Representation of Suffering, Destruction, and Disillusion in the Art of Marcel Janco

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article tackles a very important and timely topic of arts depicting the horrors of evil, war, destruction and dehumanization. The article explains well the traumatic experiences of Janco and his personal crisis with artistic expression when everything around him turned to sheer horror. His artistic choice was to turn to grotesque fractured imagery. The article compares his choice to that of several other Jewish artists being forced to choose how to depict something that can't really be addressed fully. Apparently Janco's choice contributed to certain marginalization in art history but surely that would not have been any major concern for him. It is important to keep these drawings available for people to imagine what Janco and all the victims went through. This article is ready to be published as it is.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your generous and thoughtful feedback. I’m deeply grateful for your engagement with the article and your reflections on the significance of Janco’s artistic response to trauma and destruction. Your words about the importance of making these drawings available resonate strongly with the core aims of my essay.  I appreciate your support and am honored by your recommendation for publication.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

A very interesting piece that is thoroughly and convincingly argued and which makes a thoughtful contribution to the field.

A couple of points: 1/it is, arguably somewhat repetitive; 2/ I understand why Anselm Kiefer is included in the survey of different treatments of the subject, but I am not entirely sure this is justified, because of the period, and the context, in which he was working 3/ re Fig 4 - the subject is referred to as a forced march. That is not how I would have read it...

a few typos: line 499, 'figure'; line 585, 'recalls'; line3 764-5, 769-770 - repetition

Author Response

I would like to thank you sincerely for your generous and thoughtful reading of my article, and for the constructive suggestions you offered. I have carefully revised the manuscript in light of your comments, which have helped me significantly improve the clarity and depth of the argument. Please find below my detailed responses to each of your points:

Comment 1: “It is, arguably, somewhat repetitive.”  Response: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree that the earlier version repeated similar points in the comparison between Janco, Olère, and Kiefer. I have now streamlined this section to enhance clarity and avoid duplication. In particular, I revised the paragraph discussing Janco’s position in relation to Olère and Kiefer, condensing the overlap and sharpening the contrast. Please see revised lines 764–765 and 769–770.

Comment 2: “I understand why Anselm Kiefer is included in the survey of different treatments of the subject, but I am not entirely sure this is justified, because of the period, and the context, in which he was working.”  Response: Thank you for this valuable observation. I have now clarified the rationale for including Kiefer by emphasizing the generational and conceptual distance between his postwar work and Janco’s immediate, embodied response. This distance is precisely what makes the comparison fruitful, allowing me to highlight the distinct ways each artist negotiates trauma. This clarification is now included at lines 275–279:  “Although Kiefer did not witness the Holocaust directly, his postwar engagement with its memory through material decay and conceptual erasure provides a revealing counterpoint to Janco’s immediate, embodied response. This temporal and generational distance highlights the shifting visual strategies for representing trauma, and the contrast sharpens our understanding of Janco’s refusal of abstraction as a mode of distancing.”

Comment 3: “re Fig 4 – the subject is referred to as a forced march. That is not how I would have read it.”  Response: I very much appreciate your perspective on this image. While I have chosen to retain the interpretation of Humiliation Line as evoking a forced march—based on my analysis of the figures’ alignment, posture, and movement—I fully acknowledge that alternative readings are possible. 

Comment 4: “a few typos: line 499, ‘figure’; line 585, ‘recalls’; line3 764–5, 769–770 – repetition.”  Response: Thank you for noting these. I have corrected the typographical issues as follows:  “figure” has been capitalized at line 499 “recalls” corrected at line 585 Repetitions around lines 764–770 have been removed (see also Response 1).

Once again, I am grateful for your close and thoughtful engagement with my text. Your comments have been extremely helpful in refining the article, and I hope the revised version addresses your concerns fully.