A Breathing Space: Critical Reflections on the Rewilding of Middleton Tuberculosis Hospital 2016–2025
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear author/authors, thanks for giving me the opportunity to take part in your very interesting research. Your article presents a compelling and richly textured exploration of the rewilding of the Middleton Tuberculosis Hospital site. Your lyrical and reflexive approach, grounded in social semiotics and visual sociology, offers a nuanced interpretation of landscape transformation, atmosphere, and the cultural politics of rural space. The strength of the article lies in its commitment to practice-led research and its resistance to conventional documentary aesthetics, favoring instead a poetic and affective mode of engagement.
However, while the article gestures toward the social construction of nature—particularly through references to pastoral traditions, rewilding discourse, and the semiotic framing of landscape—it could benefit from a more explicit and sustained theorization of nature as a socially constructed concept. For instance, you might engage more directly with scholarship from cultural geography or environmental humanities that interrogates how notions of "naturalness" are historically contingent and ideologically loaded. The invocation of Capability Brown and the pastoral gaze is a promising entry point, but it could be deepened by examining how such aesthetic regimes have shaped public perceptions of what counts as "nature" and what is excluded from that category. In art history, there are numerous examples of how the relationship between landscape and humanity is depicted in a way that explores the spiritual and emotional resonance of nature (e.g. Caspar David Friedrichs). My suggestion is to use Hartmut Rosa's theoretical concept of "resonance" (Rosa, Hartmut (2019). Resonance: a sociology of our relationship to the world. English edition Cambridge: Polity Press). Rosa’s concept highlights a responsive, affective relationship with the world, which aligns with your immersive photographic engagement with the rewilded hospital site. Nature here is not passive but invites emotional and reflective dialogue, resisting instrumental control. Applying resonance theory could deepen the analysis of how rewilded landscapes foster meaningful, transformative encounters beyond aesthetic appreciation.
Similarly, the discussion of rewilding could be enriched by exploring tensions between ecological restoration and cultural memory since rewilded spaces are often imagined as returning to a pre-human or pre-industrial state, despite being embedded in layers of human history and intervention, in a social landscape.
In terms of visual sociology, the article makes a strong case for the epistemological value of photography, especially in capturing atmosphere and affect. Yet the theoretical scaffolding around visual sociology remains somewhat underdeveloped. The article includes references to key thinkers like Pauwels, Prosser, and Edwards, but these citations could be synthesized into a clearer articulation of what visual sociology contributes to the study of landscape and rewilding. For example, how does the act of photographing—beyond its aesthetic or expressive dimensions—function as a sociological inquiry into power, memory, sociocultural history and spatial politics? The concept of affordance is introduced but not fully unpacked in relation to the broader methodological implications of visual research. A more rigorous engagement with multimodality and the politics of representation could help situate the photographic practice within a critical sociological framework.
Furthermore, the article lacks clarity on key aspects of data collection, including what specific research questions guided the photographic practice and how many images were captured in total over the nine-year period. While a few photographs are reproduced, there is no explanation of the selection criteria or rationale for including these particular images. This absence limits transparency and makes it difficult to assess the methodological rigor or representativeness of the visual data.
Overall, the article is a thoughtful and innovative intervention into debates about landscape, rewilding, photographic practice and the use of visual material in social science. With deeper theoretical engagement on resonance, the social construction of nature and the methodological contours of visual sociology, it could offer even more robust insights into the cultural and ecological transformations it seeks to document.
Author Response
REVIEW 1
Article
A Breathing Space: Critical Reflections on the Rewilding of Middleton Tuberculosis Hospital 2016-2025
I sincerely thank Reviewer 1. For their thoughtful and constructive comments. Their insights have substantially strengthened the clarity and rigor of my revised article manuscript. I have carefully considered each point raised and revised the text accordingly, providing detailed explanations within this response document. I appreciate the Reviewer’s engagement with my work and believe that their feedback has meaningfully improved the overall focus and quality of the article.
I have extrapolated the Reviewer’s original insights/comments from the Review 1 document to make the revision discussion easier. Where possible, I have included line numbers to show my revisions.
Dear author, thanks for giving me the opportunity to take part in your very interesting research. Your article presents a compelling and richly textured exploration of the rewilding of the Middleton Tuberculosis Hospital site. Your lyrical and reflexive approach, grounded in social semiotics and visual sociology, offers a nuanced interpretation of landscape transformation, atmosphere, and the cultural politics of rural space. The strength of the article lies in its commitment to practice-led research and its resistance to conventional documentary aesthetics, favoring instead a poetic and affective mode of engagement.
Author response: I am very grateful for your generous insights and comments.
- the article gestures toward the social construction of nature—particularly through references to pastoral traditions, rewilding discourse, and the semiotic framing of landscape—it could benefit from a more explicit and sustained theorization of nature as a socially constructed concept.
Author response: I completely agree with these comments. I did consider the synthesis of Rosa’s ‘resonance theory’ reflections on landscape experience in relation to ‘felt’ atmosphere etc. Your eloquent promotion of Roas’s magisterial book is most welcome. I have now made significant changes to the text that embeds ‘resonance theory’ and rewilding representation as the leitmotiv of this revised submission. The application of Rosa’s ‘resonance theory’ has also allowed me to produce a more convincing theorization ‘of nature as a socially constructed concept’. Please refer to these lines in the revised text: 10, 200, 215, 220, 224, 231, 294, 377.
(2) you might engage more directly with scholarship from cultural geography or environmental humanities that interrogates how notions of "naturalness" are historically contingent and ideologically loaded.
Author response: Thank you for this suggestion. I have since explored the work of Yi-Fu Tuan (Humanist Geography 2012), and the edited collection of David Ley and Marwyn S. Samuels (Humanistic Geography: Prospects and Problems 2016 [1978[). Both cultural geography and environmental humanities are relevant to this project, but I have decided to ration the number of critical inputs into this revised version, due in part, to length restrictions etc. I hope you understand this decision. Nevertheless, I have tried to embed the concept of ideological impact on the perception of nature here:
In the same way that landscape, and the theorization of “nature” is an ideological socio-cultural construct, the photograph as artefact (visual text) has the potential to elicit ideological socio-cultural reactions, while been subjected to the same forces that try to determine its ontological embodiment (Lines 294-297).
In addition to these lines referring to the ‘ideological’: 9, 153, 160, 520, 638.
(3) examining how such aesthetic regimes have shaped public perceptions of what counts as "nature" and what is excluded from that category. In art history, there are numerous examples of how the relationship between landscape and humanity is depicted in a way that explores the spiritual and emotional resonance of nature (e.g. Caspar David Friedrich).
Author response: Thank you again. I greatly admire the Northern Romantic paintings of Caspar David Friedrich (see Werner Hofmann Caspar David Friedrich, Thames & Hudson 2000). I will reference the artist’s work in relation to the landscape encounter, individual presence, spirituality, while suggesting a relationship with the invisible ‘presence’ (situatedness) of the photographer. For more detail evidence of this revision please consult Lines 11-12
(4) My suggestion is to use Hartmut Rosa's theoretical concept of "resonance" (Rosa, Hartmut (2019). Resonance: a sociology of our relationship to the world. English edition Cambridge: Polity Press). Rosa’s concept highlights a responsive, affective relationship with the world, which aligns with your immersive photographic engagement with the rewilded hospital site. Nature here is not passive but invites emotional and reflective dialogue, resisting instrumental control.
Author response: I am thrilled by this suggestion. I completely agree with the importance of Rosa’s magisterial work on resonance, and its contribution to the affective domain, mood, atmosphere, of ‘being in the world’ (Dasein). (I have had Rosa’s hardback for 3 years). Please see the revised lines: 12, 16, 21, 26, 91, 94, 96, 100, 102, 106, 107, 109, 114, 115, 119, 122, 195, 203, 245, 272, 288, 299, 306, 329, 333, 336, 368, 405, 435, 440, 453, 456, 469, 504, 528, 538, 545, 593, 618, 619, 649, 653.
(Also, thank you for also reinforcing the photographer’s iterative ‘immersive’ practice in the Middleton Tuberculosis Hospital site).
(5) Applying resonance theory could deepen the analysis of how rewilded landscapes foster meaningful, transformative encounters beyond aesthetic appreciation.
Author response: I agree completely. These insights will help me to integrate resonance theory with the methodological aims of semiotics, lyrical reflexivity etc. Please consult the previous lines.
(6) the discussion of rewilding could be enriched by exploring tensions between ecological restoration and cultural memory since rewilded spaces are often imagined as returning to a pre-human or pre-industrial state, despite being embedded in layers of human history and intervention, in a social landscape.
Author response: Again, thank you for these generous insights/suggestions. I have addressed these suggestions under the term palimpsest, and the sense of history and collective memory being imbricated vis a vis the MH site. Here is the revised passage:
the site’s palimpsest of transgressive interactions, including unauthorized fires, casual vandalism of the hospital’s remaining buildings, obligatory graffiti tags, and the scattered remnants of rifle shells, resulting from illegal deer hunting, are all imbricated in a tensive state of unmanaged ecological restoration, cultural memory associated with the past patients, visitors, medical staff, and the impossibility of recovering an idealized “Nature” devoid of human intervention. (p.5 lines 196-201)
(Again, I am aware of the article’s word count restrictions, and sometimes to do total justice to these generous comments may be beyond the scope of this particular article.) I will do my best. Please consult
(7) In terms of visual sociology, the article makes a strong case for the epistemological value of photography, especially in capturing atmosphere and affect. Yet the theoretical scaffolding around visual sociology remains somewhat underdeveloped.
Author response: Yes, I understand this point, and the need to provide evidence of my specific eclectic approach to photographic research practice. there are occasions when I have unpacked a term in a somewhat expedient way due to the article length. I will further elucidate the reference to visual sociology. Further embedding of expressive visual sociology in the revised article here:
The lyrical critical reflections on the reproduced photographs (extracted from a much larger archive of the author’s 800 photographs from the site) will be informed by an eclectic synthesis, including resonance theory, social semiotics, and an expressive use of visual sociology. To explain the adoption of visual sociology it is worth noting that this approach is vital for understanding the cultural, historical socio-economic context in which sites of unchecked rewilding emerged. Combined with social semiotic analysis, visual sociology is effective in capturing the lived, sensory, and aesthetic dimensions of ecological change that text or data alone cannot convey. And although it is perhaps beyond the scope of this paper, visual sociology in the form of photographs is ideally suited to uncover social meanings embedded in the landscape, such as perceptions of wildness, beauty, neglect, or renewal, and how these might shape public support or resistance to rewilding. By integrating visual sociology, social semiotics, and lyrical reflexivity, we might better interpret how ecological transformation is both a material and cultural process. (Lines 120-132).
Other references to visual sociology appear on lines: 274 and 606.
(8) The article includes references to key thinkers like Pauwels, Prosser, and Edwards, but these citations could be synthesized into a clearer articulation of what visual sociology contributes to the study of landscape and rewilding.
Author response: Further to point (7) I will unpack/ synthesise the contribution of visual sociology to the study of landscape and rewilding. Please refer to the previous explanation / evidence.
(8a) how does the act of photographing—beyond its aesthetic or expressive dimensions—function as a sociological inquiry into power, memory, sociocultural history and spatial politics?
Author response: Once again, this is an excellent question and could be effectively addressed in a separate article to do it justice. For this revision, I would respectfully ask the Reviewer to understand the word count parameters, which means that a less expedient response to these significant questions might be beyond the current scope of this article? Nevertheless, I have referred to ‘power’ in the following revised lines: 153, 172, 227, 520.
(9) The concept of affordance is introduced but not fully unpacked in relation to the broader methodological implications of visual research. A more rigorous engagement with multimodality and the politics of representation could help situate the photographic practice within a critical sociological framework.
Author response: Yes, thank you for this reminder. I’m aware that the multimodal/social semiotic term ‘affordance’ – that which is possible to express and represent with a mode needs to be unpacked for the reader (Kress 1993). The relationship between the material and the cultural needs further clarification in the text. Please see the lines in which I have unpacked the term affordance: 152, 156, 280, 466.
(10) the article lacks clarity on key aspects of data collection, including what specific research questions guided the photographic practice and how many images were captured in total over the nine-year period.
Author response: Interestingly, this question was mirrored by Reviewer 2. In view of the ‘resonance’ revision, there is an opportunity to clarify the ontological function of researcher-generated photographic practice over the nine-year period of investigation, in which the revised research questions will be:
The revised key research questions are:
(1) Why is researcher-generated photography, amid AI image production, an effective epistemological method for re-presenting and understanding the significance of unmanaged landscape rewilding?
(2) How do photographic re-presentations and lyrical reflexivity convey the lived resonance of being in places like the Middleton Hospital site?
Over 800 researcher-generated photographs exist in the author’s Middleton Tuberculosis Hospital project. Reference to the archive and number is explained in the lines: 121, 326, 642.
(10a) While a few photographs are reproduced, there is no explanation of the selection criteria or rationale for including these particular images. This absence limits transparency and makes it difficult to assess the methodological rigor or representativeness of the visual data.
Author response: I understand the Reviewer’s frustration. I was only allowed to use 8 photographs (Figures) in the submission. This point was also raised by Reviewer 2. The selection criteria was based on the need to represent the full duration of the project, hence, a balanced sequence of photographs from each year, as well as photographs which include iconographic reference to the changing seasons seemed to resonate in relation to ‘resonance theory’. Please see the following lines: 15, 258, 327, 334.
(11) Overall, the article is a thoughtful and innovative intervention into debates about landscape, rewilding, photographic practice and the use of visual material in social science. With deeper theoretical engagement on resonance, the social construction of nature and the methodological contours of visual sociology, it could offer even more robust insights into the cultural and ecological transformations it seeks to document.
Author response: Many thanks for the positive comments, critical insights, and eloquent concision. I feel very encouraged by your thoughtful and inspiring engagement with the article.
Many thanks for your generous time and expertise.
Regards.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis has the potential to be a very valuable article, but as it stands it isn't communicating as strongly as it might. I feel it could be strengthened if the following issues are addressed:
More context about the status of the Middleton Tuberculosis Sanatorium Hospital site. I think we need to know more about its original layouts, planting schemes, etc., in relation to its surroundings, which we are told are agricultural. We particularly need to know about its status since Harrogate Council's Planning refusal in 2005 of a proposed 'eco-village' site. What were the reasons for that refusal? Was there a specific decision by the Council to designate the 57 acres of the MTSH site for rewilding purposes and if so, what was this meant to entail and how achieved? Is the land private or public land? This isn't clear from the material presented.
The impetus and rationale for this longitudinal photographic project is unclear also. Was it a commissioned or researcher generated project? What was it setting out to achieve with respect to this history and future of the site? Has this site already been studied and written about using alternate research techniques? Or was the main aim to contribute to scholarship on rewilding ? If the latter, the nature of existing scholarship on rewilding, and the contributions of visual research in this context - and this approach in particualar - needed to be clarified. Why was it important to foreground questions of atmosphere - this was a repeated theme but with a lack of broader context its significance wasn't clear? What kinds of reframings did this afford - and of what?
The methodology section needs more attention, particularly regarding the practical details of the photographic project in question. How exactly was this project conducted? How many photographs were taken? Were specific locations within the site chosen and how did these sites relate to the original layout of the site? Were selected sites (if they were selected) returned to and if so, how often? Then, for the purposes of this article, why were the 7 photographs reproduced selected for discussion? How did they relate to the overall photographic archive?
Overall, I wasn't sure why so much general photographic theory was brought into play at the expense of focusing on the details, rationale, and impact of the photographic project in question? I wanted to know what kinds of reframing the project made possible, and how it did so? What specific contributions to knowledge were being made as a result that other researchers might build on? Here, as well as addressing the issues raised above, key images needed to be carefully introduced, described and analysed - this was the main theoretical work, as it were , that needed to be done. I'm not saying that the various theoretical references weren't of interest, but I had the sense throughout that they were deflecting from the important core work of that needed to be done with respect to the actualities of the photographic material that had been amassed over the 9 year project period. Indeed, given the length of the project, I wasn't sure what key changes had been mapped and tracked by the project. Questions of objectivity, "objective truth," and subjectivity were raised with respect to photographic representation- for instance "In mitigating a purely subjective approach" p. 8 and - in ways that are theoretically outmoded and unnecessary. To repeat, more important would have been to focus on the details of the photographic project as issue here, with references to theory woven in if and as appropriate with the aim of strengthening, clarifying or testing the methods, perspectives, and claims being presented here.
The work of artists working with land/landscape were also referenced, but again in overly generalised terms. Again, these references were taking up space that would have been more usefully dedicated to a careful analysis of the project in question.
I do hope that these comments make sense. I feel as though, somehow, the topic of this essay, and the undoubted riches obtained from the photographic project, became obscured in part by a lack of overall contextualisation and signposting - what exactly was the project at issue here, and why is it important? - and in part by not doing justice to the photographic project that was meant to be the focus of the essay.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
The English communicated clearly and the article was well written. There were a few typos and grammatical errors which would have been picked up in the copy edit process.
Author Response
REVIEW 2
Article
A Breathing Space: Critical Reflections on the Rewilding of Middleton Tuberculosis Hospital 2016-2025
Dear Reviewer, 2,
I sincerely thank Reviewer 2. For their thoughtful and constructive comments. Their insights have substantially strengthened the clarity and rigor of my revised article manuscript. I have carefully considered each point raised and revised the text accordingly, providing detailed explanations within this response document. I appreciate the Reviewer’s engagement with my work and believe that their feedback has meaningfully improved the overall focus and quality of the article.
I have extrapolated the Reviewer’s original insights/comments from the Review 2 document to make the revision discussion easier. Where possible, I have included line numbers to show my revisions.
(1)This has the potential to be a very valuable article, but as it stands it isn't communicating as strongly as it might. I feel it could be strengthened if the following issues are addressed:
Author response: I value your positive comments. Thank you.
(2) More context about the status of the Middleton Tuberculosis Sanatorium Hospital site. I think we need to know more about its original layouts, planting schemes, etc., in relation to its surroundings, which we are told are agricultural.
Author response: I appreciate this comment. My aim was to restrict the more technical planning history of the site in favour of a qualitative critical direction, a decision also influenced by the article’s length, and the different comments offered by Reviewer 1. In this respect, I have tried my best to synthesise both the Reviewers’ generous and perceptive insights. The intention of the elevated photograph of the MTH site (Figure 1) was to contextualise and provide an overall sense of its location in a largely agricultural landscape.
(2) We particularly need to know about its status since Harrogate Council's Planning refusal in 2005 of a proposed 'eco-village’ site. What were the reasons for that refusal?
Author response: I share the Reviewer’s interest in the site’s history and current predicament, but initially, I did not want to detract from the article’s qualitative focus (and word count). Nevertheless, I now understand that these details are important for the research and reader. Therefore, I have revised the text to provide further details vis a vis the Harrogate Council’s Planning refusal and ownership. The site has changed hands several times since the hospital closed in 1990. Key ownership details include: The site was initially owned by the NHS and then the Durham-based NHS Executive. Ilkley businessman Mark Sayer and his wife Janet purchased the land from NHS Estates in 2005. Later, the site's ownership transferred to Middleton Partnership LLP, which submitted several planning applications, including plans for a country house and an "institutional use" facility. As of at least February 2018, the site has been owned by Halton Homes, who have also sought planning permission for development. The key reasons for Harrogate Council’s refusal were concerns about the development's location within the Green Belt, its visual impact on the Nidderdale Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, increased traffic, and potential environmental contamination from past use. Please consult lines to view changes: 38-46.
(3) Was there a specific decision by the Council to designate the 57 acres of the MTSH site for rewilding purposes and if so, what was this meant to entail and how achieved?
Author response: There was no decision by Harrogate Council to designate the site for rewilding purposes. As I suggest in the text, the significance of the site is due to its unmanaged governance, a process which has allowed inadvertent rewilding to spread across the site.
(4) Is the land private or public land?
Author response: At present, the site is privately owned by the property developer, Halton Homes. I have checked for any current planning applications, but none were available.
(5) The impetus and rationale for this longitudinal photographic project is unclear also. Was it a commissioned or researcher generated project?
Author response: This is a great question. The project was not commissioned and is an unfunded individual researcher-generated project.
(6) What was it setting out to achieve with respect to this history and future of the site? Author response: Another insightful question. The aim of the research project was to explore the specificity of this site to create an exemplar that would resonate across other ‘unchecked’ recolonised sites in the UK and beyond. I provide a rationale for why the photographic research conducted at the site might be important in lines 133-150.
The celebration of similar forgotten sites is evident in the work of Richard Mabey and Iain Sinclair. Although I do not emphasise the choice of site in the article explicitly, I was intrigued by the history of the site situated away from the urban landscape, a sanatorium, a hospital for breathing problems (tuberculosis), and the notion of the countryside as ‘a breathing space’ – an invigorating refuge from stress etc. In terms of the future of the site, I’m not aware of any planning application resolution, but this may change if the Labour government’s ‘relaxation’ of planning is implemented by Harrogate Council (now North Yorkshire Planning). Again, I will include a truncated version of the above details in the text.
Since receiving the two Reviewers’ comments, the critical focus of the article has been adjusted to target this finding: ‘Interestingly, there is no study that explicitly combines photographic representation of rewilding with Rosa’s resonance theory.’ (See Lines 118-119).
(7) Has this site already been studied and written about using alternate research techniques?
Author response: There has been no academic research study based on the MTH site. The only outputs that I have seen have been recent psychogeography photographs on YouTube, which concentrate on the interior explorations of the remaining MTH social club and mortuary.
(8) Or was the main aim to contribute to scholarship on rewilding?
Author response: Yes, the main aim was to contribute to the concept of landscape rewilding through an eclectic situating of researcher-generated photography, underpinned by resonance theory, as means to change the public’s perception of unmanaged rewilding places. In short, I view the article as a provocation, one that seeks to reconceptualise the places we visit and value. The paradoxical nature of such unchecked places is also important, especially in the context of biodiversity and farming’s historical subjugation of wild nature in the UK.
(9) nature of existing scholarship on rewilding, and the contributions of visual research in this context - and this approach in particular - needed to be clarified.
Author response: Thank you for this comment. I address the ‘scholarship on rewilding’ and contributions of visual research from lines 369-389, in which I discuss the research contributions on rewilding made by Joel Sternfeld’s project in New York: The High Line (2000) and Wout Berger’s work on contaminated Dutch landscapes in Giflandschap (1992) and Giflandschap Revisited (2017) and their eventual renewal and rewilding. I also refer to the visual research conducted in Robert Polidori’s celebrated Zones of Exclusion: Pripyat and Chernobyl (2003) book project exploring the Chernobyl disaster site, and nature’s remarkable recovery in Lines 601-607.
(10) Why was it important to foreground questions of atmosphere - this was a repeated theme but with a lack of broader context its significance wasn't clear?
Author response: Important question. There is a particular feeling/mood when photographing in these kinds of places, hence my adoption of the preferred academic term: atmosphere. My argument is that the analysis of atmosphere through iterative walking and photographing in different seasons will always be somewhat ‘felt’, ineffable, rather than unambiguously scientific, measurable. I attempt to make the case for sites of rewilding as places that challenge the conventional (ideological) definitions of where we should experience recreation, solace, and which places should be cherished and protected. I will clarify the use of atmosphere in the text. Thank you.
(11) What kinds of reframings did this afford - and of what?
Author response: The term ‘Atmosphere’ has replaced mood in discussions about sense of place, or in Raymond Williams’s case ‘structures of feeling’. (See the work of Benedict Anderson on atmosphere). This point links to the previous explanation in which I use the felt experience, the atmosphere of ‘being there’ in the MTH site to suggest a reimagining of such places and what they might offer to the individual human experience, in contrast to the more codified experience offered by certain National Trust landscapes? I intend to include the work of Hartmut Rosa on ‘resonance theory’ in relation to landscape to address this question.
(12) The methodology section needs more attention, particularly regarding the practical details of the photographic project in question. How exactly was this project conducted? Author response: Excellent observation. I will attend to the methodology section and provide more detail on its execution over the course of the project. In short, I would visit the MTH site on a regular monthly basis during the hours from 8:00 – 19:00 depending on seasonal lighting conditions, hence the truncated Figures (max is 8) cover the longitudinal change in seasons etc. The Journal only permits 8 Figures.
(13) How many photographs were taken?
Author response: Yes, thank you. It is worth including the scale of the MTH photographic archive. Over eight hundred photographs exist in the MTH archive. It was a very difficult decision to choose 7 photographs that represented the depth of the visual inquiry. I understand that from the Reviewer’s perspective (and reader) that this might be frustrating.
I will indicate in the text the approximate number of MTH photographs in my archive.
(14) Were specific locations within the site chosen and how did these sites relate to the original layout of the site?
Author response: Over the course of the project, I returned to areas of the MTH site to document the recolonisation of nature, while been drawn to certain iconographic forms, such as mounds, with their ancient allusions to pre-industrial landscapes and art history etc. Similarly, I was drawn to the developing birch wood as a signifier of landscapes of trauma (see Baer’s work on the concentration camps in Spectral Evidence).
(15) Were selected sites (if they were selected) returned to and if so, how often?
Author response: Please see previous responses. Yes, the various areas were returned to every month, particularly at those times when the changing seasons were most apparent.
(16) Then, for the purposes of this article, why were the 7 photographs reproduced selected for discussion?
Author response: Please see previous explanation. The Journal only permitted 8 photographs (Figures) to be included. I again, understand how frustrating this may be for the Reviewer. In a sense, what the edited choice does achieve (in my view) is that the reader may encounter each photograph as an ‘art’ photograph, each of which, invites the reader to reassess the ideological and aesthetic visual content, hence my reference to Kant’s work on beauty via Matthew Kieran’s reflection on the transformation of ‘beauty’ through photographic framing.
(17) How did they relate to the overall photographic archive?
Author response: Again, another great question. Most of my eight hundred photographs follow a planar axis photographic aesthetic, not dissimilar to formal figurative paintings, in which the use of negative and positive space is considered. In short, the photographs which have not been chosen for the article reflect similar compositional aesthetics, rather than simply informational images (in the strictly anthropological tradition). The aim to ‘nudge’ the reader to reconsider the cultural/ideological/aesthetic value of such places as the MTH, is aided in my view, by their art photography characteristics.
(18) Overall, I wasn't sure why so much general photographic theory was brought into play at the expense of focusing on the details, rationale, and impact of the photographic project in question?
Author response: Thank you for this important question. The reason for a substantive inclusion of photographic theory was because I promised to embed photographic practice in my initial Abstract submission in response to the Journal’s call out – photography as an art etc. And because the call out was for the Arts Journal, I wanted to make the argument for the value of researcher-generated photographic practice in the re-presentation of rewilding enclosed in the more managed agricultural landscape/countryside. I also wanted to assert the academic value of photographic practice as a stand-alone form of knowledge production as well as a visual conduit for an eclectic range of methods. A visual source that enables
both critical, semiotic, sociological, lyrical reflexivity, to inhabit the same critical space as the leitmotiv of Rosa’s (2019) ‘resonance theory’.
(19) I wanted to know what kinds of reframing the project made possible, and how it did so?
Author response: This is a difficult question to respond to without appearing arrogant; the intention was to reposition rewilding, and its associated ‘sense of place’, in a nuanced way, emphasising its ideological/cultural and ecological importance to an increasingly anxious and over-populated nation, in search of respite and a more radical engagement with less codified landscapes. I would hope that the reader would simply reconsider the value of such places and how they might be preserved in the interests of biodiversity and people, especially children, whose lives need less managed recreational spaces (see Last Child in the Woods book). In short, the revised ‘reframing’ of the project intends to situate researcher-generated practice and multimethod as a creative way to contribute to the debates surrounding the valorisation of certain overlooked, unmanaged landscapes of rewilding.
(20) What specific contributions to knowledge were being made as a result that other researchers might build on?
Author response: Great question. I might have touched on this in my previous response, but yes, my hope would be that other researchers consider the benefits of researcher-generated photographic practice in the field of inquiry, and that visual evidence is even more relevant as we assess the problems of AI. And the fate of the MH itself is worth researching as a continuation of this longitudinal project. The archive now exists as a ‘contribution to knowledge’, one that can be engaged with other researchers in different ways. And what will become of the MH site in relation to the impact of Labour’s planning objectives? Will the site change ownership and be purchased by a local wildlife group? Could it be purchased by the National Trust, and thereby have its current ideological status completely transformed?
(21) key images needed to be carefully introduced, described and analysed - this was the main theoretical work, as it were , that needed to be done. I'm not saying that the various theoretical references weren't of interest, but I had the sense throughout that they were deflecting from the important core work of that needed to be done with respect to the actualities of the photographic material that had been amassed over the 9 year project period.
Author response: Thank you. I am pleased that you value the inclusion of the photographs in the text (Figures 1-8). I did not want the article to be dominated by the photographs alone. The intention has always been to use the photographs and researcher-generated visual research as both a catalyst and conduit, to contribute to the debates concerning primary research methodologies, and how photographic materials might contribute to the ontologies of landscape representation, and a reconceptualization of rewilding. Hopefully, the significant revisions, including the focused critical unpacking of Rosa’s (2019) ‘resonance theory’ addresses the above comments.
(22) I wasn't sure what key changes had been mapped and tracked by the project.
Author response: I understand this query. The actual MH site archive of photographs (800+) evidences the significant stages of rewilding, but this transformation is difficult to ‘map’ and ’track’, due to the Journal’s limit of eight figures in the text.
(23) Questions of objectivity, "objective truth," and subjectivity were raised with respect to photographic representation- for instance "In mitigating a purely subjective approach" p. 8 and - in ways that are theoretically outmoded and unnecessary.
Author response: Thank you. I suppose that I was trying to situate photography for the general reader, yet I understand your point that these debates are now largely anachronistic (unless we refer to the impact of AI?). I have significantly truncated and refined the section relating to your comments above. Please see Lines 339-353.
(24) The work of artists working with land/landscape were also referenced, but again in overly generalised terms. Again, these references were taking up space that would have been more usefully dedicated to a careful analysis of the project in question.
Author response: Thank you. I appreciate this point. Again, I was trying to contextualise the tradition of landscape representation for the general reader, to help situate my own application of visual research. The word count allocation does preclude a more expansive reflection on this visual tradition in relation to the MTH project. If I may, I would assert that the references to Sternfeld, Berger, Jarman etc., add to the reflection on visual practice and contextualises it in relation to landscape representation. Also the revised discussion on the work of Caspar David Friedrich (specifically highlighted by Reviewer 1) and Rosa’s book on Resonance further contribute to the argument concerning landscape (rewilding) as a societal benefit, offering the potential of a transformative experience. In the revised article Friedrich is discussed in Lines 459-487.
(25) the undoubted riches obtained from the photographic project, became obscured in part by a lack of overall contextualisation and signposting.
Author response: Thank you for this positive response to the project. Hopefully, the significant revisions in respect of the (different) Reviewers’ comments will assuage these concerns.
(26) what exactly was the project at issue here, and why is it important? - and in part by not doing justice to the photographic project that was meant to be the focus of the essay.
Author response: Thank you. I would say that my previous responses have attempted to address this key question. Due to the limitation of photographic Figures (only 8) imposed by the Arts Journal (a restriction imposed by many visually-based journals) there is a compromise I agree; as mentioned previously, the photographs make a contribution to the research representation of unmanaged case-studies of rewilding, while provoking (hopefully) a discussion on the ideological/cultural valorisation of rewilding and the relationship to genius loci, the affective domain, and its potential to elicit in the Rosa sense: resonance through presence and experiential immersion.
(27) The English communicated clearly and the article was well written. There were a few typos and grammatical errors which would have been picked up in the copy edit process.
Author response: Many thanks for the very interesting questions. I am pleased that my English was clear and well written.
Many thanks for your generous time and expertise.
Regards.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe author has done a great job of updating this document and I feel that it now does justice to the years of photographic endeavour carried out. The addition of Rosa and "resonance" works well. I can also see very clearly how and where this text is contributing to the wider literature.
