The Black Mirror of the Pupil of the Eye: Around the Eye that Sees and Is Seen: Ibn al-ʿArabī, Bill Viola

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The problem explored is pertinent to the intersection between Religious and Cultural Studies. The author is thorough in his hermeneutic task and reveals the necessary expertise in managing his sources and documents. Overall, the article contributes well to the knowledge of the intersections between art and mysticism.

The article can achieve more clarity if two remodellings are observed:

a) The text is very profuse, sometimes hindering articulation of the different interpretative perspectives. In addition, the excess of extensive quotations from the sources and documents studied affects the flow of the argumentation. Therefore, we strongly recommend a reformulation that seeks a redactional strategy that avoids this excess, reducing the volume of reproduction of texts directly quoted.

b) The Conclusion should present the research results regarding this fundamental question: How does Bill Viola interpret Andalusian Sufism? Or still, how does Sufi mysticism influence Bill Viola's creative process? However, in its present state, the conclusion is not sufficiently focused. Therefore, the reference to other objects of research (visual, musical, etc.) should be presented as a line of investigation which can give continuity to this study.

Author Response

Dear reviewers,

• I very much appreciate your comments and suggestions, which have been addressed in the revised version of the text to the extent possible.
• This article is rather a summary essay on the importance that vision (θεωρία, contemplatio), the eye and the pupil have had in medieval Neoplatonic mysticism, typified in the mystical poetry of Ibn al-ʿArabī and Maḥmūd Shabistarī. For this, it has been necessary to make obligatory references to the germinal nucleus of the subject: the Platonic and Neoplatonic tradition, specifically the text of the First Alcibiades, which Bill Viola himself cites in his writings.
• I am sorry that the text seemed too developed, but I have consulted with those responsible for publishing this monograph in Religions journal and they have clarified that there is no problem with its length.
• I am sorry for having presented such a lengthy text, but we set out to establish a dialogic and comparative line on the theme of the eye and the pupil (inner gaze) in the three Book religions, especially in the Semitic tradition (Hebrew, Arabic), as well as in the Indo-European (Persian), specifically in the Persian Sufi Gnostics followers of Akbarī school (ʿIrāqī, Shabistarī, Shāh Niʿmat Allāh Walī, Shams al-ʿUrafāʾ…), who are the ones who directly influence Bill Viola's commented video creations in the text. It is not easy to establish boundaries between the different traditions, as the studies on Sufism by Carl W. Ernst or on Jewish mysticism by Paul B. Fenton, Moshe Idel and Elliot R. Wolfson have come to show.
• Ibn al-ʿArabī has been and is a key referent in the work of Bill Viola, but regarding the theme of vision –specular vision, the spiritual eye– the artist turns to the First Alcibiades and the followers of al-Shaykh to the -Akbar in the Persian context (Rūmī, Shabistarī…), as it is revealed throughout this essay.
• For ease of reading, I have separated the citations from the body of the text by reducing them to a smaller font size. I think this small detail facilitates a more fluent reading.
• The quotes are very extensive because I do not want to appropriate what renowned specialists in the field have already dealt with at the time on the topic at hand. Walter Benjamin proposed at the time to write a book composed exclusively of quotes, but those were other times, and outside the strictly academic context.
• The hermeneutics used in this essay does not follow a traditionalist or perennialist model. As an example, see the profuse comparative analyses followed by the prestigious specialist in Jewish mysticism Elliot R. Wolfson (for example, in his magisterial book Language, Eros, Being. Kabbalistic Hermeneutics and Poetic Imagination, cited in my article), which Starting from Jewish mysticism, a subject in which he is recognized as a world reference, but also following a comparative mysticism, he establishes continuous bridges with other spiritual traditions (Christianity, Sufism, Buddhism...). His books, like my essays, are very long. Thus, an analysis of comparative religions is not incompatible with the task of a proven expert in the field.
• As you well know, Moshe Idel, the other famous referent present in the studies of Jewish mysticism, also establishes continuous comparative analyses and probable mutual influences between Kabbalah and Sufism, for example in his outstanding compilation Studies in Ecstatic Kabbalah, book also mentioned in my article.
• I believe that the summary and conclusions succinctly reflect the proposed theme and the results of the study, but in the latter, following his suggestions, I will add some clarification about it.

Kind regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The text submitted to Religions brings important insights and reflects a research on the subject. However, it is a text that does not have a well-defined focus. The title of the text in question intends to be a study on the question of the "eye" in Ibn 'Arabi and Bill Viola. However, what we see is a discussion about the eye in Bill Viola from several authors from different traditions (Judaism, for example, Master Eckhart, Nicholas of Cusa, Tarkoski, Bresson, Antonio Machado, Upanishad, João Cesar Monteiro, etc), with emphasis on Sufism (Rumi, Shabistari, Ibn 'Arabi, Corbin, Hallaj, Hafiz, Shirazi, etc). And, sometimes, with little articulation and coordination between them.

This text, also, is excessive long. 50 pages.

Another serious problem with the text is the excess of quotations. Besides being often so long (cf. p. 7-8; 20-21; 21-23; 25-26; 41-42; 42-43; etc.) often the commentary between them is sparse, not denoting the position and absorption of the quotation for the discussion of the problematic that the text presents. Thus, we cannot see the author's voice in these cases.

The abstract also does not present the problem that the text proposes to discuss, it brings an excess of translations of the word eye (for an abstract this amount of translations is unnecessary). It does not present the methodology used in the discussion and does not present the steps of the discussion nor the possible conclusion.

Author Response

Dear reviewers,

• I very much appreciate your comments and suggestions, which have been addressed in the revised version of the text to the extent possible.
• This article is rather a summary essay on the importance that vision (θεωρία, contemplatio), the eye and the pupil have had in medieval Neoplatonic mysticism, typified in the mystical poetry of Ibn al-ʿArabī and Maḥmūd Shabistarī. For this, it has been necessary to make obligatory references to the germinal nucleus of the subject: the Platonic and Neoplatonic tradition, specifically the text of the First Alcibiades, which Bill Viola himself cites in his writings.
• I am sorry that the text seemed too developed, but I have consulted with those responsible for publishing this monograph in Religions journal and they have clarified that there is no problem with its length.
• I am sorry for having presented such a lengthy text, but we set out to establish a dialogic and comparative line on the theme of the eye and the pupil (inner gaze) in the three Book religions, especially in the Semitic tradition (Hebrew, Arabic), as well as in the Indo-European (Persian), specifically in the Persian Sufi Gnostics followers of Akbarī school (ʿIrāqī, Shabistarī, Shāh Niʿmat Allāh Walī, Shams al-ʿUrafāʾ…), who are the ones who directly influence Bill Viola's commented video creations in the text. It is not easy to establish boundaries between the different traditions, as the studies on Sufism by Carl W. Ernst or on Jewish mysticism by Paul B. Fenton, Moshe Idel and Elliot R. Wolfson have come to show.
• Ibn al-ʿArabī has been and is a key referent in the work of Bill Viola, but regarding the theme of vision –specular vision, the spiritual eye– the artist turns to the First Alcibiades and the followers of al-Shaykh al-Akbar in the Persian context (Rūmī, Shabistarī…), as it is revealed throughout this essay.
• For ease of reading, I have separated the citations from the body of the text by reducing them to a smaller font size. I think this small detail facilitates a more fluent reading.
• The quotes are very extensive because I do not want to appropriate what renowned specialists in the field have already dealt with at the time on the topic at hand. Walter Benjamin proposed at the time to write a book composed exclusively of quotes, but those were other times, and outside the strictly academic context.
• The hermeneutics used in this essay does not follow a traditionalist or perennialist model. As an example, see the profuse comparative analyses followed by the prestigious specialist in Jewish mysticism Elliot R. Wolfson (for example, in his magisterial book Language, Eros, Being. Kabbalistic Hermeneutics and Poetic Imagination, cited in my article), which starting from Jewish mysticism, a subject in which he is recognized as a world reference, but also following a comparative mysticism, he establishes continuous bridges with other spiritual traditions (Christianity, Sufism, Buddhism...). His books, like my essays, are very long. Thus, an analysis of comparative religions is not incompatible with the task of a proven expert in the field.
• As you well know, Moshe Idel, the other famous referent present in the studies of Jewish mysticism, also establishes continuous comparative analyses and probable mutual influences between Kabbalah and Sufism, for example in his outstanding compilation Studies in Ecstatic Kabbalah, book also mentioned in my article.
• I believe that the summary and conclusions succinctly reflect the proposed theme and the results of the study, but in the latter, following his suggestions, I will add some clarification about it.

Kind regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

At one level this is a masterful piece of work weaving so many sources from so many different traditions. This article (a dss. chapter unrevised, yes?) shows good comparative work. The understanding of Ibn 'Arabi is strong. But in terms of length and density, this article is unusually long and deals with so many different traditions. I feel as if there are three distinct and strong papers in this. But it seems to me somewhat scattered to try to integrate so many disparate traditions. I'm in favor of what the author is doing. But I feel that the piece needs to be shorter and focused.

So much is going on in this piece. There's Ibn 'Arabi standing next to Bill Viola and then a whole slew of references to eye pupils in every source possible. I detect a strong perennialist streak in this work in style, substance, and strategy.  The perennialism is fine, but this artcle overwhelms the reader since it is in the genre of dissertation chapter more than in the genre of article.

I had to give you high scores in the checkbuttons because there's little nuance in their choices. But it would really strengthen the paper to focus on fewer traditions. You've already established a dialectic and dialogue between Ibn 'Arabi and Bill Viola.  The conceptual analysis is well-founded but the constant transitioning back and forth among Ibn 'Arabi, Bill, and all the other traditions is not reader-friendly. 

Each of the parts of this work are exceptionally great. It's the whole structure and constant jumping back and  forth that undermines the value of the work. This intensively intertraditional dialogue feels more crowded than harmonious. On the other hand I know there might be readers who might rave about this article.  

Crx (by line #):

161 perception occur > occurs (add s)

198 Translate Latin poem.

459 some of the >  them

754 Need author comment between block quotes

773 being see > seen (add n)

906 inform . informs

1189 blesse > blessed

1206 known > know

1293 Translate Gk.

1298      "          "

1304      "           "

1555 no > not

2241 Which Inayat Khan? Pir-o-Murshid Hazrat Inayat Khan or Pir Vilayat?

2247  oe > the 

Author Response

Dear reviewers,

• I very much appreciate your comments and suggestions, which have been addressed in the revised version of the text to the extent possible.
• This article is rather a summary essay on the importance that vision (θεωρία, contemplatio), the eye and the pupil have had in medieval Neoplatonic mysticism, typified in the mystical poetry of Ibn al-ʿArabī and Maḥmūd Shabistarī. For this, it has been necessary to make obligatory references to the germinal nucleus of the subject: the Platonic and Neoplatonic tradition, specifically the text of the First Alcibiades, which Bill Viola himself cites in his writings.
• I am sorry that the text seemed too developed, but I have consulted with those responsible for publishing this monograph in Religions journal and they have clarified that there is no problem with its length.
• I am sorry for having presented such a lengthy text, but we set out to establish a dialogic and comparative line on the theme of the eye and the pupil (inner gaze) in the three Book religions, especially in the Semitic tradition (Hebrew, Arabic), as well as in the Indo-European (Persian), specifically in the Persian Sufi Gnostics followers of Akbarī school (ʿIrāqī, Shabistarī, Shāh Niʿmat Allāh Walī, Shams al-ʿUrafāʾ…), who are the ones who directly influence Bill Viola's commented video creations in the text. It is not easy to establish boundaries between the different traditions, as the studies on Sufism by Carl W. Ernst or on Jewish mysticism by Paul B. Fenton, Moshe Idel and Elliot R. Wolfson have come to show.
• Ibn al-ʿArabī has been and is a key referent in the work of Bill Viola, but regarding the theme of vision –specular vision, the spiritual eye– the artist turns to the First Alcibiades and the followers of al-Shaykh al-Akbar in the Persian context (Rūmī, Shabistarī…), as it is revealed throughout this essay.
• For ease of reading, I have separated the citations from the body of the text by reducing them to a smaller font size. I think this small detail facilitates a more fluent reading.
• The quotes are very extensive because I do not want to appropriate what renowned specialists in the field have already dealt with at the time on the topic at hand. Walter Benjamin proposed at the time to write a book composed exclusively of quotes, but those were other times, and outside the strictly academic context.
• The hermeneutics used in this essay does not follow a traditionalist or perennialist model. As an example, see the profuse comparative analyses followed by the prestigious specialist in Jewish mysticism Elliot R. Wolfson (for example, in his magisterial book Language, Eros, Being. Kabbalistic Hermeneutics and Poetic Imagination, cited in my article), which starting from Jewish mysticism, a subject in which he is recognized as a world reference, but also following a comparative mysticism, he establishes continuous bridges with other spiritual traditions (Christianity, Sufism, Buddhism...). His books, like my essays, are very long. Thus, an analysis of comparative religions is not incompatible with the task of a proven expert in the field.
• As you well know, Moshe Idel, the other famous referent present in the studies of Jewish mysticism, also establishes continuous comparative analyses and probable mutual influences between Kabbalah and Sufism, for example in his outstanding compilation Studies in Ecstatic Kabbalah, book also mentioned in my article.
• I believe that the summary and conclusions succinctly reflect the proposed theme and the results of the study, but in the latter, following his suggestions, I will add some clarification about it.

Kind regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Potentially, this is an interesting article. In its present form, however, it is unreadable. It comprises a rambling collection of ideas and inconceivably long quotations, which frequently become the main text, the reader having no idea where a quote begins and ends. 

I was unable to follow the article and eventually gave up. My word counter shows it comprises well over 30000 words.

The material is interesting when read in parts (i.e. when not trying to make sense of the article as a whole) and the desire to work comparatively is laudable, but a structure and purpose must be imposed upon it, as well as a knife -- cutting it down to 1/3 its present length.

n/a

Author Response

Dear reviewers,

• I very much appreciate your comments and suggestions, which have been addressed in the revised version of the text to the extent possible.
• This article is rather a summary essay on the importance that vision (θεωρία, contemplatio), the eye and the pupil have had in medieval Neoplatonic mysticism, typified in the mystical poetry of Ibn al-ʿArabī and Maḥmūd Shabistarī. For this, it has been necessary to make obligatory references to the germinal nucleus of the subject: the Platonic and Neoplatonic tradition, specifically the text of the First Alcibiades, which Bill Viola himself cites in his writings.
• I am sorry that the text seemed too developed, but I have consulted with those responsible for publishing this monograph in Religions journal and they have clarified that there is no problem with its length.
• I am sorry for having presented such a lengthy text, but we set out to establish a dialogic and comparative line on the theme of the eye and the pupil (inner gaze) in the three Book religions, especially in the Semitic tradition (Hebrew, Arabic), as well as in the Indo-European (Persian), specifically in the Persian Sufi Gnostics followers of Akbarī school (ʿIrāqī, Shabistarī, Shāh Niʿmat Allāh Walī, Shams al-ʿUrafāʾ…), who are the ones who directly influence Bill Viola's commented video creations in the text. It is not easy to establish boundaries between the different traditions, as the studies on Sufism by Carl W. Ernst or on Jewish mysticism by Paul B. Fenton, Moshe Idel and Elliot R. Wolfson have come to show.
• Ibn al-ʿArabī has been and is a key referent in the work of Bill Viola, but regarding the theme of vision –specular vision, the spiritual eye– the artist turns to the First Alcibiades and the followers of al-Shaykh al-Akbar in the Persian context (Rūmī, Shabistarī…), as it is revealed throughout this essay.
• For ease of reading, I have separated the citations from the body of the text by reducing them to a smaller font size. I think this small detail facilitates a more fluent reading.
• The quotes are very extensive because I do not want to appropriate what renowned specialists in the field have already dealt with at the time on the topic at hand. Walter Benjamin proposed at the time to write a book composed exclusively of quotes, but those were other times, and outside the strictly academic context.
• The hermeneutics used in this essay does not follow a traditionalist or perennialist model. As an example, see the profuse comparative analyses followed by the prestigious specialist in Jewish mysticism Elliot R. Wolfson (for example, in his magisterial book Language, Eros, Being. Kabbalistic Hermeneutics and Poetic Imagination, cited in my article), which starting from Jewish mysticism, a subject in which he is recognized as a world reference, but also following a comparative mysticism, he establishes continuous bridges with other spiritual traditions (Christianity, Sufism, Buddhism...). His books, like my essays, are very long. Thus, an analysis of comparative religions is not incompatible with the task of a proven expert in the field.
• As you well know, Moshe Idel, the other famous referent present in the studies of Jewish mysticism, also establishes continuous comparative analyses and probable mutual influences between Kabbalah and Sufism, for example in his outstanding compilation Studies in Ecstatic Kabbalah, book also mentioned in my article.
• I believe that the summary and conclusions succinctly reflect the proposed theme and the results of the study, but in the latter, following his suggestions, I will add some clarification about it.

Kind regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Regarding the second topic of the author's answer, I believe that the title should be more adequate to the proposal of the text, since it intends to discuss the origins of Ibn 'Arabi's view on the gaze. Or, at least, a better organization or explicitness of the perspective to be held (which will focus on Ibn 'Arabi and Bill Viola, but will also include several other authors and conceptions that were important in the consolidation of the akbari perspective).

However, what I find most serious about this text is that it does not articulate the ideas. I don't see a problem with the use of different authors from different religious and academic traditions. But in the text in question, they do not dialogue with each other. They are placed in a way that is not articulated with each other. A brief example to illustrate. The text begins with an introduction, bringing aspects of the gaze in Ibn Arabi and in the Islamic tradition. However, without any announcement, in topic 2 it moves on to the Jewish tradition, bringing the Bible. And without any preparation of what comes next, in the same topic a film is presented, and so on. The themes are close, it is true, but the text does not articulate them, it makes jumps between authors, themes, etc.

Regarding the amount of quotations and their length, I maintain my criticism. When there are citations in a scientific article, they serve to corroborate the conception defended by an author. Therefore, what is most important is that I know what the author of the article thinks and his thinking on the subject. To read quotations without comments I can look directly to the original text, and there is no justification for me to read them in a scientific article. The reason for my criticism, therefore, is not the size of the quotes themselves, but the work and voice of the author that I often don't see in relation to the quotes. At least in some parts of the text.

Author Response

Dear reviewers and editors,

I provide a cover letter to explain, point by point, the details of the revisions to the manuscript “The black mirror of the pupil of the eye: around the eye that sees and is seen: Ibn al-ʿArabī, Bill Viola,” and your responses to the referees’ comments:

2554. In fluorescent yellow I have highlighted the main changes that I remember having made in my article, taking into account both the comments of the reviewers and the editors, to facilitate their location: lines 16, 28, 47, 485, 792, 2370, 2549, 2551, 2552, 2554.
2555. Errors of various kinds have been corrected that I cannot detail now because I did not know that I had to specify them later.

• Typos missed by reviewers have also been fixed.

1. Textual citations have been separated by white spaces and the font size has been reduced to make it easier to read.
2. On the page 4 (lines 150-167) we have introduced one more film reference (Werckmeister Harmóniák, Werckmeister Harmonies, 2000, dir. Béla Tarr), which belonged to the first version of the article and which, in order not to increase its length, had been removed. I think the image in figure 4 reflects very well the subject of study of this article. Now, since the extension has been reduced, we have recovered it without affecting the increase in the number of pages of the article: it has the same, 50. Among my research interests, I share with Prof. Dr. James Winston Morris, an American Islamic theologian, currently a professor in the Department of Theology at Boston College and specialist in the work of Ibn al-ʿArabī and Mullā Ṣadrā, an interest in cinema in spiritual teaching and as an expression of the mundus imaginalis.
3. Following the reviewers’ recommendation, some long citations have been reduced and even eliminated. For example, the direct quote from the Chāndogya Upaniṣad 8.7.4 has been removed (page 32, line 1648).

• As requested by a reviewer, Claudio Parmiggiani’s poem has been translated from Italian into English (page 6, lines 242-248).
• As I explained in my response to the reviewers, following their criteria, I have expanded the important point of the conclusions to try to better specify the results of my research (pages 44, 45, 47: in fluorescent yellow).

1. It must be taken into account that the writing, of an interdisciplinary and transversal nature, is framed in a context that is not exclusively academic, since, when dealing with the field of art, it has also been conceived and reflected as an essay.

Thank you very much for your valuable comments and correction support.

Kind regards.

Reviewer 4 Report

Although the distinction between the author's words and the sources they cite is now much clearer, I can still discern no thread, no guiding argument, in the text.

Author Response

Dear reviewers and editors,

I provide a cover letter to explain, point by point, the details of the revisions to the manuscript “The black mirror of the pupil of the eye: around the eye that sees and is seen: Ibn al-ʿArabī, Bill Viola,” and your responses to the referees’ comments:

2554. In fluorescent yellow I have highlighted the main changes that I remember having made in my article, taking into account both the comments of the reviewers and the editors, to facilitate their location: lines 16, 28, 47, 485, 792, 2370, 2549, 2551, 2552, 2554.
2555. Errors of various kinds have been corrected that I cannot detail now because I did not know that I had to specify them later.

• Typos missed by reviewers have also been fixed.

1. Textual citations have been separated by white spaces and the font size has been reduced to make it easier to read.
2. On the page 4 (lines 150-167) we have introduced one more film reference (Werckmeister Harmóniák, Werckmeister Harmonies, 2000, dir. Béla Tarr), which belonged to the first version of the article and which, in order not to increase its length, had been removed. I think the image in figure 4 reflects very well the subject of study of this article. Now, since the extension has been reduced, we have recovered it without affecting the increase in the number of pages of the article: it has the same, 50. Among my research interests, I share with Prof. Dr. James Winston Morris, an American Islamic theologian, currently a professor in the Department of Theology at Boston College and specialist in the work of Ibn al-ʿArabī and Mullā Ṣadrā, an interest in cinema in spiritual teaching and as an expression of the mundus imaginalis.
3. Following the reviewers’ recommendation, some long citations have been reduced and even eliminated. For example, the direct quote from the Chāndogya Upaniṣad 8.7.4 has been removed (page 32, line 1648).

• As requested by a reviewer, Claudio Parmiggiani’s poem has been translated from Italian into English (page 6, lines 242-248).
• As I explained in my response to the reviewers, following their criteria, I have expanded the important point of the conclusions to try to better specify the results of my research (pages 44, 45, 47: in fluorescent yellow).

1. It must be taken into account that the writing, of an interdisciplinary and transversal nature, is framed in a context that is not exclusively academic, since, when dealing with the field of art, it has also been conceived and reflected as an essay.

Thank you very much for your valuable comments and correction support.

Kind regards.