Wednesday, March 19, 2008

YASMIN-messages Digest 19.03.2008.

YASMIN-messages Digest 19.03.2008.

YASMIN website:
To unsubscribe:

1. Re: Re: Tibet Art/Material Science Meet in Rome

Subject: Re: Re: Tibet Art/Material Science Meet in Rome
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 19:45:15 +0200

test reply
Andreas P. Giannakoulopoulos
New Technologies Laboratory
Faculty of Communication and Media Studies
University of Athens
5 Stadiou str., 105 62, Athens, Greece
tel: 0030 210 - 3226691, fax: 0030 210 - 3220820

Friday, March 14, 2008

YASMIN-messages Digest 14.03.2008.


For those of you interested in oil, below is a link to a major new work by PLATFORM telling the stories of BPs development over recent years.  I particularly like the section in Act 1.2 (?) on the 10 days from 8000 ft below the North Sea to 35,000 ft above the atlantic - for me it highlights the urgency of the system.


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: PLATFORM launches Burning Capital, short films on the climate crisis
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 11:06:56 +0000
From: Benjamin <>
References: <>

Dear Carbon Web subscriber,     We thought that you would be interested to hear about Burning Capital, new within PLATFORM's Carbon Web project... This week PLATFORM launched a series of short films on its website:   You may have seen the issues explored in the Thursday's Guardian:   We hope that you find the films useful - do let us know, it would be  great to have further dialog and any feedback on this new section of  our website.    Please send the attached e-flyer to anyone who might be interested.  best wishes,   Benjamin Diss - PLATFORM   ----------------  Burning Capital  ----------------   Burning Capital, a compelling series of short films explores the role  of Britain's largest corporation in the growing climate crisis.   From the creators of And While London Burns - a soundtrack for the era  of climate change, Burning Capital is a video voyage through the world   of oil giant BP.    BP delivered 1.3 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere  last year. Burning Capital asks - what will become of this giant in a  world where scientists, politicians and public opinion demand urgent  action to avert climate crisis.   Watch the films now at:   ------------  What is it?  ------------    The 45 minute documentary film is split into short downloadable  sections with interactive data panels that give you further  information on the background: details of oil and gas fields,  pipelines and refineries coming on stream this year plus biographies   of 18 key decision makers in BP, and graphs of the company's oil and  gas production and CO2 emissions 1997-2006.   ------------------------------  Apologies:   PLATFORM's carbonweb website is currently experiencing technical  problems, it will be fully operation again within the next few days,   meanwhile you can access all content via PLATFORM's main website at:  ------------------------------  Carbon Web Newsletter, PLATFORM, 7 Horselydown Lane, Tower Bridge, Bermondsey, London, England, SE1 2LN. Tel: +44 (0)207 403 3738 - download your operatic audio walk --------------------------------------------  

--  Chris Fremantle +44 (0)7714 203016

Thursday, March 13, 2008

YASMIN-messages Digest 13.03.2008.

YASMIN-messages Digest 13.03.2008.

YASMIN website:


To unsubscribe:


1. Grassroots conference april 16+17 kiasma helsinki
2. Change of email
3. International Summer Seminars for Art Curators: Post Socialism and Media Transformations: Strategies of Representation
4. Zeppelin 2008 - Sound art festival -13, 14 & 15 March @ CCCB (barcelona)
5. BARCELONA: Zeppelin 2008. 13-14-15 / 03 / 2008
6. Re: To Phd or not to Phd?
7. Re: To Phd or not to Phd?


Subject: Grassroots conference april 16+17 kiasma helsinki
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 16:12:27 +0200

Please post the grassroots conference info on the yasmine email list, thanks georg   -------  Georg Dietzler Research Fellow - Art, Nature and Environment University College Falmouth Woodlane, Falmouth, Cornwall TR11 4RH <> Phone: +44.(0)1326.21-4391 Cell phone +44.(0)7726704346     GRASSROOTS Green Art / Art and Ecology Conference at Kiasma Theatre Helsinki, 16.-17 April 2008   Please spread the word widely  For details and up-dates please visit    CONFERENCE FEE:   20 € for whole conference 10 €  for one day  students â€"50 %   - Lunch not included to the fee  GRASSROOTS is a 2-day conference, including lectures, Question and Anwer sessions, panel discussion, encourage dialoge with and among the delegates, providing different viewpoints and films. A public forum for discovering and debating the wide field of art and ecology today with renowed and specialist speakers leading the way. You don’t need to be a specialist, just come with an open and enquiry mind.   Encouters of Artists, curators, scientists, educators, adminstrators of cultural institutions, environmental activist, journalist, cross-border cooperation.      Major focus is on a selection of best practice, inspiring talks provoking dialog on topics such as regional development, cross-border cooperation in sustainable arts, bioarts, arts and ecology, storytelling, networking, etc. and all related to the Nordic and Baltic Sea Region such a network is going to be launched during the conference.    GRASSROOTS speakers are: Risto Isomäki/FIN writer and activist, Osmo Rauhala (artist and organic farmer/FIN), Ritva Kovalainen/Sanni Seppo (artists/FIN), Arja Elovirta (Taide Art Magazine/FIN), Marjukka Korhonen/Fin (Sculptor) and Sari Poijärvi/Fin (Photographic artist), Jan van Boeckel ((NL) educator, artist and filmmaker/University of Art and Design, Helsinki), Eva Bakkeslett/Nor , Alan Boldon (educator, artist and founder of MA Arts and Ecology at Dartington College, Totnes/UK), Christine Heidemann+Galerie für Landschaftskunst/Ger (freelanced curator), Hildegard Kurt (Writer and Co-Founder of „und. Institut for Art, Culture and Sustainable Future“/GER), George Steinmann (artist and musician/CH), Heli Aaltonen/FIN (storyteller and drama teacher) , Ulla Taipale/FIN+E (Curator in Capsula/Barcelona), Free Soil Projects/Nis Rømer/DK, Tuula Nikulainen/FIN and Georg Dietzler/GER both from the Green Art Halikonlahti Team.   Booking essential  through Leena Suominen,  Booking Form download at <>   The final program, abstracts introducing speakers and up-dates please visit  Timetable and Speakers may be subject to change   TIMETABLE   16.4.  Wednesday  9.00 Registration and Coffee 9.30 Welcome by Berndt Arell, Kiasma’s director 9.45 Introduction by Arja Elovirta and Georg Dietzler 10.10 Alan Boldon (UK): Contemporary Approaches to Ecology, Interdisciplinarity and Place. 10.50 Questions and Anwers (Q+A)  11.10 Coffee break  11.40 Ulla Taipale (FIN): BIOARTS. Experiencing and experimenting the biological matter through Arts.  12.10  Q+A.   12.25 Panel discussion on Art and Ecology â€" Bioarts Alan Boldon, Ulla Taipale and Hildegard Kurt  12.45 Osmo Rauhala (FIN): Myself and My Natural Surroundings. My role as artist and ecological farmer living and working in Finland and New York 13.05 Q+A.  13.20 Lunch break   14.20 George Steinmann (CH): Komi(Russia, A Growing Sculpture 1997 - 2006. A transdisciplinary work in cooperation with Heikkinen - Komonen Architects, Silver Taiga Foundation Syktyvkar and the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation SDC.  14.50 Q+A.  15.10 Hildgard Kurt (GER): Sustainability â€" a Challenge to Art? 15.30 Q+A  15.50 Coffee break  16.20 Ritva Kovalainen/Sanni Seppo (FIN): The End of the Rainbow. Where did the forest disappear? 16.40 Q+A   17.00 Eva Bakkeslett (NOR): Putting Arts and Ecology on the Norwegian Agenda. Launching of a Nordic interdisciplinary network of artists, scientist and philosophers for creative work incorporating ecology. 17.20 Q+A.  17.45 Short films (English Version only) Peak Oil subvert (UK) A collaborative filmmaking project between director Luke Martin, writer-producer Denzil Monk and the Cornwall Youth Film Collective. End of the Rainbow/Sateenkaaren pää (FIN) by Ritva Kovalainen and Sanni Seppo (New version, 2007). In The Beginning Was The Word (NL) by Pat van Boeckel.  informal chats and socialzing,    17.4.   Thursday  9.00 Tuula Nikulainen (FIN): The Halikonlahti Green Art Story. Ways to engage and understand with environmental problems through arts including Art and Ecology projects with Children and Youth. 9.30 Q +A.  9.50 Coffee break  10.20 Heli Aaltonen (FIN): Storytelling and Forum Theatre. A way to get messages to the hearts of people. 10.50 Jan van Boeckel (NL): Arts and Environmental Education. Making sense of climate change, through art. 11.20 Panel discussion on Arts and Environmental Education Heli Aaltonen, Tuula Nikulainen, Jan van Boeckel and Temuu Mäki 11.50 Christine Heidemann (GER): Exploring Hamburg’s Waters with a Barge/ Schute. A cross-disciplinary art project by American artists Mark Dion and collaborators.  12.20 Q+A.  12.40 Sari Pojarvi, Marjukka Korhonen (FIN): CRIME SCENE. Ongoing project documents environmental crimes against nature. 13.20 Lunch break  14.20 Risto Isomäki (FIN): Illusions and Opportunities of Globalization. The role of activists, journalism and science fiction within Art and Ecology 14.50 Q+A.  15.10 Nis Rømer (DK): Free Soil. A project of an international hybrid collaboration of artists, activists, researchers and gardeners, 15.40 Q+A.  16.00 Coffee break  16.40 Outcomes by Arja Elovirta and Georg Dietzler 17.20 Last Yoik In Saami Forests -documentary (FIN) by Hannu Hyvönen and Sami Film Co-operative. The conflict, it´s backgrounds but also alternatives. Film is reflecting social, cultural and environmental impact of the heavy forest cuttings for the Sami population.  Before and after the GRASSROOTS conference: there is an ambitious exhibition triology on Art and Ecology „Green Art Halikonlahti“, which has started taking place in the Salo Region of Finland in 2006.  Sept, 12 â€" Oct 26, 2008 you are invited to visit Green Art Halikonlahti’s second edition „WATERWAYS“.  More on <>


Subject: Change of email
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 16:15:20 +0200

Hi there would like to change my email from my college to my private one <>, what needs to be done?  Cheers georg


Subject: International Summer Seminars for Art Curators: Post Socialism and Media Transformations: Strategies of Representation
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 17:29:52 +0200

WORLD OF ART, School of Contemporary Art <> 2007/2008  Call for application to International Summer Seminars for Art Curators: Post Socialism and Media Transformations: Strategies of Representation  July 21-August 1, 2008,  Yerevan, Armenia  Application deadline: April 15, 2008 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AICA-Armenia (NAAC) is announcing the call for the 3rd International Summer School Program for contemporary art curators, which will take place from July 21-August 2 in Yerevan, Armenia. The project is being realized in collaboration with SCCA-Ljubljana in Slovenia, SCCA-Alma-Aty in Kazakhstan and Beral Madra Center for Contemporary Art in Istanbul. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PROGRAM The program is comprised of a series of lectures, presentations and workshops that center around issues related to the methodologies of curating, the role of the curator in the ever increasing globalization of the art market, strategies of representation and institutional structures in the contemporary art world. The theme of the 2008 project Post-Socialism and Media Transformations: Strategies of Representation will focus on aspects of new media representation in the specific context of post-Socialism. The aim is to look at transformations in the uses of media for artistic production and the mechanisms of representation in the artistic scenes of former socialist countries, with an awareness of ideological connotations of new media utilization.  The intensive two-weeks program will comprise of a theory and method courses, as well as a curatorial workshop. The courses will be combined with presentations by local and international artists, curators, art historians and cultural workers as well as with visits to artists’ studios, galleries and museums in Yerevan.  The participants will gain knowledge not only about theoretical and methodological issues related to curatorial practices but will also get acquainted with Armenian artists, curators, critics, curators as institutional structures in the field of contemporary art in Armenia. The experience of the past two years have shown that the participants have developed a lively forum of alumni networking through collaborating with each other on common themes in the form of exhibitions, symposia and publications. The courses and the workshop are conducted by internationally renowned academics and curators.    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- HOW TO APPLY?  The deadline for submitting applications is April 15, 2008. All the applications should arrive before the closing date. The applications and related materials should be submitted to the relevant partner-organization in your region by e-mail. Please see the information below for submission information according to your country of residence. NAAC's partner institutions will choose several applications for the first round of the competition and forward it to NAAC in early April. The second and final round will be carried out and the funding decisions will be made by NAAC.   Residents of countries of European Union, Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Serbia, Montenegro and Macedonia should send electronic application and supporting materials to SCCA-Ljubljana!  MORE INFORMATION, APPLICATION GUIDELINES AND APPLICATION FORM: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SCCA-Ljubljana Center for Contemporary Arts Metelkova 6, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia phone: 00 386 1 431 83 85 fax: 00 386 1 430 06 29 contact person: Dusan Dovc e-mail: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SCCA-Ljubljana program is supported by Ministry of Culture of the Republic of Slovenia, Municipality of Ljubljana.  SCCA-Ljubljana is a member of Asociacija, the association of non-government organisations and independent creators in the field of culture and art in Slovenia. 


Subject: Zeppelin 2008 - Sound art festival -13, 14 & 15 March @ CCCB (barcelona)
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 17:32:34 +0200

Zeppelin 2008
(About deafness, culture and politics)

Sound art festival. 13-14-15 March at CCCB > Centre de Cultura Contemporània de Barcelona (c/ Montalegre 5)

Next edition of the Zeppelin 2008: THE SOUND IN THE CAVE is about to start.
Its complete program can be checked out at:

We also want to inform you that the call for SORDERAS (DEAFNESSES) is closed. We have received a total amount of 203 sound works from artists from Europe, Latin America, North America, Australia and Asia.
The schedule for the listening is at:

An other succesful call was the phrases one for the Festival instalation. We have more thn 200 frases sent by many of you.

We want to remind you all life events will be low casted in streeming at  Calamaro Planet in Second Life (Mignon: 180, 234,22) or through



Yahoo! Encuentros
Ahora encontrar pareja es mucho más fácil, probá el nuevo Yahoo! Encuentros.


Subject: BARCELONA: Zeppelin 2008. 13-14-15 / 03 / 2008
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 19:23:34 +0200

 De: José Manuel Berenguer Alarcón []  Enviado el: martes, 11 de marzo de 2008 14:45 Para: elmer Asunto: Zeppelin 2008. 13-14-15 / 03 / 2008   {En catalá, més avall}   {Scroll down for english}   Hola!   Se acerca la próxima edición de Zeppelin 2008, los días 13, 14 y 15 de marzo en el CCCB. La programación completa se puede consultar en la web:    También os informamos que ya está cerrada la convocatoria de SORDERAS, de la que hemos recibido un total de 203 obras sonoras de artistas de Europa, América Latina, Norteamérica, Australia y Asia.  La programación de las obras está disponible en la web:    Otra convocatoria exitosa fue la de frases para la instalación del Pati de les dones. Contamos con más de 200 frases que muchos de vosotros nos habéis enviado.    Muchas gracias a todos!   Aprovechamos para recordaros que todos los eventos en vivo serán redirigidos en streaming a Calamaro Planet en Second Life (Mignon: 180, 234,22) o a través de  Esperamos veros en el ZEPPELIN 2008: EL SONIDO EN LA CUEVA!  ENTRADA LIBRE     /////////////////////////////////////////////////// Catalá   Hola a tots!   S'acosta la propera edició de Zeppelin 2008, els dies 13, 14 i 15 de març al CCCB. La programació completa és consultable  al web:    També us informem que ja està tancada la convocatòria de SORDESES, de la qual hem rebut un total de 203 obres sonores d'artistes d'Europa, América Llatina, Nordamèrica, Austràlia i Àsia.  La programació de les obres és disponible al web:    Una altra convocatòria d'èxit fou la de frases per a la instal·lació del Pati de les dones. Comptem amb més de 200 frases que molts de vosaltres ens heu enviat.    Gràcies a tots!   Aprofitem per recordar-vos que tots els actes en viu seran redirigits en streaming a Calamaro Planet de Second Life (Mignon: 180, 234,22) o a través de  Esperem veure-us al ZEPPELIN 2008: EL SO DINS LA COVA! ENTRADA LLIURE         /////////////////////////////////////////////////// English   Hi!   Next edition of the Zeppelin 2008: THE SOUND IN THE CAVE is about to start. Its complete program can be checked out at:    We also want to inform you that the call for SORDERAS (DEAFNESSES) is closed. We have received a total amount of 203 sound works from artists from Europe, Latin America, North America, Australia and Asia. The schedule for the listening is at:    An other succesful call was the phrases one for the Festival instalation. We have more thn 200 frases sent by many of you.   Thanks to all!   We want to remind you all life events will be low casted in streeming at  Calamaro Planet in Second Life (Mignon: 180, 234,22) or through   SEE YOU AT ZEPPELIN! FREE ENTRY


Subject: Re: To Phd or not to Phd?
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 00:28:30 +0200

Friends,  Here is John Langrish's article.  Many of the issues John took up in this 2000 article remain relevant today, primarily because there has been less progress in art research than in design research.  Ken  --  Langrish, John. "Not everything made of steel is a battleship."  Doctoral Education in Design. Foundations for the Future. Proceedings  of the La Clusaz Conference, July 8-12, 2000. David Durling and Ken  Friedman, editors. Staffordshire, United Kingdom: Staffordshire  University Press, 297-306.  --  Not everything made of steel is a battleship  John Langrish  Manchester Metropolitan University, UK  Imagine you heard someone say, 'my fork is a battleship'. You might  be curious and ask them what they meant. Suppose the reply went like  this, 'Battleships are made of steel. My fork is made of steel.  Therefore my fork is a battleship'. You would probably hurry away. It  is obviously a very silly argument. Yet a similar false logic can be  heard whenever two or three get together to discuss research in Art  and Design. Try this. 'PhDs are given for research. I am an artist  and I engage in research during my artistic practice. Therefore my  art should get a PhD'. This doesn't sound quite so silly but, in  fact, it is. Many many things are called research just like many many  things are made of steel. Two different things - battleships and  forks - are not made the same just because they are made of steel and  two different kinds of research - that done by an artist and that  done by a PhD student are not made the same just because they are  called research.  This problem is caused by confusing inclusion with equivalence. If A  and B are included within C, that tells you nothing about their  equivalence. Imagine a large area. Everything included in this area  is called research. It includes people whose names appear at the end  of a TV programme. It includes babies learning how to transfer egg  from its shell onto a spoon and then into their mouths without  spilling it. This learning involves trial and error type research. It  includes artists trying new ways of doing something and engineers,  writers experimenting with new structures and many human activities.  Within this large area which includes all research, there is a  smaller area which includes everything that is called academic  research. Within this are three subgroups called 1) the sort of  research that counts for the research assessment exercise, 2)  research done by members of staff that does not count for the RAE and  3) research done by research students for a research degree. An  artist member of staff can include an exhibition for the RAE but this  is no reason at all for claiming that exhibitions should qualify for  a PhD. Exhibitions and PhDs are both included in the wider idea of  research outputs; that does not make them equivalent. Steel forks are  not battleships.   Not everything made of steel is a battleship  The PhD is a unique degree in that it is used in all parts of the  university system. From arts to sciences and from music to  management, they all have PhDs. When it comes to the PhD, Art and  Design is not free to do what it wants. It has to accept that other  people have already set the norms for a PhD and there is one basic  rule that some sections of art and design seem blissfully unaware of.  This basic rule states, you cannot get a PhD for practice. In English  literature, you do not get a PhD for writing a novel, play or poem.  You have to write a thesis and a thesis meant 'argument' back in the  days before paper was cheap when the candidate presented a verbal  thesis to a group of senior academics. A PhD in English adds to  knowledge about literature. It is not itself literature. Similarly,  an engineer does not get a PhD for the practice of engineering -  developing a new machine or method of manufacture, say. A PhD in  engineering adds to knowledge of engineering; it is not itself  engineering. Many areas of university life have fought against this  ruling without success. The answer is always the same, 'If you want a  doctorate for practitioners, fine but don't call it a PhD, call it  something else.' Medical practitioners can obtain an MD - Doctor of  Medicine (Of course these days, medical practitioners are usually not  'doctors' but the English language is crazy). There is Doctor of  Music, Doctor of Engineering and so on. Perhaps the rarest degree is  DD - Doctor of Divinity. So if people want doctorates for artists  they need a DFA - Doctor of Fine Art but it's not a PhD. The basic  rule that a PhD is not a certificate of competence in practice is  accepted across all disciplines. It is also international in its  scope. A paper on the situation in Turkey (Er and Bayazit 1999:36)  claims "...holding a PhD in design represents being able to conduct  independent research with a contribution to knowledge in the field of  industrial design. It does not stand for being able to design a  better product." In Turkey, they have two types of doctoral  qualification, the PhD and something that translates as 'Proficiency  in Art'. The second of these is a professional doctorate which is  awarded for completing a program leading to 'the production of  original art work or the exhibition of outstanding performance and  artistic creativity... accompanied by a written dissertation' (Er and  Bayazit: 38). This type of degree would be called something like a  Doctor in Fine Art in other countries but not a PhD.   So what is a PhD and what is different about Art and Design PhDs?  1. Firstly, a PhD is a piece of paper awarded for an educational  experience; it is an educational qualification certifying something  mainly for the benefit of future employers in two respects:-  1a. It certifies that the person knows how to do research in an area  and as such might be employed by someone who wants research doing in  that area. In this case, knowing how to research is more important  than the actual topic. That is why US students have to pass an exam  in research methods and why the methodology chapter is an important  part of an English PhD. Even in the humanities, it is increasingly  the case that a PhD must discuss why the student did it this way  rather than another. History PhDs are expected to discuss the  relative validity of one set of sources over another etc. Science and  other experimental PhDs have an additional need for detailed  description of methods viz the need for possible replication by  someone else. However, non experimental PhDs still have to show that  the student has learnt something about research, how to do it, its  pitfalls and the confidence you can have with its findings. In other  words, a PhD is a certificate that someone has served an  apprenticeship in the practice of research. That is why I hate people  going on about practice based PhDs. All PhDs are based on the  practice of research. Any other kind of practice is not being  certificated.  1b. The second aspect of certification is to do with the fact that a  PhD is becoming almost an essential entry qualification for  university lecturers in any subject. A university lecturer is  supposed to be able to teach at the frontiers of a subject. This  requires both specialist knowledge and the ability to communicate  something. So a PhD should certify that its holder has 'found  something out' in a form that is communicable to others. That is why  professional 'practice' in any area is not enough for a PhD. Practice  adds to an individual's own skills and knowledge but such addition is  difficult to communicate to others. That is why you don't get a PhD  in English by writing a novel; you have to write about some aspect of  the novel. This means you could start to teach a course on the novel  as..... Similarly, a mechanical engineer does not get a PhD for  inventing a better machine (engineering practice); some aspect of  machines in general is required and this aspect is teachable. In many  areas of human activity, top level practitioners are not necessarily  good teachers. If you want to learn to drive, you might not want to  be taught by a world champion rally driver; an instructor in a  driving school would be better. A professional can do something. An  instructor can communicate. (In order to avoid another battleships  and forks confusion, it is necessary to add that just because the  results of a PhD should be communicable at university level, it does  not follow that anything developed for a degree course is worth a  PhD. The PhD requires an additional quality, namely, originality. It  also requires evidence to support the claim to have made a  contribution to knowledge).  2. A PhD is an 'advance in knowledge' - but only a little advance.  Science supervisors say things like, 'Come on lad, you're not  expected to get a Nobel Prize. A PhD is just a training. You can do  real research later'. Some of the social science/humanities got this  bit wrong. They thought that a PhD meant a big advance. That's why it  used to take years and years to finish. Then the research councils  started counting completion times and not funding places that went in  for 'years and years' type PhDs. So now, a PhD represents the sort of  advance in knowledge that could be gained in a minimun of 2 years  full time work by a relatively inexperienced student. No Big Deal. So  what is a little advance in knowledge? That question could lead to a  book on epistemology but note that the word 'thesis' used to mean an  'argument'. It should be possible to answer the question, 'so what is  your thesis?' in not more than two sentences but this conclusion has  to be supported by evidence. Two years work for two sentences that  might get quoted by someone else? Well yes but in addition, the PhD  student should have learned how to do research and should have enough  material for a lecture course.  3. PhD thesis as black book. Most people think of a PhD not as a  certificate etc but as a black book with about 320 pages in it. It  never ceases to amaze me that some students embark on a PhD without  ever having looked at some successfully completed examples. The basic  structure of this black book is very similar across all disciplines.  It might be of interest to include here an extract from my lecture  notes given to students.  Notes on writing a thesis by John Langrish  Introduction.  Most theses are in four parts (Note: they are not called Part 1, 2  etc but they are there - Parts one and three may be several chapters)  1. OBE - other bugger's efforts - a discussion of what is already  known. (to demonstrate an advance in knowledge you have to draw a  starting line). This part is sometimes called the 'literature review'  but this can be a misnomer. Strictly speaking, a literature review is  an account of all the literature in a specialist area. This is both  impossible and undesirable in interdisciplinary topics or in new  areas that don't yet have a 'literature' of their own. Part one  extracts from what is known already enough material to demonstrate  1. that the student is not reinventing the wheel.  2. the existence of some ideas, concepts (or even a theory) that  could be useful  3. the basis for a lecture course  4. the place for an addition to all this. Usually, either a  controversy or a hole - something missing - leading to a research  question.  (Many PhD systems require 'aims'. An aim is just a grammatically  different form of a question. 'What are the factors that lead to  ....' is a question. 'To identify the factors that...' is an aim.  They both say what someone hopes to find out).  2. METHODOLOGY - how you might answer the question by doing something  and what you actually did and what you learned from doing it. PhD  research involves doing something - it is a practical activity - it  is learnt by doing, like swimming or making a pot. That is why people  who go about saying 'I'M doing a practice based PhD' should be  treated with scoff scoff 'Who isn't?'. All PhDs are based on the  practice of research but not on some other form of practice. This  chapter should be a demonstration that the student has learnt  something about how to do research.  3. MBE - 'My bloody efforts' The results of what you found out. This  can be tables of numbers, the results of interviews, case studies etc  4. WHAT IT ALL MEANS AND THE SECRET OF THE UNIVERSE. - usually  called, 'Discussion, Conclusions and Further research.' This is where  your stuff meets other peoples' stuff so that you can demonstrate an  addition to knowledge by answering a question or achieving some aims  and mustering the evidence. (If you have not achieved your original  aims, do not despair - you just change the aims so that they do match  what you have found out.) If you have not found anything out you are  in trouble but a good supervisor can usually show how you have found  something out even if you did not notice it yourself. Next time  someone does a PhD in this area they will have to include your  conclusion in their OBE so make sure you have a quotable conclusion.  If you claim to have identified five factors responsible for ... and  two of these are additions to what previous people have claimed, then  you have to get mentioned by the next person. (end of extract from  lecture notes)   What is different about art and design PhDs?  The above discussion covers those things that are common to most  PhDs. However, each academic area is different from others in some  respect. The differences between subjects can be categorised under  three headings  1. the questions asked  2. the methods used to answer them and  3. the type of evidence that is acceptable to a peer group of  academics in the same area.  A key difference between Art and Design and the rest ought to be a  concern with things visual. There could be a fascinating conference  on visual questions, visual methods and visual evidence but it has  not happened. If a PhD involves a thesis/argument then visual  evidence is something that could be used to communicate and even  convince other people. In effect, if someone does not believe you,  and 'well look at that' does convince them, then what you have shown  them is visual evidence. Some of the questions that could be the  basis for art PhDs are questions of the form 'what do artists do,  "how do they do it," why and with what result?' To some people, this  is the start of a discussion about practice based PhDs but as already  claimed, the only practice that really matters in a PhD is the  practice of research. This is not the same as saying that  professional practice can not be the subject of research; this is  quite different from awarding a degree for practice. Now, of course,  professional practice can be the subject of PhD type research in many  academic areas. A management PhD can involve studying the practice of  management and finding out something about how it is actually done,  how some managers are 'better' than others, how managers are affected  by changes in legislation, new technology etc etc. A PhD in law could  involve finding out about the practice of law and so on. This is a  perfectly good model for art and design PhDs. People have obtained  PhDs for finding out about what practitioners actually do. In graphic  design, for example, there have been PhDs on the use of drawing by  graphic designers and on how designers select a particular form of  visual material for inclusion in a poster package or pamphlet.  The above examples all involve finding out about other peoples  practice. There is a special form of PhD which involves finding out  more about professional practice by involving the researchers own  practice in the research. There is nothing unusual about this and  such PhDs are not singled out as being 'practice based'; they are  sometimes called action research which roughly means doing something  and finding out what happens. So a production manager might alter the  method of production in the factory under carefully controlled  conditions and observe the results. A social worker or a teacher  could carry out a carefully designed study of their own way of  working together, with finding out the results of changing things.  Thus a member of staff involved with teacher training obtained a PhD  from a careful study of the effects of changing the basis of training  from being college based to being school based. Given that it is  clearly possible for a practitioner in other areas to gain a PhD for  a study of practice (gathering evidence to answer a question that  provides new knowledge about practice), why are some people still  making a fuss about practice based PhDs? If they want PhDs to be  awarded as a certificate of good practice, they can't have them but  perhaps there is something else as discussed in the next section.  Whatever happened to the 'candidates own creative work'? If art and  design were more scholarly, it wouldn't approach something without  checking out what people had already done about it. PhDs in art and  design were discussed extensively in the 1980s and a consensus was  arrived at by the Council for National Academis Awards (CNAA) Art and  Design Research Degrees Committee which controlled PhDs in the Art  College and Polytechnic sector. This committee invented the  regulations for PhDs which involved 'the candidates own creative  work'. The discussions of that time seem to have been forgotten by  those who want to push 'practice based' PhDs. Art and design suffers  from a tendency to reinvent wheels and sometimes the new wheels are  worse than the old. It is symptomatic of the lack of scholarly  concern in the art and design community that no one has thought of  looking at the history of PhDs in this area in the UK. Such a history  would divide into three periods, pre-CNAA, CNAA and post-CNAA. In the  first period, PhDs were gained by alliance with another discipline -  history, technology, psychology or education.  Brian Allison (1974) claims to be the first person from an art  college background to gain a PhD. He did this by finding a university  with experience in fine art and art education, Reading University,  UK, that would accept him. Stroud Cornock (1988) mentions the 'art  and technology' movement of the late 1960s and 1970s which led to the  award of a PhD for a submission that included both thesis and  exhibited sculptures. This work was supported by the Science Research  Council. The CNAA period began in 1974 when CNAA took over  responsibility for all degrees in non-university art and design from  the NCDAD who had been awarding art and design diplomas. In 1977, the  CNAA added its famous Regulation 3.7 to its research degree  regulations. This said,  "In appropriate cases the Council may approve a programme leading to  the presentation of a thesis accompanied by material in other than  written form"    Being aware that PhDs for practice were not allowed, the CNAA  regulations made no use of this dreaded word. Instead, they came up  with the phrase, "the candidate's own creative work" which could form  part of the submission. The word requirement for the written thesis  was reduced but it was made clear that the written and creative parts  together must add up to an addition to knowledge. Any suggestion that  the written thesis was 'theory' and the creative work was 'practice'  would never have been accepted by the CNAA Research Degrees Committee  for Art and Design of which I was a member. Notions of '60% theory  and 40% practice' belong in the dustbin of MA educational history.  Anyone who thinks that making a mark with a paint brush is only  practice and writing words is only theory should have no place in  education.  The first person at Manchester to take advantage of Regulation 3.7  was an environmental sculptor, Ian Hunter, whose written work  describes an observer following around an artist in order to find out  how the artist operated. Ian had the advantage of being able to talk  to himself. Both the observer and the artist were, of course, the  same person but the observer clearly showed that he had learned a lot  about how to do research. The observer also investigated the artist's  attempts to work with environmental architects. His PhD examination  included a visit to two of his creative works which were in slightly  inaccessible places. As the external examiner was in a wheel chair,  this was a memorable occasion.  In the early 1990s, the Polytechnics gradually acquired their own  degree-awarding powers and then became the new universities. CNAA's  regulation 3.7 lives on in many of the regulations of these  universities and in the Open University which took over  responsibility for PhDs in some art and design places that were not  part of the new university system (the most famous being the London  Institute) when the CNAA was abolished. I suspect that '3.7' and its  modern descendants could be made better use of. In an attempt to get  its message across, the CNAA Art and Design Research Degrees  Committee organised three conferences on research degrees, in  collaboration with Middlesex Polytechnic in 1984, Manchester  Polytechnic's Institute of Advanced Studies in 1987 (Trueman 1987)  and The London Institute's Central Saint Martins College in 1988  (Bourgourd et al 1988). Some of these papers make good reading today.  Unfortunately, the CNAA was also responsible indirectly for much  confusion. In addition to its responsibility for research degrees,  its main task was approving (or not) all the first degrees in the  Polytechnics. In this connection it had views about the staffing for  such degrees. In particular it wanted to state that staff in  Polytechnics should not be regarded as just 'teachers' - there were  other things they should be doing. In an attempt to produce a  statement that would encompass these 'other' things, the Council  issued a report in 1984, 'Research and related activities policy  statement'. This included consultancy and professional practice as  examples of things that Polytechnic staff should be doing. In effect,  it meant that it was OK for a lecturer in accountancy to be engaged  in working as an accountant, for a designer to be working on  commissions and for a lecturer in painting to be doing some painting  aimed at exhibition. Unfortunately, the use of the word 'research' as  the first word of the title of a document that was not really about  research led to confusion in the minds of those who wanted to have  forks that were battleships. Hazel Clark (1988) of the CNAA stated,  'There is no doubt that confusion has existed in art and design over  the difference between research and research towards a higher  degree'. Twelve years on, this confusion seems to me to have got  worse. Hence this paper.   References  Allison, B. 1974. Intellectual factors in art education. PhD thesis  University of Reading.  Bourgourd, J. Evans, S and Gronberg, T, eds. 1988. The Matrix of  Research in Art and Design Education. Conference Documentation.  (Copies still available from Stuart Evans, Central St Martins College  of Art and Design, London WCIB 4AP)  Clark, Hazel. 1988. Alternative modes of presentation. in Bourgourd  et al eds 1988. The Matrix of Research in Art and Design Education.  Conference Documentation.  Cornock, S. 1988. Using research tools in a school of fine art. in  Bourgourd et al eds 1988. The Matrix of Research in Art and Design  Education. Conference Documentation.  Er, H Alpay and Bayazit, Nigan. 1999. 'Redefining the PhD in Design  in the Periphery: Doctoral Education in Industrial Design in Turkey.'  Design Issues 1 5 No 3, pp34 - 44.  Trueman, M M. ed.1987. Methodologies and Supervision for Research in  Art and Design. Conference Papers (Copies still available from Post  Grad Centre, Art & Design, MMU, Manchester M15 6BG)  --   Ken Friedman Professor  Dean, Swinburne Design Swinburne University of Technology Melbourne, Australia


Subject: Re: To Phd or not to Phd?
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 06:34:36 +0200

Friends,  John Langrish's valuable article was an addendum to an earlier note. After I posted the first note -- below -- it vanished into cyberspace, but John's article got through.  Since it did not appear, I'm sending it again.  Yours,  Ken  --  Friends,  Back in my little house on the fjord, I'm catching up on the  conversation. I've seen a few comments and notes in the past few days  to which I'd like to respond.  Before doing so, I'd like to address a question that seems to be an  object of ambiguity here, perhaps even confusion.  In some posts, it seems that the PhD degree - the issue for this  fiorum - is confused with research.  While the PhD degree is a research degree, not everything that one  does to earn a PhD constitutes research.  The PhD is a course in training to learn how to do research. In a  serious PhD program, it is necessary to:  1) study and master research skills,  2) perform research exercises to practice those skills, and  3) do an independent research project under supervision to  demonstrate mastery of skills at the level required for a doctorate.  Only the third item in this sequence constitutes genuine research.  The first two items are study.  One of the requirements for the third item is that the research  project - the PhD thesis - should make an original contribution to  the knowledge of the field. This is an old-fashioned way of setting  what some label a quality assurance mechanism. It ensures that the  doctoral candidate can conduct original research rather than summary  study before promotion to the title of doctor.  As I noted in my earlier comments on the PhD, we do many things to  earn a PhD that we may never again do in a research career. We do  them to master skills we may not use in our own work that we may  nevertheless need to teach our students when we become tutors and  supervisors.  When we write a thesis, we also narrate the development of the  project and narrate the background in a different way to the way we  might narrate a research project. Thesis narration involves  demonstrating and clarifying awareness of all the issues involved in  the research project to show our skills. Narrating most research  projects involves demonstrating and clarifying only enough aspects of  the research to enable the reader to understand what we have done and  why, along with some issues that differ from field to field - such as  replication in certain fields, or access to historical evidence in  others.  So, too, many aspects of research may not be used for the PhD. Once  we graduate, we are likely to conduct research projects in a very  different way than we do for a doctoral thesis. This, in fact, is one  reason that it is necessary to rewrite most thesis projects for  journal publication or for a monograph.  Before returning later to address some issues that I have been  considering, I'd like to offer a few thoughts on research - as  distinct from thoughts on the PhD.  1) Research  definitions  Merriam-Webster's Dictionary defines research in a way that clarifies  the term as living speakers use it: "1: careful or diligent search 2:  studious inquiry or examination; especially: investigation or  experimentation aimed at the discovery and interpretation of facts,  revision of accepted theories or laws in the light of new facts, or  practical application of such new or revised theories or laws 3: the  collecting of information about a particular subject"  (Merriam-Webster's 1993: 1002; for more, see the Oxford English  Dictionary).  These definitions cover clinical, applied, and basic research;  theoretical and practice-led research; qualitative, quantitative,  descriptive, interpretive, logical, mathematical, empirical,  positive, normative, hermeneutic, phenomenological, and philosophical  research, as well as expressive research.  What distinguishes research from other activities is what Mario Bunge  (1999: 251) describes as the "methodical search for knowledge.  Original research," he continues,  "tackles new problems or checks  previous findings. Rigorous research is the mark of science,  technology, and the 'living' branches of the humanities." Synonyms  for research include exploration, investigation, and inquiry.  2) Clearing up confusions  Discussing practice-led research often generates two confusions,  values confusion and category confusion.  The first confuses value issues. Research is not "better" than  painting, playing football, or feeding the poor. Research is  different.  An angry design student once asked me whether research is more  important that feeding the hungry as though I could choose between  solving an interesting mathematical problem and ending world hunger.  If I could choose, I would end hunger. I do not get to choose between  these two good goals. Both are good. Ending world hunger is more  important. Nevertheless, this is not up to me.  Ending world hunger involves political and economic choices. See,  f.ex., Fuller 1981 or Sachs 2005. We do not need to choose between  two different social goods, research, and ending hunger. We must  persuade our citizens and governments to end hunger for all humans.  This takes the kind of research Sachs has been doing.  The second problem is category confusion that involves the frequent  appeal to many ways of knowing. There ARE many ways to know, to  learn, and to transmit information.  While there are many ways to know and many kinds of knowledge, not  all ways to know or learn constitute research. Theology and  comparative religion entail research. Religious prophecy and divine  revelation do not. This is why Dr. Karol Wojtyla and Dr. Joseph  Ratzinger found no conflict between church doctrine and evolution  theory, either before they became John Paul II and Benedict XVI or  after.  Guilds transmit knowledge as a form of embodied information and  modeling in the master-apprentice relationship. Apprenticeship is not  research.  There are hundreds of similar examples. Research is a range of  systematic approaches to finding, learning, and knowing. There are  others ways to find, know, and learn, and most are valuable. The PhD  focuses on research and research skills.  3) Other definitions  Definitions help us to understand what we discuss so that we can  deepen and improve our fields. In different discussion, participants  post a wide variety of valuable but limited definitions of research.  These are useful but they have less covering power than the  large-scale definition I use. I prefer to postulate a definition with  the greatest covering power.  Definitions must be reasonable as well as articulate to be useful.  Every forum of this kind elicits definitions of research that are  neither accurate nor useful. The common denominator among these is a  tendency to label different kinds of non-research activities as  research.  In discussing the research aspect of the PhD, the issue at hand is  research rather than other practices, good or bad. Inquiry,  reflection, critical inquiry, reflective practice, and all the other  issues here are not in their own right research.  Chris has mentioned our friend and colleague, John Langrish. John  must hold one of the all-time records for PhD supervision in art and  design with something like 125 successful completions. (I may be  wrong on the number - it might have  been a few more or a few less,  but it is an astonishing count either way.)  John wrote a famous article once titled "Not everything made of steel  is a battleship," (Langrish 2000). In the article, John points out  that research is itself a specific practice. We should all be  reflective practitioners - when we practie research, we should be  reflective and critical about research issues.  I'll be back soon to discuss some comments in specific notes.  Yours,  Ken  --  References  Bunge, Mario. 1999. The Dictionary of Philosophy. Amherst, New York:  Prometheus Books.  Fuller, Buckminster. 1981. Critical Path. New York: St. Martin's Press.  Langrish, John. "Not everything made of steel is a battleship."  Doctoral Education in Design. Foundations for the Future. Proceedings  of the La Clusaz Conference, July 8-12, 2000. David Durling and Ken  Friedman, editors. Staffordshire, United Kingdom: Staffordshire  University Press, 297-306.  Merriam-Webster, Inc. 1993. Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary.  Tenth edition. Springfield, Massachusetts.  Sachs, Jeffrey D. 2005. The End of Poverty: Economic Possibilities  for Our Time. London: Penguin Press.  --   Ken Friedman Professor  Dean, Swinburne Design Swinburne University of Technology Melbourne, Australia

Wednesday, March 12, 2008

YASMIN-messages Digest 12.03.2008.

YASMIN-messages Digest 12.03.2008.

YASMIN website:


To unsubscribe:


1. Art, technologie, culture


Subject: Art, technologie, culture
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 17:18:58 +0200


Alphabetville # Zinc-Ecm # Leonardo/Olats


Rencontres à la


Friche Belle de Mai     Marseille     France



Alphabetville et ZINC-ECM proposent un cycle de rencontres en collaboration avec Leonardo/Olats (Observatoire Leonardo pour les Arts et les Techno-Sciences), association culturelle de recherche et de publications en ligne dans le domaine des arts et des techno-sciences. S'intéressant non seulement aux productions de l'art technologique mais aussi aux rencontres entre scientifiques, ingénieurs, artistes et acteurs culturels, c’est dans une complémentarité et une émulation de réflexion que se présentent ces rencontres publiques autour des relations entre art, technologie et culture.


- Les Basiques de Leonardo/Olats

le 20 mars à 18h30 au cyber de la Friche dans le cadre de l’EOEP

Le projet Les Basiques est un corpus à vocation pédagogique. Il propose, comme son nom l'indique, des connaissances et des informations de base sur les arts technologiques, les principaux questionnements, les différentes approches et les définitions, la contextualisation des pratiques et des conceptions, une dimension historique, et un ensemble de références permettant un approfondissement sur des thèmes ou questions particulières au sein du champ de l'art et des techno-sciences.

Cette rencontre présentera les deux premiers Basiques en présence de leurs auteurs :
- L'art « multimedia Â»,  par Annick Bureaud, critique d'art, directrice de Leonardo/Olats
- La littérature numérique, par Philippe Bootz, poète, chercheur au labora! toire Paragraphe de l'Université Paris 8, animateur de la revue Alire, membre du M.I.M

Les Basiques sont consultables sur le site de Leonardo/Olats :

Entrée libre

Renseignements : 04 95 04 95 12/04 91 62 60 75

Tuesday, March 11, 2008

YASMIN-messages Digest 11.03.2008.

YASMIN-messages Digest 11.03.2008.

YASMIN website:


To unsubscribe:


1. introduction
2. Re: To Phd or not to Phd?
3. Re: To Phd or not to Phd?
4. hello
5. An exhibition of the works of Ouafae Mezouar and Maria Akdim in Berlin
6. Re: 1957-2007: Space Imaginaries


Subject: introduction
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 14:55:43 +0200

Dear all,
I am happy to introduce myself as a new member of the Yasmin discussion group. I am an art critic based in Amsterdam, and professor of art theory at the Royal Academy of Arts in The Hague, as well as assistant professor at the Faculty of Creative and Performing Arts of the University of Leiden. I am involved in setting up a PhD programme for visual artists at Leiden University. This programma, which is the first of its kind in The Netherlands, will start in january 2009.
I follow the Yasmin discussion on the PhD in art with great interest, and look forward to many more discussions to follow.
Best regards,

Lectoraat "Kunstenaarstheorieën en de artistieke praktijk"


Subject: Re: To Phd or not to Phd?
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 15:36:02 +0200

Oguzhan  You replied to my question about art and music schools that are independent of university systems:  I said   > b) In many countries art and music schools are outside the university system ( here where I live in France there both art schools in the university and separate art schools and music conservatories that are not university affiliated)   you said:   First  of all,  this  situation is  changing especially  in Europe. To compute  North American education and research,  Bologna  process is realized in EU  and  will be  active  after 2010.  PhD education is  called as   third  cycle.   The third  cycle  will make  a equality in all European Education. Art  Schools  and music conservatories  will  have to use  a university structure.    Oguzhan  My question is not administrative !! indeed the Bologna process in europe, and the development of third cycle is one of the things in europe that is an organisational driver to setting up programs called PhD.  My question is more provocative. The YASMIN  network is dedicated to promoting ways for interested artists to become more involved with science and technology (and for scientists interested in research on the cultural context of their work)  My question is how does an artist in an independent art or music school, not in a university with science or engineering departments, do research that crosses between the arts and techno sciences ?  Maybe in order for a good Phd for research in  the topics that require the crossing of the arts and science or the arts and technology = then maybe such a PhD can only be strong it in a university rather than and art and design school or conservatory  or else = as i argued in another comment, one must build in strong on line, with institutional validity, to enable collaborations between art schools and science and engineering department in universities;  And as has been argued elsewhere in these discussion, a good PhD program must be embedded in a context where strong research is being carried out.   The concern would be that some PhD programs are being set up to respond to the Bologna process in environments where there is not a strong research environment ( as opposed to teaching or arts practice) and that the students there will not get a good research training.  And the reverse is also a concern= pressuring professionals whose goals are teaching or art practice and not research to get a PhD  ( because promotion and hiring criteria favor people with PhD) is also problematic.  I forget who asked whether today Picasso would have to get a PhD or not. My answer is no, Picasso was not interested in being a researcher as we are talking about in this context of what a PhD is supposed to provide training for.  To the question to whether Leonardo Da Vinci  would today need to get a Ph D is yes. Leonardo Da Vinci did research in both the arts and sciences and today to have the necessary backgound would need a PhD. If he wanted to work on the nano world, he would need to be in an environment that provided the background for both nano science and art.  Teaching, Practice, Research are different areas of professional practice. A danger of the Bologna process is that it drives administrative solutions to issues that are much deeper and more difficult.  I hope this stirs something up !!  Roger    


Subject: Re: To Phd or not to Phd?
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 17:19:46 +0200

  Dear  Roger  I  think  you provocated me to write  my early  mail :)  Your  statement  reminds  me  Sibelies   Academy ( actually  current    web site  describes as university).   Contrast with some independent   music  school, a  number of musician in Sibelies,  conducted good    research  between art and  science. One of the  important  one  is    Vibro Acoustic  Therapy Projects  for  deaf  people.  I  guess They    collaborated  with other disciplines and other  science institutes  to   achieve this research aim  This  example  shows us,  of course,  structure of  educational   institute   is  not important . The important think is the intention.  By the  way  I liked  your comparison  between Picasso and Leonardo   Oguzhan   >


Subject: hello
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 18:46:28 +0200

 dear yasminers,  my name is Oriol Caba, i'm a new member of the list based in Barcelona. as a cultural producer I use to work curating AV archives on contemporary culture and also for networking strategies.  cheers, oriol.


Subject: An exhibition of the works of Ouafae Mezouar and Maria Akdim in Berlin
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 22:14:12 +0200

Ouafae Mezouar et Maria Akdim Exposent à Berlin      Les artistes peintres marocaines Ouafae Mezouar et Maria Akdim exposent, du 7 mars au 4 avril dans l'espace culturel de l'ambassade du Maroc à Berlin, leurs Å"uvres sous le signe "Impressions féminines".  Une trentaine de tableaux reflétant l'art abstrait dans toute sa richesse sont exhibés dans cette exposition, organisée à l'occasion de la Journée mondiale de la femme et don le vernissage s'est déroulé jeudi soir.  Dans ses oeuvres, la plasticienne Ouafae Mezouar, connue pour sa peinture sur tissu, met à profit les signes culturels, notamment calligraphiques, dans leurs différentes dimensions. L'artiste Maria Akdim tend à puiser dans le patrimoine culturel pour véhiculer sa perception de soi-même et du monde.  Ouafae Mezouar, lauréate de l'Ecole supérieure des beaux-arts de Casablanca, a remporté la médaille d'or du Festival international des arts plastiques en Tunisie. Elle compte à son actif plusieurs expositions au Maroc et à l'étranger Diplômée en arts plastiques et en sciences de l'éducation de l'université Paris VIII, Lamia Akdim a pris part à plusieurs ateliers et expositions au Maroc, en France et en Espagne.     


Subject: Re: 1957-2007: Space Imaginaries
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 11:12:18 +0200

Hi, thought you'd be interested in this.   Best, Marcia [Tanner]   In a message dated 3/10/2008 10:11:02 AM Pacific Daylight Time, writes:       	     	      March 10, 2008     	      Barbican Art Gallery        Martian Museum of Terrestrial Art     6 Mar - 18 May/08       Barbican Art Gallery     Silk Street     London     EC2Y 8DS     00 + 44 845 121 6826      Martian Museum of Terrestrial Art presents contemporary art works under the fictional rubric of a museum collection conceived by and designed for extraterrestrials. This ambitious, playful and irreverent exhibition features 115 artists and more than 175 works, primarily sculptures along with mixed media, video, photography and works on paper. Artists range from emerging to internationally recognised figures, including Joseph Beuys, Cai Guo-Qiang, Maurizio Cattelan, Jimmie Durham, Thomas Hirschhorn, Ryan Gander, Mona Hatoum, Susan Hiller, Damien Hirst, Brian Jungen, Dr. Lakra, Louise Lawler, Sherrie Levine, John McCracken, Bruce Nauman, Mike Nelson, Cornelia Parker, Sigmar Polke, Ugo Rondinone, Daniel Spoerri, Haim Steinbach, Francis Upritchard, Jeffrey Vallance, Andy Warhol and Rebecca Warren.      This exhibition is partly inspired by the first chapter of Thierry de Duve’s Kant after Duchamp, in which an imaginary anthropologist from outer space sets out to inventory ‘all that is called art by humans’. Adopting a pseudo-anthropological approach, the Museum employs eccentric taxonomies and surprising juxtapositions. The fictitious and humorous Martian perspective opens up contemporary art to fresh interpretations and allows for its reassessment from an alien standpoint, thus mimicking the way that Western anthropologists historically interpreted non-Western cultures through foreign eyes. Looking at contemporary art as though from outer space offers the potential to make the familiar strange and to turn the dominant Euro-American art tradition into the ‘Other’.      Curated by Francesco Manacorda and Lydia Yee.      Publication     The exhibition is accompanied by a fully-illustrated publication, which takes the form of a volume of an encyclopaedia with an eccentric classification system. Including essays by the curators and a fictional account by acclaimed novelist Tom McCarthy.      First Thursdays     On the first Thursday of every month, Barbican Art Gallery is open until 10pm. Join us for late night openings with a difference. Enjoy a range of interplanetary talks, performances and discussions and make sure you visit the Martian bar for cosmic cocktails. Part of Time Out First Thursdays.      Films from Another Planet     To complement Martian Museum of Terrestrial Art landing in Barbican Art Gallery, we present a season of films from outer space to welcome our alien friends. Visit for     more information.      Close Encounters     Join a host of artists, speakers, commentators and curators for Close Encounter talks.      Visit for more details on all the events.      Audioguide     A free Audioguide is available from     The Barbican Centre is provided by the City of London Corporation.      Martian Museum of Terrestrial Art is made possible in part by American Center Foundation and The Henry Moore Foundation.    

Monday, March 10, 2008

YASMIN-messages Digest 10.03.2008.

YASMIN-messages Digest 10.03.2008.

YASMIN website:
To unsubscribe:

1. Events in Italy
2. Re: To Phd or not to Phd?
3. Re: To Phd or not to Phd?
4. Re: To Phd or not to Phd?
5. CAS April Meeting - Cynthia Beth Rubin

Subject: Events in Italy
Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2008 17:36:48 +0200

Saturday, 15 March 2008 h 5.30 pm
Conversation with the artists and curators
Montse Arbelo and Joseba Franco
carried out on the occasion of
NetSpace: viaggio nell'arte della Rete
More on:

Noema Staff

Subject: Re: To Phd or not to Phd?
Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2008 20:19:27 +0200

Hi there,

I am totally agree with Ken and Oguzhan about the importance of supervising. Nevertheless, the situation with some of the PhD programmes in Turkey (also in Europe) makes the process/relationship between the candidate and the advisor challenging and even problematic: Some of the institutions do accept students regardless of their goal and scope for doing a PHD (or may be without questioning “how and why?” with Ken’s words ). Most of them have even no idea about their research field, original contribution to a field, an important discovery/association in this field, methodology, structure..etc. when they are accepted to PhD programmes. Because the selection criteria is always linked to their educational background rather than their interest/enthusiasm about researching and developing a “defined subject” and the means & the knowledge to achieve this goal (let alone all the skills that Ken counted in his earlier contribution to the debate).

This situation also indicates the fact that if a candidate could not find a proper advisor who could supervise her/him according to his/her interests and research field/s, s/he is forced to change her/his route. And as Aleks agreed and re-emphasized that artistic research should cover multiple and diverse domains and interdisciplinary approaches. In this respect, the qualities and the research area of the advisor become more authoritative.

A proposal:

I always had a series thoughts about having a committee/board of “advisors” (not more than 4 in numbers) to be able to conduct an interdisciplinary PhD research. I am totally aware of the difficulties of realizing it due to various bureaucratic constrains and time-based limitations, yet, it would lead us to perfectly profound PHD thesis and publications along with practical presentations/projects. I know, there are some alternative ways (most of them are off-the-record methods). For instance, in Turkey you may have an additional (secondary) advisor. Yet, I am talking about a more structured and multi-vocal advisory committee/board that would have equal input on the candidate's research process.

I would love to hear your thoughts about it.
With Kind Regards,

Subject: Re: To Phd or not to Phd?
Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2008 22:26:06 +0200

Dear Basak

I think you can remember that, in Turkish PhD Process, a committee
consist of 3 member together with the supervisor of the PhD
monitors the students progress every 6 month like USA. I am
not sure if there is the same system in EU


> A proposal:
> I always had a series thoughts about having a committee/board of
> "advisors" (not more than 4 in numbers) to be able to conduct an
> interdisciplinary PhD research. I am totally aware of the
> difficulties of realizing it due to various bureaucratic constrains
> and time-based limitations, yet, it would lead us to perfectly
> profound PHD thesis and publications along with practical
> presentations/projects. I know, there are some alternative ways
> (most of them are off-the-record methods). For instance, in Turkey
> you may have an additional (secondary) advisor. Yet, I am talking
> about a more structured and multi-vocal advisory committee/board
> that would have equal input on the candidate's research process.
> I would love to hear your thoughts about it.
> With Kind Regards,
> Basak
> --------------------
> To become a member & Yasmin list archive:
> To join Yasmin-map:
> To post:
> To unsubscribe:

Subject: Re: To Phd or not to Phd?
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 00:34:07 +0200

I would like to thank Prof.Dr. Oguzhan Ozcan for the invitation to contribute to this discussion. First I must say that I do not have an Arts or Design background. I am an educationist (PhD in Education). My comments come as someone who has been a Director of Graduate Studies and currently the coordinator for the PhD program in the Swinburne Faculty of Design.
I have been reading with interest the various perspectives. The position that has been put forward that seeks to have an artifact recognized as an output of research has conflated some key terms. It seems to me that knowledge, research and research outputs are used interchangeably. The discussion, thus far, has been concerned with what counts as knowledge the struggle of competing conceptions of what counts as knowledge. But knowledge is not research (in terms of data production) and research data is not the PhD. Research has a stipulated aim, to produce new knowledge and to have that knowledge communicated so that it can be evaluated by peers and be retained to add to the stock of human knowledge. So we have the refereed publication and for the purposes of this discussion group, the PhD. So a scientist in a lab may do experiments and a social scientist may do interviews and an artist may produce artifacts â€" all these can be understood as producing data (I use the term d!
ata production as opposed to data collection dilberately).
Underpinning much of the discussion is a notion that artistic endeavors are not treated the same as other fields of knowledge. I would argue that artistic endeavors are being treated the same that is a lab experiment or an interview does not suffice as a publication or a PhD. The argument that an artifact should be seen as manifesting the data and the communication without explanation is to give it a privileged position, as being more than other forms of knowledge. It is, thus, a call to be treated very differently.
I accept that there are many forms of knowledge, and artistic knowledge is a form of knowledge. But to say that one form of knowledge (artistic) is innately better than another (science or humanities) is to enter into a competition that only serves to maintain dualist notions of truth and knowledge. At present, the PhD is a research training degree that, when conferred, tells the world that the person can now carry out independent research and that they can communicate this knowledge in an appropriate form, it is itself an artifact produced in a particular context.

Dr Deirdre Barron
Coordinator, Research and Research Studies
National Institute for Design Research
swinburne Unuversity of Technology
Australia 3181
tele: +61 3 92146091

Subject: CAS April Meeting - Cynthia Beth Rubin
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 02:11:03 +0200

Please circulate to interested colleagues, students and lists:

The Computer Arts Society is pleased to announce its April 2008

Tuesday 1 April 2008

Cynthia Beth Rubin

Still Digital after all These Years:
How the Computer Transformed Painters into Geeks

6:60 for 7:00; System Simulation Ltd
Bedford Chambers, The Piazza Covent Garden
London WC2E 8HA, England

Art on the edge once meant Painting. Not clean,
representational, neat painting, but messy, expressive, abstract
painting. Then the computer came along. Touted as a procedural
machine, no one expected intuitive, non-procedural painters to
turn to pixels. Why were so many expressionist painters drawn to
the computer in the buggy days of mid-1980s, and how did it
transform their visual language and output? What are they doing
now? As one of the artists who made the leap, Rubin will discuss
her own leaps, give an overview of the work of other artists, and
look at how the computer continues to change concepts of imagery
as it becomes a more available medium in previously less
technologically advanced countries.

Cynthia Beth Rubin is a digital artist working in 2D and 3D
imagery, interactivity, and animated images. Trained as a
painter, she turned to digital art in 1984, creating works drawn
from cultural memories and nature. Rubin's work has been shown in
diverse venues including the Jewish Museum in Prague, the
Pandamonium Festival in London, the Lavall Gallery in
Novosibirsk, the DeLeon White Gallery in Toronto, and numerous
editions of international conferences such as ISEA, ArCade and
SIGGRAPH. Her works can be found in several books and journals,
including Art in the Digital Age by Bruce Wands, The Computer in
the Visual Arts, by Anne Morgan Spalter, and Painting the Digital
River, by James Faure Walker. Rubin's studio is in New Haven,
Connecticut, USA.

1968-2008 = CAS 40

Paul Brown - based in OZ Dec 07 - Apr 08 ==
OZ Landline +61 (0)7 5443 3491 == USA fax +1 309 216 9900
OZ Mobile +61 (0)419 72 74 85 == Skype paul-g-brown
Visiting Professor - Sussex University

Sunday, March 9, 2008

YASMIN-messages Digest 09.03.2008.

Dear  Ken and  All

I   had a  two experiences:
I  was reviewing  his performance of a  young academic from a foundation university very well known in research In Turkey.  This &nb! sp;young man is specialized in audio interaction design .  Highly few people is expert in this  field. He has  several international patent amazingly. Contrary, no one in his  department,  encouraged for an advanced research. He is practicing artistic work only and has  very poor  one or two conference papers.  Under  a good  supervision,  this young man would be good researcher but  sadly,  still  he  dose not  know  what he should. And  He thinks  he is  doing  well in academic level. 

On the  other hand,  A musician  who  studied  MA degree  in a well-known national  university in Turkey,  completed his dissertation in 25 months.  Because his  supervisor tried to teach &nbs! p;how  a  research can be done in Art.  The &nb! sp;stude nt  struggled at the  beginning but  his  supervisor did not  give up to encourage him to finalize  his  research in advanced level.  At the end of the  day,  The  student  managed  not only  a good  master thesis  but  also had  2 articles published  in A level- Art and Humanity Indexed Journals. ( I  should indicate  again that this  is a master even not a PhD).

Therefore  I  am totally agree with Ken's  statement  below  ...  I believe the  quality of a research  work  80% depends  on a  good supervision.  

Modarator, To Phd or not to Phd?

Prof. Dr. Oguzhan Ozcan

The other problem is lack of supervisor skills. The teacher in question thought that she was doing these students a favor by helping them to get a PhD for simply doing their own work. Because she is a skilled artist and an unskilled researcher, she has no idea what will happen to them in their post-doctoral career, and she had no ideas of the responsibilities and pressures they will face - especially if they are hired at a good university.

Saturday, March 8, 2008

YASMIN-messages Digest 08.03.2008.

YASMIN-messages Digest 08.03.2008.

YASMIN website:
To unsubscribe:

1. Re: To Phd or not to Phd?
2. Re: To Phd or not to Phd?
3. Re: To Phd or not to Phd?

Subject: Re: To Phd or not to Phd?
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 19:15:47 +0200


At the end of a busy week, I've been struggling to catch up with this
interesting discussion. One question caught my eye.

Murat asked, "is it possible to redesign the notion of PhD degree for
arts?" I don't see why we wish to redesign the notion of the PhD
degree. The PhD is a specific kind of doctorate. It is the
philosophical doctorate, a research degree that emerges from the
philosophical faculties of the old universities. This was different
to the three great professional faculties that awarded other kinds of
degrees - theology, law, and medicine.

One of my uncles was a distinguished physician. He held an MD, like
most people who practice or teach in the profession of medicine. At
one point in his career, he decided to become a researcher, so he
went back to university to learn research skills by earning a PhD.

There are several kinds of doctorates. In some fields, this is well known.

We are still debating this in design, but I'd like to point out some
issues that seem to be reasonably well understood.

Research degrees do not appear in isolation. Good research demands a
context. Those of us active in the day-to-day work of teaching art or
design generally find ourselves immersed in a milieu oriented toward
teaching and practice. Those of us who in other research fields face
the demands and challenges of research programs in a different

The context of research is vital to a field. Even in strong research
universities, the demands of teaching and practice in any field take
from the time that research requires. In the context of a research
environment, the perpetual pull of collegial challenge and the push
of the requirement for research and publication keep us active. This
has not been the atmosphere of departments in design and art
(Friedman 1983a, 1983b, 1997), or at least it has rarely been the
atmosphere of art and design departments, programs, or schools until

In design, began to identify important ranges of common concerns on
these topics a decade ago. Participants in different conferences and
debates shared diverse experiences and insights on the challenges
arising from the development of doctoral programs in design around
the world, and considered the benefits these offer to the field of
design. Beyond this, we came to realize several issues that are vital
to a growing field.

Key Issues that Affect Doctoral Education

Among these issues are,

* The way in which doctoral education is inevitably linked to the
development of a maturing research field

* The need for doctoral candidates to staff the research endeavor,
contributing their own vision to the field while building their own
research programs

* The importance of doctoral programs as a social context within we
can focus our own research

* The vital importance of a demanding research milieu to keep our
research lively and honest through the concern of colleagues who
challenge our findings and discuss our work

* The healthy effect of a lively research program on the teaching
programs, practitioner programs, and professional development
programs in a department

* The need for doctoral candidates to staff the research endeavor,
their own vision to the field while building their own research

* The value of a network of doctoral programs in creating the larger field

* The central importance of such a network in hosting and maintaining
a rich network for scholarship and contribution to the larger field

* The need for a network out of which a range of field-wide activities can grow

* The need for a rich range and variety of journals, conferences,
associations, research projects, and other nodes that serve to anchor
the network and provide the content of the discipline

All of these are linked to the growth of doctoral education.

Klaus Krippendorff (1999: 213) identified the importance of a field
to doctoral education in a paper that identified a growing field with
paradigms, institutional infrastructure, new kinds of problems, jobs,
a body of literature, a community of scholars and practitioners, and
professional associations. He noted that "PhD education [is] only one
feature in these concerted developments. . . . it cannot succeed
without parallel efforts to build institutional, literary and
community support."

I will propose a parallel equation. These other attributes of a rich
field cannot succeed without doctoral education. Doctoral education
is necessary in creating the larger context required by the field and
it is necessary if we are to develop the scholars and practitioners
who will staff that growing field and become its population.

The research field specifically requires education for the PhD The
field as a whole requires other forms of doctorate. I will discuss
eight of these below.

Perhaps I should have commented earlier on an issue that caught my
eye. Stuart Laing's (2000) discusses the fact that there are many
kinds of doctorate, all serving different purposes. In this
conversation, only a few of us have addressed this fact. Laing notes
over 300 kinds of professional doctorates. If we're going to focus on
the PhD here, we've got to distinguish the fact that these other
doctorates exist. We must show how a PhD in art is different to a PhD
in other fields and we must show how a PhD in art is different to a
professional doctorate in art.

At the Milan conference on design and research, the organizers
(Manzini et al. 2000) drew frequent attention to the context of what
was then a vital new international network in design research. Within
this "network of designers, researchers, producers, and users, the
design research community constitutes a network of individuals and
institutions. This network connects individuals and creates a
platform of interaction to encourage continuing dialogue among
researchers who operate in different ways and in different domains.
What this community has in common is a commitment to building a
design research culture, which can contribute to a deeper
understanding of design itself."

The design research conferences of the era framed those issues. This
seems still to be missing in the community of fine art practice where
people intend to integrate research within the context of art. In
this comment, I wish to draw attention to the importance of a
research network and offer some background to this discussion by
comparing the art PhD with the form and structure of the different
doctorates in design.

In the last years of the 1990s, four themes repeatedly occurred in a
common context. This has partly been the case in this debate as well,
but it has not been as clearly articulated. The four themes were (1)
philosophies and theories of design, (2) foundations and methods of
design research, (3) form and structure for the doctorate in design,
and (4) the relationship between practice and research in design. In
this context, were we to articulate these issues, they would be (1)
philosophies and theories of art, (2) foundations and methods of art
research, (3) form and structure for the doctorate in art, and (4)
the relationship between practice and research in art.

In the spring of the year 2000, the DRS discussion list saw a major
debate on one variety of doctorate, the kind of doctorate offered in
the UK under the rubric of the "practice-based PhD" Because he debate
at times involved all of these themes, it makes for interesting
reading (DRS 2000). My posts addressed many specific issues on form
and structure of the doctorate.

The issue of different kinds of doctorates will help to clarify
issues. This will also explain why we don't need to ask about
redesigning the PhD. The PhD is useful as it is. The question,
rather, involves what kind of doctorate an art practitioner or
researcher might wish to take. It also involves the question of
whether an art practitioner wishes to become a full-fledged
researcher as my physician uncle did, or whether doctoral study has
another purpose.

The doctorate has different forms, structures, and meanings in
different disciplines, different fields, and different universities.
Doctoral traditions also vary by nation and region, and colleagues
from different domains may use the same words with quite different

The task we now face is answering unanswered questions, clarifying
unclear issues, and establishing a common vocabulary of knowledge and
understanding. In this sense, I am not calling for unanimity on all
issues. I am asking for clarity and attention to meaning. There are
many ways to achieve the many goals of a community that is,
necessarily, -- as Dennis Doordan (1999: np) wrote of the design
research community - "global in extent and pluralist in character."

One foundation for the future is a basis in common understanding. It
is not necessary to agree with each other on every point. It is
necessary to understand what we are saying when we raises the points
we raise.

Challenges and questions

At this point, I want to introduce a number of challenges and
questions that deserve consideration.

1. Nature and definitions of doctoral degrees

In the literature and in debates of the 1990s on doctoral education
in design, I identified eight general models (Friedman 2000c). These

1.1 The traditional or "old" PhD

1.2 The innovative or "new" PhD developed for the demands of design or of art.

1.3 The technical doctorate with a title such as Dr.Tech, Dr.Eng., and so on.

1.4 The professional doctorate in the practice of design with a title
such as D.Des.

1.5 A studio doctorate awarded for fine art or design practice with a
designation such as DA or DFA.

1.6 A practice-based PhD in art or design as a variation within the
framework of the traditional PhD

1.7 The studio PhD awarded for studio practice in fine art and design
supported by some form of explanatory essay or contextual document.

1.8 A practice-based PhD in design distinct from both the studio PhD
and the traditional PhD

Of these models, the first six are valid.

The last two are questionable. The idea of a studio PhD makes little
sense as contrasted with a degree in advanced professional practice
for studio work. I will not address the full question here -
elsewhere, I have noted the many problems in the notion of a PhD
awarded for artwork and an essay. Foremost among the problems this
involves is the idea of graduating someone with a license to
supervise research students on the basis of a degree that contains no
training in research or research methods.

Over the past decade, I have repeatedly encountered doctoral
supervisors who impair or even destroy the careers of promising
research students through bad supervision. I discussed this briefly
in my first post. What I did not say there is that this creates a
vast range of problems. Many of these improperly trained candidates
graduate from a few widely known - should we say "notorious"? -
doctoral programs that award a PhD for a series of art works or
designed objects, plus an essay.

The other degree - a practice-based PhD in design or art distinct
from both the studio PhD and the traditional PhD - doesn't seem to
exist. Every good PhD project that I have seen has specific
attributes identical to the traditional PhD, along with evidenced and
results specific to art or design.

Each of these eight kinds of degree has specific qualities,
characteristics and attributes. To develop doctoral education in art,
we must examine these. While unanimity is never possible, in this
area of defining degrees, we can and should begin to develop common

Form and structure do not merely involve the form and structure of
the degree itself. They also involve the form and structure of the
departments and programs that offer the degree. Thus, we must
consider the challenges facing doctoral programs in art.

While this list is far from exhaustive or inclusive, we must begin by
focusing on the capacity to handle and support doctoral students
(Friedman 2000a, 2000b).

2. Supervision, advising and administrative support.

2.1 A solid, supportive faculty.

2.2 A well-trained research faculty for advising research doctorates.

2.3 General faculty support for doctoral education.

2.4 A department organized to provide proper curriculum development,
seminar management, and research supervision.

2.5 Available support from other departments and programs if needed.

2.6 An environment with senior doctoral students and post-doctoral researchers.

2.7 Rich administrative support from experienced administrative staff.

2.8 Good academic administration by program coordinators, program
heads, and department heads as well a good academic administration by
professors whose responsibilities embrace coordination and headship.

2.9 Administrative and program support at the college and university level.

Research Issues, Research Methods

Finally, we must begin to untangle the rich but difficult web of
research issues and method.

In design research, many of us distinguish three kinds of research.
This concept is common in medical research. These differ from each
other by level, by purpose and by scope. They are

1 Basic research.
2 Applied research.
3 Clinical research.

Basic research involves a search for general principles. These
principles are abstracted and generalized to cover a variety of
situations and cases. Basic research generates theory on several
levels. This may involve macro level theories covering wide areas or
fields, midlevel theories covering specific ranges of issues or micro
level theories focused on narrow questions. Truly general principles
often have broad application beyond their field of original, and
their generative nature sometimes gives them surprising predictive

Applied research adapts the findings of basic research to classes of
problems. It may also involve developing and testing theories for
these classes of problems. Applied research tends to be midlevel or
micro level research. At the same time, applied research may develop
or generate questions that become the subject of basic research.

Clinical research involves specific cases. Clinical research applies
the findings of basic research and applied research to specific
situations. It may also generate and test new questions, and it may
test the findings of basic and applied research in a clinical
situation. Clinical research may also develop or generate questions
that become the subject of basic research or applied research.

Any of the three frames of research may generate questions for the
other frames. Each may test the theories and findings of other kinds
of research. It is important to note that clinical research generally
involves specific forms of professional engagement. In the rough and
tumble of daily studio practice in design, clinical research is the
most common form of research - just as it is in medicine or in law.
There isn't time for anything else.

To progress in any field, we must begin to understand the varieties
of research we undertake, and recognize the reasons for any specific

It is also vital to begin a tradition of investigating method
(Friedman 2000d). This involves not merely the study and application
of research methods, but the higher-level study of methodology.

Design is an interdisciplinary and integrative process constituting a
professional field and an intellectual discipline. The six-domain
model of design (Friedman 20001) clarifies the nature of design as a
discipline. Design draws on (1) the natural sciences, (2) the
humanities and liberal arts, and (3) the social and behavioral
sciences and as a field of practice and application drawing on (4)
human professions and services, (5) creative and applied arts, and
(6) technology and engineering. If this model is reasonable, this
also opens the design field to methods from all these sources.

To date, only one scholar has attempted a survey of the rich scope
and scale of art, craft, and design research methods. Pirkko Anttila
(1996) describes the variety of methods can be applied to art
research, demonstrating the uses of dozens of specific methods from a
wide range of disciplines. She shows their application in art
research, and she proposes a systematic series of tests and choices
on the basis of which the individual researcher can adopt, apply and
- if need be - adapt specific methods.

Anttila's pioneering work must be extended in years to come to offer
art research - and doctoral candidates - an encyclopedia of methods
on which to draw.

Beyond this, we must deepen the comparative study of methodology.
Despite a growing interest in method in our field, the study of
method in a comparative and analytical sense has barely begun.
Methodology is the study of method. Mautner (1996: 267) defines
methodology as "1. The discipline which investigates and evaluates
methods of inquiry, of validation, of teaching, etc. 2. a theory
within that discipline. Note that methodology is about method and not
the same as method."

Research is at the heart of the doctoral enterprise. To meet the
challenge of appropriate form and structure, we must establish a
solid foundation for research methods in design by developing a
systematic inventory of methods. To do that, we must also engage in
the systematic and analytical study of methodology for our field.

Concluding Notes

In this presentation, I have tried to identify the central questions
we must address in developing robust forms and structures for
doctoral education in art.

Several others have done so. What is different here is that I have
tried to bring the question of the kinds of doctorate into greater
focus than earlier comments have done.

The kind of doctorate one might earn has to do with one's goals as a
scholar. This also involves central questions of research and
research skills.

A research doctorate - the PhD - requires specific skills. There is
no point in redesigning the PhD - without the skills that define a
PhD, one has a very different doctorate indeed.

Ken Friedman

Dean, Swinburne Design
Swinburne University of Technology
Melbourne, Australia



Anttila, Pirkko. 1996. Tutkimisen taito ja tiedonhankinta. Taito-,
taide-, ja muotoilualojen tutkimuksen tyoevaelineet. Helsinki:
Aakatiimi Oy.

Buchanan, Richard, Dennis Doordan, Lorraine Justice, and Victor
Margolin, editors. 1999. Doctoral Education in Design. Proceedings of
the Ohio Conference. October 8-11, 1998. Pittsburgh: The School of
Deign. Carnegie Mellon University.

Doordan, Dennis. 1999. "Introduction." (In) Doctoral Education in
Design. Proceedings of the Ohio Conference. October 8-11, 1998.
Richard Buchanan, Dennis Doordan, Lorraine Justice, and Victor
Margolin, editors. Pittsburgh: The School of Deign. Carnegie Mellon
University, no page numbers given.

DRS. 2000. Archive of the DRS discussion list. Sponsored by the
Design Research Society. Conall O Cathain, moderator. Archived at URL:
(See archive from April 2000 through June 2000).

Friedman, Kenneth S. 1983a. Art and design programs in North American
colleges and universities. Unpublished study. Questionnaires and
notes filed in the Ken Friedman Papers, Alternative Traditions in
Contemporary Art, University of Iowa, Iowa City.

Friedman, Kenneth S. 1983b. "Mis-Education by Degrees." Art and
Artists (New York), vol. 12, no. 4 (March 1983): 6-7.

Friedman, Ken. 1997. "Design Science and Design Education." In The
Challenge of Complexity. Peter McGrory, ed. Helsinki: University of
Art and Design Helsinki UIAH. 54-72.

Friedman, Ken. 2000a (000425). "Eight Theses on Advising and
Supervising the PhD" DRS. Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 16:47:20 +0200

Friedman, Ken. 2000b (000428). "What is required to administer a
doctoral program?" DRS. Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2000 16:10:11 +0200

Friedman, Ken. 2000c (000604). "2 more theses in response to Jean
Schneider [Long post]" DRS. Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2000 01:25:30 +0200

Friedman, Ken. 2000d (000606). "Varieties of research methods
[Response to Jean Schneider, part 3]" DRS. Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000
15:55:36 +0200

Friedman, Ken. 2001. "Creating Design Knowledge: From Research into
Practice." In Design and Technology Educational Research and
Development: The Emerging International Research Agenda. E. W. L.
Norman and P. H. Roberts, eds. Loughborough, UK: Department of Design
and Technology, Loughborough University, 31-69.

Krippendorff, Klaus. 1999. "A Field for Growing Doctorates in
Design?" (In) Doctoral Education in Design. Proceedings of the Ohio
Conference. October 8-11, 1998. Richard Buchanan, Dennis Doordan,
Lorraine Justice, and Victor Margolin, editors. Pittsburgh: The
School of Deign. Carnegie Mellon University, 207-224.

Laing, S. 2000. Future Directions in Post-Graduate and Doctoral
Research. EU-India Cross Cultural Innovation Network Project
Conference on Enterprise Innovation in Knowledge Society. Gujarat Law
Society Auditorium, GLS Campus, Ahmedabad.

Manzini, Ezio, Tomas Maldonado, Victor Margolin, and Silvia
Pizzocaro. 2000. Themes from the Milan Conference. Closing statement
of the organizers. Design (plus) Research. 18-20 May, 2000.
Politecnico di Milano

Mautner, Thomas. 1996. A Dictionary of Philosophy. Oxford: Blackwell.


Subject: Re: To Phd or not to Phd?
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 22:57:22 +0200

To Ken Friedman

I have just finished reading your very detailed
discussion on the underlying issues for the PhD design and will try to respond to many of your points.

I wanted to add a couple of other issues:

One issue that I didnt see raised in your discussion is whether the design of PhD programs is being affected by the new developments in distance education made possible by the internet.

You state:

'network of designers, researchers, producers, and users, the
design research community constitutes a network of individuals and
institutions. This network connects individuals and creates a
platform of interaction to encourage continuing dialogue among
researchers who operate in different ways and in different domains.
What this community has in common is a commitment to building a
design research culture, which can contribute to a deeper
understanding of design itself."

But the next step is to use this platform to rethink how PhD programs are designed. In my own field of astronomy it is much more common now than before to have theses co supervised by supervisors in different institutions than used to be the case, and also more common than before for PhD student to be resident in the home institution only part of their degree ( for instance a PhD student may be resident in a astronomical facility in Chile while they supervisor is in France).

A second is the PhD degree in the context of continuing education. In my field of astronomy the PhD almost always follows on from the masters or undergraduate degree without interruption and indeed the indeed the whole university hiring process puts at a disadvantage researchers who have an interruption ( of even a few years) between university and Ph D completion, I sit on hiring committees for tenured positions where if the PhD takes any longer than a nominal three years the candidate is scrutinised to understand why a 'normal' rhythm wasnt maintained. And a gap is a real penalty.

In the arts there seems to be a different situation with some artists going back into a PhD program later on in their careers. They may have positions in art and design schools, and either feel institutional pressure or personal development interests that make a period of in depth research within a Ph D of value. I have served as an external advisor of students of this type in the Plymouth networked Planetary Collegium program. PhD programs for researchers just entering their careers and programs for more advanced researchers who are re entering an educational program pose some different issues.

Finally I just want to support the point you make about:

you state

""Research degrees do not appear in isolation. Good research demands a
context. Those of us active in the day-to-day work of teaching art or
design generally find ourselves immersed in a milieu oriented toward
teaching and practice. Those of us who in other research fields face
the demands and challenges of research programs in a different

This is really a key point= I am sometimes rather
bewildered to see institutions seeking to develop
new PhD initiatives within departments that dont
seem to have a deep commitment to research and researchers. As you point out teaching, practice, research have different goals and metrics= a Ph D program that is not closely coupled to an ambitious research agenda seems to have the seeds for failure

Roger Malina

Subject: Re: To Phd or not to Phd?
Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2008 01:37:47 +0200


One resource that new supervisors and advanced
graduate students find help is the excellent
Tomorrow's Professor mailing list from Stanford
University Center for Teaching and Learning.

The current issue is relevant to the on-line
conference To Phd or not to Phd? A copy appears

Subscriptions are free -- over 25,000 people
around the world read this outstanding resource
three times a week. Subscribers come from all
fields and disciplines.

Visit the web site to see it for yourself.

Ken Friedman


Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 14:44:31 -0800
From: Rick Reis <>
Subject: TP Msg. #853 Peer Support for Ph.D. Students

"The only way to finish your dissertation is
through forward progress in the face of
Fortunately, there is a secret weapon to guide
you through the confusion, improve your writing,
help you spend your time wisely. It comes in the form of your peers."



Sponsored by The Stanford University Center for Teaching and Learning




The posting below looks at establishing peer
support groups for dissertation writers. It is by
Michael Kiparsky, a National Science Foundation
Graduate Research Fellow in the Energy and
Resources Group at the University of California
at Berkeley. It appeared in the column CATALYST,
Career Advise for Scientists, in the Wednesday,
August 8, 2007 issue of the Chronicle of Higher

Copyright © 2007 by The Chronicle of Higher
Education. Reprinted with permission


Rick Reis
UP NEXT: Faculty/TA Teaching Teams

Tomorrow's Research

-- 1,437 words --

Peer Support for Ph.D. Students

To finish a dissertation, you are expected to
move toward distant goals with few concrete
milestones. For many, the instinct is to go it
alone. Grinding it out in isolation, however, is
unlikely to produce your highest-quality work
most efficiently.

But, you may ask, what choice do you have? A
graduate student's support system can be thin.
Getting time with the busy professors who
ostensibly provide our main guidance is not easy.
Even if they are accessible, it makes sense to
use their time efficiently. They may expect to
review only polished products and engage in only
crucial conversations, rather than assist with
everyday decisions.

The only way to finish your dissertation is
through forward progress in the face of
uncertainty. Fortunately, there is a secret
weapon to guide you through the confusion,
improve your writing, and help you spend your
time wisely. It comes in the form of your peers.

Creating a dissertation-support group made up of
fellow doctoral students can enhance your
productivity. How to begin: Find one or two
colleagues who are at about the same stage of
research as you are. Meet once a week with the
goal of furthering one another's progress.

Having a regular group of people committed to
trading services with one another can pay off
hugely through collective improvement in many

* Faster progress: The insights of your peers can
be invaluable as you are developing ideas or
writing. Having an audience for practice
presentations and brainstorming sessions is
helpful as well. Let's face it: Students' time is
cheap compared with precious faculty hours.
Maximize your meetings with professors by
preprocessing with your support group the first
stages of a decision or research question.
Consistent, regular input can help you break
through stagnant periods, and harness the
productive ones

* Structure: A regular audience will force you to
set more detailed goals and periodic deadlines.
Frequent deadlines force you to break your
dissertation into more manageable, bite-sized

* Psychological support: Strong morale in grad
school depends, in part, on a sense of forward
motion. Many of us fail to acknowledge to
ourselves the worth of the incremental work we do
toward our larger goals. An accountability group
can provide ongoing acknowledgment of your
progress, including intangible results such as
building your confidence in the direction you
have chosen for your research. A happy student is
a good student, and your peers can help to reduce
the psychological dissonance common among those
enrolled in graduate programs.

It sounds easy but needs to be done right. A
poorly structured group can end up just wasting
good hours.

I know of one group of students that ended up
dominated by one member's troubles. I know of
other groups that are little more than organized
gossip sessions. Wasting time, or just not
maximizing the effect of your group, is the
default state. If you want your group to fail,
put minimal attention into planning and goal

Execution is critical for good results; so are
being intentional about what you need and being
disciplined about sticking to those goals.

Consider the group as a means to exchange
professional services. Explicitly agree that each
member is responsible for getting what they need
out of the meetings. Ask yourself frequently, "Is
this getting me any closer to turning in my
dissertation?" If the answer is no, bring that up
with the group and then excuse yourself if things
do not improve.

Setting the Stage

Based on my experience with my own
dissertation-support group, here is how I would
recommend you proceed:

* Limit the size of your group to a maximum of
three people. Any more than three will dilute the
amount of time available for focused personal

* Choose your co-conspirators carefully. Don't
form a group with your friends. Do form a group
with people you respect and admire for their
productivity and savvy. Approach colleagues once
you have thought through your needs, and get them
on board for the goals you have developed.

* Disciplines don't matter -- much. Your
colleagues can have very different research
projects and backgrounds. Some congruence of
interest and background is helpful, of course,
but weekly discussions and shared written drafts
will quickly make the members of your group the
people who most deeply understand the ins and
outs of your work.

* Each member of the group should be at
approximately the same stage of progress in their

* Opposites attract. Maybe one member of your
group is unusually creative, another is highly
organized, and a third is a sharp strategic
thinker. Your varying strengths can complement
one another.

* Be businesslike. Treat your group as a
professional relationship and separate your
professional interests from your personal ones.

* Meet weekly. An ongoing understanding of the
content and process of one another's research is
the value of these meetings. That continuing
support is what you won't get through occasional
meetings with a professor, a lab group, or
journal club. Less-frequent meetings will dilute
your ability to participate in the substance of
the other members' work, as you will need to
spend more of your time catching up.

* Emphasize product. Make a point of pushing one
another to exchange written work frequently, even
before you think you want to start writing the
dissertation itself. Sharing outlines and
unfinished subsections will help you clarify your
thinking as you write.

* Limit your time. Meetings of an hour to 90
minutes are long enough, and will force you to
stay on task.

* Organize each session. You can divide up the
time so each member gets an equal share to
discuss whatever is most important to them.
Alternatively, you could focus the session on
whoever has the most pressing needs that day;
just make sure everyone feels well served over
the long run.

Week to Week

Once your group has been created, the challenge
is keeping it working well. Below I describe an
approach to the weekly meetings that has
benefited my own group.

In the first 5 to 10 minutes of each session,
each person states what they accomplished during
the previous week, what their main goals are for
the coming week, and what major items they see on
their academic horizon.

Finishing a Ph.D. can be as much a psychological
test as an intellectual one, and I have found it
useful to acknowledge my incremental progress
each week to someone other than myself in the
mirror. For unmet goals, use the group as a place
to identify reasons you are not on track, such as
sources of procrastination, lack of commitment to
the goals, overcommitment, or whether it's not
the right goal in the first place.

Next, set an agenda for the remainder of the
session. Each member should express their
immediate needs. For example, "I would like your
feedback on a choice I need to make about
research methods, and to ask your advice on how
to handle a committee member's critique of a
manuscript. Also, I'm working on a draft of a
fellowship application. Would you be able to
review it for the next meeting if I get it to you
on Thursday?" Or, "I've been studying for
midterms all week, so I don't have much to
discuss now. I'll cede my time today, but next
week I will want some group time to help plan my
spring field season."

Finally, dig into the meat of your session.

Let me pause here to comment on a popular
graduate-student pastime: complaining about grad
school. Vent if you need to at your meetings, but
do it constructively and keep a cap on it. Access
to a friendly, understanding ear can work wonders
on your stress level. But it's easy to spend more
time kvetching than making progress. Beware the
fine line between angst and depression, and see a
counselor if that is really what you need.

That's it. Now repeat each week and watch your productivity spiral upward.

Forming dissertation-support group is a
commitment to involvement in others' work. But
the members of my group all agree: Our meetings
are some of the most valuable time we spend on
our own Ph.D. work. Having a core community that
is familiar with not only the details of my
current research, but also where I came from and
how I have justified getting there, is priceless.

A less isolated research path has made for a
better graduate-school experience over all for
me. Being happy in grad school is a beautiful
thing, and that may be the most powerful secret
of all.

Michael Kiparsky is a National Science Foundation
Graduate Research Fellow in the Energy and
Resources Group at the University of California
at Berkeley.


NOTE: Anyone can SUBSCRIBE to the Tomorrows-Professor Mailing List by going to:


tomorrows-professor mailing list