The confused state of doctoral research in FineArts - Conversation with Dr. Ritwij Bhowmik

Fine-arts PhD paths in South Asia often get derailed by a mismatch between what artists are trained to do and what universities require—especially the expectation that studio practitioners will produce thesis-style academic research. Dr. Ritwij Bhowmik’s central message is that the confusion isn’t about whether art research matters; it’s about treating “practice” and “academic research” as if they were interchangeable career tracks.

Bhowmik’s own journey mirrors the instability many fine-arts graduates face. He initially planned a straightforward route: an MFA followed by teaching and professional practice, without heavy emphasis on research or publishing. After a job in school teaching and a period of market optimism for Indian art (followed by the 2008 recession), he sought scholarships and residencies abroad. Fine-arts fellowships became harder to find—he describes major programs like Japan’s Monbusho shifting away from fine arts research from around 2000 onward—leaving fewer options such as a Chinese government scholarship. In China, language barriers made daily life difficult until he learned enough Mandarin to function; later, returning to India brought unemployment and financial strain after the birth of his son.

That pressure eventually pushed him toward doctoral study, but even then the route wasn’t “studio-to-PhD” in the way many artists imagine. In Taiwan, he pursued a PhD topic within visual culture through a humanities and social sciences department, while managing family responsibilities and scholarship obligations. The lived experience—writing while caring for a child—underscored how doctoral research in fine arts can demand a different kind of labor than making art alone.

The conversation then shifts from personal narrative to system-level diagnosis. Bhowmik draws a sharp distinction between studio artists (painters, sculptors, graphic artists) and art historians/art researchers who write papers and build scholarly arguments. He argues that Western models developed clearer separation: studio degrees like the MFA are practice-based and typically don’t require a full thesis, while academic careers (lecturer/assistant professor roles) often require research outputs and publishing. Confusion arises when institutions expect artists to meet academic paper requirements without providing the research training needed—or when academic researchers are treated as if they can simply “practice” their way into scholarly credibility.

He points to a missing bridge in India: undergraduate fine-arts programs often underweight research methods, art history, and theory, then push students into PhD expectations immediately after an MFA. Without earlier training—how to formulate research questions, collect and analyze data, and write academic work—students may have strong studio skills but lack the competencies required to supervise future PhDs or publish.

Bhowmik also argues against making the PhD compulsory as a blanket job credential. He references protests against government directives in 2014 that required PhDs for assistant professor roles, warning that forcing everyone into the same credential can foreclose practicing artists from academia. Instead, he calls for curricula that integrate research training into UG/PG levels, including research methodology, visual communication theory, modern and ancient art history (including under-taught Asian traditions), and explicit instruction on writing academic papers and grant proposals.

Finally, he addresses the faculty pipeline: fewer fine-arts faculty openings and bureaucratic hiring priorities reduce incentives for students to endure doctoral hardship. The remedy, he suggests, starts earlier—educating decision-makers and students about art’s value, expanding research-capable training, and building clearer pathways so fine-arts graduates can choose practice-based careers or academic research careers with realistic expectations.