The aim of this article is to analyse interactive reinterpretations of two of Raul Meel’s artworks. They were created after the original works were made; they reference the original artworks and are meta-referential. These reinterpretations allow the original artworks to be opened and explained and become instantiations of their algorithmic content. The questions that arise in this article are as follows: how can physical artworks be opened up for audiences by means of interactive emulations? How can this serve to document (...) and preserve the unique experience of the artist? The aim of this article, in addition to the practical analysis of the two case studies, is to discuss the wider context of the problems of meta-artworks and the following direct questions that arise out of analysing them as research objects. I analyse in detail a selection of media artworks in which meta-referentiality is foregrounded. A focal point of my discussion is an interactive emulation of Raul Meel’s Under the Sky, which was created for his biggest retrospective exhibition entitled Dialogues with Infinity (2014) at the Kumu Art Museum in Tallinn. My second object of interest is the mobile app ‘seeESE’ based on Meel’s installation The Dice, shown in the same exhibition at the Kumu museum in 2014, of which the original version dates back to 1969. (shrink)

Open peer commentary on the article “Social Autopoiesis?” by Hugo Urrestarazu. Upshot: I argue that it is possible to conceptualise the social system as autopoietic if we derive the social from the most important feature of a living being on which his relationship to the environment is based - from consciousness. This approach also allows us to solve Husserl’s problem of intersubjectivity.

This contribution takes the notion of herbal landscape (a mental field associated with plants used to cure or prevent diseases and established within specific cultural and climatic zones) as a starting point. The authors argue that the features by which a person recognises the plant in the natural growing environment is of crucial importance for the classification and the use of plants within the folk tradition. The process of perception of the plant can be divided into analytical categories according to (...) the sign concept of Charles Sanders Peirce. Whereas the plant can be seen as the object, the feature(s) the plant is recognised by is (are) the representamen(s), and the image of the plant within the herbal landscape can be understood as the interpretant. Different methods of perception of the signs within the herbal landscape are demonstrated comparing the herbal knowledge acquired from the herbals with the method of plant recognition learned in the traditional way. The first can be looked at with the terms of Tim Ingold as transportation, using plant features to go across, leaving all other signs present in the landscape unnoticed. The wayfarer, guided by signs learned within the context of surroundings, walks along and perceives the plant as a part of the herbal landscape. Although the examples analysed come from Estonian ethnobotany, the method of analysis can be applied in ethnobotanical research worldwide. (shrink)

Open peer commentary on the article “Constructivism as a Key Towards Further Understanding of Communication, Culture and Society” by Raivo Palmaru. Upshot: In my response to Palmaru, I press for a reflexive, accountable and, most of all, practical construction of radical constructivism as participatory communication.

Open peer commentary on the article “Constructivism as a Key Towards Further Understanding of Communication, Culture and Society” by Raivo Palmaru. Upshot: I discuss the solution proposed in the target article to the classic sociological problem of “intersubjectivity,” which is based on the conceptual triad of culture, socialisation and communication. From a constructivist perspective, I argue that Palmaru’s proposal does not advance on this matter.

Open peer commentary on the article “Constructivism as a Key Towards Further Understanding of Communication, Culture and Society” by Raivo Palmaru. Upshot: Palmaru invites us to distinguish a “bottom-up” perspective of constructivism that emphasizes human action and a “top-down” one of social constructionism that brings social structures to the foreground. It is argued here that rather than opposing these two dimensions, it is necessary to thematize their mutual relationship.

Open peer commentary on the article “Constructivism as a Key Towards Further Understanding of Communication, Culture and Society” by Raivo Palmaru. Upshot: Arguments are given against cognitive autonomy and individual consciousness as the premises in understanding social processes. The notion of the epistemological trap of language is introduced, and its constraint on how we construct the world is highlighted.

Open peer commentary on the article “Constructivism as a Key Towards Further Understanding of Communication, Culture and Society” by Raivo Palmaru. Upshot: The potential impact of Palmaru’s attempt may bring about a breakthrough across all fields of social science. However, in order for the attempted integrated theory to arrive at a full conceptual operationalisation of the interplay between the two kinds of autopoietic systems, i.e., human consciousness and social systems, a much clearer differentiation is needed of the respective embodiments, (...) cognitive architectures and evolutionary fitness landscapes of these systems. (shrink)

Open peer commentary on the article “Making Sense and Meaning: On the Role of Communication and Culture in the Reproduction of Social Systems” by Raivo Palmaru. Upshot: The author addresses implications arising from socializing observer-dependent heuristics. Above all, Palmaru’s terminology is called into question since its conceptual deficiencies with regard to the relation between an observing system and its environments cause naturalistic fallacy. The author’s reply espouses a concise reanalysis of the complementary relations of fundamentally incomparable domains, namely the (...) observer and the social system. (shrink)

Open peer commentary on the article “Constructivism as a Key Towards Further Understanding of Communication, Culture and Society” by Raivo Palmaru. Upshot: Palmaru addresses several problems with respect to radical constructivism, in particular the relationship between the micro-level and macro-level of social phenomena, i.e., communication, culture, and society. Related to this, I dispute three of Palmaru’s key claims: the relationship between micro-social and macro-social phenomena is a specific problem of radical constructivism; radical constructivism does not solve the problem of (...) the micro-macro-link; the author’s solution to the respective problem is necessary and sufficient. (shrink)

Open peer commentary on the article “Constructivism as a Key Towards Further Understanding of Communication, Culture and Society” by Raivo Palmaru. Upshot: Palmaru claims that communication and social processes cannot be understood unless models describing them are based on the individual and his or her consciousness. Based on a brief discussion of recent sociocultural evolutions, I ask for the social conditions allowing radical constructivism to locate communication in the individual and his or her consciousness.

Open peer commentary on the article “Making Sense and Meaning: On the Role of Communication and Culture in the Reproduction of Social Systems” by Raivo Palmaru. Upshot • I argue that if we decide to use the term “culture,” we need to be explicit about the problems we hope to solve in doing so. I suggest that Luhmann might have had a good reason to be hesitant to utilize the term.