A Nature Thing: What Does Contemporary Ecological Art Produce?

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The strength of this article is the author’s hypothesis and case study artists and their artwork.  My general sense is that the paper is too expansive, the author  trying to do too much. So, my recommendation would confine the historical and theoretical analysis to the mid to late 20th century; and focus on Dambo, Rahmani and Saraceno.

Patrizio's position is an alternate approach to art history. John Wylie's 'Landscape' is also helpful when thinking about nature/culture relationships. Finally, you will find specific definitions of environmental, ecological and ecoart already out there and argued over for decades- but you rightly conclude it is all a bit fluid and confused. I am not sure much is to be gained by pursuing definition again. Find a few of the extant definitions and perhaps argue one over the others, refine it if you like.

Abstract 
line 8 (and 43)  Remove the term 'art science' from the abstract it is not a standard term. On line 43 your quotation and reference suggests it is a term used by Patrizio, you will need to clarify what he means by that term and why you think it is useful. 

line 13, A 'nature thing' is an interesting idea, particularly when you consider in relationship to the Section 5 discussion. But I have to ask some fundamental questions: 'Producing a nature thing.' Intervening and appropriating nature' are cultural actions aren't they? If not why not? By some arguments, only gods and extant generative forces can produce nature things. Humanity brings culture (art, science, agriculture, restoration ecology) to bear on the perception, meaning and value of nature. Culture has an impact on meaning (and perhaps form) does it not? Humanity constructs hybrids of nature and culture.

line 16, 'the relationship between material and artwork' is absent.'
These artist's relationship to nature have has material and conceptual and intellectual content. It is the focus of inquiry and at times essential to process and method. 

lines 17, and 18  These are huge leaps, that are very hard to follow - ‘art object is material’ ‘artistic material is a means to an end’ ‘material is an overarching aim and motive of nature’. 

1. Introduction
Introduction line 28-35.  These are three huge questions. Pick one or two. 
Three issues,1, material in art theory going back to premodern times. 2, The purpose of art  3, Finally the characteristics and definition of ecological art.

3. Fundamental issues
3.1, Material 
3.2, Function of art  and 
3.3 the concept of Nature and the meaning of ecoart. 

Honestly the depth and breadth of your inquiry overwhelms me. You have more-than one journal article underway here. I would separate this into two or three papers. Given the topic the text in 3.2 and 3.3 is the strongest. In 3.1 you are in such deep theoretical history that it is hard to link it back to the present condition.

‘Materiality’ is important in this article; it is s covered int 3.3 

Let me clarify my own understanding of the artists and materials in relation to ecological art. Materials can be related to the site, ecological relationship, and the environment. The site and environment are also related to social relationship such as history, culture, communities, and organisation. 

3.2  Is about  social issues and context that relates to 5.2. Before going into the section 4, it will be helpful to mention bridging the sections…for example the issues of 3.2 (such as sociological questions) will be discussed in the section 5.2 Dumbrowski, and perhaps Elliason’s artworks.

3.3 Line 207-208 You use Kagan  as the sole authority on various essential issues. You reference him tossing aside the meaning of natural. What is the basis of his argument? In one sentence you (through him) jettison an idea that is the basis for decades of philosophical work on  environmental aesthetics and ethics as well as eco-feminist environmental philosophy and numerous threads in the environmental humanities. Kagan is not wrong in that the response to nature is or has been romantic Having said that in an age of environmental change and more constant climate impact romantic and pastoral doesn't quite describe nature anymore, at least not in the same way that it did in the 19th century. 

4. Artists

Section 4 is also strong although Dambo, Rahmani and Saraceno should be sufficient.  Again, here you have too much going on, and the comparison across your key artists gets lost. It is worth reflecting on the artists you chose, are they the right ones to use test your ideas? 

Dambo’s section has 4.1 excursus: Land Art that gives example of similar approach. The sections of Rahmani and Saraceno also should be treated in the same way. Rahmani…could be cross referenced to artists such as  Helen Mayer Harrison and Newton Harrison, Jackie Brookner. 

p.11 Figure 4. Can you explain the relationship between the two images?

5. Discussion

Each artwork has a different quality of time. Dambo…decaying into the future, Rahmani…intend to create a change in ecological time, Saraceno…deal with the present conditions of temporal experience. 

5.1, you need to be careful about how you characterise these artists works. Does Rahamani produce 'trees with GPS music?' (line 467)  

5.2, You introduce Dumbrowski, and Elliason at the last minute here then lean into Linda Weintraub for some new ideas about the meaning of ecological art. Again, I would refine and edit, then go with work you have a clarity about positive or negative. Be careful about confusing media with conceptual intent and a sustained inquiry. 

Lines 564-5 “…Dombrowski and Elíasson’s art as social practices that address the themes of nature and ecology.”  I think Dombrowski and Elíasson ‘s understanding of eco system includes human community and social aspects. Dambo’s trolls and Rahamani’s  would also 

5.2 Could highlight  the issues of natural and social practices. Natural and Social are not separate entities in ecological art. The relationship between the two are continuum. It is important to question how materiality fits in this continuum. 

Artists and Cultural organizations confuse things. 

Why put artwork in natural environment? Why confuse the discussions with institutional models? 

6. Conclusion
Here you could draw a tighter argument if you refine your paper and cut it down. There maybe language issues here as - I find myself somewhat lost with the last two paragraphs. 

Lines 595-597 – You need to  unpack this for the reader, “For this reason, for example, the question of whether Rahmani’s ‘ecovention’ actually succeeded – in terms of broader water regeneration or the preservation of the trees in her chosen area – also becomes an art history  question.”

From line 611 to 618 two things trouble me. First you have replaced 'material' with artistic material which is confusing. Which make me wonder if you are arguing that it is nature that stripped of conventional purpose? You also seem to be be talking about a formal aesthetics, that has no room for prior experience or intellectual understanding of the 'thing' we are struggling to experience.   With a new rewrite perhaps stop here (6-8)...  the final paragraph is confusing. 

Line 619 -  you have artistic materials submitting to nature, not the artist. Blue paint initiates nothing, it is a static pigment with little agency beyond the expense of light and reflection the perception of colour.  
Line 623 You focus on the essential elements air, earth, water, and wood. But in line 621 its blue paint, recycled plastic, old wood, and nails.
Line 625 - You claim new categories of material: artistic material, art object as material, natural material and elements.  -  

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Interesting piece. However, the authors need to review the article and restructure it. The language is poor. They have to take care of spelling and grammar.  You may want to submit the article to an English Native speaker for proofreading. 

Author Response

Answer: Thank you. The text has been already copyedited by an English native speaker specialized in human science and art history. My text is now restructured and the arguments and the language are refined. The text changes are marked in green.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The number of artists tacked on at the end, doesn't help the paper. It dissipates any critical clarity developed in the body of the text. 
From the Introduction, the paper if focused on three artists.  
"Subsequently, results from analyses of the work of the 33 following artists are presented: Thomas Dambo, Aviva Rahmani and Tomás Saraceno. 34 They not only work and deal with material in different ways but also have different con-35 cepts of artworks and teleological approaches."

Author Response

Answer: Thank you very much!

At the beginning of the text, in the text itself, and at the end, I always make it clear that the three artists are examples. They are examples of discussion, which is the central method of art history. I also explained why I chose these three: different techniques, styles, etc. The point is to explain the problem of defining ecological art in terms of material. 

In the end, the other two artists (Dombrowski and Eliasson) serve to clarify the discussion made before, comparisons are always important in art history. And I have shortened the presentation of Dombrowski and Eliasson.

Thank you again!