The Mediated Machine: Embracing Digital Technology as a Glass Artist and Student
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I offer some comments and suggestions here, references to the page line begin each comment so you can trace back the reference.
The strength of this paper is its description of the making process. The themes have been identified, however, they are not laid out in a logical sequence in the introduction. The theoretical underpinnings are the weakest part of the paper.
My suggestions below are in the spirit of sharing the value of this example of embodied practice based research.
They range from the meta to the micro edit perspective. I wish the author luck with future revisions and publication.
At Line Comments
At 5 : Have the problems round articulating CAD been outlined in the introduction?
AT 6 : What is a research, art historical context ? - is this meant to read practice-based research? There perhaps needs to be clarity around these theoretical underpinnings, currently this is a weakness of the paper – there is an absence of referencing the framework around this thinking, this would be fundamental and useful for the reader. Might be good to check out Theodore Schatzki, Patricia Leavey, Barbara Bolt et al.
At 7 Might be useful to frame this personal data as a form of case study, from which conclusions for broader
practice can be extrapolated.
16 : Might be useful to unpack by definition the word technology, and show how it is different from manual
approaches? These are key terms in this context. Perhaps reference to Wiebe Bieker would be useful here, in part because of the social nature of glass art technology.
22; The generalizations in this paper weaken the argument, it might be worth reviewing the paper in this context in
order to shore up its limited claims. In this context also – I would be better to reference research on challenges to the status quo on art.
23 : Reference ?
24: Trying to avoid the first person may also be beneficial – its either an opinion of the author or not – ‘it can be suggested’ is another slightly more objective way to look at expressing this.
25: Unsubstantiated statement – needs a reference
25: Refer previous comments - unsubstantiated statement – needs a reference
27: Who are these technologists ?
30 : There are a number of artist-research and creative practitioners who value both, suggest nuancing this dichotomy by adding in references to the contemporary research ( the precursors to this study) who have embraced ‘the digital the handmade’.
29: How is this a prediction? This is quite absolute; this sentence might need revision around the notion of ‘prediction’.
32: Subjectivity - ‘I am interested’
34: Might be interesting to think in terms of student learning rather than teaching ( which has a more transmissive quality)
45: This is well expressed and a salient point worth considering in the review of the introduction, i.e. once the key points are (re)identified.
51: Reference ? In order for the paper to raise its scientific status, these assumptions may need to be supported with references.
45: This is well expressed and a salient point worth considering in the review of the introduction, i.e. once the key points are (re)identified.
51: Reference ? In order for the paper to raise its scientific status, these assumptions may need to be supported
with references.
55 : Reference ?
57: Reference ? NB : Reference : could be in this case – a personal comment – i.e. a primary source or a secondary source.
63: Do you mean a ‘material born of technological developments’, or a material that has been more accessible
through increasing access to technological developments’? Defining technology, and reviewing the paper in this context is perhaps time well spent.
65: I see that my previous comment was on track, might be worth making sure there is no extraneous
material here in developing this argument. If its key, then leave it in, if it’s part of a larger narrative, it might be worth refining to this latter, and more valuable statement.
68: Accessibility and perhaps also ; affordability, safety,
76: This is a highly contestable generalization, I would be beneficial to limit this claim to the author. Unless you can find a creditable reference.
Might be good to limit this to the authors experience of a particular school, or schools, for example, American
foundational studies, or even industrialized countries foundational studies. It is difficult to make this claim worldwide.
80: Suggest that this theme of democracy/accessibility is flagged in the introduction
88 : Perhaps entering into explanations of understandings of tacit or embodied knowledge and the time that takes – harking back to Aristotle and moving on from there using practice led research frameworks ?
88: Would avoid this in an academic paper – there are few simple truths in a qualitative research enquiry.
Reference to perhaps an applied physics encyclopedia may be useful.
94: Hearsay, perhaps to be avoided in this context. Finding the balance around the voice of the author, and its
clearly accessible tone at present ( which is good) needs to be balanced with some evidence-based objectivity.
94: Quoting someone ? Reference ? don’t forget you can use Pers Comm ( personal comment + Date)
96: Reference re maker labs proliferation ?
99 : When talking about glass – this term opacity might need some clarification so that the context is obvious.
99 : Yes, I think unpacking what this word opaque means in a learning context could be useful.
79-110 is a valuable analogy and good unpacking of the complexities of the process.
118 is a great observation, and might again, be worth considering as a theme – the motivations of the students
around these two activities – glass and CNC making
The link between the 111-122 argument and the McElheny quote is still a little unclear by 145, needs review, as it
seems key to the flow of the paper.
126, Suggest reducing this quote to the key elements that support your argument at this point. Or breaking it up
and using a few smaller quotes.
145 This part is a valuable conclusion – all the more reason to smooth out the argument that leads up to it
166 : Art programs rather than the artist researcher educator is the subject here
171 This section is one of the strengths of the paper – the unpacking of these processes in this way makes a
valuable contribution to the domain of knowledge.
171 Might be good to explain to the reader the benefit of this example from your practice as it relates to the
arguments you are making about art education ? Perhaps need more of a bridge here – this revision will also reformulate your introduction perhaps ?
It seems like the description of your work is an example if the benefits of this synthesized approach – then you have the benefits to the student in engaging with the complexities of CNC per se – making these clear is probably good – breaking it up at the meta level first?
173 : How are tropical invasive patterns related to a repeated representation of your head – might be good to
close off that conceptual loop? I.E. what is this work about?
192 Adding times / dates to this narrative might situate it for future researchers – when did you meet the
colleague again ?
198: Use achieved rather than gotten ?
202 Can you indicate the type of grit used ? Was it garnet ?
218 Can you explain the use of italics here – what is suggested – novelty around this process – if so is there a
category of synthesized sculptures ? Might be useful to clarify for the reader. Is it the same as solder and steel for example or ceramic and glaze for solving porosity?
221 This theme around how the engagement in the digital opens up new opportunities could usefully be
foregrounded in the intro – it sits as mentioned with that list of benefits
Is there a rule for starting a few cm in in this process, like when you cut a glass circle for example ? I have
experienced this process in my own work, but wasn’t going near the edge of the glass, might be good to add that detail here?
285 A scale indication of the head might be useful to a reader wanting to use this method
288 Similarly giving a reason for the addition of the wood glue ?
341 Probably don’t need to presume the reader knows this – suggest delete ‘of course’
368 – More detail on this mild acid might be useful, especially in terms of human ethics, for example the precautions necessary for safe working. I understand that you haven’t gone into this detail with the glass blowing detail – perhaps an overarching statement about health and safety practice might be good to have at the beginning of this section ?
370 Do you do this silvering process or is it outsourced ?
373: Here you outline the key contribution of this paper to practice based knowledge on CNC and glass making processes in an artist researcher/ practice context.
Rethink perhaps the import of the use of the word forced in an educational context – in particular in relation to what we know about student motivation and learning – perhaps you are calling for the shifting of emphasis of the curriculum in digital 3d sculpture towards a foundational experience.
375: What else can we rely on but what we know – might be best to revise this statement
377: ‘the truth is’ … subjective – suggest clarify
379: Delete Oftentimes
380-385 – Is your project an example of this ? How is the case study evidence of these conclusions ?
385 : Generalization
401 Suggest qualifying this to … some glass programs …others have more diverse and distributed outcomes
405 Highlights the third element – first – that CAD is good for conceptual makers, second that it can produce useful effects and finally, that there are benefits from interdisciplinary approaches in the glass art education milieu. Suggest you reflect on the order of importance of these and rework the intro – so that the reader can follow along later on how you support these in the body of the paper.
In the context of this journal it may be useful to unpack the phrase ‘training the hand’
Reference notes : add date access to web pages
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
At 5 : Have the problems round articulating CAD been outlined in the introduction?
Due to the extensive nature of suggested revisions by this reviewer—which were tremendously helpful in helping formulate a more streamlined, logical and researched approach—many of the following at-line comments are no longer applicable. There seemed to be a consensus among all reviewers that the strength of this paper was in the description of the making process of my personal research. With this in mind I have reformulated the entire paper, cutting out much of the previous text to support a more concise thesis. Where the original text remains I have tried to answer reviewers concerns. Other comments that now refer to deleted text have been marked with NA for not applicable in order to save the reviewers time, although the author recognizes that they had great applicability to his original draft.
In reference to the introduction, I believe it has been made more concise and logical in its presentation.
AT 6 : What is a research, art historical context ? - is this meant to read practice-based research? There perhaps needs to be clarity around these theoretical underpinnings, currently this is a weakness of the paper – there is an absence of referencing the framework around this thinking, this would be fundamental and useful for the reader. Might be good to check out Theodore Schatzki, Patricia Leavey, Barbara Bolt et al.
This has been changed, and thank you for alerting me to the term “Practice-based Research”. I found Linda Candy and Ernest Edmonds paper on the subject Practice-Based Research in the Creative Arts quite illuminating.
At 7 Might be useful to frame this personal data as a form of case study, from which conclusions for broader practice can be extrapolated.
Agreed. This has been changed.
16 : Might be useful to unpack by definition the word technology, and show how it is different from manual approaches? These are key terms in this context. Perhaps reference to Wiebe Bieker would be useful here, in part because of the social nature of glass art technology.
This has been addressed to define digital technology that interfaces with CAD and CNC technology in context of this paper, as distinct from other instances of digital technology in contemporary glassmaking practice. I did read some of Wiebe Bijker, and while the research is interesting and relevant, did not find it particularly applicable to the new, more narrow scope of the edited paper.
22; The generalizations in this paper weaken the argument, it might be worth reviewing the paper in this context in order to shore up its limited claims. In this context also – I would be better to reference research on challenges to the status quo on art.
NA
23 : Reference ?
NA
24: Trying to avoid the first person may also be beneficial – its either an opinion of the author or not – ‘it can be suggested’ is another slightly more objective way to look at expressing this.
I have edited the paper to remove first person language, unless discussing personal experiences in the classroom or my research.
25: Unsubstantiated statement – needs a reference
NA
25: Refer previous comments - unsubstantiated statement – needs a reference
NA
27: Who are these technologists ?
NA
30 : There are a number of artist-research and creative practitioners who value both, suggest nuancing this dichotomy by adding in references to the contemporary research ( the precursors to this study) who have embraced ‘the digital the handmade’.
Found this comment extremely helpful and caused me to research artists who embrace both. This research led to the inclusion of referenced to the artist Barry X Ball who utilizes cutting edge digital fabrication techniques and traditional stone carving processes to create his “portraits of masterpieces”. Along with comments from other reviewers it also led to including references from Lucy Johnston’s survey of contemporary practice: Digital handmade : craftsmanship in the new industrial revolution.
29: How is this a prediction? This is quite absolute; this sentence might need revision around the notion of ‘prediction’.
NA
32: Subjectivity - ‘I am interested’
NA
34: Might be interesting to think in terms of student learning rather than teaching ( which has a more transmissive quality)
Quite helpful comment and I have tried to rewrite with this in mind.
45: This is well expressed and a salient point worth considering in the review of the introduction, i.e. once the key points are (re)identified.
Once the new themes were identified—how “the possibility of inventing novel approaches to art making that can motivate glass artists and students to embrace digital means of making”—this point seemed to sidetrack the arguement.
51: Reference ? In order for the paper to raise its scientific status, these assumptions may need to be supported with references.
NA, but the point here is noted. I have tried to shore up the edited paper’s argument with more references.
55 : Reference ?
NA
57: Reference ? NB : Reference : could be in this case – a personal comment – i.e. a primary source or a secondary source.
Addressed.
63: Do you mean a ‘material born of technological developments’, or a material that has been more accessible through increasing access to technological developments’? Defining technology, and reviewing the paper in this context is perhaps time well spent.
NA, statement deleted as it confused the argument of the edited paper.
65: I see that my previous comment was on track, might be worth making sure there is no extraneous material here in developing this argument. If its key, then leave it in, if it’s part of a larger narrative, it might be worth refining to this latter, and more valuable statement.
Agreed and (hopefully) addressed.
68: Accessibility and perhaps also ; affordability, safety,
NA
76: This is a highly contestable generalization, I would be beneficial to limit this claim to the author. Unless you can find a creditable reference. Might be good to limit this to the authors experience of a particular school, or schools, for example, American foundational studies, or even industrialized countries foundational studies. It is difficult to make this claim worldwide.
Agreed and deleted since, again, it confused the argument of the edited paper.
80: Suggest that this theme of democracy/accessibility is flagged in the introduction
Good suggestion, but no longer applicable to edited thesis.
88 : Perhaps entering into explanations of understandings of tacit or embodied knowledge and the time that takes – harking back to Aristotle and moving on from there using practice led research frameworks?
Hopefully the restructuring of the paper has addressed this as it no longer places such emphasis on the technical difficulty of manually working with glass except where that compares to the analogous difficulty in mastering digital technology.
88: Would avoid this in an academic paper – there are few simple truths in a qualitative research enquiry. Reference to perhaps an applied physics encyclopedia may be useful.
Agreed. Deleted.
94: Hearsay, perhaps to be avoided in this context. Finding the balance around the voice of the author, and its clearly accessible tone at present ( which is good) needs to be balanced with some evidence-based objectivity.
Thank you for this positive comment. The statement has been deleted as extraneous to the argument the paper is currently trying to make.
94: Quoting someone ? Reference ? don’t forget you can use Pers Comm ( personal comment + Date)
96: Reference re maker labs proliferation ?
NA
99 : When talking about glass – this term opacity might need some clarification so that the context is obvious.
NA
99 : Yes, I think unpacking what this word opaque means in a learning context could be useful.
Hopefully the new edit makes clear what is meant by this term as it is no longer used to reference both glass and digital media, but only the difficulty mastering the interface of various CAD softwares.
79-110 is a valuable analogy and good unpacking of the complexities of the process.
Thank you. Has been reworked into the paper to shore up the argument(s) being made.
118 is a great observation, and might again, be worth considering as a theme – the motivations of the students around these two activities – glass and CNC making
Agreed! Has been made part of the main theme, which is motivating students to embrace digital making technologies.
111-122 The link between the argument and the McElheny quote is still a little unclear by 145, needs review, as it seems key to the flow of the paper.
NA
126, Suggest reducing this quote to the key elements that support your argument at this point. Or breaking it up and using a few smaller quotes.
NA
145 This part is a valuable conclusion – all the more reason to smooth out the argument that leads up to it
Agreed. Incorporated into edit.
166 : Art programs rather than the artist researcher educator is the subject here
NA
171 This section is one of the strengths of the paper – the unpacking of these processes in this way makes a valuable contribution to the domain of knowledge.
Thank you. I have rewritten the paper to place greater emphasis on this section as (you suggested) a case study for the benefits of synthesizing digital media and manual processes within a practice-based research framework.
171 Might be good to explain to the reader the benefit of this example from your practice as it relates to the arguments you are making about art education ? Perhaps need more of a bridge here – this revision will also reformulate your introduction perhaps ?
It seems like the description of your work is an example if the benefits of this synthesized approach – then you have the benefits to the student in engaging with the complexities of CNC per se – making these clear is probably good – breaking it up at the meta level first?
Yes. Edited to address (hopefully) this suggestion.
173 : How are tropical invasive patterns related to a repeated representation of your head – might be good to close off that conceptual loop? I.E. what is this work about?
Have edited paper to include more background on research and conceptual foundation of my research in general and this case study in particular.
192 Adding times / dates to this narrative might situate it for future researchers – when did you meet the colleague again ?
Date added.
198: Use achieved rather than gotten ?
Edited
202 Can you indicate the type of grit used ? Was it garnet?
See Endnote 3.
218 Can you explain the use of italics here – what is suggested – novelty around this process – if so is there a category of synthesized sculptures ? Might be useful to clarify for the reader. Is it the same as solder and steel for example or ceramic and glaze for solving porosity?
Removed after reconsideration on introducing a new term, although the author does think an argument could be made that “digital-handmade” works are indeed a synthesis of machine and hand, resulting in a “synthetic” object. However, in context of the arguments being followed in this paper trying to unpack this new designation seemed extraneous to the argument, particularly since Johnston has used a perfectly good classification in eponymous book.
221 This theme around how the engagement in the digital opens up new opportunities could usefully be foregrounded in the intro – it sits as mentioned with that list of benefits
Yes. This has become part of the main new theme and is in the intro.
Is there a rule for starting a few cm in in this process, like when you cut a glass circle for example ? I have experienced this process in my own work, but wasn’t going near the edge of the glass, might be good to add that detail here?
Not sure what this comment is referring to, as there is no at-line designation. Possibly referencing former line 254 regarding “zeroing in” the machine to the edges of the glass. If so I has been address in revised text.
285 A scale indication of the head might be useful to a reader wanting to use this method
Scale added, although dimensions will also be included in the didactic information for Figure 1.
288 Similarly giving a reason for the addition of the wood glue ?
Added info. See Endnote 4.
341 Probably don’t need to presume the reader knows this – suggest delete ‘of course’
Deleted
368 – More detail on this mild acid might be useful, especially in terms of human ethics, for example the precautions necessary for safe working. I understand that you haven’t gone into this detail with the glass blowing detail – perhaps an overarching statement about health and safety practice might be good to have at the beginning of this section ?
Added caution statement and MSDS info in Endnote 5.
370 Do you do this silvering process or is it outsourced ?
Done myself using a commercially available silvering solution. Now mentioned in the section on safety.
373: Here you outline the key contribution of this paper to practice based knowledge on CNC and glass making processes in an artist researcher/ practice context.
Thank you. The paper has been edited around this point.
Rethink perhaps the import of the use of the word forced in an educational context – in particular in relation to what we know about student motivation and learning – perhaps you are calling for the shifting of emphasis of the curriculum in digital 3d sculpture towards a foundational experience.
Edited.
375: What else can we rely on but what we know – might be best to revise this statement
Edited.
377: ‘the truth is’ … subjective – suggest clarify
NA
379: Delete Oftentimes
Deleted
380-385 – Is your project an example of this ? How is the case study evidence of these conclusions ?
NA
385 : Generalization
NA
401 Suggest qualifying this to … some glass programs …others have more diverse and distributed outcomes
NA
405 Highlights the third element – first – that CAD is good for conceptual makers, second that it can produce useful effects and finally, that there are benefits from interdisciplinary approaches in the glass art education milieu. Suggest you reflect on the order of importance of these and rework the intro – so that the reader can follow along later on how you support these in the body of the paper.
Edited paper to reflect the last theme as main theme.
In the context of this journal it may be useful to unpack the phrase ‘training the hand’
NA
Reviewer 2 Report
Overall I think the paper is topically relevant and methodologically sound. I fully support spotlighting the conversation regarding digital technologies role within the academic manual studio art practice, and am grateful it is being discussed at a broader level.
I certainly appreciate the author's interest in using CAD programing and it's excitement to integrate CAD into the academic studios, although I do not agree that is 'critical' for the glass student to learn CAD. I believe CAD is relevant to intermediate/advanced glass students as an option.
The single large issue I have with the paper is the author never defines technology, and seems to move through the paper under the assumption there is a standardized agreeable meaning. I beg to differ. For me technology is technique and/or tool, often both. CAD/Digital techniques like water jet cutting are just additional tools.
The second concern I have is the author's suggestion that glass programs turn out 'purists'. Perhaps, but this is the result of teacher's personal art practice and the students personal inclinations, not specifically the equipment available to the students. The key for me is to differentiate between glass blowers and glass artists. As a professor I find mostly students want to blow glass. Only some actually want to make art. A new technique is not going to make a student motivated to be an artist. It may open up possibilities such as getting righteous animal patterns crisply and efficiently fashioned out of sheet class, but I dont believe it is going to expand the artistic psyche of student.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2
Comment 1:
Overall I think the paper is topically relevant and methodologically sound. I fully support spotlighting the conversation regarding digital technologies role within the academic manual studio art practice, and am grateful it is being discussed at a broader level.
I certainly appreciate the author's interest in using CAD programing and it's excitement to integrate CAD into the academic studios, although I do not agree that is 'critical' for the glass student to learn CAD. I believe CAD is relevant to intermediate/advanced glass students as an option.
Response 1:
Due to the extensive nature of suggested revisions by one reviewer—which were tremendously helpful in helping formulate a more streamlined, logical and researched approach I have chosen to reorganize and reformulate this paper around a more clear thesis: namely that combining digital making technology with traditional hot-worked glass techniques can produce art objects that would otherwise be impossible using either digital or manual means alone, and that the possibility of inventing novel approaches to art making that can motivate glass artists and students to embrace digital means of making, rather than relying on appeals to practicality and efficiency alone.
There also seemed to be a consensus among all reviewers that the strength of this paper was in the description of the making process of my personal research. With this in mind I have reformulated the entire paper to make this example more of a case study to support the premise of the paper.
Comment 2:
The single large issue I have with the paper is the author never defines technology, and seems to move through the paper under the assumption there is a standardized agreeable meaning. I beg to differ. For me technology is technique and/or tool, often both. CAD/Digital techniques like water jet cutting are just additional tools.
Response 2:
I have edited the paper to clarify "digital technology" in this context as referring to technology that is CAD-based or can interface with CNC machines as part of the making process and distinct from other digital technology—computer controls for kilns and furnaces—that most contemporary glass artists use daily.
Comment 2:
The second concern I have is the author's suggestion that glass programs turn out 'purists'. Perhaps, but this is the result of teacher's personal art practice and the students personal inclinations, not specifically the equipment available to the students. The key for me is to differentiate between glass blowers and glass artists. As a professor I find mostly students want to blow glass. Only some actually want to make art. A new technique is not going to make a student motivated to be an artist. It may open up possibilities such as getting righteous animal patterns crisply and efficiently fashioned out of sheet class, but I dont believe it is going to expand the artistic psyche of student.
Response 3:
Agreed. I have edited the paper to remove this argument.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper is improved from the V1 manuscript.
It would benefit from a more objective voice, and there are some outstanding points see below .
39: However, while molten glass as a medium of artistic exploration owes its birth to technology, manipulation of molten glass has mainly proceeded along tradition,
• Tradition should be traditional
• birth to technology, - again define the use of this term in this context
40: From tradition bench tools
• use traditional
122: Students must be led - perhaps students can be encouraged ?
142: “Where machine production on its own provides us reliably with the objects 141 we expect to see, the emerging freedom of the craftsman to challenge the tools of the digital revolution, alongside the traditional tools of manufacture, brings an element of creative magic to the process” (Johnston 2015).
This sentence is a complete quote – it is not usually appropriate in an academic paper to use a full quote alone - a quote is used to support the authors argument and as such should be in context.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments, V.2
39: However, while molten glass as a medium of artistic exploration owes its birth to technology, manipulation of molten glass has mainly proceeded along tradition,
• Tradition should be traditional Corrected
• birth to technology, - again define the use of this term in this context The author has tried to address this with a footnote that provides a basic definition of “technology”. See Footnote 1. The text has been edited in an attempt to clarify this definition.
40: From tradition bench tools
• use traditional Corrected
122: Students must be led - perhaps students can be encouraged ? Unfortunately the author cannot find this phrase: “Students must be led”, in the current draft (V.2). Perhaps a hold-over from V.1?
142: “Where machine production on its own provides us reliably with the objects 141 we expect to see, the emerging freedom of the craftsman to challenge the tools of the digital revolution, alongside the traditional tools of manufacture, brings an element of creative magic to the process” (Johnston 2015).
This sentence is a complete quote – it is not usually appropriate in an academic paper to use a full quote alone - a quote is used to support the authors argument and as such should be in context. The author was unaware of this rule. Noted. The text has been edited to better integrate the quote into the argument.
