Transforming “Ritual Cultural Features” into “Modern Product Forms”: A Case Study of Ancient Chinese Ritual Vessels
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The topic is interesting. However, the article requires a significant revision of the English and the context development of the paragraphs. I found the article hard to follow. There are many generalizations and assumptions, and these should be established or addressed correctly in the text.
Abstract
Line 14 …. Between "form" and "ritual -> "is missing
Review line 17: … to better explore the advantages of traditional culture".
Introduction
Line 22 - 29: review and rewrite
Line 36-37: review and rewrite
Literature Review
Line 75 – 76: review and rewrite
Lines 81 – 84: It was evident in the first line that the Ding is often considered a symbol of power. The text is repetitive. Please review and rewrite the paragraph.
Line 114: This section will not be repeated. -> It is not clear what the authors mean with this sentence or the intentions.
Lines 136 – 142: Review and rewrite. Repetitive
Line 140: this is an assumption, the author's opinion, or based on research? Perhaps something like: "Often, in the past, washing clothes was associated with the feeling of affection …"
Line 163: Section 2.3 title … A Brief Review.
Line 175: creative -> creativity?
Line 190: ICSID: explain the acronym
Line 193 and 194: The sentence "However, this model has changed." It is mentioned twice in the text.
Line 238: Once again, this is the authors' option and should be established. Suggestion (for example): Home and family are the most precious things for most people.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 (Round 1) Comments
Article Title: religions-1736958- Transforming “Ritual Cultural Features” into “Modern Product Form”: A Case Study of Ancient China Ritual Vessels
Comment: The topic is interesting. However, the article requires a significant revision of the English and the context development of the paragraphs. I found the article hard to follow. There are many generalizations and assumptions, and these should be established or addressed correctly in the text.
Response: Thank you for your encouragement! This is not to imply that this article is without fault. At the same time, we also invite native English speakers to assist in polishing the article.
Comment:
Abstract
Line 14 …. Between “form” and “ritual ->” is missing
Review line 17: … to better explore the advantages of traditional culture”.
Response: Thanks for your comments! The missing and inadequately expressed items have been corrected.
Comment:
Introduction
Line 22 - 29: review and rewrite
Line 36-37: review and rewrite
Response: Once again, thank you for your suggestions! It has been revisited and corrected.
Comment:
Literature Review
Line 75 – 76: review and rewrite
Lines 81 – 84: It was evident in the first line that the Ding is often considered a symbol of power. The text is repetitive. Please review and rewrite the paragraph.
Line 114: This section will not be repeated. -> It is not clear what the authors mean with this sentence or the intentions.
Lines 136 – 142: Review and rewrite. Repetitive
Line 140: this is an assumption, the author’s opinion, or based on research? Perhaps something like: “Often, in the past, washing clothes was associated with the feeling of affection …”
Line 163: Section 2.3 title … A Brief Review.
Line 175: creative -> creativity
Line 190: ICSID: explain the acronym
Line 193 and 194: The sentence “However, this model has changed.” It is mentioned twice in the text.
Line 238: Once again, this is the authors’ option and should be established. Suggestion (for example): Home and family are the most precious things for most people.
Response: Thank you for such a meticulous review! We have revised them one by one. At the same time, we also invited our native English-speaking colleague to conduct a comprehensive review and rewrite of the whole text.
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript analyzes how ritual objects serve as a model in the creation of contemporary objects, continuing the cultural/cultic heritage.
The manuscript is well documented, clear and pleasant to read.
The specificities of Chinese culture, where ancient forms were 'copied' very early on in identical or different materials (a jade or bronze object serving as a model for ceramics) should be better presented (see for example S. Pierson, True or False? Defining the Fake in Chinese Orcelain, Les Cahiers de Framespa, 31 (2019) https://doi.org/10.4000/framespa.6168 and cited references). A paragraph specifying some examples of realization in different materials of the model from different periods would make the transition with the contemporary examples would be useful. In particular under the Qing dynasty, many objects reproduced earlier forms (see several articles on Europe-China and China-Europe aesthetic transfers recently published in the journal Heritage). Similarly, from the 18th century, Chinese and Japanese shapes and decorations inspired European ceramics and contemporary raku ceramics uses Japanese models from the 17th century. At a time of rapid globalization of creations and imaginations, it would be interesting to better source the origins of these approaches.
Line 179 and following. Perhaps in China the date of 1980 is significant, but this approach is much older, already present in the approaches of ceramists like Théodore Deck in France during the second half of the 19th century, formulated more explicitly in the mengai movement of Soetsu Yamagi ( 1922) or by William Morris at the same time and later by Bernard Leach. The text needs some editing. The great universal exhibitions of the end of the 19th century were based on the interest in the production of new products inspired by the creations of other places and times (see for example Taoci 3 (2003) issue of the French Oriental Ceramic Society – Sfeco https://www.sfeco-asso.org/taoci/)
The content of the article is focused on the re-use of forms but it would be useful, at least in the legends, to give information on the materials of the models (bronze with tin, with copper, with arsenic, with lead,) and 'replicas' (porcelain, earthenware?) as well as dimensions (height for example).
I'm not sure the box in Figure 10 is a candy box; the form is older and dates back at least to the Ming Dynasty as an ointment box and cosmetic product.
The word ding is sometimes italicized, sometimes standard. Use the same graphics throughout the text.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 (Round 1) Comments
Article Title: religions-1736958- Transforming “Ritual Cultural Features” into “Modern Product Form”: A Case Study of Ancient China Ritual Vessels
Comment: The manuscript analyzes how ritual objects serve as a model in the creation of contemporary objects, continuing the cultural/cultic heritage. The manuscript is well documented, clear and pleasant to read.
Response: Thank you for your affirmation of our article! The comments you give next are very inspiring to us. These valuable comments will help to refine this article. We will reply to your comments one by one.
Comment: The specificities of Chinese culture, where ancient forms were ‘copied’ very early on in identical or different materials (a jade or bronze object serving as a model for ceramics) should be better presented (see for example S. Pierson, True or False? Defining the Fake in Chinese Orcelain, Les Cahiers de Framespa, 31 (2019) https://doi.org/10.4000/framespa.6168 and cited references). A paragraph specifying some examples of realization in different materials of the model from different periods would make the transition with the contemporary examples would be useful. In particular under the Qing dynasty, many objects reproduced earlier forms (see several articles on Europe-China and China-Europe aesthetic transfers recently published in the journal Heritage). Similarly, from the 18th century, Chinese and Japanese shapes and decorations inspired European ceramics and contemporary raku ceramics uses Japanese models from the 17th century. At a time of rapid globalization of creations and imaginations, it would be interesting to better source the origins of these approaches.
Response: Thank you very much for such a detailed comment! We have incorporated your comments into this article. (Line 71~80). What you mentioned is also the research that this research team will carry out in the next phase. Because there are so many elements worth digging into in traditional artifacts, this article is just the beginning.
Comment: Line 179 and following. Perhaps in China the date of 1980 is significant, but this approach is much older, already present in the approaches of ceramists like Théodore Deck in France during the second half of the 19th century, formulated more explicitly in the mengai movement of Soetsu Yamagi (1922) or by William Morris at the same time and later by Bernard Leach. The text needs some editing. The great universal exhibitions of the end of the 19th century were based on the interest in the production of new products inspired by the creations of other places and times (see for example Taoci 3 (2003) issue of the French Oriental Ceramic Society – Sfeco https://www.sfeco-asso.org/taoci/)
Response: Thank you again for your valuable advice! The word "1980s" is wrong. Because it happened much earlier (as you mentioned). Synthesizing the literature you mentioned, we modify it to: Technological advances have given rise to new possibilities, and product presentation and user-computer interaction can be discussed in detail to meet the needs of consumer groups due to the continuous innovation of science and technology. (Line 183~185)
Comment: The content of the article is focused on the re-use of forms but it would be useful, at least in the legends, to give information on the materials of the models (bronze with tin, with copper, with arsenic, with lead,) and ‘replicas’ (porcelain, earthenware?) as well as dimensions (height for example).
Response: Thank you very much for your valuable advice! About the products designed by JIA (Figure 8~10), the materials and sizes have been supplemented.
Comment: I’m not sure the box in Figure 10 is a candy box; the form is older and dates back at least to the Ming Dynasty as an ointment box and cosmetic product.
Response: Thank you very much for your comment! After confirmation, this product is indeed a candy box. And its history can be traced back to a much older period.
Comment: The word ding is sometimes italicized, sometimes standard. Use the same graphics throughout the text.
Response: Thank you so much for reviewing our articles so meticulously! This word has been used the same graphics throughout the whole article.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Very interesting. Great improvement of the Emglish.
Thank you for addressing all the suggestions.
