State Strategy of International Art Exhibitions in Interwar Lithuania 1918–1940

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The informatively rich article traces the Lithuanian state strategy of art exhibitions in the interwar period, highlighting choices of exhibits and accompanying discussions. The topic pertaining to the art life of the Baltic country can be of interest to a wider scholarly public, as the region has only began to emerge from its peripheral and marginal status in global humanities.

The article references latest scientific studies relevant to the field; the choice of figures is appropriate to the text and the language is correct and understandable.

The only suggestion I have is optional; that could help readers to orient themselves but it depends whether it is common and acceptable in the particular journal. I would like to see the whole text subdivided in smaller chapters with headings like "Historiography", "Lithuania on the World Stage before the Independence", "Second International Exhibition of Decorative Arts", "Paris World Fair of 1937", etc.    

Author Response

I'm grateful the reviewer for the postive evaluation.

I agree that the division of the text to the small chapter with their own subtitels might be helpful to the reader and I accept this suggestion of the reviewer.

Reviewer 2 Report

The article can be qualified as almost ready for publication. However, some work still must be done checking the accuracy of proper names, titles, bibliographic entries, etc. The reviewer's copy contains a number of comments about minor mistakes and slight deviations. Special attention should be paid to the spelling of publication titles in Scandinavian languages checking the original cover and title-page information. All these improvements are easy to make and will not be time-consuming. I would also recommend to consider dividing the article into sections with appropriate section titles.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

I am particularly grateful for the corrections done by the reviewer and will folow them reworking my text.

The 2d reviewer stresses the necessity of the division of the article to the chapters as the 1d one, so I am strongly convinced that it should be done and will do that.

Reviewer 3 Report

1. Consider providing a few specific examples of Magdalena Avietėnaitė's participation in preparation of Lithuanian exhibitions abroad.

2. Consider changing the term 'rural arts' into 'rural crafts' as mostly crafts were featured in the analyzed exhibitions.

3. The title of the main Lithuanian museum institution of the discussed period should be standardized (now: lines 5 and 120 - M. K. Čiurlionis Art Gallery, line 144 - National Gallery, line 374 - National Art Museum, line 404 - Lithuanian National Art Gallery, line 477 - National Gallery of Art).

4. The conclusions of the article are inarticulate.

1. Line 98: consider changing demonstration of individuality to demonstration of uniqueness.

2. Lines 234-236: revise the logic of the sentence This presentation was both timely and well-suited to the context of the event, as both the Italian provinces and the countries of Northern and Southern Europe that sought to highlight their uniqueness by displaying traditional rural art.

3. Lines 358-360: consider revising the logic of the sentence However, the vast majority of European nations did not exclusively rely on the presentation of traditional culture to represent themselves to the world but often showcased their identities through examples of ethnology and ethnography. 

4. Line 582: consider changing press department to department of publications.

Author Response

I am very grateful to the reviewer for the language corrections. I also try to edit the conclusions of the article. However the suggestion to standatize the title of the main national art museum creates some difficulties, as this title was change several times during the period between 1925-1940. Of course, I will try or to explain the differencies, or to find the common neutral name as „nationl art gallery“ in the parts of text where is no necessity to use the proper name of the museum.

Reviewer 4 Report

I really enjoyed this article, especially when it explores the interplay between the national (folk art/design) and the international (modernist art and design). This is well discussed especially in l. 278-285. Points expressed in l. 412-3 also bring out the complexity of the topic arguing that (to put it very simply), in some contexts, folk art worked well, while, in others, they did not.

The second half of p. 12 brings out the complexities really well regarding the promotion of folk over modern art within the socio-political context of the time. 

The view from outside Lithuania, from the west, for example, could be explored a little more fully, especially regarding the hierarchies of centre and periphery in modernist art history. In other words, folk art from Lithuania kept the country firmly on the periphery, thereby enhancing the status of centres where modern art was produced. Surely this contributed to the positive reception of Lithuanian folk art outside the country?

More images should be included, especially of the work of Adomas Galdikas. The images that are included, especially in the first half of the article, largely show exhibition installations; although useful, it is difficult to see the items exhibited as they end up very small. 

The importance of Magdalena Avietėnaitė is stated, however the article should explain why she is considered so.

l. 178: remove 'the' before 'Lithuanian art'.

l. 201; 275: A semi-colon would be grammatically better than brackets. 

l. 244-7: 'there was a sense of disappointment among the Lithuanians who attended the event and saw modern design displays of other countries. Everyone realized that Lithuania was unable to showcase even a single exhibit of modern design': This is all really interesting and supports the previous discussion well, however, the source(s) need to be included. 

l. 281:  'there was a belief': amongst whom? This point needs evidencing.

l. 321: delete 'did'.

l. 465-6: 'considered a resounding success'; by whom? Lithuanians (and why), or westerners (and why)?

l. 516-7: 'Younger generations in Lithuania and Lithuanians in the United States criticized the way Lithuania was presented in Paris...' Source? And a little more to support this point would be good. 

The discussion of graphic art as modern on p. 17 is interesting. It could also take into account the folk/medieval basis of woodcuts, which interested German Expressionist artists too. Were Lithuanian artists interested in woodcuts for similar reasons? This could be good to explore too especially as German Expressionism is never doubted for its modernity.

l. 667-9: 'Emphasizing tradition and rural cultural heritage was convenient for the regime, as it facilitated the introduction of a discourse that naturally suppressed notions of statehood and, consequently, the pursuit of independence.' This statement seems to contradict your previous argument that folk art represented national sentiment. It would be good to clarify this point here. 

Author Response

I am grateful to the reviewer for practical advices and positive evaluation, as well as for suggestions how to improve the article. I will follow all the proposed corrections, however it will be impossible to expand the narrative bot textually and visually due to the limits of time. The deadline of the publication does not allow to make the aditional research. The suggested issues should be considered in the future investigations of the subject or by myself, or by other researchers.