Less Is More: Audience Cognition of Comic Simplification in the Characters of Peking Opera
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Interesting topic but the article is falling short of the expectations for the subject and from the title.
The main problem is that, while the description of the problem/subject (is simplification beneficial) is general, and the title "The Simplification of Characters in Chinese Traditional Opera" is referring to a general description of "characters", the actual tests actually only concern pictograms and images - so all questions and evaluations are on specific visual images.
Nevertheless the article makes for some interesting reading. Some moderate correction of the English language is suggested, and some shortening of the content would make the article more concise and even better reading.
In the Literature Review section, in chapter 2.1, the double reference "Lin (1994)" (lines 99 and 112), should be simplified (joined) or one of the two references deleted.
Author Response
Comment 1: Interesting topic but the article is falling short of the expectations for the subject and from the title. The main problem is that, while the description of the problem/subject (is simplification beneficial) is general, and the title “The Simplification of Characters in Chinese Traditional Opera” is referring to a general description of “characters”, the actual tests actually only concern pictograms and images - so all questions and evaluations are on specific visual images. Nevertheless the article makes for some interesting reading. Some moderate correction of the English language is suggested, and some shortening of the content would make the article more concise and even better reading.
Response 1: Thank you very much for reading our paper so carefully! And thank you for giving us a certain degree of recognition for our research. We will review and modify each of the comments you have mentioned. At the same time, we will be looking for native English speakers to proofread the language again. In accordance with the regulations of the journal, we will upload a reply form first, and reply to your questions one by one in the form. In the revised version of the article, all changes and additions are marked in red for your review. Thanks again!
Comment 2: In the Literature Review section, in chapter 2.1, the double reference “Lin (1994)” (lines 99 and 112), should be simplified (joined) or one of the two references deleted.
Response 2: Once again, thank you for your careful review. We have fixed the problem.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Less is More: The Simplification of Characters in Chinese Traditional Opera
Reaction: I can only respond respectfully to this article from the point of view of the humanities, as an art historian and philosopher. I understand completely that a scientific-minded person may find different results. That said, I have strong reservations about this paper, as interesting as it seems. The authors do not, in my view, make the case for why Chinese opera is in need of such simplification. In other words, the test subject may seem appropriate given the visual aspects of the research. However, the choice seems ad hoc, and it would help the paper if the authors contextualized a need. This is particularly required insofar as taking such an objective and quantitative/analytic approach (while acknowledging the qualitative as “aesthetic”) seems to me unnecessarily complex when considering the ultimate purpose of artistic creation (emotional and intellectual effect). Figure 9 and Table 6 exemplify this sentiment. I understand that the results are intended to aid creators, ultimately. My reservations remain however.
The authors state the objective of the paper: “A simplification of Chinese traditional painting approach was proposed to study whether or not “Less is More” is still truly a design trend.” This does not correspond with what the authors actually did however, which was to test the notion of Less is More within the realm of Chinese aesthetics and apply propose findings to the act of creation in the future. (They also somehow added “more is confused somewhere along the way”.) Is this an historical review then? I think not. The discussion gets bogged down with the six Chinese principles, their own four guidelines, and characters in Peking opera.
Overall, I think that if the authors want to approach the arts this way then articulating a better framing of the problem would be in order. Opera is primarily an aural art, with the visual aspect augmenting the written libretto. The notion of music does not appear here, which may be ok, but should be considered.
Finally, the attached document list some of the issues with language, which need to be addressed.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Comment 1: Reaction: I can only respond respectfully to this article from the point of view of the humanities, as an art historian and philosopher. I understand completely that a scientific-minded person may find different results. That said, I have strong reservations about this paper, as interesting as it seems. The authors do not, in my view, make the case for why Chinese opera is in need of such simplification. In other words, the test subject may seem appropriate given the visual aspects of the research. However, the choice seems ad hoc, and it would help the paper if the authors contextualized a need. This is particularly required insofar as taking such an objective and quantitative/analytic approach (while acknowledging the qualitative as “aesthetic”) seems to me unnecessarily complex when considering the ultimate purpose of artistic creation (emotional and intellectual effect). Figure 9 and Table 6 exemplify this sentiment. I understand that the results are intended to aid creators, ultimately. My reservations remain however.
Response 1: Thank you very much for reviewing our paper so carefully! The questions you mentioned are very enlightening to us. We will respond to your questions one by one. In accordance with the regulations of the journal, and we will upload a reply form first, and reply to your questions one by one in the form. In the revised version of the article, all changes and additions are marked in red for your review. Thanks!
Comment 2: The authors state the objective of the paper: “A simplification of Chinese traditional painting approach was proposed to study whether or not “Less is More” is still truly a design trend.” This does not correspond with what the authors actually did however, which was to test the notion of Less is More within the realm of Chinese aesthetics and apply propose findings to the act of creation in the future. (They also somehow added “more is confused somewhere along the way”.) Is this an historical review then? I think not. The discussion gets bogged down with the six Chinese principles, their own four guidelines, and characters in Peking opera.
Response 2: Thank you for your comments! In the light of the issues you mentioned, we re-examined and adjusted the content: removing some of the content that is not relevant to this article, and focusing on how to further refine it from traditional Chinese philosophy and painting principles to form four principles for simplification. At the same time, we will also carry out follow-up research in an orderly manner on the existing basis, and in the final part put forward the ideas for future research.
Comment 3: Overall, I think that if the authors want to approach the arts this way then articulating a better framing of the problem would be in order. Opera is primarily an aural art, with the visual aspect augmenting the written libretto. The notion of music does not appear here, which may be ok, but should be considered.
Response 3: Thank you for your comment! In the course of the changes, we will also further review the structure of the article and make appropriate and necessary corrections. At the same time, thank you for your suggestion that music may need to be taken into account. In order to better focus on the content of the study, we intend to make the relationship between music and drama one of the next studies.
Comment 4: Finally, the attached document list some of the issues with language, which need to be addressed.
Response 4: Thank you for carefully pointing out the language problems. After completing this amendment, we will invite scholars whose mother tongue is English to assist in proofreading the full text again.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
In my opinion reviewed article is of high quality. The arguments are present legibly, and they are logical as well as consistent. Literature is well-chosen. I like all these tables, diagrams, and drawings, which make the content easier to understand. The article is a really good base for future research and theatrical practice.
Author Response
Comment 1: In my opinion reviewed article is of high quality. The arguments are present legibly, and they are logical as well as consistent. Literature is well-chosen. I like all these tables, diagrams, and drawings, which make the content easier to understand. The article is a really good base for future research and theatrical practice.
Response 1: Thank you for your careful review of our article and your endorsement of our research!
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Audience Cognition of Comics Simplifying in the Characters of Peking Opera: Less is More
My comments, as earlier, stem from the viewpoint of the humanities, where my training resides. I make no claims as to the relevance and rigor of its scientific value. These are meant as a respectful and hopefully helpful observation of the article.
- The authors did indeed try to incorporate comments into their revised draft with respect to framing their argument in a clearer, more precise manner. However, I do see a bit of a disconnection or confusion with respect to the overall purpose/thesis of the research/article. The abstract states it is “to determine if "Less is More" is still a trend in comics of 12 Chinese opera characters,” (12) but also a way of “testing the utility of simplification as an approach for understanding the cognition of the audience to accept the simple features for Chinese opera characters.” (19-20). In the body of the essay they also state: “the purpose of this study is designed to explore how the concept of “less is more” affects comics creation. The results give some explanations for the concept of “less is more” and finally how to select the appropriate creative method is discussed.” (40-43). Further still, they state:
The purpose has the following three points:
- The purpose of this paper is tantamount to study factors affecting the evaluation of artworks.
- The purpose of this article is tantamount to explore how comic creation can be used to simplify the character of opera characters, and to study whether the audiences can understand the creator’s motivation and ideas.
- This also shows that the aim of this study is to simplify the application of the philosophy of “less is more, more is confused” in the creation of Peking opera, which deserves further discussion and review.
These all seem to be involved in there approach, but each of these also distinct goals. Clarifying and “simplifying” (appropriately enough) their relationship would help the overall scope and precision of their project.
- For an English language article, I’m afraid that the text really does need a thorough run through with respect to its diction and grammar. The article will be suitable to publish once the language issues are corrected. Below are some errors and problematic language usage that I found even in the first part of the paper. Hopefully they will help in future drafts as they are applied to the entirety of the article.
- There is something awkward about the title. Should the title read “LESS IS MORE: Audience Cognition of COMIC SIMPLIFICATION in the Characters of Peking Opera”?
- The introduction begins with the assumption that the abstract is part of the full text, which it is not. I put my suggestions and comments in ALL CAPS for the authors to consider.
Introduction 27
The roots [OF WHAT?] can be set DATE as far back as to the Chinese philosophICALvalues PUT FORTH IN The Book of 28 Changes (an ancient Chinese divination text and among the oldest of the Chinese classics), [COMMA] 29 and THE principles PRINCIPLE of “Less is more, more is confusing” [1] (p. 440). This EXPRESSION means REFERS TO THE IDEA that the human 30 potential is limited, so if you take too much [TOO MUCH WHAT? CLARIFY], it [AGAIN, WHAT IS “IT”...CLARIFY] will become complex, leading to confusion. 31 But if you BY ignoreIGNORING the unnecessary things and absorbING only the essence, that is when you are 32 genuinely ready and can succeed [“SUCCEED IN WHAT?]. In the field of design, “Less is More” has a world-wide 33 reputation and impact that are IS (“reputation and impact” can be understood as a singular grammatical element in this phraseology) still notable today [2]. 34
Whereas "less is more" is best applied when speaking of good design, these few words 35 of wisdom can be applied just about anything in life. Many studies had indicated that the 36 study of “less is more” was effective in evaluating comprehension of human behavior. Ac- 37 cording to Norton et al. [3], the effect of “less is more” can be accounted for within the 38 framework of ambiguity and familiarity. Evidences showed EVIDENCE SHOWS that less in-formation INFORMATION leads to 39 greater liking, and more information leads to less liking. Therefore, the purpose of this study 40 is designed to explore how the concept of “less is more” affects comics creation. The results 41 give some explanations for the concept of “less is more,”[PERIOD ADDED] and Finally, [COMMA ADDED] WE ALSO DISCUSS how to select the appro- 42 priate creative method is discussed.[REWRITTEN TO ACTIVE VOICE FOR CLARITY OF GRAMMAR]
In the field of art and design creation, “doing subtraction” has traditionally been a dif- 44 ficult but interesting issue [4-6]. From prehistory to the present, and from east to west, many 45
philosophers, artists and designers have promoted different opinions around WITH HOW TO “Make sub- 46 traction when creating art and design”. This research combines the above philosophy with 47 the principles of aesthetic in AESTHETIC PRINCIPLES OF Chinese painting [DELETED COMMA] to propose an approach for comic creation 48 and evaluation criteria [DELETED COMMA] AS A WAY to simplify the creation of characters in traditional opera. From 49 here, [COMMA ADDED] it is possible to understand whether the viewer OF CHINESE OPERA approves OF this mode of creation and the 50 content and details that interest in [VERY UNCLEAR ENDING PHRASE. CLARIFY]. 51
The article is inspired by one of the views of modern design: “less is more”, and ex- 52 plores the feasibility of a “simplification” idea through comical creation. The concept of “less 53 is more” is without a doubt successful when applied to modern design, but if WHETHER it CAN BE SUCCESSFULLY applies APPLIED to 54 other artistic creations requires further discussion. The purpose OF THIS RESEARCH ARE SUMMED UP IN has the following three 55 points: 56
- The purpose of this paper is tantamount [UNNECESSARY AND INCORRECT TERM] to study factors affecting the evaluation of 57artworks. 58
- The purpose of this article is tantamount to explore how comic creation can be used 59 to simplify the character of opera characters, and to study whether the audiences can 60 understand the creator’s motivation and ideas. 61
- This also shows that the aim of this study is to simplify the application of the philos- 62 ophy of “less is more, more is confused” in the creation of Peking opera, which de- 63 serves further discussion and review. 64
- Actually, there have HAS been very rigorous research work done on the specific topic of 120 simplification. Wang & Hsu [11-12] argued that in the design fields, graphics are often a 121
- As designer and educator Victor Papanek (1923-1998) [14] (p. 4) HAS said: “Design is the 128
THESE LINGUISTIC RECOMMENDATIONS CAN BE APPLIED THROUGHOUT THE PAPER.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments (Round 2)
Article Title: Sci-1338138- Less is More: Audience Cognition of Comic Simplification in the Characters of Peking Opera
Comment 1: My comments, as earlier, stem from the viewpoint of the humanities, where my training resides. I make no claims as to the relevance and rigor of its scientific value. These are meant as a respectful and hopefully helpful observation of the article.
The authors did indeed try to incorporate comments into their revised draft with respect to framing their argument in a clearer, more precise manner. However, I do see a bit of a disconnection or confusion with respect to the overall purpose/thesis of the research/article. The abstract states it is “to determine if "Less is More" is still a trend in comics of 12 Chinese opera characters,” (12) but also a way of “testing the utility of simplification as an approach for understanding the cognition of the audience to accept the simple features for Chinese opera characters.” (19-20). In the body of the essay they also state: “the purpose of this study is designed to explore how the concept of “less is more” affects comics creation. The results give some explanations for the concept of “less is more” and finally how to select the appropriate creative method is discussed.” (40-43). Further still, they state:
The purpose has the following three points:
- The purpose of this paper is tantamount to study factors affecting the evaluation of artworks.
- The purpose of this article is tantamount to explore how comic creation can be used to simplify the character of opera characters, and to study whether the audiences can understand the creator’s motivation and ideas.
- This also shows that the aim of this study is to simplify the application of the philosophy of “less is more, more is confused” in the creation of Peking opera, which deserves further discussion and review.
These all seem to be involved in there approach, but each of these also distinct goals. Clarifying and “simplifying” (appropriately enough) their relationship would help the overall scope and precision of their project.
Response 1: Thanks for reviewing our article very carefully! And thank you for your preciseness and enthusiasm!!
- We’ve examined the research purposes to make them more consistent with the article. In addition, we also amended its statement to avoid ambiguity as much as possible.
Comment 2: For an English language article, I’m afraid that the text really does need a thorough run through with respect to its diction and grammar. The article will be suitable to publish once the language issues are corrected. Below are some errors and problematic language usage that I found even in the first part of the paper. Hopefully they will help in future drafts as they are applied to the entirety of the article.
- There is something awkward about the title. Should the title read “LESS IS MORE: Audience Cognition of COMIC SIMPLIFICATION in the Characters of Peking Opera”?
- The introduction begins with the assumption that the abstract is part of the full text, which it is not. I put my suggestions and comments in ALL CAPS for the authors to consider.
Introduction 27
The roots [OF WHAT?] can be set DATE as far back as to the Chinese philosophICALvalues PUT FORTH IN The Book of 28 Changes (an ancient Chinese divination text and among the oldest of the Chinese classics), [COMMA] 29 and THE principles PRINCIPLE of “Less is more, more is confusing” [1] (p. 440). This EXPRESSION means REFERS TO THE IDEA that the human 30 potential is limited, so if you take too much [TOO MUCH WHAT? CLARIFY], it [AGAIN, WHAT IS “IT”...CLARIFY] will become complex, leading to confusion. 31 But if you BY ignoreIGNORING the unnecessary things and absorbING only the essence, that is when you are 32 genuinely ready and can succeed [“SUCCEED IN WHAT?]. In the field of design, “Less is More” has a world-wide 33 reputation and impact that are IS (“reputation and impact” can be understood as a singular grammatical element in this phraseology) still notable today [2]. 34 Whereas "less is more" is best applied when speaking of good design, these few words 35 of wisdom can be applied just about anything in life. Many studies had indicated that the 36 study of “less is more” was effective in evaluating comprehension of human behavior. Ac- 37 cording to Norton et al. [3], the effect of “less is more” can be accounted for within the 38 framework of ambiguity and familiarity. Evidences showed EVIDENCE SHOWS that less in-formation INFORMATION leads to 39 greater liking, and more information leads to less liking. Therefore, the purpose of this study 40 is designed to explore how the concept of “less is more” affects comics creation. The results 41 give some explanations for the concept of “less is more,”[PERIOD ADDED] and Finally, [COMMA ADDED] WE ALSO DISCUSS how to select the appro- 42 priate creative method is discussed.[REWRITTEN TO ACTIVE VOICE FOR CLARITY OF GRAMMAR] In the field of art and design creation, “doing subtraction” has traditionally been a dif- 44 ficult but interesting issue [4-6]. From prehistory to the present, and from east to west, many 45 philosophers, artists and designers have promoted different opinions around WITH HOW TO “Make sub- 46 traction when creating art and design”. This research combines the above philosophy with 47 the principles of aesthetic in AESTHETIC PRINCIPLES OF Chinese painting [DELETED COMMA] to propose an approach for comic creation 48 and evaluation criteria [DELETED COMMA] AS A WAY to simplify the creation of characters in traditional opera. From 49 here, [COMMA ADDED] it is possible to understand whether the viewer OF CHINESE OPERA approves OF this mode of creation and the 50 content and details that interest in [VERY UNCLEAR ENDING PHRASE. CLARIFY]. 51 The article is inspired by one of the views of modern design: “less is more”, and ex- 52 plores the feasibility of a “simplification” idea through comical creation. The concept of “less 53 is more” is without a doubt successful when applied to modern design, but if WHETHER it CAN BE SUCCESSFULLY applies APPLIED to 54 other artistic creations requires further discussion. The purpose OF THIS RESEARCH ARE SUMMED UP IN has the following three 55 points: 56 The purpose of this paper is tantamount [UNNECESSARY AND INCORRECT TERM] to study factors affecting the evaluation of 57artworks. 58 The purpose of this article is tantamount to explore how comic creation can be used 59 to simplify the character of opera characters, and to study whether the audiences can 60 understand the creator’s motivation and ideas. 61 This also shows that the aim of this study is to simplify the application of the philos- 62 ophy of “less is more, more is confused” in the creation of Peking opera, which de- 63 serves further discussion and review. 64
- Actually, there have HAS been very rigorous research work done on the specific topic of 120 simplification. Wang & Hsu [11-12] argued that in the design fields, graphics are often a 121
- As designer and educator Victor Papanek (1923-1998) [14] (p. 4) HAS said: “Design is the 128
THESE LINGUISTIC RECOMMENDATIONS CAN BE APPLIED THROUGHOUT THE PAPER.
Response 2: Again, thank you so much for taking a long time to highlight the language problems in our article!
- As far as the title is concerned, we think your adjusted order is indeed more appropriate. Therefore, in this revision, we have amended the title of the article in accordance with your comments. Thank you!
- Given the grammar and presentation problems you mentioned in the first section, we have revised the full paper again.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
