So should Picasso get a PhD?
"My practice based PhD training and subsequent work on practice based research proposals and projects followed the approach described by Douglas and Durling as outlined above. Therefore, I do not believe that Picasso should have been awarded a PhD, simply because he did not do one. Picasso was a high level practitioner and benefited greatly from the rewards of this.
In relation to Cubism for example, if Picasso registered for a PhD, articulated a research question or problem, described and analysed his methods, set his work in a wider context, identified and communicated his original contribution to knowledge, identified areas for further research, and successfully defended all of this at a viva voce examination then, yes give him a PhD. As he didn't, then don't. An honorary doctorate in recognition of services to the field is of course different and would be relevant in Picasso's case.
As During states the high level practitioner is not obliged do the above but the researcher is. The PhD is a training in how to do research therefore the research student should do all of the above to qualify for the award."
***Imported from old blog***