Disinterestedness in the Creative Economy: The Case of the MO Museum in Vilnius

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This article examines the idea of disinterestedness using the case of a private MO museum. The philosophical idea of disinterestedness and its reflections on the creative economy are presented. The idea of disinterestedness is explored as a factor of sustainability in economics. Author found some general paradoxes in interpretation of this idea. Most important from them constitutes that disinterestedness covers detachment from any theoretical concepts, it is also an aesthetic concept. The researching of this paradox is very important for working with such case study as disinterestedness in phenomenon and concrete case of the MO Museum in Vilnius. MO Museum is not the only private museum in Vilnius, but history of its creation includes so many controversies and potential conflicts of interest that is real case for long and detail analysis. 

The author has done an excellent job with this task. The advantages of this research text are as follows:

  -  logic and strong structure of article

• strong connection between theoretical, historical and philosophical inerpretation  and concrete sociological analysis of disinterestedness as such
• realized possibility to take interview with general actors of Mo museum that has own logics and took long time. The data was collected from 3 experts: the founders of the MO Museum Danguolė Butkienė  and Viktoras Butkus  and the director of the MO Museum Milda Ivanauskienė 
• The investigation of relation between selfishness, disinterestedness and and normal instinct of business people to be successful that measured by money and proffit
• the prehistory of the relationship between the founders of the museum and Lithuanian artists is emphasized through the mission of charity and the desire to preserve the heritage of the Lithuanian avant-garde
• The idea of disinterestedness is illustrated by the case of the MO Museum in Vilnius. Its founders did not seek financial returns from the museum from the very beginning. They reject both financial gain, self-promotion, and "love of art."
• Article was written excellent English, the references show author wide orientation in philosophy, management of culture and art industry
• Disinterestedness includes social responsibility for the state of the art, the development of social ties, personal relationships, and the need for interesting activities. Very important author conclusion that business management needs a broader intention, but art also needs flexible management.
• I recommend publish this article without any changes and sure that article will interesting for wide auditory  and find readers from art, cultural industry and people of successful business.

Author Response

Thank you for very qualified comments and good wishes.

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper discusses disinterestedness in the creative economy by taking the case of the MO Museum in Vilnius. The findings are interesting but there are several issues on which the paper could be improved.

First, it would be good not to number sentences in the abstract (i.e, number 1, number 2 and so on). The abstract should state what is the paper about, to which existing theories it contributes to and why this study is important, the method used, and the findings/results.

Second, the literature review is interesting but it takes only the creative economy as important and not the museum studies. As the title and content of the paper refer to a museum in Vilnius, it would be good to address one or two paragraphs on museum literature and even on urban tourism studies by including mainly those literature dealing with Central and Eastern Europe (e.g. the study of Siddy and Gaweda on a Gdansk museum, recent studies of Light D. et al. on the Sighet museum basing on young people education via museum visits and how museums create empathy for the visitors, studies of Placek et al. for management of museums in Czechia, and so on. Even the changing aspects of urban tourism in East-Central Europe and the role of museums as part of (heritage) tourism could be mentioned.

Expanding the literature review is important because at the moment the reference list of the paper is much below 50 references and the reference sources could be enlarged.

Third, the discussion section needs to be entirely re-written. Discussions should link the results of this study with the international literature on creative economy and museum studies. The aspects connected to limitations of the study and further research should appear at the end of the conclusions.

Finally, conclusions are pretty good, but it has to be added a paragraph on the international implications of this study or how the outcomes of this paper pushes forward what we know in the current literature.

Author Response

First of all, I would like to thank you for the good remarks to improve my paper. I’ve made the corrections as follows.

1. In the abstract, I deleted the numbers. Besides, I extended the abstract with information about what is the paper about, which existing concepts it contributes and why this study is important, also what methods are used, and what are the findings/results.
2. In the introduction, I extended the literature review with two paragraphs on museum literature and urban tourism studies by including literature both mentioned and not mentioned by a reviewer. As a result, the paper has 55 references.
3. In the discussions, I linked the results of the study with the international literature on creative economy and museum studies. However, I left the description of both limitations of the study and further research in the discussions since I followed the instructions of the journal: https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability/instructions Let me quote the instruction about the discussions: “The findings and their implications should be discussed in the broadest context possible and limitations of the work highlighted. Future research directions may also be mentioned.”

4. In the conclusions, I added information about the international implications of the study.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The author has much improved the quality of this paper, so I am happy to propose the paper to be accepted for publication.