8 The Future of the Doctorate in the Arts1 Hilde Van Gelder and Jan Baetens

A Doctor’s Degree for Artists! In 2004 Boekman, a Dutch journal of cultural policy, devoted a special issue to the relationship between art and science. One of the contributors, Paul Dikker, signed a short but highly provocative pamphlet entitled: “No Doctor’s Degree for Artists!”2 A creative artist himself, Dikker emphasizes that the gap between art and science is unbridgeable. Scientists, he argues, are concerned with the description and explanation of “reality.” By this concept of the real Dikker means “an empirical object that exists independently of human observation and is literally disclosed and discovered via careful research.” Artists, on the contrary, express not “the” but “a” reality, namely their own reality, which functions as an “expressive tool,” not as an object of perception or observation. The artist, Dikker continues, “produces a new reality.” In other words, he or she uses his or her thoughts and feelings in order to create new realities and to offer them with utmost generosity to the public, adding their reality to reality tout court. Dikker’s argument does not stop there. Scientists, he insists, while relying on the crucial role they accord to the explanation of their research theme, claim to discover the “truth.” The views and insights they defend shift ceaselessly and are therefore by definition “time-bounded.” Thanks to their formal characteristics, works of art are the personal expression of a theme and thus lay claim to “beauty.” A beautiful form can be enjoyed eternally and is therefore “timeless.” For all these reasons, Dikker says, there can be only one

More and more. and star ships invented by the Belgian artist Panamarenko (whose inspiration often resembles the spirit of “pataphysics”). a new car made of fiber-reinforced carbon will be available on the market in less than twenty years. In the last decades however. Contrary to the dreamlike vehicles. Art and Science: Double-Ovum Twins That is the world according to Paul Dikker. artists should not preoccupy themselves with the pressures of social reality and regulations and should above all avoid accepting a “straitjacket” in the hope to obtain one day a PhD in the arts. our first example comes from the world of science. Nobody will say that the work of these scientists goes far beyond the mere explanation of reality. Art and science do not only have the same mother. Simultaneously. in the world of science as well as in the world of art.1 conclusion. And what kind of reality have these researchers disclosed? Certainly not the reality that God is a car! Following Dikker’s logic. Because art and science belong to two completely different paradigms. the “car of the future” tries to transform our dreams into reality. Allow artists to retire quietly in the green oasis of eternal beauty. inventions like these come close to the creation of a completely new reality and hence of a work of art. If things go well. Allow scientists to be concerned with the enrichment of the (ugly) social debate. Newspapers have reported recently that collaborators of a European research project have invented a new synthetic material to produce an ultra-light bottom plate for a new small car. they have also developed the technology to produce at least fifty pieces a day of this plate—a necessary condition for cost-effective production. they are even double-ovum twins. boats. And let there be peace on earth. Let us give some examples to illustrate our position. Yet the new reality created by the scientists is not a timeless one It is a reality deeply rooted in . the stance he defended has become an astonishing anachronism. his ideas are considered a complete misconception.

e. i. is the locus of an internal and inherent dynamics. and more specifically since the new art forms of the 1960s. For that very reason. can never occur outside of time. even the most apparently immobile. is aesthetically much more satisfying than most specimens of contemporary art. The basic reason for this shift is simple: all objects—and works of art are no less objects than any other ones—are subjected to the laws of gravity and entropy. to inevitable change and deterioration through time. the hypothesis of art’s timelessness has been seriously challenged. Debatable as it may be in many other aspects. a belief was generated among artists and critics that the perception of the artwork itself. To put it mildly. In twentieth century art. is nothing but a myth. The Myth of Timelessness The most problematic aspect of Dikker’s argumentation has to do with the idea of art’s timelessness. as a container of time.1 a given temporality and spatiality. if not violently rejected. Dikker’s definitions on the relationship between art and beauty raise similar problems. And many observers will rightly assert that the car of the future. The anti-modernist ideas that have become dominant insist on the fact that any work of art. there is no longer any consensus on the meaning of beauty in contemporary art. Postmodern art theory has convincingly demonstrated that the Modernist belief in the linear progression of art and its teleological evolution toward a final goal (the “essence” of the given art form). Modernism’s ideal view of a stabilized artistic object is inextricably linked with the acceptation of art’s timeless essence. The thesis of the alleged . The traditional standard of beauty in art has been questioned so fundamentally since the nineteenth century that for most critics it can no longer be used as a valid criterion in the appreciation of works of art. static or timeless one. It does not belong to any eternal sphere of ideas or forms (we shall come back on this point immediately). with its flashy design and exciting new materials. however.

Postmodernism has questioned modernism’s ideal of the enlightened cogito. and the subsequent cult of rationality. “is grace. as if created by eternity itself. freed from any sensual or emotional restraint. the latter have lost much of their credibility since several decades. timeless objects.” he wrote. We never stop being aware of the inherent paradox of our ideas on aesthetic timelessness.”5 . this critique was only possible thanks to the foregrounding of a premodern aspect: that of the body and its emotions.4 In the Western world at least. His readymades were a violent debunking (among many other things) of the canon of eternal beauty. Yet. and timelessness. whom many consider the most fervent defender of Modernist rationalism. In art. Duchamp had already understood that it is not possible to separate art and emotion. In his view. it was undoubtedly Marcel Duchamp who played a paramount role in this evolution. but ignored or repressed by it. and vice versa. postmodernity is not a new era. Even Michael Fried. Jean-François Lyotard offers a very clear discussion of the typically modern desire to exceed its own limits and to find a kind of ultimate closure whose worldly incarnation are Utopia and the so-called Great Narratives. The latter is the flip side of the former. his dramatically corporeal works such as the Rotoreliefs of the 1930s and Étant donnés (1945-1966) do not obey the modernist philosophy of stable. had to confess in 1967 already that timelessness can only exist within time: “presentness.3 In his book The Inhuman. At a historical moment (the 1910s) when this ideal still had to triumph at an international level (in American Modernism of the 1950s and Greenbergian art criticism). and shifts in priority are therefore inevitable. postmodernism is the power that undermines the emancipatory project of modernism. For Lyotard. but the capacity of acknowledging the irrational dimension present within modernity.1 timelessness of art is nothing but a rational illusion. stability.

A further step was made from the Renaissance onwards. the conservatism of these powerful academies was infamous. This advanced artistic training became institutionalized by these academies. is located in specialized schools. The initial cohesion of artistic training has evolved towards a system in which various dimensions have become more or less independent. with the creation of the academies for art and music. and the nine muses inspired both arts and sciences. geometry. The training in the practice of concrete arts and music. In the twentieth century. A recent British study offering a comparative status quaestionis of higher education in arts clearly demonstrates that the Cartesian split between reason and emotion affects also the dominating educational structures in the West. however. and astronomy). which aimed at creating an advanced training in the practice of arts. As always. The Greek ideal of arête did not distinguish between art and science.1 The Battle of the “Faculties”6 The shift from a complex modernity to a narrower. which are separated from the theoretical environment. This “two cultures” model within the arts has created a system in which one has to make a radical choice between two types of specializations: one has to become either an artist or a theoretician. and logic) and the mathematics-based quadrivium (arithmetic. when a distinction was introduced between the language-based trivium (grammar. outside the universities. which started to organize this type of higher education in a completely independent way. music. This evolution has not been teleological. independently from the corporatist environment of the studio. . and it is important not to forget the role played by local circumstances in the gradual separation of practice and theory. which emphasizes the rationality of their approach. rhetoric. there are historical reasons to explain this situation. An initial split occurred in the Middle Ages.7 Art history and theory as well as musicology are hosted by university faculties. strongly rationalized modernism also occurred in academic life. however. In the nineteenth century.

Convinced that the impact of the historical separation of theory and practice and the subsequent specialization of higher education have had dramatic consequences. should a mathematician who is also a composer be the exception rather than the rule? Why is it so difficult for us to accept that it should be possible—and not just weird—to combine high-level theoretical work and high-level practical work in a stimulating way? Why do we refuse to question the role of pedagogic specialization in the lack of exchanges between theory and practice? Luckily. things are changing. Sint-Lukas in Brussels and the Media and Design Academy in Genk) have taken up a pioneering role in this development. and the British example. Academies became colleges of art. there has been an important aggiornamento. for example. The University of Leuven and the colleges that are associated to it (Sint-Lucas in Ghent.9 . where a PhD in the arts has existed for more than two decades now.1 however. Their efforts have resulted in according the first Belgian doctoral degree in the arts in 2006. even avant-garde art practices and pedagogy. as in many other countries —as the various contributions to this book amply demonstrate—that evolution is taking place along with considerable skepticism from both sides. to Maarten Vanvolsem (for a dissertation on “The Experience of Time in Still Photographic Images”). In Belgium. where important synergies between practicians and theoreticians are stimulated and financially supported through considerable fellowships. They have been—and still are—a breeding place for less conventional. the Association KULeuven has founded an Institute for Practice based Research in the Arts. Today. but why.8 Double talents are still quite rare today. seems to suggest how fruitful it can be to encourage young people to develop simultaneously their practical as well as their theoretical skills and interests. academies and universities are trying to foster new forms of collaborations within a more comprehensive approach.

there is also a type of artistic research which he labels as “research for art and design. This research is process based. · Not all artistic output can be defined as research output. which he labels as “research into art and design. For what is art today. musicology. the assessment of such a dissertation should require both the evaluation of a work and a substantial written report. more generally between practiceoriented and theoretical research—are more important than their differences. and its first ambition is not necessarily the production of a work of art. · Second. If this type of research takes the form of a PhD research.1 From this perspective. and so on). yet in certain cases this output can be considered the result of a research process.” This category encompasses the traditional theoretically oriented research (art history. It has a very specific goal and its output can only take the .” This notion refers to research that aims at producing a particular artifact or work of art. today’s honorary rector of the Royal College of Arts and one of the founding fathers of the so-called practice-based doctorates in the creative and performing arts and design. Frayling proposes the following three distinctions: · First.” This category entails all artistic research that aims at exploring a certain practice or a certain material component of such a practice. and what is science? Consider the seminal study by Sir Christopher Frayling. there is research in the arts. there is research on the arts. which Frayling labels as “research through art and design. Hence the necessity to propose a real definition of the notion of research in an artistic context.” · Third.10 Frayling’s reflection has two starting points: · The relationships between art and science—or. Its academic output is a classic PhD. the historical split between art and science seems increasingly artificial. Frayling describes this artistic paradigm as “cognitive. In this regard. even though such a production may be part of the process.

” this type of research usually does not lead to a PhD. The ethereal presentations of intellectually highly gifted artists such as Robert Barry or Douglas Huebler. increasing numbers of artists identify more easily with the “cognitive” model. Van Gogh-like artists stick to other ideals and working methods. To put things clearly: the opening up of the PhD towards a PhD in the arts does not imply that any Van Gogh may now be awarded a doctorate (unless it were an honorary degree). In process art final products matter less than artistic procedures. the artist works in order to produce a specific result. laid the foundation of what we call today practice-based . Frayling argues. In this point of view. to quote just the most famous representatives. their main goal is not to do cognitive research. who describes this artistic paradigm as “expressive.1 form of a final product (to be seen or to be heard). It is not an exaggeration to say that conceptual art in the late ’60s may have been the first collective outing of this phenomenon. or the early Fluxus creations of George Brecht or La Monte Young. Process art. current methods in art historical and art theoretical research and interpretation have debunked the idea that the making of a work of art depends in the very first place on barely expressible emotions. for instance. For Frayling. is a notion that has been well received in Postminimalism and whose importance can still be felt today.11 The Doctorate as Readymade? Applying Frayling’s terminology to Dikker’s argument against the PhD in the arts. However. which reflects his or her feelings in a way that is as free and unconstrained as possible. Certainly since World War II. not all artists believe in the ideal of free and personal expression. Their artistic philosophy may very well make them suspicious of any academic environment. or even deeper and uncontrollable passions. but to express themselves. it is clear that his defense can be understood in terms of foregrounding the “expressive” paradigm. Nevertheless.

Even though it was Duchamp. Various contemporary artists identify with this research model and feel quite comfortable with it. drama. which they are strongly committed to discuss with their peers. the following norms are generally accepted:13 · The research has to be part of a registered research program. They are glad to find a stronger support for their kind of art. For the doctorates in architecture. and photography. abridged or altered one. The debates on the PhD in the arts have been made possible by the work of these artists. the author should provide a photo reportage. these artists were obliged to document and contextualize as much as possible their research and working methods. The criteria that are currently used in the countries that have introduced a PhD in the arts offer all the necessary guarantees to counter such a scenario (or such a nightmare. the founding father of conceptual tendencies in art. there will be no readymade doctorate. we especially would like to mention the fact that the Leuven example so far . following the criteria generally accepted within their field. video. audiovisual production.12 The universities should not worry too much. Given the reduced visibility and the relative unimportance of the material result of their art. they combined texts. and this mix has become quite commonplace today. design. for it seemed quite logical to transform the documentation of artistic procedures—which was now accepted as a real work of art—into the format of a dissertation. In order to build such a research archive. If parts of the work no longer exist. video or CD-ROM that documents the work. in the view of certain administrators). · At the submission of the PhD. who launched the whole process of innovation. In this respect. the creative part of the dissertation should be available in a permanently accessible form. It should not come as a surprise that such evolutions within the artistic production itself have had a serious impact on the academic circuit since the late 1970s.1 research in the arts. creative writing. albeit a shorter. or painting and sculpture.

At the submission of the PhD. · The research output must entail a written part—a dissertation—whose average length should be 30. In most cases. critical or visual framework that is relevant to the meaning of the work. The jury first examines the creative part.000 to 40.000 to 5.000 words (for the special case of music.” and at least one of the compositions should be written for a “great ensemble” (for instance a complete orchestra). · There must be a public and oral defense of the dissertation.1 has demonstrated a strong emphasis on the presentation/exhibition of the creative part at the moment of the viva voce [the dissertation defense]. both parts of the dissertation—the written thesis as well as the creative part—are considered to have equal or almost equal importance (except in the case of music).000 words) that offers a commentary on the creative process. . historical. and afterwards is there an oral defense of the dissertation. the creative part of the dissertation should be available in a permanently accessible form. · The compositions should both demonstrate “technical skills” and deserve public interpretation · The portfolio is paramount in the assessment of the dissertation. · The creative part of the work has to be accompanied by a theoretical. · The artist should provide a short written comment (3. · The whole work should contribute in an independent and original way to the knowledge in the field and demonstrate a correct understanding of the usually accepted research methods. · The size of the portfolio with musical compositions has to be “substantial. For a PhD in music. special rules apply: · · The research has to be part of a registered research program. see below).

If this is the way one distinguishes between art and science. Let us take once again a concrete example. yet the . Arts and (Hard) Sciences On further consideration. From the very beginning of the research. All the necessary steps in the production process of the drug have been carefully followed. it appears that the research methods and models of the hard sciences are closer to those of research in the arts than the methods and models of the humanities. their research doesn’t lead them to anything—except to the conclusion that the road they had chosen was not the right one. If the final result is not satisfying.1 Arts and Humanities One of the strangest aspects of this whole story is the gap between research in the arts (practice-led research) and research on the arts (theoretical and historical research). The jury will then conclude that the researcher has proven unable to assimilate and use the generally accepted research methods of the humanities. Researchers in the arts are often following experimental procedures which do not always allow them to know where will be heading. Whereas ending up in this situation amounts to disaster in the context of research on the arts. the assessment of the research will by definition be negative as well. In the worst case. then it is clear that there still is a real gap between them. such an apparently disappointing conclusion may signify a real breakthrough for certain artists. one relies upon a certain number of previously assimilated criteria that enables one to calculate a priori the way to follow. A PhD candidate in pharmaceutical sciences is asked to solve a problem related to an absorption difficulty of a certain drug. Researchers on the arts have developed many methodologies that tend to exclude all kinds of experimental procedures.

a successful alternative. It is self-evident that in the pharmaceutical PhD. Why did the first experiment fail? Why did the researcher only notice the failure after one year? Was the approach sufficiently independent and innovative. serendipity has worked. our young researcher starts over from scratch and eventually discovers. This method has been used extensively in historical . the ambitious young researcher concludes that strawberry extracts may be reliable to facilitate the absorption of the drug by the patient’s body. The strawberries neither do offer the expected result. This time.1 final tests reveal that the gastric wall seems unable to dispatch the chemical to the rest of the body. Logical positivism employs the socalled verification principle: it reduces theories to elementary data and checks their correspondence with empirical data. the results turn out to be unsatisfying. the researcher will document also the unsuccessful part of the work. which took a whole year of apparently useless efforts. the assessment of the final result will take this first part of the work into account. and did it offer enough guarantees to the production of new knowledge and enlargement of the research context? Were the research questions transparent enough. it will not be possible to introduce the new drug on the market. second from the perspective of the expected outcome? Are the definitive results relevant enough for other researchers? Were there good reasons for choosing this research topic rather than that one? And last but not least. At the time of the PhD defense. Unfortunately. and the members of the jury will judge it as well. A woman of character. After some preliminary tests. does the final result make a real contribution to global innovation in the field? What is at stake here is a paradigmatic vision of scientific research. after two years of new experiments. Certain researchers adhere to a method that has been developed by the logical positivism of the Vienna Circle at the beginning of the twentieth century. first at the level of the structure and the process of the research. after a year and numerous experiments on laboratory animals. following the scientifically accepted criteria in the field. Without a solution of this crucial problem.

and a number of experienced have relied on the strong symmetry between the experimental method in artistic research and the laboratory research in other fields to propose a concrete interpretation of the criteria for the assessment of the so-called practice-led . Critical rationalism. Logical empiricists tried to infer as many conclusions as possible from a given theory. there already exists a strong policy concerning this line of inquiry.14 Towards a Revision of Scientific Criteria? It should be possible to apply analogous criteria to the field of research in the arts. This approach takes as its starting point that all propositions and theories are nothing but hypotheses. But increasingly. elements of it are being introduced also in the humanities. the research model that is closest to the methods of research in the arts. It is a permanent process of trial and error. The more a theory is able to pass this empirical test. for the study of historical documents is just the study of documents describing historical events. In certain counties such as the UK or Finland. but an approach that gradually builds one.1 research. in which a theory becomes more scientific through the systematic exclusion of falsified facts. Hence scientific research is not an approach that starts from a given theory. and these conclusions were then tested for their empirical reliability.” In this new model. but even there its limits have become apparent. Quite different research models are also possible. not of the events themselves. which was reinterpreted in terms of “confirmation. such as the one based on the falsification principle introduced in Karl Popper’s critical rationalism. has had a strong response in biomedical sciences. Logical positivism solved this problem by toning down the “verification” claim. for instance. which have been questioned as critically as possible. the overall model was no longer strictly empirical but hypothetico-deductive. the more its scientific character will be reinforced. for instance in pedagogy where practice-based teaching and the critical analysis of learning outcomes are now wide-spread.

go much further and have proceeded to a general reform of their research criteria in the humanities themselves. a specialist in the restoration of medieval manuscripts can only get a PhD if he or she follows the classic methodologies of art history. Curating a major exhibition (or a series of exhibitions) and editing its catalogue can be sufficient for such a PhD. but the interpretation of such a creation becomes much broader. which opens for instance the possibility of presenting the results on CD-ROM or on the internet. What is meant by the “creative output” of the artistic research is interpreted on an ad hoc basis. and here the consensus is not as complete. following the logic of a PhD in Creative Writing (which we discuss below). Following practice-led training in restoration by the doctoral degree is not only profitable to the candidate. but to society in general. Certainly for researchers in the field of museum studies. a PhD in the arts still has to include a creative portion. He or she will first be obliged to take a traditional MA degree in art history (quite different from the existing MA’s in restoration) and then to accept the straitjacket of a PhD in art history (with no place whatsoever for restoration practice). . Many other examples can be imagined. At the same time. some institutions such as the University of Art and Design in Helsinki or the Royal College of Art in London.1 PhD in the arts. these institutions accept the idea that a doctorate in the arts is no longer necessarily “practice-based” in this sense that it should be aiming at and ultimately amount to the production of a work of art. this new type of doctorate may prove a tailor-made solution. new have appeared for art critics to obtain doctoral degrees on the basis of their art critical writing. More and more. whose demanding agendas often prevent them from writing a traditional PhD. In this more advanced scenario. In the current framework. Most recently. It goes without saying that these developments are opening many doors to new research possibilities in the humanities in general.

The example of literary studies. because these are the places where to find the best reflections on writing). It is also good to know that. A major example is Francis Ponge’s Pour un Malherbe. 17 The combination of these two elements—on the one hand the semiotic family resemblance between theory and practice in creative writing. and more specifically creative writing—a subject that is hardly acknowledged in continental European universities. literary theory is much younger than art history. as an academic discipline. to put it mildly—may be a good case in point. It is not possible here. should be more than sufficient to make a strong plea for a PhD in creative writing in European universities.1 Creative Writing And what applies to research in the arts. Until the nineteenth century. may apply to other fields in the humanities as well.”18 In this work. it is of course a great advantage that a writer can reflect on his or her own work through the same medium as is used by the creative work. .16 yet it is clear that Ponge’s writing articulates a specific kind of knowledge that is different from the theoretical knowledge on writing produced by critics and theoreticians who do not write themselves.15 This “book” on the founder of French classicism in literature is not only interesting because it blurs all known boundaries between genres—is it an essay? is it theory? is it poetry?—but also because it gives an insight view on the relevance of rule-bound writing (or to translate it in the terminology of this article: of “cognitive” artistic research). Even in the twentieth century. the only people who reflected on the art of writing were the authors themselves (contemporary readers with a strong interest in theory are still reading Poe’s “The Philosophy of Composition” and Flaubert’s correspondence. on the other hand the uncountable historical examples of theoretical research provided by literary practitioners. real knowledge on what writing really means continues to be produced by the authors themselves. to discuss the depth of Ponge’s practice-led knowledge. An impressive example is Jean Ricardou’s self-defense “Fiction step by step. where literary theory has boomed. Semiotically speaking. unfortunately.

most importantly. inside and outside of universities. companies such as Philips.19 and. Ikea and Habitat have provided a strong financial impulse for young PhD doctorates in product design. All available figures indicate that those graduates have found jobs that enable them to valorize their practice-led knowledge.1 which was awarded a PhD degree by the University of Toulouse. the author gives a detailed account of how he wrote one of his novels. explains and motivates why he did it the way he did it. Conclusion The evolution towards a practice-led PhD is a major transformation of the research landscape. . La prise/prose de Constantinople. and to embrace the new doctorate without any reluctance. In the UK.20 We can only recommend other countries to follow the UK example.

12 .

for example at www.nz/index. “The Fall from Grace: Late Minimalism’s Conception of the Intrinsic Time of the Artwork-as-Matter. Law. e-publication (CD ROM). 7 See Michael Jubb. contrary to the “higher” ones (Theology.” Kant already made a strong plea for the upgrading of the “lower” Faculties (Natural Sciences. 1.htm. Laevers. 4 Lyotard. and Medicine). and Philosophy) that. proceedings of an international conference on the subject at STUK.ulg. London: University of Chicago Press. “Understanding the world of objects and of people: Intuition as the core element of deep level learning.constellations. “De toekomst van het doctoraat in de kunsten” (2005). 1998). Arts.” Boekman 58/59 (Spring 2004): 189–90. Dikker. edited by Hilde Van Gelder. no. accessed August 2008.be/ivok/ivokeng/index. “Research in Art and Design.kuleuven. “Art and Objecthood. vol.pdf.co. Fried. 1 (Fall 2004): 83-97. 8 See http://associatie. Republished in Fried. 9 See for instance F.” in Practicebased PhD in the Creative and Performing Arts and Design. 2 3 P. [This paper is available online. Art and Objecthood: Essays and Reviews (Chicago. were not entitled to award a PhD degree. 1 (1993). “Categories and Definitions of Research in the Arts and Humanities. 172. “Geen doctorsgraad voor kunstenaars.] . translated by Geoffey Bennington (Stanford : Stanford University Press. 10 Frayling. Leuven (10 September 2004).E. accessed September 2008. The Inhuman: Reflections on Time.1 This text is an expanded version of an essay previously published in the Belgian journal Context K #2 as Van Gelder and Baetens. 1 (1998): 69-85. For a more extensive discussion of these issues. —J. 6 In his 1798 essay “Der Streit der Fakultäten.” International Journal of Educational Research 29 no. available online at http://www.be/cipa/pdf/van%20gelder. 1992).” Artforum 5 (June 1967): 23. 5 M.ac. see Van Gelder.” Interval(le)s—I.php? sec=3&ssec=7&r=687#687.” Royal College of Art Research Papers Series.

would involve for example an analysis of his refusal of Paul Valéry’s stances on the role of constraints in literature. who made an extensive report on this subject for the IvOK (Institute for Practice based Research in the Arts): J.). we are greatly indebted to our colleague Javier Gimeno Martínez.htm). Director of Research at the Royal College of Art in London. Practise-based PhD in the creative and performing arts and design. 18 This text has been included in Nouveaux Problèmes du Roman (Paris: Éditions du Seuil. éditions de Minuit. Leuven).” supervised by F. ‘Critical Practice: The Development of Studio-based Research at the Royal College of Art.com/journals/jvap. proceedings of an international conference on the subject at STUK.000 words). Baert and Van Gelder (Leuven. . during her lecture at the aforementioned symposium in Leuven (2004): see S. e-publication (cdrom).’ in H. 13 For this information. Gimeno Martínez. 1978). Van Gelder (ed. 1965. 19 Paris: 20 These and other figures were presented by Sandra Kemp. 12 See for example the Journal of Visual Art Practice (www. Leuven (10 September 2004).intellectbooks. 17 We hope to come back on this crucial example in another article. Gallimard. 1965. “Eindrapport Inventarisatie Internationaal Onderzoek in de Kunsten. 14 We are 15 Paris: 16 It indebted for this example to Jan De Vuyst (IvOK.11 An exception is here the (British) PhD in music. 2004). Kemp. whose written counterpart is allowed to be very short (5.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful