Entangled Networks: Metaphor as Method, Matter, and Media

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This submission is eminently worth publishing. It is a well-argued hypothesis, using two forms of scholarship to elegantly explore two divergent positions. The Introduction provides a clear and succinct background to the topic and the issues.  The Theoretical Framework is relevant and clearly explained.  The use of artistic practice as the case study was elegantly done and supported the conclusions most effectively.

I recommend the submission be published as is.

Author Response

Comments : This submission is eminently worth publishing. It is a well-argued hypothesis, using two forms of scholarship to elegantly explore two divergent positions. The Introduction provides a clear and succinct background to the topic and the issues.  The Theoretical Framework is relevant and clearly explained.  The use of artistic practice as the case study was elegantly done and supported the conclusions most effectively.
I recommend the submission be published as is.

Response: 

I sincerely thank the reviewer for their generous and insightful feedback. I am delighted that the paper resonated as intended and appreciate their endorsement of the submission for publication. In response to recommendations from other reviewers, I have revised the manuscript to incorporate Tim Ingold’s notions of space and place, particularly in relation to cyberspace, and further considered the often depresented role of craft in the development of technology. These additions enrich the discussion while maintaining the original methods, contexts, and conclusions. I thank the reviewer for recommending publication.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article presents an engaging and relevant proposal within the arts field, articulating theoretical reflections with an artistic object coherently. The central idea is promising and demonstrates analytical sensitivity, although the text would benefit from greater conceptual depth and a more robust dialogue with specialised bibliography. The abstract is somewhat lengthy and could be condensed to highlight only the essential elements of the argument and the findings.

Within the main body of the text, several technical and formatting adjustments are needed:

On line 128, the spacing in the word common should be corrected.

On line 188, there is again disproportionate spacing.

In Section 4, concerning methodology, the paragraphs appear short and visually fragmented, which compromises the fluency of reading — it is recommended to revise the organisation and standardise the textual structure.

From a theoretical standpoint, the article would benefit from greater analytical density, moving beyond description and isolated citations. It is suggested that the author engage with anthropological and philosophical traditions addressing related themes — for example, Stanley Tambiah’s reflections on metaphor, metonymy and allegory, and Claude Lévi-Strauss’s discussions on the magical force of words. Such references could broaden the understanding of the relationship between language and artistic expression.

Similarly, there is an extensive body of literature on the metaphor of space on the internet that could enrich the conceptual framework of the article. In this regard, it would be advisable to incorporate the contributions of Tim Ingold, particularly in Being Alive, where the author develops the notions of space, place, and movement in ways highly pertinent to the proposed discussion.

In summary, this is a paper with good potential and a conceptually stimulating proposal, yet it requires formal revisions and deeper theoretical engagement before being considered for publication.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The article presents an engaging and relevant proposal within the arts field, articulating theoretical reflections with an artistic object coherently. The central idea is promising and demonstrates analytical sensitivity, although the text would benefit from greater conceptual depth and a more robust dialogue with specialised bibliography. The abstract is somewhat lengthy and could be condensed to highlight only the essential elements of the argument and the findings.

Within the main body of the text, several technical and formatting adjustments are needed:

On line 128, the spacing in the word common should be corrected.

On line 188, there is again disproportionate spacing.

In Section 4, concerning methodology, the paragraphs appear short and visually fragmented, which compromises the fluency of reading — it is recommended to revise the organisation and standardise the textual structure.

From a theoretical standpoint, the article would benefit from greater analytical density, moving beyond description and isolated citations. It is suggested that the author engage with anthropological and philosophical traditions addressing related themes — for example, Stanley Tambiah’s reflections on metaphor, metonymy, and allegory, and Claude Lévi-Strauss’s discussions on the magical force of words. Such references could broaden the understanding of the relationship between language and artistic expression.

Similarly, there is an extensive body of literature on the metaphor of space on the internet that could enrich the conceptual framework of the article. In this regard, it would be advisable to incorporate the contributions of Tim Ingold, particularly in Being Alive, where the author develops the notions of space, plac,e and movement in ways highly pertinent to the proposed discussion.

In summary, this is a paper with good potential and a conceptually stimulating proposal, yet it requires formal revisions and deeper theoretical engagement before being considered for publication.

 

Author Response

Comment 1: The article presents an engaging and relevant proposal within the arts field, articulating theoretical reflections with an artistic object coherently. The central idea is promising and demonstrates analytical sensitivity, although the text would benefit from greater conceptual depth and a more robust dialogue with specialised bibliography. The abstract is somewhat lengthy and could be condensed to highlight only the essential elements of the argument and the findings.

Response 1: Thank you for your thoughtful review and recommendations; this process has been extremely valuable and generative. In response to your comments, I have strengthened the conceptual depth by incorporating Tim Ingold’s notions of space and place (2011), exploring transference through the metaphor and metonymy of magical words (Tambiah, 1968), and more clearly demonstrating the depresented role of craft in the development of technology (Plant 1997, Barber 1995). The abstract has been revised to reflect these additions while being condensed to highlight the essential elements of the argument and findings. I greatly appreciate your guidance, which has helped refine the manuscript, and I hope these revisions enhance its clarity, depth, and conceptual rigour.

Comment 2: Within the main body of the text, several technical and formatting adjustments are needed:

On line 128, the spacing in the word common should be corrected.

On line 188, there is again disproportionate spacing.

In Section 4, concerning methodology, the paragraphs appear short and visually fragmented, which compromises the fluency of reading — it is recommended to revise the organisation and standardise the textual structure.

Response 2 : Thank you for highlighting these technical and formatting issues. I have corrected the spacing errors on lines 128 and 188. Additionally, I have revised Section 4 to improve paragraph structure and continuity, standardising the text to enhance readability and fluency.

Comment 3: From a theoretical standpoint, the article would benefit from greater analytical density, moving beyond description and isolated citations. It is suggested that the author engage with anthropological and philosophical traditions addressing related themes — for example, Stanley Tambiah’s reflections on metaphor, metonymy and allegory, and Claude Lévi-Strauss’s discussions on the magical force of words. Such references could broaden the understanding of the relationship between language and artistic expression.

Similarly, there is an extensive body of literature on the metaphor of space on the internet that could enrich the conceptual framework of the article. In this regard, it would be advisable to incorporate the contributions of Tim Ingold, particularly in Being Alive, where the author develops the notions of space, place, and movement in ways highly pertinent to the proposed discussion.

In summary, this is a paper with good potential and a conceptually stimulating proposal, yet it requires formal revisions and deeper theoretical engagement before being considered for publication.

Response 3: I have incorporated Stanley Tambiah’s reflections on metaphor, metonymy, and the magical force of words, situating Van Den Boomen’s understanding within the broader history of anthropological and linguistic study and tracing connections to Lakoff and Johnson’s Contemporary Theory of Metaphor (1980). I have also strengthened the discussion of spatial metaphors in digital media by integrating Tim Ingold’s concepts of space, place, and movement from Being Alive (2011), highlighting how these ideas inform our understanding of cyberspace as an untethered, immaterial space through which we travel. The concept of the interranet is then introduced as a counter-imaginary, a meshwork rather than a networked. I greatly appreciate the reviewer’s guidance, which has helped deepen the theoretical framework, enrich the conceptual dialogue, and strengthen the overall argument of the paper.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, 

Overall, the article presents a strong and well-argued contribution to the literature. The practice-as-research methodology was well-defined, and the case study was compelling. However, there are areas where clarity and depth could be improved to strengthen the manuscript’s overall contribution. Strengths The study has conceptual originality. The idea of interweaving metaphor, materiality, and artistic practice is both innovative and coherent. Moreover, the bibliography is solid, utilising key authors in this field. The visual and artistic contribution, specifically the c(o)racle case, adds an interesting empirical-creative component. Specific Revisions and Suggestions for Improvement The theoretical framework is excessively expository and can be improved. Much of Sections 2 and 3 are dedicated to summarising theoretical works (especially van den Boomen) without a distinct analytical thread. From my point of view, the theoretical background could be synthesised and the author’s original contribution emphasised; for example, what does their proposal add or transform in relation to the theory of the digital metaphor? Furthermore, the case study (c(o)racle) can be revised. The description of the silhouetted hands is fascinating and thought provoking. The conceptual intention of these hands is outlined more explicitly. They represent an "interference" in the water/data pattern and are also a "visual undercurrent" that guides the viewer’s attention. Clarify whether these hands, which represent networks of practical/manual knowledge (Birmingham Knitting and Crochet Guild, art students), act as a metaphor for the reincorporation of work and tacit knowledge that digital depresentation tends to obscure. Perhaps you might consider briefly commenting on the blue aesthetics of the installation. Its description as the "spectral aura of a digital interface" is a great line, but how does it relate to the critique of transparency (window, platform), and re-materialisation? Is the c(o)racle an opaque window or a different interface Citations and Format I've noticed that the essay uses Lev Manovich's concept of "Transcoding" but does not directly cite Manovich's text on page 4, paragraph 1, when describing the "mix of human and computer meanings." While the reference is in the bibliography, ensure that the citation in the text is consistent with that of van den Boomen and other theorists. Therefore, it is necessary to review the coherence of citations and reference formatting according to Arts style (APA 7th or Chicago, depending on the section), as well as pay attention to typographical and lowercase inconsistencies (“Van Den Boomen” / “van den Boomen”). In conclusion, the article is very stimulating, and the suggested revisions are aimed at maximising clarity to ensure that the contribution of the study is articulated in the most solid way possible.

Kinds, 

Reviwer

Author Response

Comment 1: Overall, the article presents a strong and well-argued contribution to the literature. The practice-as-research methodology was well-defined, and the case study was compelling. However, there are areas where clarity and depth could be improved to strengthen the manuscript’s overall contribution. Strengths The study has conceptual originality. The idea of interweaving metaphor, materiality, and artistic practice is both innovative and coherent. Moreover, the bibliography is solid, utilising key authors in this field. The visual and artistic contribution, specifically the c(o)racle case, adds an interesting empirical-creative component. 

 

Response 1: I sincerely thank the reviewer for their thoughtful and encouraging feedback. I am delighted that the conceptual originality of the manuscript and the interweaving of metaphor, materiality, and artistic practice were recognised, as well as the contribution of the c(o)racle case study. I also appreciate the acknowledgement of the bibliography and the engagement with key authors in the field. The reviewer’s comments on areas for further clarity and depth have been particularly valuable, and I have revised the manuscript to enhance conceptual precision, strengthen theoretical engagement, and clarify key arguments, while retaining the practice-as-research methodology and artistic focus. Your guidance has helped improve the overall coherence and impact of the paper.

Comment 2: Specific Revisions and Suggestions for Improvement The theoretical framework is excessively expository and can be improved. Much of Sections 2 and 3 are dedicated to summarising theoretical works (especially van den Boomen) without a distinct analytical thread. From my point of view, the theoretical background could be synthesised and the author’s original contribution emphasised; for example, what does their proposal add or transform in relation to the theory of the digital metaphor?  

Response 2: I have revised Sections 2 and 3 to synthesise the theoretical background more concisely, reducing exposition while clarifying the analytical thread. I’ve attempted to achieve this through the addition of Stanley Tambiah’s reflections on metaphor, metonymy, and the magical force of words, situating Van Den Boomen’s understanding within the broader history of anthropological and linguistic study and tracing connections to Lakoff and Johnson’s Contemporary Theory of Metaphor (1980). This emphasises the transference of metaphor through action (Tambiah 1968), akin to my artistic practice. I have also strengthened the discussion of spatial metaphors in digital media by integrating Tim Ingold’s concepts of space, place, and movement from Being Alive (2011), highlighting how these ideas inform our understanding of cyberspace as an untethered, immaterial space through which we travel. This connects better to my practice extending and transforming existing understandings of digital metaphor, particularly in terms of materiality and ecological entanglement. I greatly appreciate the reviewer’s guidance, which has helped sharpen the focus and highlight the distinct contribution of the manuscript. 

Comment 3: Furthermore, the case study (c(o)racle) can be revised. The description of the silhouetted hands is fascinating and thought provoking. The conceptual intention of these hands is outlined more explicitly. They represent an "interference" in the water/data pattern and are also a "visual undercurrent" that guides the viewer’s attention. Clarify whether these hands, which represent networks of practical/manual knowledge (Birmingham Knitting and Crochet Guild, art students), act as a metaphor for the reincorporation of work and tacit knowledge that digital depresentation tends to obscure. Perhaps you might consider briefly commenting on the blue aesthetics of the installation. Its description as the "spectral aura of a digital interface" is a great line, but how does it relate to the critique of transparency (window, platform), and re-materialisation? Is the c(o)racle an opaque window or a different interface 

Response 3: Thank you for these comments, this process this process has been extremely valuable and generative especially in relation to the practice. I have revised the discussion of c(o)racle to more clearly articulate how the silhouetted hands operate as a metaphor for the depresented role of craft in the development of technology. Drawing on Plant (1997) and Barber (1995), I’ve written about how the hands represent networks of practical, tacit, and craft-based knowledge that are often rendered invisible or abstracted in digital infrastructures. I have also refined the discussion of the installation’s blue aesthetics to underscore how the “spectral aura of a digital interface” critiques notions of transparency and instead foregrounds the ‘window’ or frame through which our digital technologies are mediated.

Comment 4: Citations and Format I've noticed that the essay uses Lev Manovich's concept of "Transcoding" but does not directly cite Manovich's text on page 4, paragraph 1, when describing the "mix of human and computer meanings." While the reference is in the bibliography, ensure that the citation in the text is consistent with that of van den Boomen and other theorists. Therefore, it is necessary to review the coherence of citations and reference formatting according to Arts style (APA 7th or Chicago, depending on the section), as well as pay attention to typographical and lowercase inconsistencies (“Van Den Boomen” / “van den Boomen”).

In conclusion, the article is very stimulating, and the suggested revisions are aimed at maximising clarity to ensure that the contribution of the study is articulated in the most solid way possible.

Response 4: Thank you for highlighting these points. I have carefully checked the coherence of citations and references throughout the essay according to the journal’s Arts style guidelines, attending to typographical and capitalisation inconsistencies (e.g., “Van Den Boomen” vs. “van den Boomen”).

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is beautifully written article and  project. The scholarship is rigorous and worthy of publication. I have no critique to give. This piece is ready inclusion in this journal.

Author Response

Comments: This is beautifully written article and  project. The scholarship is rigorous and worthy of publication. I have no critique to give. This piece is ready inclusion in this journal.

Response : I sincerely thank the reviewer for their generous and insightful feedback. I am delighted that the paper resonated as intended and appreciate their endorsement of the submission for publication. In response to recommendations from other reviewers, I have revised the manuscript to incorporate Tim Ingold’s notions of space and place, particularly in relation to cyberspace, and further considered the often depresented role of craft in the development of technology. These additions, I believe, enrich the discussion while maintaining the original methods, contexts, and conclusions. I thank the reviewer for recommending publication.