Women Art Collectors and Legacy: Two Case Studies Examining the Legacy-Building Strategies of Australian Women Art Collectors of Contemporary Art

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The submitted article offers a thoughtful and timely contribution to art market studies by focusing on contemporary Australian women collectors, a subject that remains underexplored in the existing literature. By centering the activities of Gene Sherman and Naomi Milgrom, the author addresses an identifiable gap in both gendered art history and the study of collecting practices, where contemporary female agents are often overshadowed by historical figures or male counterparts. The article’s central aim, to examine these collectors’ legacy-building strategies, has genuine scholarly value, and identifying publishing, archiving, philanthropic initiatives, and institutional collaborations as mechanisms of legacy offers a productive frame for examining women’s influence within the art ecosystem.

The structure of the article is generally clear and coherent, moving from a contextual introduction through a literature review to detailed case studies, before concluding with a synthesis of major themes. The case-study approach is appropriate to the material, and the author’s extensive use of primary documentation - exhibition catalogues, accession records, auction data, museum publications, and press profiles - adds substantial empirical weight to the discussion. The Sherman case study is especially strong in this regard, offering rich insight into her networks, philanthropic choices, and strategic positioning over several decades.

At the same time, the article’s scholarly contribution would be sharpened by a more rigorous analytical framing. The argument occasionally slips into descriptive or even affirmative modes, particularly in its portrayal of the collectors’ philanthropic activities and institutional relationships. While the generosity and influence of these women are undeniably significant, the paper would benefit from a more critical interrogation of the collectors’ agency within broader art-market structures. Issues such as symbolic capital, power asymmetries between private collectors and public institutions, and the increasingly blurred boundaries between philanthropy and market visibility remain largely underdeveloped. This is especially noticeable in the treatment of museum collaborations and donations, which are described in detail but not fully conceptualized through frameworks such as Bourdieu’s cultural capital, Olav Velthuis’s sociology of markets, or feminist analyses of patronage and institutional influence.

The methodology section outlines the use of case-study research, but it remains somewhat descriptive, explaining the sources employed without sufficiently justifying the selection of these two particular collectors or situating them within a wider field of contemporary Australian women collectors. Even if the cohort is small, a brief reference to other figures - such as Judith Neilson, Diana Ramsay, and Win Schubert - would help contextualize the significance of Sherman and Milgrom as either exemplary or exceptional. Similarly, the literature review is informative but could draw more explicitly on theoretical scholarship beyond the historical studies of women collectors, especially given the article’s interest in legacy, patronage, and institutional positioning.

Despite these critiques, the article is clearly written and well-organized. The narrative flows smoothly, and the empirical richness of the material is undeniable. However, the tone at times borders on celebratory, particularly in the detailed recounting of philanthropic achievements, which can obscure the critical distance expected in peer-reviewed scholarship. A more analytical, less affirmative tone, which balances appreciation of these women’s contributions with a probing examination of the mechanisms, motivations, and implications of legacy-making, would strengthen the article’s academic rigor.

Overall, the manuscript holds genuine promise and addresses an important lacuna in the field. With deeper theoretical grounding, greater critical scrutiny, and a more balanced interpretive approach, it could make a meaningful contribution to contemporary art-market studies and to the historiography of women collectors. At its current stage, it would likely benefit from substantive revision, but the underlying research and conceptual direction are strong, and the paper has clear potential to mature into a valuable scholarly work.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

Thank you for your engaged reading of the manuscript. I am grateful for the time you have taken to assess the article and for the constructive nature of your critique.

 

I am pleased that you recognise the article’s contribution in addressing an underexplored area of art-market studies, with the focus on contemporary Australian women collectors and the examination of legacy-building strategies. Your affirmation of the empirical richness of the case studies is much appreciated.

 

In response to your observation that the manuscript at times may lean toward description and affirmation rather than sustained critical analysis I have revised the article to sharpen its analytical framing and to more explicitly interrogate the collectors’ agency within broader art-market and institutional power structures. Where appropriate, I have framed certain assertions with aspects of Bourdieu’s theory of cultural capital, and Velthuis’s sociological analysis of the contemporary art market. A brief and introductory overview of each is included in the lit review.

 

Following your comments on methodology, I have clarified the rationale for selecting Gene Sherman and Naomi Milgrom as case studies, positioning them within the wider field of Australian women collectors through comparative referencing to other figures - Judith Neilson, Sheila Cruthers, Diana Ramsay and Win Schubert,- to better contextualise the choice of collectors as exemplary case study candidates.

 

I have also addressed your concern regarding tone. Sections that may appear celebratory have been revised to maintain greater critical distance, with closer attention to the motivations, implications, and structural effects of legacy-making practices.

 

Thank you again for your engagement with the manuscript. I believe the revisions respond directly to the concerns you raised. I am grateful for your encouragement and for the opportunity to further develop this work.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper fits very well with the thematic scope of the SI. It raises a very salient topic of women art collectors from Australia, the part of the world art market that quite often remains in the shadow of other regional art centers, which makes the paper particularly valuable. Content-wise, I would suggest revising the paper along the following lines:

1 - I would suggest dividing the section "Literature and Methodology" into two separate ones—one dedicated to literature review, the other to research design and methodology.

2 - In addition, I would suggest writing an additional section before Conclusions that brings together the two art collectors in question. It would be interesting to include a passage where the author compares and contrasts in a more detailed way the art historical approaches of the two art collectors in order to see the differences and similarities between them.

3 - Finally, in the Conclusions section I would suggest discussing the broader impact of the two art collectors on the development of the art market in the Pacific.

4 - Last but not least, it might be useful to include some statistical data in the paper in order to support the author's arguments with some concrete market data.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

Thank you for your thoughtful and encouraging review. I am grateful for your engagement with the manuscript and for recognising its relevance to the Special Issue, with its focus on Australian women collectors within a region that is often marginalised in global art-market discourse. Your suggestions have been carefully considered, and the manuscript has been revised accordingly.

 

My detailed responses are as follows:

 

Suggestion to divide the section “Literature and Methodology” into two separate sections.

This suggestion has been adopted. The manuscript now includes a distinct Literature Review section and a separate Research Design and Methodology section, allowing for greater conceptual clarity and a more transparent articulation of the research approach.

 

Suggestion to add a comparative section bringing together the two collectors before the Conclusions.

The Research Design and Methodology section now includes context and justification as to the use of the two collectors for case study analysis, and in this regard and with respect, I would suggest the thesis does not demand a comparative analysis. However, I would kindly refer you to the correlations and variations made between Sherman and Milgrom noted within each case study and synthesised in the Conclusion.

 

Suggestion to discuss the broader impact of the two collectors on the development of the art market in the Pacific.

I appreciate the spirit of this suggestion however I would respectfully note that situating the study within a broader “Pacific” or Asia-Pacific (APAC) art-market framework is not methodologically feasible within the scope of this article. The APAC region is highly heterogeneous, encompassing diverse cultural contexts, market maturities, and economic conditions, many of which are still emerging. Given that the study is based on two Australian case studies, extending the analysis to the Pacific or APAC art market risks overgeneralisation and would in my opinion, require a substantially larger comparative dataset. The article therefore remains intentionally grounded in the Australian art-market context. I would kindly suggest a Pacific or APAC-wide analysis would be more appropriate for a larger-scale project, such as a minor thesis or a multi-country comparative study.

 

Additionally, I would suggest the Australian art market is not easily categorised and exists in a complex position. Whilst located geographically in the Southern Hemisphere and Pacific, it may be considered economically and structurally aligned with the Global South given its lower price points and market challenges, yet the market also strives for global integration, as evidenced in commercial galleries participating in international art fairs, Australian artists being included in biennales, and museums and institutions loaning First Nations work for international exhibitions.

 

Suggestion to include statistical data to support the arguments with concrete market evidence.

I appreciate the suggestion and I would happily utilise such data were it available. Regrettably however, there is no statistical data available on Australian women art collectors of contemporary art, specifically in respect of acquisition patterns, institutional collaborations, philanthropy, market visibility, or indeed, legacy. As noted in the introductory paragraphs to this article, there is a paucity of scholarship on this article’s subject. National or discipline specific statistics of contemporary art collectors in Australia are not regularly published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) or other major art market or cultural authorities, for example, the federally funded body, Creative Australia. Also as noted in the article, more recent statistical data has focussed on women artists and allied exhibitions. Whilst the Art Basel/UBS Global art market reports by Dr Clare McAndrew occasionally consider gender in terms of collector behaviour and specifically, expenditure, data for Australia is non-existent. Hence my decision to undertake a more qualitative case study analysis, albeit with support from empirical references and documentation. However in acknowledgement I have included a footnote regarding statistical data.

 

Thank you again for your insightful feedback and for recognising the value of examining Australian women collectors within contemporary art-market studies. Your suggestions have helped sharpen the structure and analytical coherence of the manuscript, and I hope the revisions address your comments clearly and constructively.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for submitting the revised version of your manuscript and for your thoughtful engagement with the previous round of comments. It is clear that you have made a genuine effort to respond, particularly by expanding the contextual discussion of Australian collectors and by introducing elements of theoretical framing.

That said, after careful consideration, I regret that I am unable to recommend the manuscript for publication in its current form. While the revisions have added useful material, they have not, in my view, sufficiently addressed the central concerns raised in the initial review. In particular, the article would still benefit from a clearer articulation of its core argument and from a more sustained analytical framework.

The inclusion of additional collectors is informative, but it does not yet clarify why the two central case studies are especially significant or how they support a broader or more conclusive claim. Similarly, while references to theoretical perspectives (such as Bourdieu and Velthuis) have been introduced, they remain largely illustrative rather than critically applied, and do not yet structure or deepen the analysis in a meaningful way. As a result, the manuscript continues to read primarily as a descriptive account rather than as a fully developed scholarly argument.

I want to emphasize that the topic you have chosen is important and still under-researched, and your work demonstrates strong potential, particularly in its empirical grounding. I would encourage you to continue developing this research, focusing especially on sharpening the central research question, clarifying the contribution of your case studies, and engaging more directly with theoretical frameworks as tools for analysis rather than reference points.

Thank you again for your efforts and for the opportunity to read your work. I hope you will continue to pursue this promising line of inquiry.

Author Response

Please see attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf