Research Catalogue

The exhibition Estranhamento (Strangeness) aims to share the visual art work developed by researcher Catarina Casais, associated with her doctoral project Políticas de Estranhamento: Práticas de resistência e revigoração docente (Policies of Strangeness: Practices of resistance and teaching reinvigoration). These drawings, linocuts and embroideries seek connections between her artistic practice and research work, promoting possibilities for reflection on the teaching profession in the visual arts and the teaching demonstrations that took place between 2020 and 2024. The challenge in developing these works is to think, based on the materiality of the teaching demonstrations, about possible languages through the techniques and materials used. These languages reflect a desire to think about the daily reality of visual arts teachers and the moments of protest related to their professional practice. Linocut, embroidery and drawing become ways of addressing the issue of visual arts teaching and its politicisation within the school environment, inviting everyone to visit the thinking laboratory that has been developed over the last academic year at Atelier Sem Forma.

This research explores creation as a form of violence that operates through interruption, erasure, and bodily pressure rather than through visible conflict or aggression. Through a conference-performance, writing is treated as an unstable action: it begins, stops, fails, and is physically destroyed without revealing its content. The work focuses on moments where creation resists completion, and where decisions to stop, delete, or abandon become central gestures. By placing the performer behind the audience and withholding textual legibility, the research shifts attention from meaning to process, from narrative to tension. Creation is approached not as expression or inspiration, but as a concrete and irreversible experience that acts upon the body and its limits.

This artistic research explores drumming as a practice in which cyclical motion, subtle variation, and gradual transformation converge into an ongoing rhythmic flow, inviting musical experience to shift from progression toward immersion within what is ongoing. The study asks how a drummer can create and cultivate such long-aesthetic rhythmic continuity within open-ended improvisational contexts, both practically and conceptually. The research draws on Finnish folk music’s pitkä estetiikka (long aesthetic), minimalist music, flow theory, and improvisation literature, and adopts an artistic research methodology in which drumming practice constitutes the primary site of inquiry. Insights are synthesised from personal practice, group rehearsals, performances, and audiovisual documentation produced between 2024 and 2025 in duo and trio improvisational settings, analysed through reflective practice and retrospective video analysis. The findings identify strategies for sustaining rhythmic continuity grounded in bodily and technical ease, held in balance with the uncertainties of improvisation. Central elements include deeply embodied ostinati, dynamic and timbral sensitivity, mindful approaches to change, and a principle of sustainability in musical ideas. In group improvisation, a slower pace of interaction, a non-reactive performance stance, and an open, undemanding listening orientation supported ongoing engagement and a spatial quality of the music. The research suggests that sustained, uneventful musicking may foster flow-like states and contribute to a broader slowing down of attention and pace, highlighting the potential of slow, continuous improvisation as a meaningful artistic and pedagogical practice.

MINA is a collaborative project that investigates sharing as a material condition of artistic practice. It seeks to create situations where practices can remain active and in relation, fostering exchanges between different forms of knowledge through situated encounters and provisional configurations. Rather than treating sharing as a discrete act, MINA understands it as an ongoing practice that shapes how attention circulates, how relations are formed, and how practices are sustained over time. Dialogues, exchanges, critiques, and other forms of mutual influence operate here not as supplementary moments, but as constitutive forces within artistic processes, even when their effects are subtle, delayed, or difficult to trace. Working without predefined methods, MINA approaches artistic practice as a field of orientations that emerges through games, conversations, and shared situations. Each encounter becomes a way of testing how sharing can redistribute attention, unsettle habitual positions, and open space for collective thinking.

The Research Through Art & Design (RAD) course for doctoral researchers at Aalto Arts introduces a variety of approaches, methodologies, issues, and concerns in research through practice. In this course, research through practice refers to a broad continuum of artistic research approaches, arts-based, practice-led, and practice-based research approaches, including constructive design research approaches relevant across practices in Aalto University; School of Arts, Design and Architecture. This exposition was created within a Research Catalogue Workshop offered as an additional part of the main course. During this part of the course, the participants are familiarised with the Research Catalogue as a platform and learn how to use it for creating expositions. During the workshop, participants work on their page within this group exposition, based on their current doctoral research or a topic that inspired them during the lectures. The main content is the workshop participants' individual pages within this exposition.

This essay establishes Post‑Interpretive Criticism as a formal break with the dominant aesthetic consensus of the late twentieth century, which treated meaning as something produced through mediation rather than encountered through structure. Surveying post‑1950 traditions across structuralism, hermeneutics, phenomenology, critical theory, and post‑structuralism, the essay identifies a shared assumption underlying their disagreements: interpretation functions as the necessary and ethically justified ground of meaning. Post‑Interpretive Criticism rejects this premise not by proposing an alternative theory of meaning‑production, but by questioning whether production itself is the correct frame. The essay argues that interpretation is not neutral, inevitable, or inherently liberatory, but structurally hazardous. Language, when introduced prematurely or excessively, alters the proportions of the aesthetic encounter, collapsing interval, crowding distance, and displacing presence with discourse. Meaning, on this account, does not originate in interpretation but in a relational field between work and witness that possesses structure prior to mediation. Interpretation is therefore recast as an intervention rather than a foundation—one that must justify itself ethically by preserving proportion rather than overwhelming it. Positioning Post‑Interpretive Criticism against the historical conditions that necessitated interpretive excess in the post‑war period, the essay argues that contemporary aesthetics now faces the inverse problem: interpretive saturation. Where interpretation once functioned as moral responsibility, it now frequently preempts encounter, substituting commentary for perception. Drawing careful distinctions from phenomenological aesthetics, the essay emphasizes that description of experience is insufficient without a discipline governing speech. Post‑Interpretive Criticism introduces restraint as method, silence as ethical posture, and proportion as evaluative criterion. The essay concludes by outlining the institutional, pedagogical, and critical consequences of adopting Post‑Interpretive Criticism, including reduced interpretive authority, contraction of discourse, and the re‑training of attention prior to articulation. It does not argue for universal application, but claims necessity under specific contemporary conditions. Interpretation, once required, is now placed at risk—not because meaning has vanished, but because the encounter has returned as the primary site of aesthetic responsibility. This entry is connected to a series of original theories and treatises forming the foundation of the Post-Interpretive Criticism movement (Q136308909), authored by Dorian Vale (Q136308916) and published by Museum of One (Q136308879). These include: Stillmark Theory (Q136328254), Hauntmark Theory (Q136328273), Absential Aesthetic Theory (Q136328330), Viewer-as-Evidence Theory (Q136328828), Message-Transfer Theory (Q136329002), Aesthetic Displacement Theory (Q136329014), Theory of Misplacement (Q136329054), and Art as Truth: A Treatise (Q136329071), Aesthetic Recursion Theory (Q136339843), The Journal of Post-Interpretive Criticism (Q136530009), Canon of Witnesses (Q136565881) Dorian Vale is a chosen pseudonym, not to obscure identity, but to preserve clarity of voice and integrity of message. It creates distance between the writer and the work, allowing the philosophy to stand unclouded by biography. The name exists not to hide, but to honor the seriousness of the task: to speak without spectacle, and to build without needing to be seen.