Christian Revelation in the Photographic Arts: Urban Warfare, Light as a Borrowed Metaphor, and Roman Bordun’s The Apartment After the Artillery Bombardment in Ukraine

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This has the potential to be an intriguing and highly original article - the elements are there, and they are fascinating, but a clear and convincing argument is currently undermined by the way in which these elements are presented.

The 'star' of the article is Roman Bordun's photograph The Apartment ... but it is surprisingly side-lined in various ways. In the first place, I think that it should be referenced in the title, which, as it stands makes generalised claims for the photographic arts. By contrast, the article argues for the role of Christian revelation in the work of Bordun, and in the named photograph in particular, from which broader claims about photography might possibly (but perhaps not inevitably) be made. 

In the second place, the article/argument would be greatly strengthened if Bordun's key image were to be made visually available at the beginning of the article - made available as a source for reflection and consideration to the reader. If for copyright or other reasons this is not possible then this should be addressed and the reader invited to access the image online.  Whether or not the image is made available in the article itself, it should in any case be carefully introduced and described at the beginning of the article, ensuring that aspects of the image that will later be discussed  later on are given due attention. 

Given that an argument will be presented about the role of Christian revelation in this work, it would be helpful for this to be presented/evidenced early on  as a reasonable claim to be making. In other words, it would be helpful to be more overt about the relationship between the artist, his work, and those broader issues of faith. That there is a connection becomes apparent a bit later when the context of this work's display, and Bordun's practice more broadly is discussed - notably the reference in the main body text and in the Appendix to the work entitled Sanctus. It would be helpful if this fundamental information about Sanctus were to be removed from Appendix 1, reworded and incorporated into the the main body text early on. In this regard, it would be useful to know whether connections between Bordun's art practice and questions of Christian faith have been overtly addressed by him/by other scholars. Or whether this is a fresh perspective that the author is bringing to this scholarship.

From this basis, the particular and extremely interesting comparison that is being set up with Raphael's St Michael can be made , and would then carry more weight. Here, though, the author should clarify right from the start why Raphael, and why this image. Certain indications are given later on, but where appropriate some or all of these could be brought forward. And again, careful visual description of the work is vital and the obvious differences between the Raphael and the Bordun should be remarked upon (most notably, the fact that the Raphael is organised around the central figure of the angel, and the Bordun presents us with a scene of material traces of a bombardment that has taken place. As indicated, I would remove the image from the Appendix and bring it forward. Indeed, (Indeed, I think that both Appendices should be removed) These images are central agents of argumentation in this essay, not mere appendices. The remarks about further ways in which Bordun's work might be discussed could be included in an endnote.

A further point. In making the visual comparison between the Bordun and the Raphael, I do also think that important distinctions need to be made more explicit between the different forms of warfare (spiritual and worldly) that are given visual dominance in each case, even though references to specific urban locations are indicated in each case and even though both modes are warfare are argued to be in play in each scenario. In this regard, too, it might be worth reviewing and revising the generalised claim about photography at the very end of the article regarding "the possibility that warfare and violence can bring redemption, etc" - it seems stronger to link this to the work of photography as it is offered in these works by Bordun and then the question raised about how generalisable/transferrable this might be to photography itself as a medium that is literally "writes with light". More broadly,  crucial differences between human and spiritual warfare as presented within the Judeo-Christian tradition, could, I think, be brought to attention in the context of this article.

I think that some rewriting/restructuring along the lines indicated above  would then help everything else (the other sources and insights that make up this text) find their place within the construction and development of this argument. At times, greater commentary/reflection on the choice of sources being referenced would be helpful.

Other than this, there are a few things that could be attended to in terms of consistency. If, for instance, chiaroscuro is being defined, should not tenebrism (and its relation to chiaroscuro) also be defined? 

As well as considering a somewhat altered article title, I wonder whether the section headers could be altered to relate more evocatively with the line of argumentation being presented?

Ensure that the reference list is compete. For instance, I noticed that an entry for Fiddles seemed to be missing. 

Some of the endnotes seemed to be incomplete.

But all in all, I find this to be a fascinating article. With some restructuring and more explicit attention given to descriptions of the visual works and to the relationship between source materials and the development of the argument being presented, I think this will make for a significant contribution to scholarship.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English language is fine more or less - some copy editing needed and some areas of clarification needed. For instance lines 111-115. Not sure why certain elements are in bold text ... 

Author Response

This has the potential to be an intriguing and highly original article - the elements are there, and they are fascinating, but a clear and convincing argument is currently undermined by the way in which these elements are presented.

THANK YOU. I HAVE ATTEMPTED TO ADDRESS THE CONCERNS WITH GREATER ELABORATION.

The 'star' of the article is Roman Bordun's photograph The Apartment ... but it is surprisingly side-lined in various ways. In the first place, I think that it should be referenced in the title, which, as it stands makes generalised claims for the photographic arts. By contrast, the article argues for the role of Christian revelation in the work of Bordun, and in the named photograph in particular, from which broader claims about photography might possibly (but perhaps not inevitably) be made. 

AGREED. I HAVE NOT ALTERED THE TITLE YET, BUT DID REWRITE TO FEATURE THE PHOTOGRAPHER AS ARTIST. THIS WAS AN EXCELLENT DIRECTION.

In the second place, the article/argument would be greatly strengthened if Bordun's key image were to be made visually available at the beginning of the article - made available as a source for reflection and consideration to the reader. If for copyright or other reasons this is not possible then this should be addressed and the reader invited to access the image online.  Whether or not the image is made available in the article itself, it should in any case be carefully introduced and described at the beginning of the article, ensuring that aspects of the image that will later be discussed  later on are given due attention. 

AGREED. I HOPE THE JOURNAL CAN PRINT COLOR.

Given that an argument will be presented about the role of Christian revelation in this work, it would be helpful for this to be presented/evidenced early on  as a reasonable claim to be making. In other words, it would be helpful to be more overt about the relationship between the artist, his work, and those broader issues of faith. That there is a connection becomes apparent a bit later when the context of this work's display, and Bordun's practice more broadly is discussed - notably the reference in the main body text and in the Appendix to the work entitled Sanctus. It would be helpful if this fundamental information about Sanctus were to be removed from Appendix 1, reworded and incorporated into the the main body text early on. In this regard, it would be useful to know whether connections between Bordun's art practice and questions of Christian faith have been overtly addressed by him/by other scholars. Or whether this is a fresh perspective that the author is bringing to this scholarship.

AGREED, AND I HOPE THE FLESHING OUT OF THESE IDEAS HAS BEEN FULL ENOUGH.

From this basis, the particular and extremely interesting comparison that is being set up with Raphael's St Michael can be made , and would then carry more weight. Here, though, the author should clarify right from the start why Raphael, and why this image. Certain indications are given later on, but where appropriate some or all of these could be brought forward. And again, careful visual description of the work is vital and the obvious differences between the Raphael and the Bordun should be remarked upon (most notably, the fact that the Raphael is organised around the central figure of the angel, and the Bordun presents us with a scene of material traces of a bombardment that has taken place. As indicated, I would remove the image from the Appendix and bring it forward. Indeed, (Indeed, I think that both Appendices should be removed) These images are central agents of argumentation in this essay, not mere appendices. The remarks about further ways in which Bordun's work might be discussed could be included in an endnote.

AGREED.

A further point. In making the visual comparison between the Bordun and the Raphael, I do also think that important distinctions need to be made more explicit between the different forms of warfare (spiritual and worldly) that are given visual dominance in each case, even though references to specific urban locations are indicated in each case and even though both modes are warfare are argued to be in play in each scenario. In this regard, too, it might be worth reviewing and revising the generalised claim about photography at the very end of the article regarding "the possibility that warfare and violence can bring redemption, etc" - it seems stronger to link this to the work of photography as it is offered in these works by Bordun and then the question raised about how generalisable/transferrable this might be to photography itself as a medium that is literally "writes with light". More broadly,  crucial differences between human and spiritual warfare as presented within the Judeo-Christian tradition, could, I think, be brought to attention in the context of this article.

I HOPE THE REWRITE DOES THIS.

I think that some rewriting/restructuring along the lines indicated above  would then help everything else (the other sources and insights that make up this text) find their place within the construction and development of this argument. At times, greater commentary/reflection on the choice of sources being referenced would be helpful.

I AM WONDERING IF I SHOULD RE-ARRANGE TEH ARTICLE AND PUT THE PHOTOGRAPHER'S BIOGRAPHY AND APPROACH TO WORK FIRST. I AM OPEN TO THIS SUGGESTION.

Other than this, there are a few things that could be attended to in terms of consistency. If, for instance, chiaroscuro is being defined, should not tenebrism (and its relation to chiaroscuro) also be defined? 

YES.

As well as considering a somewhat altered article title, I wonder whether the section headers could be altered to relate more evocatively with the line of argumentation being presented?

Ensure that the reference list is compete. For instance, I noticed that an entry for Fiddles seemed to be missing. 

CORRECTED

Some of the endnotes seemed to be incomplete.

APOLOGIES

But all in all, I find this to be a fascinating article. With some restructuring and more explicit attention given to descriptions of the visual works and to the relationship between source materials and the development of the argument being presented, I think this will make for a significant contribution to scholarship.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS AND ENCOURAGEMENT. I LOOK FORWARD TO FURTHER FEEDBACK. YOUR COMMENTS WERE EXTREMELY PRODUCTIVE.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article attempts a credible aim, to discuss a contemporary photograph within the context of a Christian theological framework, expanding the notion and literacy of what could be considered 'religious art' and meaning.

Where the article falls is in its attempt at reading photography, without taking into consideration enough photography theory literature to guide the approach. Rather being transparent and owning-up to a subjective reading of the photograph, the article is written in such a way as to imply that the thoughts of the writer were the intentions of the photographer. The meanings read into the photograph were the writer’s, but the style of the writing suggests is to be not only universal, but the original intent of the work. I know it was likely not the intention of the writer to convey this tone, but that is how it communicates. To paraphrase Berger in his essay ‘The Ambiguity of the Photograph’, he states that any meaning a viewer sees in a photograph, is what the viewer themselves bring to the image. Photographs in themselves do not carry meaning, and meanings of images are brought to the image by the viewers. Meaning are read into photographs. There are as many meanings of a photograph, as there are people looking at the photograph. By their nature, photographs are ambiguous of meaning. In relation to this article, the tone of the text gave no room to ambiguity or doubt, and therefore alienates any reader that does not see the same meanings. To be more convincing for the reader, the writer needed to take the reader of a journey and allow them to see through their eyes. As such, the hypothesis and conclusions that this article reached were unfortunately unconvincing, as the premise taken from the very start were not on solid enough foundations to have analysed photography to be read in this way.

It would take a considerable re-write, and theoretical re-framing, for this article to meet the standards. 

If this article is resubmitted, then I would strongly recommend that the main photograph in discussion by Bordun is printed inserted with the text. Also possibly include quotes from Bordun himself in the analysis.

The referencing style uses a dual appendix and endnote system. I would suggest to get rid of all the appendix completely, and stick with the number reference system alone. Extremely confusing to read to have both systems, and is unnecessary.

 

Author Response

This article attempts a credible aim, to discuss a contemporary photograph within the context of a Christian theological framework, expanding the notion and literacy of what could be considered 'religious art' and meaning.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR ENCOURAGEMENT ABOUT THIS LINE OF THINKING.

Where the article falls is in its attempt at reading photography, without taking into consideration enough photography theory literature to guide the approach. Rather being transparent and owning-up to a subjective reading of the photograph, the article is written in such a way as to imply that the thoughts of the writer were the intentions of the photographer. The meanings read into the photograph were the writer’s, but the style of the writing suggests is to be not only universal, but the original intent of the work. I know it was likely not the intention of the writer to convey this tone, but that is how it communicates. To paraphrase Berger in his essay ‘The Ambiguity of the Photograph’, he states that any meaning a viewer sees in a photograph, is what the viewer themselves bring to the image. Photographs in themselves do not carry meaning, and meanings of images are brought to the image by the viewers. Meaning are read into photographs. There are as many meanings of a photograph, as there are people looking at the photograph. By their nature, photographs are ambiguous of meaning. In relation to this article, the tone of the text gave no room to ambiguity or doubt, and therefore alienates any reader that does not see the same meanings. To be more convincing for the reader, the writer needed to take the reader of a journey and allow them to see through their eyes. As such, the hypothesis and conclusions that this article reached were unfortunately unconvincing, as the premise taken from the very start were not on solid enough foundations to have analysed photography to be read in this way.

THANK YOU FOR PUSHING ME ON THIS POINT. I THINK THE QUESTION OF 'UNIVERSALITY' IS VITAL AND I BRUSHED OVER IT. I DO THINK THE LINE OF THINKING COULD BE FURTHERED AND DEEPENED IN THE ARTICLE -- AS IT RELATES TO INSTITUTIONS VERSUS BELIEFS IN PARTICULAR. I AM WONDERING IF YOU THINK MORE SHOULD BE MADE OF MY CLAIM THAT LIGHT AND ITS SYMBOLISM DOES HAVE A TIMELESS QUALITY VERSUS THE SPECIFICITY OF WAR IN DAILY LIFE AND A POLITICIZED CHURCH INSTITUTION.

It would take a considerable re-write, and theoretical re-framing, for this article to meet the standards. 

I HOPE I HAVE MOVED IT IN THIS DIRECTION. I LOOK FORWARD TO FURTHER COMMENTARY AND SUGGESTIONS.

If this article is resubmitted, then I would strongly recommend that the main photograph in discussion by Bordun is printed inserted with the text. Also possibly include quotes from Bordun himself in the analysis.

AGREED. I HOPE THE JOURNAL IS ABLE TO DO THIS IN THE PUBLICATION PHASE AND IN COLOR IF ACCEPTED.

The referencing style uses a dual appendix and endnote system. I would suggest to get rid of all the appendix completely, and stick with the number reference system alone. Extremely confusing to read to have both systems, and is unnecessary.

THANK YOU. THIS WAS DONE FOR A SPECIFIC PROGRAM AND HAS BEEN REVISED.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for resubmitting your article. You have responded to the points that were raised in the original feedback, and I welcome your attention to detail and nuancing of the discourse of how the photographic work is discussed.  This is solid article and introduces a lively and robust input into the conversation of photography in relation to religious art and contemporary contexts.