Next Article in Journal
Activist Musicology and Informal Multimedia Archives: The Case of YouTube Channel “Serbian Composers”
Next Article in Special Issue
Clean-Up Workers (Deluxe Series): The Embodiment of Waste Values and Aesthetics
Previous Article in Journal
Vergis Mein Nit”—Connectedness and Commemoration through Rings in the 16th Century
Previous Article in Special Issue
Mapping the Anthropocene: Atelier NL, a Case Study of Place-Based Material Craft Practices
 
 
Conference Report
Peer-Review Record

The Power of Glass: Craft Scotland Conference, 2022

by Sarah Rothwell 1,* and Jessamy Kelly 2,*
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2:
Submission received: 21 June 2023 / Revised: 4 August 2023 / Accepted: 9 August 2023 / Published: 25 August 2023

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is an interesting article introducing aspects of glass that are relatively new to the academic community. The presentation is sound and introduces the concepts adequately. I think it is worth publishing. The only comment I have is that I would like a better relevance to glass historically, given its at least 5000 years of hitsory.

Author Response

Thank you for your response, we appreciate the time it has taken for you to review our article.  We understand your request for a more historical perspective on glass, however this is paper is written from a modern-day perspective and is a window into conference proceedings that were based on contemporary art glass. Given the rationale of this paper we decided not to draw from wider historical sources as it was felt this would take us beyond the scope of the paper’s rationale, unfortunately we will not be able to incorporate more historical textual references into this text.

Reviewer 2 Report

The article is very engaging! 

In the notes section there were few primary sources referenced and a lot of secondary sources. To give this very good article more gravity it may be wise to include more primary sourced references and less links to websites.

Author Response

Thank you for your response, we appreciate the time it has taken for you to review our article. We understand your request for more primary textual sources and less weblinks. However, there is unfortunately very few primary textual resources available on this subject. In terms of the use of web links, they have been used and are linked to the only source for that citation which is online, for example glass secessionism is an online Facebook forum for glass artists that only takes place online and to date has not been made into a publication in addition the websites of the Crafts Council, the UN SDG’s and the IYOG are only available as weblinks – which can be used for further study.

Reviewer 3 Report


Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for your response, we appreciate the time it has taken for you to review our article. We understand your questioning of our paper’s rationale and would like to respond to this. This article is a review of a conference that took place in November 2022, the conference theme and contributing artists were selected by guest curators on behalf of Craft Scotland. We appreciate that the paper could be seen as narrowing of what glass art should be - through the discussion of art glass that speaks to socio-political commentary. However, we feel that the introduction to the conference text is clear and the rationale clearly sets out that this paper is a discussion of the conference proceedings. We do not feel that adding in additional textual commentary is needed. We view the article as a provocation (a call to action) to all glass artists, and the aim of the conference and accompanying paper is to inspire discussion on the UN SDG’s and how they might be applied to Art Glass, through the case study of the artist speakers. We do not view the conference theme as a definitive or prescriptive approach to art glass but rather as a discussion of what art glass is and could be. We appreciate the questions that you have set before us and appreciate the discussion, however we feel that the paper is sufficient as it stands without alteration, though have added a small endnote to reconcile your questions. 

Back to TopTop