Defining Art as Phenomenal Being

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Art theoreticians and historiography practitioners have been fascinated by how language definition must be crafted into a new shape when used in talk of art as a phenomenological being.

Indeed, in this clear, tightly structured and well-articulated article, the author outlines a fresh model for understanding to define art and aesthetics in a relational or correlational way with worldliness, beingness, and time-space.

This article is a keen exercise in critical analysis that clarifies some of the more perplexing phenomenological issues of beingness or ideas, especially examining the varied art and aesthetics agencies.  Carefully articulated yet formulated in a crisp and sprightly format, the article distinctly marks a significant contribution to the defining contemporary art and aesthetics of phenomenological action. 

 

Author Response

Are all the cited references relevant to the research?
A n s w e r: I have double-checked all references - I confirm that they were all used in the writing of the article and are relevant to its content.

Reviewer 2 Report

The topic and analysis must be improved. The article and the research question are not clear. 

• What is the main question addressed by the research?

While the main research question has a concern with a new proposed definition of Art based on the works of Martin Heidegger, the analysis needs to be reformulated. We don't understand what the article tries to do exactly.     • Do you consider the topic original or relevant in the field? Does it
address a specific gap in the field?   I don't think the article covers an academic gap or adds a clear contribution to the definition of Art as a phenomenon. the article doesn't seem to address an important gap because it is hard for readers to follow the relationship between different theoretical and philosophical perspectives ( E. Kant, M. Heidegger, G.  Dickie, P. Frankl ). I think the article would be more relevant if it is based on one clear approach.      • What does it add to the subject area compared with other published
material?   The article tries ( as the author mentioned in his/her intro) to "We can try to refine the artworld participants by recalling...(21)  The work needs to be more developed to clarify the starting point of the subject.   • What specific improvements should the authors consider regarding the
methodology? What further controls should be considered?   The article needs to focus on a clear argument so the analysis and the topic can be clear. We have the feeling that the article is a simple review because the format doesn't match academic article guidelines.  The article is very short for such a sophisticated question.     The research question has to be clear and understood and the piece has to be re-designed. Some foreign words need to be explained or translated at lest ( e.g. what does it mean : Категории и ?!)
• Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented
and do they address the main question posed?   The question posed in the introduction (trying to define the artword ) is not answered in the conclusion. Rather, the article focuses on a " concise description of the 12 figures constituting the artword" ( 349)
• Are the references appropriate?   The references are apparently relevant but don't seem to be well exploited throughout the piece.  
• Please include any additional comments on the tables and figures.   The problem with this kind of article is that it looks like a collection of textual glosses proposing specialized terms with a new understanding from a philosophical point and this worsens the problem.   

Author Response

The topic and analysis must be improved. The article and the research question are not clear. 

1. What is the main question addressed by the research?

• While the main research question has a concern with a new proposed definition of Art based on the works of Martin Heidegger, the analysis needs to be reformulated. We don't understand what the article tries to do exactly. 
• The article is not dedicated to Heidegger. I'm just using his definition of the phenomenon, which is canonical.
• The main aim of the article is to show that from the figures and their mixed perspectives in the art world, the categories with which art is defined can be derived. Which is a contribution to the institutional theory of art.

 

2. Do you consider the topic original or relevant in the field? Does it
   address a specific gap in the field?   

• I don't think the article covers an academic gap or adds a clear contribution to the definition of Art as a phenomenon. the article doesn't seem to address an important gap because it is hard for readers to follow the relationship between different theoretical and philosophical perspectives ( E. Kant, M. Heidegger, G.  Dickie, P. Frankl ). I think the article would be more relevant if it is based on one clear approach.  
• I am not aware of any author in the intuitional theory of art who derives (deduces) the categories used to describe art.

 

3. What does it add to the subject area compared with other published
   material?   

• The article tries ( as the author mentioned in his/her intro) to "We can try to refine the artworld participants by recalling...(21)  The work needs to be more developed to clarify the starting point of the subject.
• Within the scope of a single article I have tried to make as clear as possible the extraction of categories from the figures in the art world. What I intend to do more selectively is a book I am preparing for print.

 

4. What specific improvements should the authors consider regarding the
   methodology? What further controls should be considered?   

• The article needs to focus on a clear argument so the analysis and the topic can be clear. We have the feeling that the article is a simple review because the format doesn't match academic article guidelines.  The article is very short for such a sophisticated question.  The research question has to be clear and understood and the piece has to be re-designed. Some foreign words need to be explained or translated at lest ( e.g. what does it mean : Категории и ?!)
• The main argument of the paper is that the categories of the art world can be derived (deduced) from the basic figures of the art world, analogous to what Kant does in Critique of Pure Reason.
• The word "Категории" has been replaced by "Categories." Here I agree with the reviewer. I thank him for his suggestion.

5. Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented
   and do they address the main question posed?   

• The question posed in the introduction (trying to define the artword ) is not answered in the conclusion. Rather, the article focuses on a " concise description of the 12 figures constituting the artword" ( 349
• In the conclusion, the extracted (deduced) categories are collected into one integrated definition.

6. Are the references appropriate?   

• The references are apparently relevant but don't seem to be well exploited throughout the piece.  
• All references are directly relevant to the content, but not all of the quotes taken.

7. Please include any additional comments on the tables and figures.   

• The problem with this kind of article is that it looks like a collection of textual glosses proposing specialized terms with a new understanding from a philosophical point and this worsens the problem. 
• My specialty is the philosophy of art and aesthetics and the article is written from that perspective. I hope to be useful to readers.
  
  

Reviewer 3 Report

This is a well written and careful study. It would be much improved if the author would explicitly state the potential uses of the findings. The “So what?” question is under-explored. 

Author Response

Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced, and compelling? 

A n s w e r: I have tried to describe succinctly how a category can be derived from any figure in the art world.

Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature?

A n s w e r: Beyond the categories deduced from the figures, there are no other additions. This is done for the sake of the rigor of exposition. Kant's deduction from "Critique of Pure Reason" served as a model for me in the deduction.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The article can be improved.