'s in visual arts or doctorates of fine arts will be trained to teach art history, criticism, and studio courses, and they will enjoy the comparative prestige of the doctorate.
“The great fear is that if we said there’s another degree level out there, it will make useless all the M.F.A.'s we have,” says Charles A. Wright, chair of the department of art at Western Illinois University and a former chair of the College Art Association’s Professional Practices Committee.
The committee last revised its statement of standards for the M.F.A. in 2008, reiterating that the master’s was the terminal degree for the discipline. The statement included a footnote in which it simultaneously raised the question of whether it should devise standards for a Ph.D. in studio art while also dismissing the need for an answer: “It does not appear to be a trend that will continue or grow, or that the Ph.D. will replace the M.F.A.”
Over the past four years, however, consensus on the committee has changed, Mr. Wright says, and the committee is likely to take up the question again next year.
Supporters of the Ph.D. argue that the fears that it will lead to the M.F.A.'s demise are unfounded. If such an eclipse did occur, it wouldn’t happen until many years from now, says Grant H. Kester, a professor of art history and director of the art gallery at the University of California at San Diego. Three years ago, his program started offering spots for a practice-based doctorate in his existing Ph.D. program in art and media history. Six of his 28 students concentrate in the practice-based version of the degree.
“Especially in a recession, students are under increasing economic pressure,” Mr. Kester says. “I don’t know how realistic it is to think you’re going to see a proliferation of arts Ph.D.'s in the United States.”
New Objects vs. New Knowledge
Though the number of doctoral students in the visual arts remains small—in the low hundreds—their existence and the looming growth of their programs pose unresolved questions about the M.F.A., and even the nature of scholarship.
People on both sides of the debate are trying to sort through how a dissertation in their discipline can best meet the expectation that doctoral-level scholarship will contribute new knowledge to a field while also remaining true to the act of creating art.
For example, does a doctorate in fine arts in painting or printmaking simply entail additional artistic production on top of what is expected in an M.F.A., or does it mean the artist produces not just a new object, but also new knowledge?
Leaving the production of knowledge and the interpretation of works to historians of the discipline, as has traditionally been the case in the visual arts, is no longer satisfactory, says Joel E. Towers, executive dean of Parsons the New School for Design. A committee there is exploring starting doctoral programs in the visual arts and design.
“It would be kind of a crime if we were to get caught in a traditional mode of production of a Ph.D. and say, ‘The only way it’ll work is if you give me 500 pages,’” he says.
Some programs, like Mr. Kester’s in San Diego, require students to produce written scholarship and an original work or collection of art, and to reflect on their own work.
Elevating the profile of the visual arts in academe may have other benefits, says Lisa H. Grocott, dean of academic initiatives at Parsons. Artistic and design processes and thinking may exert some influence over more empirical disciplines, such as the natural sciences.
Research does not always need to be methodical and purposeful, Ms. Grocott says. Artists and, particularly, designers use a different method, in which truth and empirical knowledge are not the ultimate goal; instead, the aim of design is to find the solution that offers the most appropriate remedy to a problem. “It’ll change the way we might think about research and the way research presents itself,” she says.
Still, some observers worry that doctoral programs in the visual arts will alter art, turning it into something uniform and scholastic. As Mr. Powers reflects on his doctoral work in Berlin and its effect on his sculpture, he acknowledges that it was difficult to maintain a sense of balance between his impulses to produce and to engage in criticism.
“I had to flip into a totally different mode,” he says. “For those four years of my Ph.D., it was very difficult to produce art.”