The “Disappearing” of Croatian Art in Hungarian Art Exhibitions at the Turn of the 20th Century

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This research is done with great care and sensitivity to political and cultural consequences of categorizing Croatian and Hungarian arts. It also provides a balanced and nuanced narrative especially about Croatian art emerging as ‘independent’ art and about changes in the politics of Austro-Hungarian Empire at the turn of century. In other words, this research has significance both in terms of art history and in broader research of politics, culture, and society. It makes good use of available sources in different languages and has convincing conclusions. 

Author Response

Thank you for the effort spent reading the manuscript and the comments.  I greatly appreciate them.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article examines the role of Croatian displays at three fairs. The piece would benefit from a more critical framing, starting with the introduction and literature review. Instead of providing general information and an overview, it would be good to foreground the argument the article aims to present, and to offer critical insights into the primary themes of the key literature on the subject. To provide more critical insight, much of the adjacent information could be omitted. For instance, why is discussing related building structures significant if the article centres on the displays? Why is the concept of “Ausstellungsmüdigkeit” noteworthy?

 

The argument should be extended in other respects: why is the education of artists in various locations important? What does this information reveal about their status and their work? Could the images include reproductions of some of the relevant works along with a more detailed and critical contextualisation?

 

In many respects, the article focuses more on the reception history in contemporary press than on the displays themselves. Would foregrounding this approach and framing it critically be beneficial?

 

I would also encourage using other titles for the subheadings and avoiding purely descriptive sections, which could easily be integrated into a more sophisticated argument.

 

Some quotes are extremely lengthy and require detailed discussion if they are included to such an extent. Notably, the focus on the nationalising purposes of art during this period is well-studied and can hardly be contested any longer. In other words, it is not particularly “new”, so the argument would benefit from exploring some of the intricacies and issues that arise from these nationalising processes, rather than simply demonstrating that this was also topical matter in relation to Croatia.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Some language issues: Formulations, such as “backward-looking structure” need to be revisited.

Author Response

Thank you for your careful reading and thoughtful comments.

This article examines the role of Croatian displays at three fairs. The piece would benefit from a more critical framing, starting with the introduction and literature review. Instead of providing general information and an overview, it would be good to foreground the argument the article aims to present, and to offer critical insights into the primary themes of the key literature on the subject. To provide more critical insight, much of the adjacent information could be omitted. For instance, why is discussing related building structures significant if the article centres on the displays?

The structure housing the display is itself part of the display.  While the location of a structure is not the purview of a “national” selection committee, the choice of style and of architect are as much of a display choose as the materials presented within.

Why is the concept of “Ausstellungsmüdigkeit” noteworthy?

It underscore the consciousness of the choice to display at a Fair; the St. Louis exhibition is a prime example.

The argument should be extended in other respects: why is the education of artists in various locations important? What does this information reveal about their status and their work? Could the images include reproductions of some of the relevant works along with a more detailed and critical contextualisation?

The section on Croatian art and its relationship to Vienna deals with that question cursorily.  Information about their education in various locations is extremely important and will be dealt with in a different article; for this article the fact that they did not study in Hungary, is the significant point. The focus is the displays and their changing receptions.

In many respects, the article focuses more on the reception history in contemporary press than on the displays themselves. Would foregrounding this approach and framing it critically be beneficial?

A major problem with this topic is that often only the titles of the works are known, not their appearance, so commenting on that is rather difficult.  Thus the focus on reception and criticism in the contemporary press.

I would also encourage using other titles for the subheadings and avoiding purely descriptive sections, which could easily be integrated into a more sophisticated argument.

I think descriptive titles best guide the reader as to the contents of the section.

Some quotes are extremely lengthy and require detailed discussion if they are included to such an extent. Notably, the focus on the nationalising purposes of art during this period is well-studied and can hardly be contested any longer. In other words, it is not particularly “new”, so the argument would benefit from exploring some of the intricacies and issues that arise from these nationalising processes, rather than simply demonstrating that this was also topical matter in relation to Croatia.

The goal of this article is to discuss how Croatian art was exhibited (and received) in Hungarian exhibitions (and in comparison with Austrian exhibition that included their own minorities).  Numerous different arguments can be brought to bear, such as their educations, their financial supports, how the Croatian artists saw themselves in relationaship to their peers, all of which are valid and interesting topics of exploration, but not the purpose of this article.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 

Some language issues: Formulations, such as “backward-looking structure” need to be revisited.

 

The formulation has been changed and several minor typos fixed.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is very solid and well-documented, and the author fairly faithfully reproduces the voices of the sources without generally imposing a biased reading of their own. However, the analysis has a weak point: it does not define what exactly Croatian art, Croatian-Dalmatian art, and Croatian-Slovenian art mean (are these something different from Croatian art?), as well as Hungarian art and Austrian art, in the context of the Austro-Hungarian Empere. What did these concepts mean in 1900, and how would they differ from today? Did it mean that artists had to have that specific ethnic origin, or that specific state origin, I mean, Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia, vs Austro-Hungarian Empire (which means something else than ethnicity)? Or should they have themes that can be defined as belonging to a specific Volkgeist? I understand that the article seeks to follow how the concept of Croatian art  clarified over several years, up to the onset of the 20th century, but I believe the historiographical approach would be improved if complemented by a conceptual approach. Because the author deals with Croatian art vs. Hungarian art, there should also be a section possibly discussing more theoretical debates about national specifics in the period in these countries and how the artistic concept fitted into them. I believe the article would benefit from having a theoretical chapter as well as a conclusions section, summarizing briefly all the stages of the transformation of Croatian and Hungarian art concepts in those times.

And please, rephrase the title as “the turn of the 20st century” (because it can create confusions). Also, please, check again for spellings errors (for example, in chapt.’s 8 title should be “its relationship”, not “it relationship”).

Author Response

Thank you for your careful and thoughtful reading of the article.  It is greatly appreciated.

The article is very solid and well-documented, and the author fairly faithfully reproduces the voices of the sources without generally imposing a biased reading of their own. However, the analysis has a weak point: it does not define what exactly Croatian art, Croatian-Dalmatian art, and Croatian-Slovenian art mean (are these something different from Croatian art?), as well as Hungarian art and Austrian art, in the context of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. What did these concepts mean in 1900, and how would they differ from today? Did it mean that artists had to have that specific ethnic origin, or that specific state origin, I mean, Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia, vs Austro-Hungarian Empire (which means something else than ethnicity)? Or should they have themes that can be defined as belonging to a specific Volkgeist?

The terms are lifted from the contemporary materials themselves.  The discussion of what constitutes Slavonian as opposed to Croatian, while a fascinating topic, especially given that the major cities of Slavonia tended to be heavily Magyar, is beyond the scope of this article.

I understand that the article seeks to follow how the concept of Croatian art  clarified over several years, up to the onset of the 20th century, but I believe the historiographical approach would be improved if complemented by a conceptual approach. Because the author deals with Croatian art vs. Hungarian art, there should also be a section possibly discussing more theoretical debates about national specifics in the period in these countries and how the artistic concept fitted into them. I believe the article would benefit from having a theoretical chapter as well as a conclusions section, summarizing briefly all the stages of the transformation of Croatian and Hungarian art concepts in those times.

While the theoretical underpinnings of Hungarian and Croatian art are extremely interesting, they fall outside the intended scope of this article.  It is intended as an overview of the exhibitions and changing receptions of Croatian art within Hungarian society.

 

And please, rephrase the title as “the turn of the 20st century” (because it can create confusions). Also, please, check again for spellings errors (for example, in chapt.’s 8 title should be “its relationship”, not “it relationship”).

 

That has been changed and the several typos throughout the article removed.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Much improved!