Author: Priss Niinikoski
Thesis title: Being at; risk and resistance
Artistic component: Sonic mediations
Year: 2024
Institution: Department of Sculpture, Academy of Fine Arts, University of the Arts Helsinki
Submission date: 9 November 2024
Thesis type: Master of Fine Arts (MFA) thesis
Introduction
Priss Niinikoski’s Being at; risk and resistance is an MFA thesis submitted to the Department of Sculpture at the Academy of Fine Arts, University of the Arts Helsinki, on 9 November 2024. The written component accompanies her artistic work Sonic mediations, presented as part of the Kuvan Kevät 2024 exhibition.
The thesis explores how sound, the human body, technology and physical space influence and mediate one another. It is divided into two main parts. Starting points introduces the theoretical background and covers a wide variety of topics, from sound, phenomenology, living and mediation to textile and the extended body. Unfolding documents the practical development of the work, from the construction of the apparatuses to the installation and performance.
Evaluation of the Academic Quality of the Master’s Thesis
Quality of Design and Execution
The thesis has a clear overall division between Starting points, which introduces the theoretical background, and Unfolding, which follows the practical development. The author also includes process notes throughout the text, for example on pages 14, 19 and 42. These notes show how her ideas developed during experimentation, rather than presenting the final work as the result of a perfectly planned process.
Niinikoski describes the original concept for the written component as a “kudelma”, a Finnish word that she loosely translates as a type of fabric or entanglement. She wants the text to reflect the fragmented and interconnected character of the research. She is also openly critical of her own approach, describing the research as “fragmented” and “scattered” and acknowledging that she wrote without a specific research question (p. 6).
Her intention is understandable, but the finished text reads mostly in a conventional, linear way. It is divided into short chapters that introduce different concepts and references, often followed by a brief connection to the practical work. The process notes communicate the idea of an entangled research process better than the overall structure does.
The practical development is documented in more detail. The explanations of the sensor prototypes, speaker construction and installation decisions are specific and give reasons for the choices made. In my opinion, this makes the second half more convincing than the theoretical introduction.
Degree of Innovation
The strongest aspect of the project is its combination of textile craft, wearable electronics, sound installation and performance. The originality lies less in inventing new technologies and more in bringing existing techniques together so that they take on a distinct artistic function.
Independence
The author shows a lot of initiative. She explains that her background was in fashion design and that she had no in-depth experience in coding or electronics before this project (pp. 11–12). The thesis documents how she learned these skills through courses, experimentation and practical work. She develops the wearable apparatus, tests different sensor positions, builds the embroidered speakers and works with Max/MSP to process the sensor data.
She openly acknowledges the external support she received, from her supervisors to several people who gave technical and artistic guidance. Still, a clearer distinction between her own technical work and the contributions of others would make the process easier to assess.
Organization and Structure
The two-part structure is clear and easy to identify. Starting points introduces the theoretical background, while Unfolding follows the construction of the garment, speakers and microphone stand before moving on to the installation and performance.
The main issues are that the theoretical chapters do not always build towards one central argument, and that the idea of a kudelma is not fully reflected in the finished document. The research may have developed through non-linear experimentation, but the written component follows a mostly conventional sequence of chapters. A more selective structure and a clearer chronology would strengthen the thesis.
Quality of Communication
The writing is personal and reflective. The most effective passages are those where the author explains how a practical situation changed her thinking. For example, her description of gaining momentary control over the sound and then losing it again (p. 42) communicates the relationship between the body and the apparatus particularly well.
The theoretical chapters are less consistent. As mentioned, some concepts are introduced in quick succession without enough explanation of how they relate to the central project.
Scope of the Thesis
The scope is large, with a main text of about 60 pages. It covers a wide range of subjects, which in some cases works against it, as some ideas get only a few paragraphs. The author admits that the first half is condensed (p. 6). A smaller set of sources, focused on the references that carry most of the argument, could have worked better.
Spelling, Care and Accuracy
This is the weakest aspect of the written component. The visual layout is considered, but the text contains numerous spelling and proofreading errors that should have been corrected before submission. Examples include “Aknowledgements” (p. 2), “Sculpture Deparment” (p. 2) and “Image Souces” (p. 69). A footnote has “four moths” instead of “four months”, alongside “independed” (p. 7). There are also errors in names and references; for example, Alexander Refsum Jensenius is repeatedly written as “Jesenius”. One proofreading round would fix most of this, but for a submitted thesis there are still a lot of errors, and they weaken an otherwise careful text.
Use of Literature
The literature is broad and fits the topic, covering sound studies, philosophy, feminist theory and artistic research. It mixes theory with artistic references, which suits a practice-led thesis.
The bibliography, however, seems incomplete. Works by Sara Ahmed, Jacques Derrida, and Don Ihde and Robert Rosenberger are cited in the footnotes but have no corresponding entries in the bibliography.
Evaluation of the Practical Project
The thesis does not formulate one specific research question. However, the Summary identifies an ongoing investigation into how sound and technology mediate spatial perception, orientation and interaction (p. 3). This gives the project a broad direction, even if it is not developed into a focused question. Theory and practice connect well where decisions are explained, for example Jensenius’s environment image becoming the room as an instrument (p. 27), and Ahmed’s and LaBelle’s thinking leading to the refusal of a sweet spot (pp. 29–30, 53). Some links are missing, though. Heidegger’s hammer (pp. 18–19), for instance, is never connected back to the misused tripod.
The photographs (pp. 40–51), process images (pp. 64–66) and numbered stills matching the score (pp. 57–58, 60) document the work well. What is missing is technical and spatial detail: the hardware is never named, and there is no patch overview or floor plan of the eight speakers (p. 53). There is also no link to audio or video, so the sound cannot be checked (compare p. 7).
In my opinion, the practical project clearly meets the requirements of a Master’s thesis. It is coherent and technically ambitious, especially for someone who started without electronics experience. The author also reflects on how the piece felt tamed by her third performance (p. 61).
Final Conclusion
The thesis documents a convincing, personal practice that connects textile craft, electronics and sound. The author shows independence, curiosity and a willingness to work with unfamiliar technologies. The practical section is convincing because it explains the reasons behind many of the design decisions. However, the lack of a research question, the incomplete bibliography, the missing technical documentation and the need for proofreading make the written component weaker than it could have been.
Relevance to My Own Final Thesis
I find the documentation of the decision-making process useful. Niinikoski does not only describe what she built but also explains why certain approaches were abandoned or changed. I would keep a dated log during my own project and place short dated process notes next to the passages they belong to.
At the same time, I would approach the research structure differently. I would formulate a clear research question early in the process, even if it changes as the project develops. This would give me a way to decide which theoretical concepts are relevant and which practical experiments are necessary. I would check the bibliography against every footnote, document the technical side with links to audio and video, and plan time for proofreading by another person. I would also consider how to document the audience’s experience through observations or feedback, rather than relying only on my own reflections.
Sources:
https://taju.uniarts.fi/items/2a62ff63-e781-47c7-8bf9-7d90f7c26d1f
https://taju.uniarts.fi/server/api/core/bitstreams/3ba4aeb2-a86c-405a-968c-ce6ff28840b6/content
