The Machined Human and the Digital Unconscious

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is well written, well researched, pertinent and interesting. The layout/formatting led to some confusion (placement of the tables and some of the figures interrupted the flow and made me get a bit lost). 

There are just a couple of typos (eg. line 149) but overall the text is compelling and should be  published. 

Author Response

Comment 1 :

The article is well written, well researched, pertinent and interesting. The layout/formatting led to some confusion (placement of the tables and some of the figures interrupted the flow and made me get a bit lost). 

Answer 1 :

Tables and figures have been correctly placed.

Comment 2 : 

There are just a couple of typos (eg. line 149) but overall the text is compelling and should be  published. 

Answer 2 :

Correction made line 149. Thank you.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for allowing me to read your work.
This paper provides a rich, intellectual and methodologically original exploration of what the author refers to as the 'digital unconscious', drawing on Pierre Schaeffer’s thoughts on 'artistic machinism' to reconsider contemporary digital imagery, sound and cinematic production. The argument skilfully revisits Schaeffer’s media theory alongside Walter Benjamin’s 'optical unconscious' to propose a philosophical framework for understanding how human perception and technological mediation co-construct creative practice in the digital age. Close readings of Oppenheimer (2023) and The Matrix effectively demonstrate the ongoing relevance of mid-twentieth-century media theory to contemporary artistic and philosophical debates.
This essay's strength lies in its conceptual rigour and the clarity with which it articulates the complex relationships between artistic creation, machine mediation, and unconscious projection. The author’s engagement with Schaeffer is meticulous and well contextualised, and the integration of examples from film, animation, and visual arts adds both depth and concrete detail. Furthermore, the final section of the paper, which focuses on the limits of digital representation and the reflexive nature of cinematic machinery, offers a particularly insightful synthesis of theory and practice.
Nevertheless, there is scope for improvement to enhance readability and accessibility. For example, the introduction could more explicitly define the central research question or guiding problem. Currently, it is not until several pages into the discussion that the direction of the argument becomes fully clear. A brief statement outlining the paper’s aims, methodology (theoretical reflection rather than empirical analysis) and contributions to existing scholarship would help to situate the reader. Secondly, although the discussion of Schaeffer is thorough, the transitions between his framework and the digital case studies occasionally feel abrupt. Additional connective commentary would help readers trace the evolution from historical theory to present-day digital media. Finally, to maintain argumentative momentum, the author may wish to condense certain descriptive passages, especially those recounting Schaeffer’s typologies.
Overall, this is a compelling, well-researched and philosophically grounded essay that makes an important contribution to contemporary reflections on art, technology and media consciousness. With adjustments to the structure and framing, it would be ready for publication.

Author Response

Comment 1 :

(...) the introduction could more explicitly define the central research question or guiding problem. Currently, it is not until several pages into the discussion that the direction of the argument becomes fully clear. A brief statement outlining the paper’s aims, methodology (theoretical reflection rather than empirical analysis) and contributions to existing scholarship would help to situate the reader.

Response 1 : I agree, I've written a statement accordingly.

Comment 2  : 

Secondly, although the discussion of Schaeffer is thorough, the transitions between his framework and the digital case studies occasionally feel abrupt. Additional connective commentary would help readers trace the evolution from historical theory to present-day digital media.

Response  2 :  I agree, I have added some lines before the Table 1 in order to avoid this feeling. It seems to me that the other examples are better contextualized.

Comment 3 : 

Finally, to maintain argumentative momentum, the author may wish to condense certain descriptive passages, especially those recounting Schaeffer’s typologies.

Response 3 : I'd rather not do this because we need to understand Schaeffer's typologies (actually unknown, moreover) with some expansion (maybe this comment 3 is linked to the first one and I hope that the modification allows to take the time of this necessary step).

Thank you very much for these comments and for your review more generally.