The Micro-Politics of Artistic Production among Artists with a Migration Background

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In its current form, this paper is more a description or general report of two socio-artistic actions than a scientific analysis. The references and the theoretical scope at the beginning and end of the text are interesting, but although the method and setting up of the actions are described in detail, the field is not analyzed. Aligning several interviewees' citations (case 1) and mainly explaining how the spot had to be 'cleaned' from hanging around men to establish a 'soft' setting for women and non-binaries to do their craft (case 2) does not constitue an analysis, be it ethnographic. Several reflections f.e. on the micro-political power of everyday archives show that there would be a strong potential to 1) better analyse the field and 2) better articulate this material to (currently quite loose) theoretical or voluntaristic statements, but this work still has to be done. The "I" form sometimes used towards the end of the text (or "we", but not in the sense of 'we the social science researchers' but 'we the two authors of this text') confirms that the analytical generalization/abstraction work on the field material has not yet been done. Moreover, the conclusions are superficial regarding the arts/culture field and sociology. The statements according to which these craft producing migrants are 'artists' (for whom? how? certainly not in an institutional sense) and affirming that "co-creation (...) provides entry to art centres and galleries" (404) seem exaggerated and idealistic, without any empirical corroboration.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The article contains several English mistakes (already in the abstract line 14 and probably 8, then f.e. lines 105, 116,185, 201, line 203 obviously hasn't been re-read, etc.) and should fully be revised, even on the purely formal level (several double spaces, some references - only with the year in brackets - are not 100% clear, f.e. 127, etc.).

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions in the re-submitted files.

1. Responding to comments related to lack of analytical constitution: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have conducted deeper analyses in both cases by rewriting and adding more analytical content.
• In Case 1 (…Radio Globe Aroma), please refer to paragraph 3 for enhanced analysis.
• In Case 2 (Everyday Textile Making…), the whole section was rewritten, and we have provided a better articulation of the chosen materials in paragraph 3. Subsequent paragraphs now delve into how the application of these materials challenged boundaries between past and present, image and story, personal and collective, private and public spheres (paragraph 5). Moreover, paragraphs 4 and 6 elaborate on how the practice fostered sisterhood, solidarity, empowerment, etc.
2. Responding to your comment on the specific statement about accepting the participants as artists: You are right. The statements labeling these craft-producing migrants as 'artists' have been removed.
3. Responding to the superficiality of the conclusion: Agreed. The conclusion has been rewritten to provide more depth and substance.
4. Response to your comments on the quality of the English language: The language has been proofread.

Additional clarifications:

• There is a slight change in the abstract's last lines (addressing the language proofreading).
• The 'Theoretical Background' has been rewritten to be more concise and aligned with the discussions in the 'Discussion' section. Changes have been applied in paragraphs 2, 3, 4, and 5 by shortening, rephrasing, omitting, and adding sentences as necessary.

Thank you once again for your valuable feedback. We believe these revisions significantly enhance the quality and analytical rigor of the manuscript. Please see the revised article in the attachment.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This research paper presents an interesting and current question and deals with it in a clear way. The explanation of the methodology is solid and clarifying. An apt theoretical frame, or rather interpretative lens, is presented. Though I am personally not a fan of Bourriaud and Ranciere (they do not present new insights when one is acquainted with social systems theory and cognitive art theories), their definition of the political in this paper is correct and applies to the material. So, I cannot fault the authors for using this their theoretical perspective. The conclusions are clearly formulated and relate to the observations that are presented. The structure of the paper is clear and apt.

I have one observation that the authors may want to reflect upon. For me, there seems some imbalance between how the empirical material is presented and the formulation of the conclusions. In the section on the Getting Softer project the authors make a big deal of the male dominated space that was uninviting to women and nonbinary people. However, this point does not seem to be reflected upon in the conclusion. 

Furthermore, I have some minor remarks about the meaning of some sentences:

- line 136: where it says 'can led' should this not be 'can lead'?

- line 139: the phrasing 'empower practices' seems unclear to me. Whose practices are empowering whom? Or are these practices of empowerment? Maybe this could be reformulated to make the argument clear.

- line 193: the acronym EEYRASPS is unclear to me.

- line 377: 'from the two embroidery masters live in Antwerp' is unclear to me. Should it not be: 'living in Antwerp'?

But these remarks in no way impede the publication of this interesting article. Please go ahead and print it!

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I am not a native speaker of English but I think the level of English is up to par.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions in the re-submitted files.

1. Responding to your comment on the conclusion:  Thank you very much for pointing it out. The conclusion has been rewritten to provide more depth and substance. We believe we by adding ‘’ fostering inclusive communities’’ the conclusion conveys how the practice transformed the male-dominated space to inviting to women and nonbinary people.
2. Responding to your comment about the phrasing 'empower practices': we rephrased the sentence in paragraph 4 (first line), section Theoretical Background.
3. Responding to your question about EEYRASPS: It stands for Everyday Experiences of Young Refugees and Asylum Seekers in Public Spaces
4. Responding to your comments on the quality of the English language: The language has been proofread.

Additional clarifications:

-There is a slight change in the abstract's last lines (addressing the language proofreading).

-The 'Theoretical Background' has been rewritten to be more concise and aligned with the discussions in the 'Discussion' section. Changes have been applied in paragraphs 2, 3, 4, and 5 by shortening, rephrasing, omitting, and adding sentences as necessary.

We added a more analytical constitution:

-In Case 1 (…Radio Globe Aroma), please refer to paragraph 3 for enhanced analysis.

-In Case 2 (Everyday Textile Making…), the whole section was rewritten, and we have provided a better articulation of the chosen materials in paragraph 3. Subsequent paragraphs now delve into how the application of these materials challenged boundaries between past and present, image and story, personal and collective, and private and public spheres (paragraph 5). Moreover, paragraphs 4 and 6 elaborate on how the practice fostered sisterhood, solidarity, empowerment, etc.

-The Discussion part is revised.

 

Thank you once again for your valuable feedback. We believe these revisions significantly enhance the quality and analytical rigor of the manuscript. Please see the revised article in the attachment.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The operated corrections and, moreover, very numerous complements added by the authors have highly improved the quality of the paper. The starting point of the reflection (theoretical background) as well as of the research and workshops (profile of the population etc.) are much clearer now. A great thank you to the authors for this profound reworking of their article. The text can almost be published in its current form, with only 5-6 very precise last corrections to be done (see document _lastCorr sent by email to the editors, highlighted words and comments).

Comments on the Quality of English Language

As said in the precedent field, the text can almost be published in its current form, with only 5-6 very precise last corrections to be done (see document _lastCorr sent by email to the editors, highlighted words and comments).

Author Response

The text was corrected by a professional proofreader, and the corrections as pointed out by the reviewer were carried out.