Thank you for the opportunity to review this article manuscript. It is an interesting and valuable contribution to artistic research and speculative future communication in the context of nuclear waste management. The text is easy to follow and the language is generally understandable. The research is clearly contextualised against existing research and art on ritual(isation)s, but it remains somewhat unclear what the biggest contribution of the research is and in which field its results should mainly be felt, in (artistic) research on rituals, in research on future communication, or in nuclear waste management studies. Perhaps this could be more clearly signalled in the introduction and conclusion.

The text will benefit from some restructuring, as well as more careful referencing. More substantial revision is needed in chapters dealing with scientific ritual and the presentation of the (pre)historical inspiration for the artwork, most importantly on the points of connection between Francis of Assisi’s canticle of the nuclear sun, the author’s artwork, and considerations of nuclearity as a temporal question.

Chapter 1

I am sure most readers of SaND know much more about nuclear waste than I do, but it would be good to have some understanding of the time frames of nuclear waste challenges by this point. It would help the reader to align the temporalities of the artwork with those of nuclear waste management.

Chapter 2

I understand that the text is not about the history of nuclear power and nuclear politics in Italy, but I am left wanting some references to relevant research. Also, as it stands, this chapter does not deal with the research context, but rather the nuclear/geopolitical history and present state of the area. I understand research context to mean previous research on the subject matter of the contribution; ritualisation and artistic research practise (which are addressed in chapter 3). Perhaps consider a different, more informative title for this chapter.

Chapters 3.1 and 3.2

My impression is that the meaning of “scientific ritual”, as it is used in the text, refers not to research and science, but to forms of legitimisation and myth-making in nuclear politics and nuclear semiotics. Surely, many of the practices of the nuclear industry can be characterised as myth-building and ritualistic (take for example the rituals involved in entering a nuclear facility and the establishment of safety and security through those rituals), but I wonder if a clearer distinction should be made between “science/research as ritual” and research on nuclear rituals (political, semiotic).

In this sense, chapter 3.1 muddies the waters a bit by lacking a clear definition of science. Would it be simpler to concentrate on research and art on rituals? This is important because, even if the habits of research/science – and again I am not exactly sure how the author distinguishes between the two – might seem repetitive and ritualistic, i.e. repeating tasks without much reflection (the cemented conventions of publishing certainly obscure the thought processes that go into research), it does not mean that scientific “rituals” and religious rituals share an ontological and epistemological common ground. Whereas religious rituals are aimed at preserving a practice, research – ideally at least – includes creation of new concepts and identification of pursuit-worthy hypotheses that could lead to new discoveries, formation of new knowledge, or imagining possible futures. What I mean is that research and science appear in the text as a bit too monolithic and simplistic.

If the author wants to make a case for research as ritual, I would like to see a much more detailed contextualisation within relevant sociological/anthropological/STS research (e.g., Collins, R. 2004. Interaction Ritual Chains. Princeton University Press) and examples of what the relevant ritualistic components of scientific work or research are. And if the author wants to build a case for research as ritual, wouldn’t the same hold for much of art practice, too? Presently, the text does not address art-making as ritual, only artworks as commentaries or research on rituals and ritualisation.

Perhaps even more importantly, the identification of research/science – and art for that matter – with ritual raises questions regarding reflexion. I am not saying that all research and art is reflexive – some practices are very habitual – but certainly we must aim to become more reflexive in terms of the researcher’s situatedness, and perhaps precisely for this reason it would be interesting to know what – in epistemological terms – the author means with the ritual component in science as that which provides a sense of “certainty in the absence of evidence” (r. 458).

Note regarding structure: Perhaps a signalling of the intention of the artwork in question and examples of how art has been used to communicate the location and nature of nuclear waste repositories with the distant future should be provided before presenting the author’s own artwork in more detail (in chapter 4). I also wonder whether, in addition to the provided examples of speculative semiotics, it would make sense to consider concrete realised work by researchers to ensure the passing of information about existing nuclear waste repositories. One important work is the so-called Key Information File, created by Keating and Storm (https://doi.org/10.3384/9789181181036).

Chapter 3.3

r. 348: “Contrary to science, art as a discipline does not claim to provide solutions to societal matters” is a highly controversial and sweeping statement, especially in the context of artistic research. On the contrary, it can similarly be argued that a lot of contemporary art addresses societal matters and also presents solutions to problems therein. Perhaps this would make more sense with a clearer definition of science, research, and art(istic research) from the author.

Chapter 4

It would be interesting to know more about the (pre)history of sun worship as that could intensify the deep time perspective of establishing a future-oriented artistic ritual devoted to the sun deity. Some hints are given in chapter 2.1, but the deep roots of sun worship might provide some insight into the variety of the rituals connected to sun worship (archaeologists must have some idea of what these were like), the meaning of the canticle of the nuclear sun as a continuation of those traditions, and perhaps even some reflection as to what the deep future of the artwork is imagined to look like.

On a related note, I wonder if the readers might benefit from a clearer exploration of the connection between Francis of Assisi’s canticle of the sun and the author’s canticle of the nuclear sun. These exist(ed) in two very different technological realities – and I understand the sun connection (sun as a source of energy, vitality, and so forth), but what is it exactly in the canticle of the nuclear sun that communicates the location and nature of the imagined nuclear waste repository in Sardinia, rather than simply commemorating the importance of the sun to human existence (or its divinity, as in the canticle of the sun)? Is there something particularly nuclear in the lyrics of the canticle of the nuclear sun that communicates “humanity’s longing for nuclear energy” rather than energy (myths) in general (e.g., Weart, S. 2012. The Rise of Nuclear Fear. Cambridge: Harvard University Press)? If not, was this a conscious choice to highlight the disappearance of information through time, and if so, would it be possible to explain how and why the artist/author imagines certain elements in the canticle of the nuclear sun to disappear and become replaced by new myths, and how it would still be possible to identify the song as a message about the waste repository in the future? Or is the communicative capacity of the artwork ultimately limited to the present era?

Would this chapter also be an opportunity to discuss the connection between Francis of Assisi and ecology in more detail. What is it about his teachings that still resonates in environmental thinking, and environmental humanities for that matter? Why was the canticle of the sun chosen as an inspiration, beyond the obvious connection to Italy? As I understand the meaning of the canticle of the sun, it is in praise of God and the divinity of God’s creation, whereas the canticle of the nuclear sun is intended as a warning song (r. 440–443). In what ways, if any, can the canticle of the sun be considered a warning song? And finally, if the roots of the ecological crisis are in Christianity and humans dominion over nature, how do the teachings of Francis of Assisi challenge this view? Was he a heretic (e.g., Doyle, E. 1974. Ecology and the Canticle of Brother Sun. New Blackfriars 55(652), 392–402), and if the author views him as such, what is the similarly politically disruptive power of the canticle of the nuclear sun in the context of contemporary ecological thinking?

Note regarding structure: I would move chapter 2.1 and all previous discussions of the author’s artwork here. It would streamline the text to introduce the artwork briefly in the introduction and then present it in more detail in this chapter when the reader already has all the information on rituals, art, ecology, etc.

References

I did not check whether the references and citations match, but there was at least one missing reference (e.g., Mazzucchelli & Paglianti, 2022), perhaps there are others, as well as references listed, but not cited.