Sculpture in Socialist Realism—Soviet Patterns and the Polish Reality

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript consists of a thorough discussion of the socialist realist sculptures in the Soviet Union and especially in Poland. Although the paper is well documented and provides a wealth of information, it is not yet really for being accepted for publication in its current form. I will detail below the main weaknesses of the manuscript and suggest ways of overcoming them.

1. The abstract needs thorough revision: the first part of the abstract should be shortened, and the entire abstract could be written as a single cursive paragraph. The bullet-points should be removed, and the main points rendered as narrative text, perhaps using in-text numbering to highlight the sequence (e.g., “…three directions: (1) monumental…; (2) portrait…; (3) architectural/decorative…”. Also regarding the abstract, Marx and Engels were not “revolutionary leaders”, but perhaps theorists of socialist revolution.
2. Formal issues regarding style and organization: I am not sure about the journal’s editorial policy in this regard, but for non-Slavic readers, the references should be provided in Latin transcriptions. English translations of works mentioned in other languages should be given in parentheses. The text should be structured in several paragraphs; for instance, the entire Introduction consists of a single paragraph, although there are at least three-to-four main ideas that could be better distinguished in separate paragraphs. This is also the case with section 2.
3. Moving on to more substantive issues: the introduction of the manuscript is weak. It does not contextualize the remainder of the paper. The manuscript should therefore start with a different kind of introduction, one in which the authors state the subject-matter of the article, present the main argument, and provide a synopsis of the paper. As it stands now, it delves too abruptly into the issue.
4. The paper lacks a proper theoretical framework developed based on a serious engagement with scholarship done by Western researchers, for instance, who are completely missing from the reference list. This should be done in a revised introductory section.
5. The analysis is very descriptive, with many minute details. This indicates thorough work and solid documentation, but it also renders the text rather difficult to read. It is also rather long. I suggest dropping some of these details, focus on what is critically important, and construct a clear line of argumentation, as opposed to simply providing a wealth of descriptive details.

Overall, the manuscript clearly has merits and potential, but it needs a better focus and a streamlined argument grounded upon a coherent theoretical framework. Engaging with the extant scholarship is also mandatory precondition for publication. Due to these reasons, it is my professional opinion that the manuscript should undergo a major revision before being reconsidered for publication. I wish the authors good luck in improving the paper.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your time and all your comments. Your valuable remarks have allowed me to reconsider the content of the paper and make corrections. I would also like to explain myself for the decisions I made earlier.

I specify below the steps I took to improve the manuscript:

- I have written a new abstract, shorter - and I hope - more concise. According to the guidelines of the editors, an abstract cannot be longer than 200 words. On reflection, I decided that a more appropriate term for the monumental direction in sculptural activity would be the word "heroic", since portrait sculptures were, in fact, also monumental during the socialist realist period;

- The editorial policy of the journal requires, as it seems to me, providing literature references in the original spelling. I leave the titles of Russian-language literature in their original form also because of the possibility of an easy search for the listed items. Names of Russian authors are given in the text in Latin transcription, which should make the manuscript easier to read;

- the chapters are divided into paragraphs;

- I have completely revised the introduction to the paper, I hope that in the new version it better introduces the reader to the issues discussed in the rest of the manuscript,

- I have completed the bibliography with items concerning the theory of socialist realism. Here I have to make some explanation - I did not initially decide to indicate publications that speak generally about the theory/aesthetics of socialist realism, because they concern mainly fiction. From the wide range of literature, I have chosen items that are particularly important in the context of my paper, namely: the essay by Abram Terz and the book by Boris Groys. As Groys's work presents the theoretical and aesthetic basis of Soviet art in quite some detail, I have not given them any more in my paper. I have presented in Chapters 2 and 4 the theoretical foundations of the art of the Soviet Union, that influenced the work of Polish artists.

- I decided to present Polish realisations in detail, since most of them no longer exist (or have been significantly altered), and yet the history of their creation is practically unknown. My paper is the first attempt at a cross-sectional indication of directions in the design of monumental sculptures in Poland.

Once again, thank you very much for all your comments and suggestions.

Reviewer 2 Report

The article discusses Polish socialist realism, especially concerning sculptures. The article is well composed and well written. The author consistently draws the line of conclusion when stemming from the general remark on history of the socialist realism and coming to the examples in the Polish context. Just two minor remarks: please revise verses 390-393 and verse 722 – Is Kozłówka located in the Zamojszczyzna region? 
I would strongly recommend the text for publication. 

Author Response

Thank you very much for your time and all your comments. I am very pleased that you found the paper interesting. I have, of course, corrected all the paragraphs that gave rise to your doubts.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

After going through the revised version of the manuscript, I am pleased to see that the author has addressed the issues pointed out in the review report. I believe that the manuscript is now suited for publication in its current form.