Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

 

Many thanks for the opportunity to review this manuscript. I like the focus of the paper on the opportunities new technologies offer to the art world. The paper raises several interesting and discussion-worthy issues. However, in my view in its current form the paper lacks a clear focus / structure. Without a clear thread, the article is very hard to understand, and I would therefore not recommend it for publication in its current form.

1.       Structure: It is not entirely clear to me what the aim of the article is. Is it descriptive? (Which might already be a contribution, given that the topic of NFTs and DAOs in the artworld is fairly new). Does it argue that these new technologies fundamentally change the way art business is conducted?

2.       Terminology: I am not sure I understand what a ‘Decentralized Autonomous Organization’ is. Sometimes it is equated with cryptocurrencies (as in the second sentence of the abstract). Sometimes, however these ‘decentralized autonomous organizations’ go beyond cryptocurrencies. Perhaps the author(s) could provide a definition.  Such a definition would be central to understand the article.

3.       Concrete examples. Perhaps the author(s) could also provide a couple of concrete examples on what a decentralized autonomous organization is in the realm of art? I really liked the example on p. 4 with FWB, but it comes a bit late in the text to help understand what a DAO is.

4.       Terminology: The relation between NFT and DAO should also be clarified. The introduction is confusing if one doesn’t know what NFTs or DAOs are. Certain sentences are very difficult to make sense of: “The rights afforded to DAO members by the NFTs they have purchased include recognition rights, which are vitally important in international art purchases. How this works for DAOs and NFTs in business, is by voting, the DAO membership recognizes a certain standard of business production has been achieved. This results in the payment of an agreed level of renumeration.” This is not understandable to me.

5.       Terminology: Also, a clear definition of Web3 is missing.

6.       Under the title: Digital Corporate Mutualisation: How DAOs and NFTs facilitate business and International Art Acquisition, you raise many issues; but to me it is not very clear how these issues are linked, nor are they sufficiently explained. You first describe and define NFTs (this is done much better than the definition for DAOs). You then describe how NFTs help to solve ownership and payment challenges – could you expand how exacty this is possible? Then you discuss how DAOs react to tax incentives. Is this really central to your argument? You also state how DAO management structures enable corporate mutualization of company assets. Could you explain how this happens? Then you discuss the human agency in these DAOs. Is this central to your argument?

7.       In the section: Web3: A governance instrument with double utility to oversee the acquisition of international art using DAOs and NFTs you again discuss many diverse aspects of governance in DAOs and regarding NFTs. However, these different aspects remain relatively unconnected and not very well explained. You first equate NFTs and DAOs. This is confusing. They may share characteristics, but (at least in my understanding) they are not the same. Then you say ‘NFTs and DAOs give voting power’. Again, this is confusing; NFTs as such don’t necessarily give voting power (?). Then you talk about the governance structure of DAOs, but after reading your text, I don’t understand how they are governed. After that you shift the focus on how NFTs / DAOs change the governance of the art world. This might be interesting, however after reading the article it is not clear to me how NFTs or DAOs change the art world. Moreover, if you would want to explore this question further, I would recommend to somehow show how the art world is governed in absence of these new technologies, based on previous contributions and then show how this governance structure changes with the introduction of NFTs and DAOs (Nooy 2002; Crane 1976; Velthuis 2005; Becker 2008 [1982]; Danto 1964; Giuffre 1999). You also somehow seem to draw on Foucault’s terminology (panopticon) without properly explaining the term, nor explaining how Web 3 could become a panopticon in Foucault’s terms. Then you talk about the purpose of DAOs. This should come much earlier; perhaps you can bring it in the definition section (that is currently lacking) so readers understand what a DAO is. Lastly, you talk about how DAOs should be governed (normative statement) and explore the paradox of DAOs that partly rely on human governance, and partly on cryptographic part of NFTs also ensures some part of the governance. This paradox is very interesting, and how this interaction works would be worth exploring. However, as of now this is not done.

8.       Future of Web 3 Governance: When DAOs and NFTs are used in corporate business and the international art market: This part enumerates different aspects of what can be achieved in using NFTs and DAOs. You start by stating that art and philanthropic endeavors can be easily linked: this is certainly true, and although I see in your examples how NFTs and DAOs can play a role in providing artists in humanitarian crises with an opportunity, this comes a bit abruptly. You then discuss a second instance when NFTs are used: for collective ownership of art. You then present figure 1, which seems unconnected to your text (particularly the democracy part). After that, you look into the future; but these future-oriented statements are not based on what you discuss in the text, so they come a bit as a surprise, too.  

9.       Data: it is not clear to me, on what basis the article stands. Is it based on secondary data analysis? If so, it should clearly stat this.

10.   Typos: Abstract: Caused-based; line 36 on page 1: renumeration, Title: Digital Corporate mutualisation:_How, p. 7 line 322: raise

 

 

11.               Becker, Howard S. 2008 [1982]. Art Worlds (CA University of California Press: Berkeley).

12.               Crane, Diane. 1976. 'Reward Systems in Art, Science and Religion', American Behavioral Scientist, 19.

13.               Danto, Arthur. 1964. 'The Artworld', The Journal of Philosophy, 61: 571-84.

14.               Giuffre, Katherine. 1999. 'Sandpiles of Opportunity: Success in the Art World', Social Forces, 77: 815-32.

15.               Nooy, Wouter de. 2002. 'The dynamics of artistic prestige', Poetics, 30: 147-67.

16.               Velthuis, Olav. 2005. Talking Prices: symbolic meanings of prices on the market for contemporary art (Princeton University Press: New Jersey).

 

Please see above. I think the main issue is a lack of a clear thread; this also has to do with language. 

Author Response

Reviewer 1 – Issues raised.

1. Structure: It is not entirely clear to me what the aim of the article is. Is it descriptive? (Which might already be a contribution, given that the topic of NFTs and DAOs in the artworld is fairly new). Does it argue that these new technologies fundamentally change the way art business is conducted?

 

Hello Peer Reviewer - Thank you for your insightful comments. They have helped me strengthen my paper. I have included a definition of DAOs and NFTs at the start of the ‘Introduction’ section. This has provided a backdrop as to how the paper has been structured to discuss DAOs and NFTs role in the art world from a business, or charity perspective. Hopefully people will feel the aim of the article has been explained more clearly. Best wishes and kind regards, the Author.

 

2. Terminology: I am not sure I understand what a ‘Decentralized Autonomous Organization’ is. Sometimes it is equated with cryptocurrencies (as in the second sentence of the abstract). Sometimes, however these ‘decentralized autonomous organizations’ go beyond cryptocurrencies. Perhaps the author(s) could provide a definition. Such a definition would be central to understand the article.

 

Hello Peer Reviewer - Thank you for your feedback regarding terminology. I have provided a definition of DAOs and NFTs in the opening section of the ‘Introduction’ (p1), as this is central to discussing the use of DAOs and NFTs for art purchases. Hopefully people will feel the revised definitions provided, sufficiently reflect how DAOs and NFTs are constantly evolving as regards their use in society. Best wishes and kind regards, the Author.

 

3. Concrete examples. Perhaps the author(s) could also provide a couple of concrete examples on what a decentralized autonomous organization is in the realm of art? I really liked the example on p. 4 with FWB, but it comes a bit late in the text to help understand what a DAO is.

 

Hello Peer Reviewer - Thank you for your feedback regarding the need to provide concrete examples of key concepts. On page 1 in the second paragraph of this revised manuscript I have provided two concrete examples of collector DAOs. I have added two new in-text citations in the manuscript an updated the References list. Hopefully people will feel the two practical examples present in the Introduction, provide meaningful examples of DAOs in the international art world. Best wishes and kind regards, the Author.

4. Terminology: The relation between NFT and DAO should also be clarified. The introduction is confusing if one doesn’t know what NFTs or DAOs are. Certain sentences are very difficult to make sense of: “The rights afforded to DAO members by the NFTs they have purchased include recognition rights, which are vitally important in international art purchases. How this works for DAOs and NFTs in business, is by voting, the DAO membership recognizes a certain standard of business production has been achieved. This results in the payment of an agreed level of renumeration.” This is not understandable to me.

      Hello Peer Reviewer - Thank you for this feedback. I need to get these key concepts and relationships detailed much sooner than is evidenced in the first draft. I have added an additional paragraph that describes two of the main relationships between NFTs and DAOs early in the ‘Introduction’ section. I have also provided a practical example as to how one of the relationships has worked in practice. The description I have provided, helps inform the sentences you have quoted that appear later in my manuscript. Hopefully, people will find the sentences understandable, having been informed by this additional paragraph in the ‘Introduction’. Best wishes and kind regards, the Author.

5. Terminology: Also, a clear definition of Web3 is missing.

      Hello Peer Reviewer – Thank you for your feedback. Yes, as with DAOs, NFTs, and the relationships between these technological creations, Web3 also needs to be defined early in the piece. I have included another paragraph in the ‘Introduction’ to define Web3, providing an early indication of concepts that are expanded on, later in the paper. Best wishes and kind regards, the Author.

6. Under the title: Digital Corporate Mutualisation: How DAOs and NFTs facilitate business and International Art Acquisition, you raise many issues; but to me it is not very clear how these issues are linked, nor are they sufficiently explained. You first describe and define NFTs (this is done much better than the definition for DAOs). You then describe how NFTs help to solve ownership and payment challenges – could you expand how exactly this is possible? Then you discuss how DAOs react to tax incentives. Is this really central to your argument? You also state how DAO management structures enable corporate mutualization of company assets. Could you explain how this happens? Then you discuss the human agency in these DAOs. Is this central to your argument?

Hello Peer Reviewer - Thank you for your insight and comments in the Digital Corporate Mutualisation subsection of my paper. I have provided a critical reflection of parts of Chalmers et al., (2022), to expand upon how NFTs resolve ownership and payment challenges. I provide analysis to demonstrate how NFTs security utility, resonates in both the sale of creative art; and in arts-based not-for-profit sector, to monitor the amount and efficacy of expenditure and payments received. I have removed the analysis of the interface between arts based DAOs, NFTs and multi-jurisdictional tax regimes from this section. I have removed discussion of tax from the whole paper as it is not central to my argument. I have also reduced the amount of content discussing human agency in DAOs and NFTS, as they are also not central to my argument. I have provided critical reflection of Fritsch et al., (2021) to discuss how DAO management structures can be adapted to enable corporate mutualization of company assets. I provide an example of how Fritsch et al’ vision of DLT based commissioning would work in the art world. Hopefully, people will feel that my revisions in this section have adequately addressed the issues raised. Best wishes and kind regards, the Author.

7. In the section: Web3: A governance instrument with double utility to oversee the acquisition of international art using DAOs and NFTs you again discuss many diverse aspects of governance in DAOs and regarding NFTs. However, these different aspects remain relatively unconnected and not very well explained. You first equate NFTs and DAOs. This is confusing. They may share characteristics, but (at least in my understanding) they are not the same. Then you say ‘NFTs and DAOs give voting power’. Again, this is confusing; NFTs as such do not necessarily give voting power (?). Then you talk about the governance structure of DAOs, but after reading your text, I don’t understand how they are governed. After that you shift the focus on how NFTs / DAOs change the governance of the art world. This might be interesting, however after reading the article it is not clear to me how NFTs or DAOs change the art world. Moreover, if you would want to explore this question further, I would recommend to somehow show how the art world is governed in absence of these new technologies, based on previous contributions and then show how this governance structure changes with the introduction of NFTs and DAOs (Nooy 2002; Crane 1976; Velthuis 2005; Becker 2008 [1982]; Danto 1964; Giuffre 1999). You also somehow seem to draw on Foucault’s terminology (panopticon) without properly explaining the term, nor explaining how Web 3 could become a panopticon in Foucault’s terms. Then you talk about the purpose of DAOs. This should come much earlier; perhaps you can bring it in the definition section (that is currently lacking) so readers understand what a DAO is. Lastly, you talk about how DAOs should be governed (normative statement) and explore the paradox of DAOs that partly rely on human governance, and partly on cryptographic part of NFTs also ensures some part of the governance. This paradox is very interesting, and how this interaction works would be worth exploring. However, as of now this is not done.

      Hello Peer Reviewer - Thank you for your comprehensive feedback of this section of my paper. I have added an introductory paragraph to correct my error of appearing to equate DAOs and NFTs, when they are of course two different technological entities. I have also added some critical reflection of the current and potential use of the decentralized aspects of Web3. I have revised the inaccurate sentence which said ‘NFTs and DAOs give voting power’, to more clearly explain that DAO members provide governance in the form of being able to vote. I have provided a new in-text citation to provide theoretical underpinning to the revision, alongside updating the ‘References’ section with the new literary source. I have included a long paragraph theorising how the work of earlier writers suggested, has contemporary relevance in discussion regarding the governance structures of DAOs. I have removed all reference to panopticon to be replaced by the phrase decentralised surveillance. I have then put forward a main and secondary definition of decentralised surveillance, when operating in Web3. I have also articulated how decentralised surveillance would have a role in dispute resolution, as regards potential problems with intellectual property rights, provenance and plagiarism. A definition and the purpose of DAOs is discussed earlier in the paper, in additional paragraphs I have added to the revised ‘Introduction’ section. I have added a paragraph at the end of this section to explore the paradox, DAOs rely on human interaction for governance and NFTs for verification. Hopefully, people will feel that at least in the main, my revisions have addressed the issues raised in peer review feedback. Best wishes and kind regards, the Author.

8. Future of Web 3 Governance: When DAOs and NFTs are used in corporate business and the international art market: This part enumerates different aspects of what can be achieved in using NFTs and DAOs. You start by stating that art and philanthropic endeavors can be easily linked: this is certainly true, and although I see in your examples how NFTs and DAOs can play a role in providing artists in humanitarian crises with an opportunity, this comes a bit abruptly. You then discuss a second instance when NFTs are used: for collective ownership of art. You then present figure 1, which seems unconnected to your text (particularly the democracy part). After that, you look into the future; but these future-oriented statements are not based on what you discuss in the text, so they come a bit as a surprise, too.

      Hello Peer Reviewer - Thank you for your feedback and insight of this section of my paper. The earlier part of this section does end rather abruptly. I have added two additional paragraphs that include a quotation, in-text citations and three new literary sources, which have been added to the ‘References’ list. Hopefully, readers will feel this section, with additional examples of humanitarian and philanthropic uses of DAOs and NFTs in the international art market is more informative. Hopefully, readers will also feel, the early part of this section does not finish abruptly but comes to more of a natural end.

      I have moved the diagram Figure 1, alongside the preceding and following paragraphs discussing Fig 1 to the Introduction section. I have referred to Fig 1 when an issue is being discussed, which exactly or closely matches a feature mentioned on the diagram.  Hopefully, readers will feel the new re-positioning of this content acts as a precursor to the discussion. Hopefully, the revised location alerts readers, there are numerous complex concepts to consider regarding DAOs and NFT in the international art market. Hopefully readers will feel that issues raised in the diagram Fig 1 at its location now earlier in the manuscript, help signpost the various concepts analysed in the literature.

      Having re-positioned Fig 1 in the Introduction of the revised manuscript, the future-oriented paragraph has now become one of the last two paragraph of this section. These paragraphs now act as an introduction to the ‘Conclusions and policy recommendations’ section that immediately follows. There are numerous in-text citations that support my description of how DAOs and NFT will shape the international art market as the 2020s unfolds. Hopefully, readers will feel that how these final two paragraphs in the revised manuscript have been presented, alongside the conclusion; broadly align with the existing literature which was used to draft the paper.

9. Data: it is not clear to me, on what basis the article stands. Is it based on secondary data analysis? If so, it should clearly stat this.

      Hello Peer Reviewer, hope you are well. I have added a ‘Data and Methods’ section, which reads as follows:

      This article is a conceptual theoretical review of mainly 2020s literature discussing the increasing use of DAOs and NFTs in the art world. My review has identified many of the challenges, benefits and pitfalls that exist, regarding the role of DAOs and NFTs in the international art market, from a profit/non-profit perspective. From a critical evaluation of the literature, my paper accurately depicts, the main issues regarding the current and the likely future development trajectory of the international art market.

Hopefully readers will feel I have used plenty of indicators from the literature, to make calculated assumptions of what lies ahead, at the interface between technological advances and the art world.

10. Typos: Abstract: Caused-based; line 36 on page 1: renumeration, Title: Digital Corporate mutualisation: How, p. 7 line 322: raise

      Hello Peer Reviewer, hope you are well. I have spellchecked the revised manuscript as I did with the first draft. Hopefully readers will see there are fewer typos in this 2^nd draft.

 

 

11. Becker, Howard S. 2008 [1982]. Art Worlds (CA University of California Press: Berkeley).
12. Crane, Diane. 1976. 'Reward Systems in Art, Science and Religion', American Behavioral Scientist, 19.
13. Danto, Arthur. 1964. 'The Artworld', The Journal of Philosophy, 61: 571-84.
14. Giuffre, Katherine. 1999. 'Sandpiles of Opportunity: Success in the Art World', Social Forces, 77: 815-32.
15. Nooy, Wouter de. 2002. 'The dynamics of artistic prestige', Poetics, 30: 147-67.
16. Velthuis, Olav. 2005. Talking Prices: symbolic meanings of prices on the market for contemporary art (Princeton University Press: New Jersey).

            Hello Peer Reviewer – I have provided at least one in-text citation for each of the suggested literary items which are detailed in 11 – 16 as detailed above. I have updated the ‘References’ section with these new sources. Hopefully, readers will feel that I have applied the suggested sources, where they are most relevant.

Reviewer 2 Report

The chosen topic for investigation is timely and important.

It would be significantly improved if critical reflexivity could be added to the provision of citations and to test the validity of the quoted statement. For example: 'Crane (Sotheby’s Institute of Art, 13 February 2023) makes the critical observation, 200 Web3 is disrupting the artworld breaking the status quo. Power has shifted away from art 201 galleries and museums to decentralised networks and artist to fan base communities.' (pp. 5)

n/a

Author Response

Dear Peer Reviewer 2, hope you are well. Thank you for your feedback and insight of my initial draft discussing the role of DAOs and NFTs in the international art market. I have added a significant amount of critical reflexivity, demonstrating how literary sources I have referenced, support analysis of literary content earlier in the paragraph. To a small degree, my additions reveal my own critical standpoint, perspective and understanding of the role of DAOs and NFTs in the art world. In the main, the critical reflexivity I have added has been in the form of additional supporting in-text citations. This has acted to inform my conceptual theoretical review of the literature I accessed in revising the first draft of this paper. In this sense, my perspective and understanding of DAOs and NFTs are built upon existing assumptions and beliefs I had about technological advancement, interacting with art production and consumption. This means my beliefs and critical standpoint are socially constructed by critical reflection. By addressing issues raised from other peer review comments in this manuscript revision, I feel I have resolved most of the issues you have indicated on the ‘Review Report Form’. Hopefully, readers will feel there is sufficient critical reflexivity throughout the manuscript, to adequately test the validity of quoted statements and/or claims made.

Reviewer 3 Report

Excellent and novel topic.

Need of the hour kind of research. 

References can be enhanced: few examples below:

 

1.      Petratos P.N., Ljepava N., Salman A. (February 2020) Blockchain Technology, Sustainability and Business: A Literature Review and the Case of Dubai and UAE. In: Mateev M., Nightingale J. (eds) Sustainable Development and Social Responsibility—Volume 1. Advances in Science, Technology & Innovation (IEREK Interdisciplinary Series for Sustainable Development). Springer, Cham 2nd AUEIRC proceedings by Springer, indexed in Scopus (Q3)

2. Salman, A. (Jan 2019) Digital Currencies and the Power Shift in the Economy. In: Mateev M., Poutziouris P. (eds) Creative Business and Social Innovations for a Sustainable Future. Advances in Science, Technology & Innovation (IEREK Interdisciplinary Series for Sustainable Development). Springer, Cham 1st AUEIRC proceedings by Springer, indexed in Scopus (Q3)

 

3.      Asma Salman & Muthanna G. Abdul Razzaq (Eds.). (2019). Blockchain and Cryptocurrencies, ISBN: 978-953-51-6703-7 Publisher indexed in Book Citation Index, Clarivate Analytics/Web of Science

 

4.      Salman, A., & Abdul Razzaq, M. G. (Dec 2017). Bitcoin and the World of Digital Currencies, Financial Management from an Emerging Market Perspective, Guray Kucukkocaoglu and Soner Gokten (Ed.), IntechOpen, DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.71294 Publisher indexed in Book Citation Index, Clarivate Analytics/Web of Science

 

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Dear Peer Reviewer 3, hope you are well. Thank you for your supportive comments of my first draft. I have incorporated all the literary sources you have recommended to some capacity; they have enhanced key points and strengthened my paper. I have edited the English language used along the way in my revised manuscript. Hopefully, readers will feel the additional literary sources have been appropriately used and there is a small improvement in the English used. Best wishes and kind regards, the Author.

Reviewer 4 Report

Thank you for this interesting research. This study aims to identify a critical evaluation of decentralized autonomous organizations, as an organizational management structure, business operations vehicle. Hereby are some comments that may help you improve on it:

1)    Introduction

Overall, the introduction section is ok. Nevertheless, you should put additional focus in what is the main gap to be fulfilled by your study and on a clear description of what is the study’s objective. I would suggest that the introduction be more succinctly present the research gaps and the research aims.

2)    Discussion

This article should reinforce the discussion and implications behind the data explaination.

3)    Conclusion

The conclusions of the paper are not well articulated, and their contribution to the discipline is not sufficiently justified.

4)    Format and grammar

Regarding format, the text (including References) and figures should be reviewed again and fine-tuned according to the format required by this journal.

 I hope that these notes are helpful in reviewing your article.

Author Response

1)    Introduction

Overall, the introduction section is ok. Nevertheless, you should put additional focus in what is the main gap to be fulfilled by your study and on a clear description of what is the study’s objective. I would suggest that the introduction be more succinctly present the research gaps and the research aims.

Dear Peer Reviewer 4, hope you are well. I have added a short succinct paragraph at the head of the ‘Introduction’ section, which explains the study’s objectives, the research gaps to be filled and the research aims. Hopefully, readers will feel the ‘Introduction’ section in this revised manuscript; provides a clearer description of which aspects of DAOs and NFTs in the art world, my paper intends to discuss. Best wishes and kind regards, the Author.

2)    Discussion

This article should reinforce the discussion and implications behind the data explaination.

Dear Peer Reviewer 4, hope you are well. I have revised my manuscript substantially, to reinforce key points in the discussion compared with the initial draft. Hopefully, readers will feel I have clearly articulated the implications revealed by the conceptual theoretical review, providing clear explanation of opportunities and threats when forming DAOs and using NFTs in the art world. Best wishes, the Author.

3)    Conclusion

The conclusions of the paper are not well articulated, and their contribution to the discipline is not sufficiently justified.

Dear Peer Reviewer 4, hope you are well. I have revamped the ‘Conclusion’ section by adding clear examples of what various agencies and DAOs have done to address issues that have arisen: regarding, privacy, cooperation, openness and Web3 governance. Hopefully, readers will feel the real life examples I have added to the ‘Conclusion’ are justified to articulate key points regarding: delivery of philanthropic objectives; trust and confidence in the art world; consensus building; financial risk from NFT devaluation; and reputational damage. Best wishes, the Author.

4)    Format and grammar

Regarding format, the text (including References) and figures should be reviewed again and fine-tuned according to the format required by this journal.

I hope that these notes are helpful in reviewing your article.

Dear Peer Reviewer 4, hope you are well. Thank you for your feedback regarding how I presented the initial draft of my paper. I have used a descriptive Harvard referencing style at this stage for in-text citations and the ‘References’ section, applying consistent formatting throughout. Hopefully, if my manuscript reaches the revision stage, I will get the opportunity to format my manuscript according to the journal guidelines. Best wishes and kind regards, the Author.

Reviewer 5 Report

This article examines how cryptocurrencies like DAOs and NFTs impact the international art market. They enable collaborations with local governments for non-state funded consultancy services. Self-polycentric and cause-based DAOs emphasize listening to token owners and have transparent incentive structures.

The paper is interesting and well written. There are some aspects that should be addressed in order to improve the quality of the paper:

• More recent works should be added and discussed. For instance, I suggest the authors to cite the following study on NFT [doi.org/10.3390/bdcc7010038]
• What are the limitations of this study?
• It is necessary to highlight the contribution of the study in a clearer manner.
• The reference list needs tidying up, as there are references missing items or formatting issues. Please be consistent with the formatting and use some standard formatting style.
• Section 2 could be organized in a better way.

 

Author Response

• More recent works should be added and discussed. For instance, I suggest the authors to cite the following study on NFT [doi.org/10.3390/bdcc7010038]

Dear Peer Reviewer 5, hope you are well. Thank you for your feedback on my initial draft. I have added a lot more recent works to my paper including Bonifazi et al., as suggested, which has helped to strengthen my manuscript. Hopefully, readers will feel I have added a significant number of new analysis and in-depth case studies, to reinforce key points in the conceptual theoretical review. Best wishes and kind regards, the Author.

• What are the limitations of this study?

Dear Peer Reviewer 5, hope you are well. I have added a brief ‘Limitations of study’ section just before the ‘Conclusions’ section. Hopefully, readers will feel I have articulated the main limitation of study in the section added. Best wishes and kind regards, the Author.

• It is necessary to highlight the contribution of the study in a clearer manner.

Dear Peer Reviewer 5, hope you are well. I have added a paragraph at the start of the ‘Introduction’ section, to clarify the research gap my contribution intends to fill. Hopefully, readers will feel I have signposted the contribution of the study to the art world more clearly. Best wishes and kind regards, the Author.

• The reference list needs tidying up, as there are references missing items or formatting issues. Please be consistent with the formatting and use some standard formatting style.

Dear Peer Reviewer 5, hope you are well. I have used a descriptive Harvard referencing style at this stage for in-text citations and the ‘References’ section, applying consistent formatting throughout. Hopefully, if my manuscript reaches the revision stage, I will get the opportunity to format my manuscript according to the journal guidelines. Best wishes and kind regards, the Author.

• Section 2 could be organized in a better way.

Dear Peer Reviewer 5, hope you are well. I have re-organized my paper substantially from the initial draft to this revised version. Section 2 has been amended along the way, with contemporary 2020s case studies being added to reinforce key points. Hopefully, readers will feel that this revised manuscript, provides clearer explanation, and is more readable, more user-friendly that the first draft. Best wishes and kind regards, the Author.

Round 2

Reviewer 5 Report

The authors successfully addresed my concerns.