Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This excellent manuscript is well-written although I found two errors.

1) On page 4, lines 152-3, it should be "by the current activities of the Trump administration..."

2) On page 14, line 498: Conclusions should be 4. Conclusions,  not 3.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for your review. I accept your comments in their entirety and have incorporated them into the current version of the text. I believe it is now more persuasive and less controversial.

Major insertions are highlighted in blue. Additionally, a number of minor corrections have been made, as suggested by the reviewers, in order to depersonalise the account, steer away from art criticism and towards academic discourse, as well as avoid any seeming or apparent political bias. 

Coments 1: On page 4, lines 152-3, it should be "by the current activities of the Trump administration..."

Response 1. I decided to remove this sentence in order to avoid political controversy, which is not necessarily needed here.

Coments 2: On page 14, line 498: Conclusions should be 4. Conclusions,  not 3.

Response 2: I changed the numbering.

In response to the comments contained in the document attached to the review:

1. I have added two subheadings, similar to the ones proposed, which, in my opinion, also make the message and structure of the text clearer.
2. The highlighted fragments of the text at the beginning and end serve to clarify the research problem and the hypotheses put forward, and reveal the changes that, in my opinion, have taken place in recent years in the art world, as exemplified by the presentation of African art.

Thank you again for your consideration and suggestion. I trust that the correction will satisfy you and will contribute to improving the quality of my reflections.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall, this paper has great potential, and the subject is indeed important and certainly relevant to this issue. For it to achieve its potential, however, significant improvements need to be made. 

1. The paper makes the claim a significant shift has occurred in the last 7 years at important biennale-type exhibitions. This is indeed quite possible. What is not adequately stated is what the previous state of affairs was prior. It is only tossed of with simplistic expressions of patronizing or framing in a Western context. More needs to be provided to show the former condition, so that the new status quo: what has changed, can be more clearly expressed.
2. The author writes too much in the tone of an art critic who has visited these shows. This tone would be good if this were a piece of art criticism, but it is an academic paper, and requires a different tone. Remove the use of I. Depersonalize it. 
3. The author makes too many political presumptions. For example, line 152-153, referring to Trump. Such political statements cannot be easily tossed off, and assume the reader will agree. Either take the time (and space) to coherently argue this, or leave it out. Overall, do not assume a common political orientation of the reader. Although they may agree with you on such post-colonial accusations, such as Europe and the West's guilt for the problems that afflict the Global South, simply assuming their agreement risks placing the paper in an ideological frameworks that diminishes its over all impact and universality.
4. The paper needs both a more clearly stated research problem, and then, at its conclusion, a resolution that explains what has changed. 

Author Response

Thank you for your review. I accept your comments in their entirety and have incorporated them into the current version of the text. I believe it is now more persuasive and less controversial.

Major insertions are highlighted in blue.

Coments 1: The paper makes the claim a significant shift has occurred in the last 7 years at important biennale-type exhibitions. This is indeed quite possible. What is not adequately stated is what the previous state of affairs was prior. It is only tossed of with simplistic expressions of patronizing or framing in a Western context. More needs to be provided to show the former condition, so that the new status quo: what has changed, can be more clearly expressed.

Response 1. In the current version of the text, I draw attention to the state of reflection on African art at the beginning of the 21st century, initiated by the curatorial work of Okwui Enwezor. The selected examples of works and exhibitions I have interpreted are treated as a development of this trend and the establishment of a new position. I have established a clear timeline, determined in my opinion by important exhibitions such as documenta 14 and documenta 15, and framed by political and social crises. In conclusion, I draw attention to the significant transformation of art shown today in Europe.

Coments 2: The author writes too much in the tone of an art critic who has visited these shows. This tone would be good if this were a piece of art criticism, but it is an academic paper, and requires a different tone. Remove the use of I. Depersonalize it. 

Response 2: A number of minor corrections have been made in order to depersonalise the account, steer away from art criticism and towards academic discourse.

Coment 3. The author makes too many political presumptions. For example, line 152-153, referring to Trump. Such political statements cannot be easily tossed off, and assume the reader will agree. Either take the time (and space) to coherently argue this, or leave it out. Overall, do not assume a common political orientation of the reader. Although they may agree with you on such post-colonial accusations, such as Europe and the West's guilt for the problems that afflict the Global South, simply assuming their agreement risks placing the paper in an ideological frameworks that diminishes its over all impact and universality.

Response 3. I decided to remove political references from the text and also tried to weaken my position on such matters. I agree with you that in these circumstances they are unnecessary, and their absence will contribute to the credibility of the conclusions.

Coments 4: The paper needs both a more clearly stated research problem, and then, at its conclusion, a resolution that explains what has changed. 

Response 4: The highlighted fragments of the text at the beginning and end serve to clarify the research problem and the hypotheses put forward, and reveal the changes that, in my opinion, have taken place in recent years in the art world, as exemplified by the presentation of African art. I have added two subheadings, similar to the ones proposed, which, in my opinion, also make the message and structure of the text clearer.

 

Thank you for your consideration and suggestion. I trust that the correction will satisfy you and will contribute to improving the quality of my reflections.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The improvements have now strengthened the paper to the point that it could be published with some more more consideration of the existing literature. I still find the referencing to be limited, and it would benefit from additional consideration of the significant literature already existant on the the subject, as well as parrallel reviews of these exhibitions.