Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you for your manuscript "Memory, Visual Communication, and Symbolic Interactions with Statues: The Case of the Charging Bull of Wall Street". The research is interesting, but there are several points that need improvement. The work is intriguing but not entirely original. The theme of statues and their perception has been studied before. You need to more clearly demonstrate what new insights your study brings to this topic.

The contribution to the scholarly community is moderate. There is a lack of deep analysis and discussion of the results within the context of existing research. The structure of the article is good, and the material is presented clearly and logically, which is a strong aspect of your work. The arguments are fairly strong, but sometimes they lack depth of analysis. Some conclusions require additional support.

The sources are well-chosen, but you need to include more recent studies and critically evaluate the existing literature. The research is interesting, but to increase its significance, you need to strengthen the theoretical and methodological sections and clearly demonstrate the contribution of your work to the existing literature. The sources cited are generally appropriate, but it would be beneficial to add more contemporary research to bolster your arguments.

Overall, the work has potential, but it needs improvements to become more significant and original. Thank you for your efforts, and I wish you success in your future research.

Sincerely,
Reviewer

Author Response

Please see our point-by-point response in boldface.

Thank you for your manuscript "Memory, Visual Communication, and Symbolic Interactions with Statues: The Case of the Charging Bull of Wall Street". The research is interesting, but there are several points that need improvement. The work is intriguing but not entirely original. The theme of statues and their perception has been studied before. You need to more clearly demonstrate what new insights your study brings to this topic.

The contribution to the scholarly community is moderate. There is a lack of deep analysis and discussion of the results within the context of existing research. The structure of the article is good, and the material is presented clearly and logically, which is a strong aspect of your work. The arguments are fairly strong, but sometimes they lack depth of analysis. Some conclusions require additional support.

Thank you for the comments. We highlighted the significance of the current research more in the last two paragraphs of the introduction. By addressing Reviewer 2’s general comments and specific suggestions, especially through the additional discussion of the relative frequencies of the different modes of interaction with the statue, we hope that we have provided a deeper analysis.

The sources are well-chosen, but you need to include more recent studies and critically evaluate the existing literature. The research is interesting, but to increase its significance, you need to strengthen the theoretical and methodological sections and clearly demonstrate the contribution of your work to the existing literature. The sources cited are generally appropriate, but it would be beneficial to add more contemporary research to bolster your arguments.

Thank you. Our apologies if our earlier version did not make the contributions of the research clear. We highlighted the significance of the current research more in the last two paragraphs of the introduction. We added some additional references in addressing some of the Reviewer 2’s specific points. We also added more discussions in the methods section to highlight where this research stands, given its research methodology.

Overall, the work has potential, but it needs improvements to become more significant and original. Thank you for your efforts, and I wish you success in your future research.

Thank you. We hope that you will find the revisions satisfactory.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a very interesting approach to the study of public art. It's a novel and compelling way to learn more through the evidence photographs offer in documenting the interactions between the artwork and its viewers. With a few clarifications and additions, I think this would make an excellent contribution to Societies.

I have two general suggestions: 

> First, the paper would benefit from additional consideration of the limits of its research methodology. As the author states on page 2 (lines 49-57), the statue has been controversial and has even elicited public denunciation as a symbol of capitalist overreach/excess and gender inequity. It seems likely that visitors who are opposed to the bull's message are unlikely to document their perspective simply because detractors would be much less likely to pose for a photograph with the statue. I would be curious about the author's thoughts about that possibility, and encourage them to address what limits there might be to their study's ability to demonstrate the "significance of the statue in contemporary American society" (as asserted in the thesis).

> Second general thought: rebalance the essay to avoid repetition in sections 1 and 2 and add additional clarifying content to section 4. The introduction and research framework could be edited for concision. The research findings seem sparsely written by comparison. What other observations did the author make regrading each of the different modes of viewer engagement? Could the author provide more description of the relative frequency of each of the various modes - or distinguish more precisely what each mode of interaction signifies? 

I also have several more specific questions and suggestions:

> Clarify around lines 28-30 (page 1) what the “secret mission” meant in this case—i.e. placing the statue without permission/permit.

> I would recommend removing the reference to nonhuman statues around lines 41-45. This seems irrelevant to the thesis; additional scrutiny of New York’s public artworks would reveal more nonhuman statues than the authors assert. 

> Page 2 (lines 79-81)—Kirk Savage and other scholars’ recent work on monuments in American society suggests that this notion may be equally applied to statues of specific historical figures. It would be helpful to include additional references to scholarship on the contemporary controversies surrounding monuments.

> The author could avoid hyperbole in describing both the statue’s cultural impact and the draw that it has on tourists. For example, line 132-133 claims that the statue is “magnificent” without qualifying how; line 63 describes it as a “global icon” and a quintessential symbol of New York, terms that seem overstated. Lines 137-139 describe the statue as becoming “an integral part of people’s spirit” without explaining what exactly that means. I would recommend using language that puts a bit more critical distance between the author and the artwork, using the observations learned through the study to make the argument through the visitors’ viewpoints about the statue’s importance.

> I was curious why the author chose to include only publicly available images from the internet rather than the photographs they took during their observations? The author’s own photos would seem like a better visual source for the essay, especially because none of the photographs illustrate the statue in the context of the marathon. 

I appreciate the opportunity to review this well-written and insightful essay. I hope my suggestions will be helpful!

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Generally very good. A couple questions: 

The sentence beginning on line 128 and ending on 129: should it read “individuals’ access to what a city has to offer”?

Clarify what the author means by “interactions with both referent and physically present” in lines 148-149

Author Response

Please see our point-by-point response in boldface.

This is a very interesting approach to the study of public art. It's a novel and compelling way to learn more through the evidence photographs offer in documenting the interactions between the artwork and its viewers. With a few clarifications and additions, I think this would make an excellent contribution to Societies.

Thank you for the support!

I have two general suggestions: 

> First, the paper would benefit from additional consideration of the limits of its research methodology. As the author states on page 2 (lines 49-57), the statue has been controversial and has even elicited public denunciation as a symbol of capitalist overreach/excess and gender inequity. It seems likely that visitors who are opposed to the bull's message are unlikely to document their perspective simply because detractors would be much less likely to pose for a photograph with the statue. I would be curious about the author's thoughts about that possibility, and encourage them to address what limits there might be to their study's ability to demonstrate the "significance of the statue in contemporary American society" (as asserted in the thesis).

You are absolutely correct here. We added a thorough recognition and discussion of the limitations of the current research methodology toward the end of methods section.

> Second general thought: rebalance the essay to avoid repetition in sections 1 and 2 and add additional clarifying content to section 4. The introduction and research framework could be edited for concision. The research findings seem sparsely written by comparison. What other observations did the author make regrading each of the different modes of viewer engagement? Could the author provide more description of the relative frequency of each of the various modes - or distinguish more precisely what each mode of interaction signifies? 

All these are great points. We have now removed some of these redundancies in the introduction. To answer your most important questions about different modes of interaction and their relative frequencies, we added subsection 4.5.1 discussing the relative frequency of each of the modes of interaction and the implications in the results and discussion section (and moved the original subsection 4.5.1 to subsection 4.5.2).

I also have several more specific questions and suggestions:

> Clarify around lines 28-30 (page 1) what the “secret mission” meant in this case—i.e. placing the statue without permission/permit.

Good point. This is clarified now, and we also changed the word “secret” to “covert” which conveys the meaning better.

> I would recommend removing the reference to nonhuman statues around lines 41-45. This seems irrelevant to the thesis; additional scrutiny of New York’s public artworks would reveal more nonhuman statues than the authors assert. 

Another good point. The brief reference to nonhuman states is removed and replaced by a statement about the importance of the Charging Bull.

> Page 2 (lines 79-81)—Kirk Savage and other scholars’ recent work on monuments in American society suggests that this notion may be equally applied to statues of specific historical figures. It would be helpful to include additional references to scholarship on the contemporary controversies surrounding monuments.

A good observation. Some additional discussions, together with a few new references, are now included in this section of the paper.

> The author could avoid hyperbole in describing both the statue’s cultural impact and the draw that it has on tourists. For example, line 132-133 claims that the statue is “magnificent” without qualifying how; line 63 describes it as a “global icon” and a quintessential symbol of New York, terms that seem overstated. Lines 137-139 describe the statue as becoming “an integral part of people’s spirit” without explaining what exactly that means. I would recommend using language that puts a bit more critical distance between the author and the artwork, using the observations learned through the study to make the argument through the visitors’ viewpoints about the statue’s importance.

All are good observations. These statements are all toned down now.

> I was curious why the author chose to include only publicly available images from the internet rather than the photographs they took during their observations? The author’s own photos would seem like a better visual source for the essay, especially because none of the photographs illustrate the statue in the context of the marathon. 

This is a very good point. We have now included a photo taken on the Marathon Day by one of us, in fact, two versions of it, one with the faces blurred and the other without the faces blurred. We will leave the decision to the Editor as to which version to use, if at all.

I appreciate the opportunity to review this well-written and insightful essay. I hope my suggestions will be helpful!

Thank you, and your suggestions are indeed very helpful!

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The resubmitted manuscript has been sufficiently revised to be accepted for publication in the MDPI journal. The authors have successfully addressed the reviewers' comments. Well done!

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have considerably improved the structure of the essay while adding important qualifications better delimiting the parameters of their study. I recommend publishing the essay in its current draft.