Representations of the Passion of Christ in Brazil: Devotional Sculpture as Open Artwork

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I found this article truly interesting and valuable, important for further studies on various animated sculptures used in the Early Modern Period and beyond. In the case of this subject, Latin America is almost no man's land. So, the text I have the pleasure to review gives a good starting point for further in-depth research. Sculptures are well described, and their animation possibilities are perfectly clarified. The context of their possible use too. I also like the methodological frame of the article. Didi-Huberman ideas fit perfectly well here.

But I have some minor objections. First of all: bibliographical references. There are not many publications on sculptures of this kind used in Latin America. It would be good to include books and articles by ie. Max Harris ("Christ on a Donkey. Palm Sunday... - a lot of references to theatrical ceremonies with the use of animated sculptures. Mexico, Bolivia, etc.),  or Jaime Lara (the article "Passion and Power"..., written in collaboration with Maricela Valverde, as well as her book "City, Temple"...) and Jacqueline Young (her new book "Eloquent Bodies: Movement, Expression"...). Their work gives a good context for Brazil too and clarifies a lot of things and phenomena.

There is also a lack of any references to the potential influence of Portugal on Brazilian religious practice. Even a cursory look in ie. Duarte Nuno Chaves' book "Os tercios e os seus"... gives us the right to say that something's going on. 

There is no need to extend the core of the article. But some remarks and additions in the footnotes are highly recommended.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a superb article.  The argument concerning baroque religious sculpture as a type of “open artwork” is persuasive.  I found the argument about how performance and sociability opened spaces for multiple and even dissident definitions of meaning to be brilliant.  The article will contribute to our knowledge of the many worlds of the Latin American baroque.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Overall comments

Religious jointed dolls have been a topical research area for some years now, especially since Kamil Kopania’s ground-breaking book from 2010 on medieval animated sculptures. The article treats highly fascinating sculptures from Brazil. The theoretical perspective focusing on the jointed figures as ‘open works’ could be a productive choice. The article does, however, suffer some major problems and needs to be substantially reworked before it is published. In its current form, it stands forth as rather premature.

 

Argument

The main argument of the article is never really fully developed. In the introduction, the authors promise to ‘signal the radical potential of devotional sculpture’ (p. 2). The text then goes on to describe the materials (p. 2-4) followed by a long chapter reporting the results of an investigation (p. 4-11). The latter unfortunately never gets beyond the point of the descriptive, though we learn, that the sculptures were hyper-real and had detachable feet. The discussion (p. 11-14) features some reflections on the animation of the sculptures and their devotional use, most importantly how they could have been used as devotional aids related to the Exercises of St Ignatius for the Order. This latter is interesting and could be developed further. A main problem is, however, that the article never moves from the descriptive to the interpretative level. It lists interesting sources and observations, but never really interprets the findings. The result is a text composed of a list of statements that are not knit together into a substantial argument. For example, when occasionally quoting sources, the authors do not follow up with interpretations of the quotes. The result is that it is difficult to follow the line of the argument, and the texts stand forth as rather postulated. 

As a result, the reader never really comes to understand how these statues were used and why their potential may be seen as ‘radical’ or ‘open’. What was their devotional significance, then and now? How were they – potentially – experienced by the devout? How did the devout engage with the sculptures, physically and mentally, both inside and outside of church? What were the devotional implications of their open structure? And if the article is not able to answer these questions based on local sources, then it would be refreshing to get some suggestions on how they relate to processional sculptures from other parts of the world.

Overall, the article lacks contextualization. Having read Webster’s book on religious processions in golden age Spain, it would be easy to find analogies and differences. Neither does the article seat the use of jointed sculpture within the history of Christian worship. This was not a novelty for Brazil, but was used all over Europe, as Kamil Kopania and several others have shown. It should also be mentioned that the theoretical approach – inspired by brilliant scholars such as Umberto Eco, Didi-Huberman and Gutiérrez – is not sufficiently developed, and neither is it applied to the material. The article also lacks some reflections on how the perspective of the article seats itself within the current debates on material culture.

The reworking of the article should focus on argument, further development and use of theoretical framework, firm contextualization of the material and the study, and more convincing interpretations of both primary and secondary sources. I would also suggest that the authors acquaint themselves with more literature concerning jointed sculptures in general and their devotional and liturgical use and consider the current ‘state of the art’ in the field of animated sculpture. I admit that I am a bit worried if the authors will be able to get the article in shape before the deadline. Perhaps they should consider publishing the piece at a later date when it has been thoroughly re-worked?

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

See attached file. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The article has improved. The overall argument can still be strengthened, please see the enclosed comments.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf