Māori Identity and Reflexive Ethnography in Research on HORI’s Art

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall I thought the piece was well written and coherent.  There is further matter the author might like to consider.

The matter concerns conceptualising the activity of 'reading' and interpreting art. Methodologically by addressing the possible readings and interpretations the analysis was thorough.  However it assumes that art is only 'to be read' – which is a traditional semiotician vocation and analysis. When one attempts to interpret or decode a text, visual in this instance, it is done so with the assumption that there are finite readings to be made (even where there are multiple possible readings), that is also to say the message is structurally stable.  Its based also on the assumption that the author of the work was using art to convey a finite stable message.  There are a few problems with this line of thinking.  That the art becomes a medium for a finite message is a very normative understanding of the relationships between art and the artist.  I am not suggesting that this is not an aspect of the work, but for the Māori artist, this runs into a problem as it is often said that the art itself has a “mauri”, its own life force (this was particularly the case for carvings, weaving and latticework produced for an ancestral house but Māori contemporary artists may also conceive of a similar relationship with their work).  Following on from this, if the art has its own life-force, its signalling the Māori view that art has capacity for its own form of subjectivity, and thus rather than being read, it is also perhaps appropriate to talk about the artwork speaking.  This is a slight shift away from reading artwork to listening to art, from a subject-object relationship to a subject-subject relationship, which runs counter to most semiotic and structuralist analyses. 

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your insightful critique regarding the traditional semiotic assumption that art is “only to be read” and thereby limited to finite, stable messages. I greatly appreciate your emphasis on the Māori concept of mauri—a life force that grants the artwork its own subjectivity—and on the shift from a subject–object to a subject–subject relationship. Your observations led me to clarify how my analysis accounts for this relational dimension and the idea of art speaking instead of merely being decoded.

In Section 2 (Theoretical Context), I have added passages explicitly discussing mauri as an intrinsic vitality that challenges a purely objectifying approach. I reference scholars such as Mead (2016) and Salmond (1984) to illustrate how, within Māori epistemologies, a work of art is not an inert text to be decoded but an active participant with the capacity to “speak” (see newly inserted paragraphs: “Importantly, from a Māori vantage point…” and “In recognizing that a Māori artwork can be approached…”).
By highlighting mauri, I show that meaning is not fixed or singular. Rather, it emerges in an ongoing, dialogical exchange between the artwork, the artist, and the viewer.

In Section 3 (Methodology), I now emphasize how a Māori framework prompts a relational encounter (subject–subject) with the artwork, rather than a traditional subject–object model. This revision clarifies that Hori’s pieces hold their own agency and can “address” viewers, steering me away from a rigid semiotic interpretation.
I refer to new sources (e.g., Morgan 2006; Henry & Wofgramm 2015) to support the idea that an artwork “speaks” within its local cultural context. Consequently, each stage of my visual analysis (denotative and connotative) is coupled with a reflective awareness of how the artwork might actively shape the interpretive process.

I have expanded the autoethnographic dimension of my study to demonstrate that I, as the researcher, am also part of this relational field. The revised text clarifies how my personal background (informed by Poland’s own history of negotiation between dominant and local narratives) intersects with Hori’s work in a dialogic manner.
This move counters a static view of “decoding” messages, since my interpretive lens is continually reshaped by the artwork’s mauri and by the emotional responses it evokes in me.
Listening vs. Reading

In the updated discussion sections (particularly in Sections 4, 5, and 6), I explicitly address your point about “listening” to art. I highlight that by acknowledging the artwork’s life force, we can conceive of Hori’s creations as “speaking” rather than mere objects bearing a stable, pre-coded message.
This is reflected in my analysis of Hori’s motifs—such as whenua, whakapapa, and the concept of niho—as dynamic symbols that invite a multiplicity of negotiations rather than imposing a single interpretive frame.

Finally, by integrating mauri and this relational perspective into the revised manuscript, I align the analysis with decolonizing methodologies (Smith 2008; Kovach 2009) and broaden the scope beyond conventional structuralist or purely semiotic approaches. This acknowledges the capacity of Māori art to act as an agent of cultural sovereignty, memory-making, and intersubjective communication, answer your suggestion that art in Māori contexts often operates as a living, speaking entity.
I trust these revisions demonstrate my responsiveness to your critique and show how mauri and a relational, subject–subject lens can redefine my understanding of Hori’s art. Rather than centering on finite, stable messages, I emphasize the evolving, dialogical processes through which Indigenous art both “speaks” and engages with viewers across cultural and epistemological boundaries. Thank you again for prompting me to articulate these dimensions more thoroughly in my manuscript.

Best regards

Author

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comment and recommendations:

Usually I provide Authors with very technical comments. However, in this case I would like to recommend something that might improve the overall meaningfulness and understanding of the piece.

I believe that Hori is introduced too quickly in the midst of page 2. Namely, the paper says: "Hori—a Māori visual artist who combines local traditions with the global language of activist art—emerges as a particular case." Unfortunately, very little is said about Hori's existential placement: how old is he? What is his record of artistic activity? Etc. I would have appreciated a more nuanced biographical introduction to the artist... possibly in an autonomous section (also because the Authors should take notice of the fact that their Introduction is already loaded with claims and results, to the point I believe it should blend into the very foundations illustrated in Section 2).

Therefore, my recommendation is, so to speak, to somehow separate our knowledge of indigenous art in general from Hori. The paper already does that to a good extent in pages 1 and 2, but the effort could be a bit more sustained.

Since I mentioned the need for more biographical information (i.e. for a better placement of the Hori phenomenon as an artist and as a community member), it would be fruitful to include appropriate references to his work, his website, his gallery, etc. For example, when I searched him online, I found thehori.co.nz -- is that him? Please understand that, for me, it is not a rhetorical question but a philological one.

Another thing I would like to understand is whether Hori wants to be called Hori or HORI. This is nitpicking, I know, but I think we should try to abide by the self-branding of the artist.

Keeping instruments apart from results

Although I acknowledge that knowledge is always theory-loaded, it would be beneficial to change the position of statements that constitute the original results of the Authors' analysis, yet they are featured in the wrong section. For example, consider the following set of statements:

"Hori’s works, situated at the intersec-tion of local and global cultural orders, thus become polyphonic visual texts. Depending on their own cultural, ideological, and geographical contexts, viewers may read them as criticism of postcolonial power arrangements, manifestations of Māori identity, or as part of a transnational discourse of activist art (De Cauter at all. 2011; Clifford 1997; Ginsburg 1994)."

The excerpt sounds clearly like a set of results about Hori. That is, something we discover about his art through the heuristics of the theoretical lenses you described. But is this the right place for such a set of claims?

Autoethnographic perspective

Mention of an autoethnographic perspective is present at the beginning of page 4. It should be deepened and expanded. However, since doing so would breach the blind nature of the journal's quality assurance process, I invite the Authors to expand on their autoethnographic details after the review has been received and the paper approved. So, please take a note this is something you should do later.

However, from what I learn from page 5, the Author's work does not sound like it is truly autoethnographic. I mean, of course there are some individual elements that are biasing the author's investigation, and which (s)he should strive to be aware of during the course of ethnographic writing. However, autoethnography is usually another thing altogether: autoethnography is not the mere account of how personal elements intersect your research (that is basic Malinowskian awareness); instead, you are an autoethnographer when you start dealing with your own community, with which you do not entertain a relationship of immediate Othereness. In other words, if you are a permanent resident of Ōtaki, you are doing an autoethnography. If you are not and are coming from afar to spend one month there, you are doing basic ethnography. That is not wrong per se but calls for a completely different set of methodological concerns, which are closer to traditional ethnographic methods. If that is the case, your references and methodological coordinates should change accordingly.

Just to set the record straight, I understand that there is a difference between autoethnography and indigenous autoethnography. But consider the most outstanding works in autoethnography: Boyloron studies blackgirl feminism, and the reason hers is an autoethnography is that she is (was) a black girl and a feminist; similarly, Adams wrote an autoethnography about "coming out of the closet" because he was the one coming out of the closet. Given your analytical framework, we can conclude that your methodology includes some elements of autoethnography inasmuch you reflect on your Polish identity and background... but that is as far as autoethnography goes in your paper.

Therefore, if your paper truly rested on autoethnographic methods, I would invite you to expand on that (as I did in my first paragraph). However, if it does not, I would invite you to downplay it.

"Ethical considerations were a priority"

That paragraph should go into a new section 3.5.

Also, please cite IRB approval if the research standards of your research institute require it.

Visit to Hori's studio (p. 4)

Please add some details on the circumstances of the visit (a research project? An invitation? A vernissage?). More details would enhance the authenticity of your ethnographic message.

Observing how Hori operates during Matariki is especially important (p. 7)

Please provide the reader with an example of what you mean. That paragraph is too generic.

Shepard Fairey

Was Hori influenced primarily by Shepard Fairey or by  John Carpenter's movie? Please clarify because it is philologically important.

"I recall how, during Poland’s period of political transformation, posters, books, and educational programs emphasized the need to build a different future, free from the oppressive past."

Please provide the reader with a relatable example.

"my own Polish experiences of seeking freedom and self-determination."

Again, lack of substantial autoethnographic data make it difficult to identify the type of experience the Author is referring to. For example, it would greatly differ if the Author was a member of Solidarność than if the Author grew up in EU-member and NATO-member Poland. In other words, the autoethnographic element should emerge in its authenticity and distinctiveness for it to be epistemically valuable.

Typos:

- Double parenthesis, Section 2, end of 1st paragraph

Editing recommendation:

Though acknowledging that te reo Māori is an official language of NZ, I encourage authors to use italics for distinctively non-English words such as whenua, whakapapa, mana, etc. -- that is, for the benefit of the international reader.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2

Thank you very much for your thoughtful and constructive comments. I have carefully reviewed each of your suggestions and implemented changes to address them. Below is a point-by-point response:

1. Hori introduced too quickly (p. 2)

Comment:

“I would have appreciated a more nuanced biographical introduction to the artist... possibly in an autonomous section. Very little is said about Hori’s existential placement.”

Response:

I have created a dedicated subsection in the Theoretical Context (Section 2.1, “Background and Branding Hori”) to provide a more detailed introduction to the artist. This now includes:

• Brief information on Hori’s self-branding (why he uses “HORI”),
• A reference to his official website [thehori.co.nz](https://thehori.co.nz)[thehori.co.nz](https://thehori.co.nz)[thehori.co.nz](https://thehori.co.nz),
• A note explaining that Hori chooses to keep some biographical details (e.g., his age) private, which I respect.

By separating general insights on Indigenous art (Sections 2 and 2.2) from Hori’s personal context, I aim to ensure a smoother transition from broader theoretical discussion to the specifics of his practice.

2. Keeping instruments apart from results

Comment:

“Some statements in the theoretical section read like results about Hori’s art. Is this the right place for them?”

Response:

In the revised Theoretical Context, I have reframed any interpretation-specific statements to read as general possibilities rather than definitive outcomes. I now present concepts—such as polyphonic visual texts or local–global intersections—as theoretical tools that can be applied later. Specific interpretive conclusions about Hori’s art have been moved to the Analysis/Discussion sections, ensuring that my theoretical framework (the “instruments”) is kept separate from the findings (“results”).

3. Autoethnographic perspective

Comment:

“Mention of an autoethnographic perspective should be deepened, but the Author’s work does not sound like a true autoethnography…”

Response:

I have clarified in the revised methodology (Section 3.3, now titled “Reflexive Autoethnography”) that I am not conducting a full autoethnography, as I am not an insider studying my own community. Instead, I adopt a reflexive autoethnographic stance, acknowledging how my personal Polish background and experiences with cultural resistance shape my interpretation of Hori’s art. This aligns more closely with an external researcher’s reflexive approach rather than classical autoethnography (e.g., Boylorn, Adams).

4. "Ethical considerations were a priority" → new Section 3.5

Comment:

“That paragraph should go into a new Section 3.5. Also, please cite IRB approval if required.”

Response:

I have created a new subsection, “3.5. Ethical Considerations,” where I moved and expanded on the ethics discussion. This includes details on how I:

• Respected local cultural property,
• Avoided exploitative or exoticizing approaches.

I have also indicated whether IRB approval was obtained or why it was not required, following my institution’s guidelines.

5. Visit to Hori’s studio (p. 4)

Comment:

“Please add some details on the circumstances of the visit... an invitation? A vernissage?”

Response:

In Section 3.2, I now explain how I initially learned about Hori’s art while searching for local murals as part of my broader CAPHE project on hybrid forms of digital education. After contacting him, Hori invited me to his studio. The visit took place in a relaxed setting, where he freely discussed his artistic influences, ongoing projects, and gave me permission to use photographs and observations in my research.

6. Shepard Fairey

Comment:

“Was Hori influenced primarily by Shepard Fairey or by John Carpenter’s movie? Please clarify.”

Response:
I have clarified that Hori credits Shepard Fairey as his primary influence. Fairey himself was inspired by John Carpenter’s They Live (1988), so the “OBEY” motif traces back to Carpenter’s film. In conversation, Hori emphasized his interest in Fairey’s global activist style, which he adapts to Māori cultural themes and concerns.

7. Polish experiences: "During Poland’s period of political transformation..."

Comment:

“Please provide a relatable example.”

Response:
I have added a short personal anecdote about visiting the Szczecin Shipyard with my father during the Solidarity movement. This illustrates how my early exposure to protest imagery and collective resistance informs my empathic response to Hori’s activist art.

8. "My own Polish experiences of seeking freedom and self-determination."

Comment:

“Lack of substantial autoethnographic data… be explicit about the kind of experience.”

Response:
I clarify that I was not an official member of Solidarność but did grow up during Poland’s final communist years. Observing solidarity protests and seeing resistance-oriented visuals shaped my understanding of how art can mobilize community identity. This helps contextualize my cross-cultural perspective, without implying insider status in the Māori community.

9. Typos & Formatting

Comment:

“Double parenthesis in Section 2, and italicize Māori words (whenua, whakapapa, mana, etc.).”

Response:
I have corrected the double parentheses in Section 2 and italicized Māori terms (whenua, whakapapa, mana, etc.) for clarity. Although I acknowledge that te reo Māori is an official language of New Zealand, italics help international readers recognize non-English terms.

Conclusion

I greatly appreciate the time and detail you put into reviewing my manuscript. Your insights prompted me to reorganize my text for greater clarity, refine the methodological distinction between reflexive ethnography and autoethnography, and present a more thorough ethical framework. I have also included more concrete context about Hori’s background, my visit to his studio, and the Matariki celebrations. These changes, I believe, significantly enhance the article’s coherence and academic rigor.

Thank you again for your invaluable suggestions.

Sincerely,
Author

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The Authors have addressed all my previous comment and the article is now satisfactory. I think the overall strength is still average, but all other criteria are high, so I recommend it for publication.