Exploring Materials Across Disciplines: Insights into Artistic Evolution and Innovation Potential

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The introduction section of this manuscript attempts an unconventional approach but demonstrates significant issues in expression, logical structure, and conceptual clarity. First, I believe that the second paragraph of the introduction directly addresses the reviewers instead of the readers, which is inappropriate for a scholarly introduction. The introduction should strictly introduce the research background, such as existing studies, underexplored gaps, and specific issues, rather than simply telling the reviewers that this paper is important and special. Second, the introduction extensively employs abstract and overly broad language, diminishing its effectiveness and credibility. For example, the authors state that this research aims to "bridge painting and calligraphy with everyday art" but lacks a clear explanation of the existing gap. It is crucial for the authors to clearly define why painting and calligraphy are currently perceived as disconnected from everyday art. Without clearly identifying the gap, the research's core contribution remains ambiguous.

Moreover, the explanation of the methodological approach (online questionnaire) is quite brief and superficial. The rationale behind selecting particular artworks, participant demographics, and evaluation criteria should be elaborated clearly. Why these artworks were chosen and how the polarized adjective attributes were developed needs to be justified with scholarly rationale.

In terms of the results and discussion, while the paper includes detailed data, the interpretation is superficial. The authors should provide a more in-depth discussion of why certain results appear and their implications for the field of study. Also, the paper should discuss clearly the limitations related to the demographic composition of participants, as these affect the generalizability of the findings.

Finally, the authors frequently introduce complex terms (such as "spiritual conception," "poetic connotation," "symbolic transformation") without adequately defining them. Clarifying and consistently using these terms throughout the paper would strengthen the overall coherence and readability.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Typo? The first keyword:
"pigments and clay: materials and rt". What is "rt"?

Line 338, "21-40" should be "21–40". Please check many other similar errors.

Figure 8 is obviously stretched.

Author Response

Comments 1: The introduction section of this manuscript attempts an unconventional approach but demonstrates significant issues in expression, logical structure, and conceptual clarity. First, I believe that the second paragraph of the introduction directly addresses the reviewers instead of the readers, which is inappropriate for a scholarly introduction. The introduction should strictly introduce the research background, such as existing studies, underexplored gaps, and specific issues, rather than simply telling the reviewers that this paper is important and special. Second, the introduction extensively employs abstract and overly broad language, diminishing its effectiveness and credibility. For example, the authors state that this research aims to "bridge painting and calligraphy with everyday art" but lacks a clear explanation of the existing gap. It is crucial for the authors to clearly define why painting and calligraphy are currently perceived as disconnected from everyday art. Without clearly identifying the gap, the research's core contribution remains ambiguous.

Response 1: Dear editor, we greatly appreciate the valuable suggestions you provided for our manuscript! We have thoroughly revised the first section of the manuscript. Additionally, since another reviewer also offered feedback on certain aspects of the first section, the revisions made are more akin to a complete rewrite. We hope that this revised section meets your expectations and that you will recognize the value of our research.

Comments 2: Moreover, the explanation of the methodological approach (online questionnaire) is quite brief and superficial. The rationale behind selecting particular artworks, participant demographics, and evaluation criteria should be elaborated clearly. Why these artworks were chosen and how the polarized adjective attributes were developed needs to be justified with scholarly rationale.

Response 2: Dear editor, thank you once again for your valuable suggestions! The artist whose works we selected for this study is a painter who also teaches at a university. We met her while she was pursuing her doctoral degree. We were immediately intrigued by her work, and when we learned that she not only paints Chinese ink paintings but also creates ceramics, we became curious about her ability to navigate these two different fields. We were particularly interested in how the use of materials with different physical properties in artistic creation can yield vastly different results, and how the artist manages to excel in both domains. While answers to these questions may not be fully realized right away, they could potentially offer the artist more diverse creative avenues. Regarding the use of polarized adjectives, we invited several university professors engaged in aesthetic research and art creation, as well as students currently pursuing master's and doctoral degrees in art and design, to engage in a collective discussion. We found that using polarized adjectives to construct an evaluation system might be a novel approach. If material science is based on rationality, then the emotional aspect of art creation can be assessed and analyzed in ways different from traditional methods. This is our response to your suggestion, and we hope it can persuade you.

Comments 3: In terms of the results and discussion, while the paper includes detailed data, the interpretation is superficial. The authors should provide a more in-depth discussion of why certain results appear and their implications for the field of study. Also, the paper should discuss clearly the limitations related to the demographic composition of participants, as these affect the generalizability of the findings.

Response 3: Dear reviewer, your suggestions are invaluable, and we sincerely thank you!

We have added further analysis to the research findings. At the same time, we acknowledge that all research may have limitations, and we have provided additional explanations regarding this aspect. We hope that the revised content meets your expectations and addresses your concerns.

Comments 4: Finally, the authors frequently introduce complex terms (such as "spiritual conception," "poetic connotation," "symbolic transformation") without adequately defining them. Clarifying and consistently using these terms throughout the paper would strengthen the overall coherence and readability.

Response 4: Dear reviewer, thank you once again for your valuable suggestions! These concepts primarily emerged from repeated exchanges and discussions with artists, aestheticians, and creative professionals. For example, the second term you mentioned is mainly used to assess or describe whether a painting has a poetic or artistic charm, similar to Chinese landscape paintings where artists, often also poets, write verses on their works to convey the core meaning of the painting. Additionally, considering the subjectivity of art appreciation, we refrained from over-explaining these terms, hoping that readers or viewers could interpret them based on their own experiences. This, we believe, is part of the allure of artistic creation. We hope this explanation clarifies our approach and assures you that we are not being dismissive in our response.

Comments 5: Typo? The first keyword:
"pigments and clay: materials and rt". What is "rt"?

Line 338, "21-40" should be "21–40". Please check many other similar errors.

Figure 8 is obviously stretched.

Response 5: Thank you for your detailed review. The oversights you pointed out were indeed unintended, and we have made all the necessary revisions. Regarding Figure 8, we have checked the original image, and it was not intentionally stretched.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors of the manuscript " Explorando materiales en diferentes disciplinas: Perspectivas sobre la evolución artística y el potencial de innovación", the investigation in the article focused on the a two-phase assessment framework, analyzing four pairs of paintings reinterpreted as ceramic artworks, with feedback collected from 389 online participants.

 

Although their experimental results are interesting, their interpretation and discussion are lacking, and I cannot recommend publication of this manuscript in its present form.

 

The authors should correct the following comments:

• It is necessary to unify these three paragraphs and state the main idea in a single paragraph: 1) "This study focuses...", 2) "This study delves...", and 3) "The study undertakes a..."
• Page 3 line 97, the authors keep repeating "This study aims to", the text needs to be changed.
• Figure 2 has a lot of similarity with various reported paintings, my question would be what makes this painting so special compared to the others.
• In Figure 6, the author presents eight works, but I don't detect any connection between each of the images. What is the significance of this variation in works?
• I consider that tables and figures repeat information, it is necessary to limit oneself to one of them or not be so repetitive, for example Figure 9, 10 and 11.

From line 540 to 565 the information is not necessary, delete.

Author Response

Comments 1: The authors of the manuscript " Explorando materiales en diferentes disciplinas: Perspectivas sobre la evolución artística y el potencial de innovación", the investigation in the article focused on the a two-phase assessment framework, analyzing four pairs of paintings reinterpreted as ceramic artworks, with feedback collected from 389 online participants.

Although their experimental results are interesting, their interpretation and discussion are lacking, and I cannot recommend publication of this manuscript in its present form.

The authors should correct the following comments:

Response 1: Dear Reviewer, Thank you for your recognition of the manuscript's theme. We will address each of your comments and suggestions individually.

Comments 2: It is necessary to unify these three paragraphs and state the main idea in a single paragraph: 1) "This study focuses...", 2) "This study delves...", and 3) "The study undertakes a..."

Response 2: Thank you for your valuable comment! We have consolidated these three paragraphs and made revisions and refinements to the discussion.

Comments 3: Page 3 line 97, the authors keep repeating "This study aims to", the text needs to be changed.

Response 3: Dear Reviewer, Thank you for your constructive criticism! You are absolutely right that certain expressions should not be repeated throughout the manuscript. We have rewritten this section accordingly.

Comments 4: Figure 2 has a lot of similarity with various reported paintings, my question would be what makes this painting so special compared to the others.

Response 4: Dear Reviewer, Thank you for your insightful suggestions! These artworks are original pieces created by an artist we know personally. Considering the creator's perspective and maintaining academic rigor, we intentionally did not include this artist as part of the author group in order to ensure objectivity in the discussion. Given the nature of artistic creation, while these artworks may appear similar to others, they are in fact direct expressions of the artist's personal ideas. Additionally, the ceramic works mentioned in the manuscript are also by this artist, which is why they were included as stimuli. We hope this clarifies your concerns.

Comments 5: In Figure 6, the author presents eight works, but I don't detect any connection between each of the images. What is the significance of this variation in works?

Response 5: Dear Reviewer, once again, thank you for your thorough review of our manuscript. As I mentioned in my previous response to your earlier comment, all eight of these works were created by the same artist. She initially produced four ink paintings, and then, based on her understanding of two-dimensional artwork, she went on to create four ceramic pieces. Our aim is to explore the potential impact and value of this transformation in artistic creation. For the artist, such a shift may represent an expression of self-awareness in her creative process, but we believe it is a valid stimulus for research. We hope this explanation addresses your concerns satisfactorily.

Comments 6: I consider that tables and figures repeat information, it is necessary to limit oneself to one of them or not be so repetitive, for example Figure 9, 10 and 11.

Response 6: Dear Reviewer, Thank you for your meticulous review. These three images display three different sets of works, and we felt that presenting them separately might be more suitable, as it helps avoid any potential confusion for the readers. We hope our explanation addresses your concerns.

Comments 7: From line 540 to 565 the information is not necessary, delete.

Response 7: Dear Reviewer, Thank you for your valuable suggestions! This section primarily serves as a summary of the manuscript. We believe the issue may have arisen from our lack of precision in expression. We have revisited and revised this part of the manuscript accordingly. We hope the revised discussion aligns with your expectations and that our decision not to remove it directly does not lead to any misunderstanding. Thank you once again!

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

the study uses an online survey with 389 participants, but the demographic breakdown lacks balance (e.g., 72.5% female, mostly aged 41-60). Justify how this demographic distribution impacts the study’s generalizability.

The discussion mentions gender and age-related differences, yet the rationale behind these distinctions is not theoretically justified.  Explain why these demographic variables were considered relevant.

The claim that material transformation enhances artistic experience is not empirically demonstrated. Strengthen the argument by providing examples of real-world applications.

Table 5 : Some attributes overlap conceptually (e.g., D2 Expressiveness and D3 Poetic Connotation).Perform factor analysis to determine if these attributes should be merged.

Author Response

Comments 1: The study uses an online survey with 389 participants, but the demographic breakdown lacks balance (e.g., 72.5% female, mostly aged 41-60). Justify how this demographic distribution impacts the study’s generalizability.

The discussion mentions gender and age-related differences, yet the rationale behind these distinctions is not theoretically justified.  Explain why these demographic variables were considered relevant.

Response 1: Dear reviewer, thank you for your thorough examination of our manuscript! Artistic creation is a highly subjective and emotional process, and the way viewers appreciate and evaluate artworks is similarly influenced by personal factors. This process may vary according to gender and age. For instance, women may be more inclined to appreciate works with natural, fresh styles, while men might prefer more resilient and strong works. Similarly, older individuals, due to their richer life experiences, might be more capable of understanding deeper or more realistic works. For these reasons, we included the gender and age of the respondents in our considerations. We hope that our response effectively addresses your concerns.

Comments 2: The claim that material transformation enhances artistic experience is not empirically demonstrated. Strengthen the argument by providing examples of real-world applications.

Response 2: Thank you for raising this point! As you mentioned, this idea or concept is likely to be present mainly in the creative processes of certain artists. Our discussion on this topic aims to explore and explain this phenomenon. We have added relevant discussions and examples in the text, and we hope the additional content addresses your concerns.

Comments 3: Table 5 : Some attributes overlap conceptually (e.g., D2 Expressiveness and D3 Poetic Connotation). Perform factor analysis to determine if these attributes should be merged.

Response 3: Thank you again for your valuable suggestions! Although there is some overlap in the concepts of these two attributes, we believe they still represent two distinct qualities. The D2 attribute primarily refers to the artist's personal mastery of the creative process and how their creative ideas are translated into different types of works, with a focus on the expressiveness of the final pieces. The D3 attribute, on the other hand, emphasizes the intrinsic qualities of the artwork, such as whether paintings or ceramic works possess poetic or artistic charm. During the course of this research, we invited scholars and creators with backgrounds in aesthetics and art to collectively discuss these attributes. We hope that we can retain these two distinct attributes, and we trust that our explanation will meet your expectations.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has improved significantly, and I recommend the paper for publication in its current form.