On the Ontic Origin of Art: Can Art Tell Us Anything about God?

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for the invitation to review this well written article.

The topic is of considerable interest to me, and I hope that the suggestions I offer will be received as encouragement to persist with the development of the article.

As it stands, the article seems to employ a limited range of resources to speak into a vast question. The article would benefit from taking a slightly wider lens to the literature and consider the voice of art itself in this discussion.

Given that the title of the article poses the question, can art tell us anything about God, I was disappointed to find no examples of artwork offered within the argument. The argument is constructed around the relationship that the authors suggest is based on cooperation of contingency (human) and the absolute (God). There is considerable literature regarding the relational dynamic involved in co-creation that leads us to consider the agency of the artwork in this dynamic – and thus the work of cocreation is not limited to being dialogic.  If the art is telling us something, then it deserves a voice within the structure of the argument.

If the authors are interested to think about this, I would suggest reading:

Chrétien, Jean-Louis. Hand to Hand: Listening to the Work of Art. New York: Fordham, 2003. 

Dissanayake, Ellen. Art and Intimacy: How the arts began, Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2000.

Dufrenne, Mikel. The Phenomenology of Aesthetic Experience. Translated by Albert A. Anderson, Edward S. Casey, Willis Domingo and Leon Jacobson. Evanston: North Western University Press, 1973. Phenomenologie de l'experience esthetique, Paris: Pressess Universitaires de France,1953. 

Williams, Rowan. Grace and Necessity: Reflections on Art and Love. London: Continuum Books, 2005.

That said, if the author/s are going to persist in focussing on a dialogic relationship dynamic between artist and God, it is limiting to focus so heavily on Leonardo, and the experience of pleasure and the notion of beauty being somehow essential in all of this.

Artist Boris Bucan is briefly mentioned, but the quote offered does little to shed light on how his artwork tells us anything about God. More context about why Bucan’s work supports this argument would be good but equally it would be good to spend some time comparing Leonardo’s perspective with that of contemporary German Anselm Kiefer. Both these artists speak of an experience of being present to the transcendent and aware of the Other in making their work but given the different context and culture in which they are working Kiefer paints about the unspeakable tragedy and truth of human experience, as well as conveying beauty. Considering thseveral artists from different ages would make a strong argument for art telling us about God over time.

I would be happy to read another draft of this article and I hope that the author/s persist with this important work.

Author Response

Please also see the attachment.

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

I appreciate your helpful review. I considered all of your suggestions and modified the text. All modifications are denoted with yellow backgrounds in the text that you can find in the attachment.

Point 1

As it stands, the article seems to employ a limited range of resources to speak into a vast question. The article would benefit from taking a slightly wider lens to the literature and consider the voice of art itself in this discussion.

There is considerable literature regarding the relational dynamic involved in co-creation that leads us to consider the agency of the artwork in this dynamic – and thus the work of cocreation is not limited to being dialogic.  If the art is telling us something, then it deserves a voice within the structure of the argument.

If the authors are interested to think about this, I would suggest reading:

Chrétien, Jean-Louis. Hand to Hand: Listening to the Work of Art. New York: Fordham, 2003.

Dissanayake, Ellen. Art and Intimacy: How the arts began, Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2000.

Dufrenne, Mikel. The Phenomenology of Aesthetic Experience. Translated by Albert A. Anderson, Edward S. Casey, Willis Domingo and Leon Jacobson. Evanston: North Western University Press, 1973. Phenomenologie de l'experience esthetique, Paris: Pressess Universitaires de France,1953.

Williams, Rowan. Grace and Necessity: Reflections on Art and Love. London: Continuum Books, 2005.

That said, if the author/s are going to persist in focussing on a dialogic relationship dynamic between artist and God, it is limiting to focus so heavily on Leonardo, and the experience of pleasure and the notion of beauty being somehow essential in all of this.

Response:

For a broader perspective and to include the voice of art itself in this article, the literature is enlarged as follows:

Dufrenne, Mikel (1972). Bitak estetičkog predmeta. U: Danilo Pejović, Nova filozofija umjetnosti: antologija tekstova (str. 377–402). Zagreb: Nakladni zavod Matice hrvatske.

Fiedler, Conrad (1978). On Judging Works of Visual Art. Berkeley-Los Angeles-London: University of California Press.

Focht, Ivan (1959). Istina i biće umjetnosti. Sarajevo: Svjetlost.

Dufrenne, Mikel (1972). Bitak estetičkog predmeta. U: Danilo Pejović, Nova filozofija umjetnosti: antologija tekstova (str. 377–402). Zagreb: Nakladni zavod Matice hrvatske.

Fiedler, Conrad (1978). On Judging Works of Visual Art. Berkeley-Los Angeles-London: University of California Press.

Focht, Ivan (1959). Istina i biće umjetnosti. Sarajevo: Svjetlost.

Ingarden, Roman (2012). Mala knjiga o čovjeku. Zagreb: Naklada Breza.

Ingarden, Roman (2006). O književnom djelu. Beograd: Foto Futura.

Kant, Imanuel (1975). Kritika moći suđenja. Beograd: Beogradski izdavačko-grafički zavod redakcija „kultura“.

Kedmey, Karen (2017). Art and artist: Mark Rothko. The Museum of Modern Art New York. URL:  https://www.moma.org/artists/5047 (23.05.2023.)

Kritovac, Fedor (1972). Pokrenut znak. Plakati Borisa Bućana na ulicama. Život umjetnosti: časopis o modernoj i suvremenoj umjetnosti i arhitekturi, 18, 94-97.

Maroević, Tonko (1982). Jedan za sve: noviji radovi Borisa Bućana u kontekstu likovnih tendencija osamdesetih godina. Život umjetnosti: časopis o modernoj i suvremenoj umjetnosti i arhitekturi, 33/34 (1), 20-29.

Mzyk, Błażej (2018). Moritz Geiger’s Postulate of Aesthetics as an Autonomous Science. The Polish Journal of Aesthetics, 49 (2), 71–84.

Novalis (1998). Himne noći. Fragmenti. Zagreb: Matica hrvatska.

Novi zavjet (1990). Zagreb: Kršćanska sadašnjost.

Sedlmayr, Hans (2001). Gubljenje središta. Split: Verbum.

Srhoj, Vinko (2023). Materijalistički pasional Kieferove puste zemlje. Art magazin Kontura, 158, 50-55.

Škrbić, Tomislav (2015). Ontologija umjetnosti Ivana Fochta (Doktorski rad). Repozitorij Sveučilišta u Zagrebu. https://urn.nsk.hr/urn:nbn:hr:111:301451 (05.07.2023.)

Šuvaković, Miško (2007). Konceptualna umetnost. Novi Sad: Muzej savremene umetnosti Vojvodine.

Regarding the books you suggested, most of them were unavailable where I reside, and ordering them online would have extended the 10 days I had for text revisions. So, I took your suggestion and covered more art-related material from other sources (as can be seen from the references).

Point 2

Given that the title of the article poses the question, can art tell us anything about God, I was disappointed to find no examples of artwork offered within the argument. The argument is constructed around the relationship that the authors suggest is based on cooperation of contingency (human) and the absolute (God). There is considerable literature regarding the relational dynamic involved in co-creation that leads us to consider the agency of the artwork in this dynamic – and thus the work of cocreation is not limited to being dialogic.  If the art is telling us something, then it deserves a voice within the structure of the argument.

Response

I appreciated your mentioning Anselm Kiefer, and I have included his work in the text along with that of Boris Bućan, Mark Rothko, and Gustav Gnamuš.  To help the reader better understand, I sought to strengthen the linkages between the three sections of the text. The introduction and conclusion, as well as the entire text, have been revisited.

Reviewer 2 Report

The question of the ontology of the work of art cannot be considered only by referring to Heidegger, Derrida, Sartre. The contributions of members of the phenomenological movement such as Geiger, Conrad, Ingarden are essential for the ontology of the work of art. Not to mention the fact that in the submitted article there is no reference to the theory of genius in Kant and to its developments in the early Schelling and in romantic philosophers such as Novalis.
The idea that the work of art is a synthesis between contingency and the absolute need for a more adequate development, both in the philosophical and theological sense.

Author Response

Please also see the attachment.

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

Thank you for your review.

All your comments were considered, and I made adjustments based on them.

All modifications are denoted with yellow backgrounds in the text that you can find in the attachment.

Point 1

The question of the ontology of the work of art cannot be considered only by referring to Heidegger, Derrida, Sartre. The contributions of members of the phenomenological movement such as Geiger, Conrad, Ingarden are essential for the ontology of the work of art. Not to mention the fact that in the submitted article there is no reference to the theory of genius in Kant and to its developments in the early Schelling and in romantic philosophers such as Novalis.

Response:

I expanded the literature as requested by the authors: Geiger, Conrad, Ingarden, Kant, Schelling, Novalis, and many others, as follows:

Dufrenne, Mikel (1972). Bitak estetičkog predmeta. U: Danilo Pejović, Nova filozofija umjetnosti: antologija tekstova (str. 377–402). Zagreb: Nakladni zavod Matice hrvatske.

Fiedler, Conrad (1978). On Judging Works of Visual Art. Berkeley-Los Angeles-London: University of California Press.

Focht, Ivan (1959). Istina i biće umjetnosti. Sarajevo: Svjetlost.

Dufrenne, Mikel (1972). Bitak estetičkog predmeta. U: Danilo Pejović, Nova filozofija umjetnosti: antologija tekstova (str. 377–402). Zagreb: Nakladni zavod Matice hrvatske.

Fiedler, Conrad (1978). On Judging Works of Visual Art. Berkeley-Los Angeles-London: University of California Press.

Focht, Ivan (1959). Istina i biće umjetnosti. Sarajevo: Svjetlost.

Ingarden, Roman (2012). Mala knjiga o čovjeku. Zagreb: Naklada Breza.

Ingarden, Roman (2006). O književnom djelu. Beograd: Foto Futura.

Kant, Imanuel (1975). Kritika moći suđenja. Beograd: Beogradski izdavačko-grafički zavod redakcija „kultura“.

Kedmey, Karen (2017). Art and artist: Mark Rothko. The Museum of Modern Art New York. URL:  https://www.moma.org/artists/5047 (23.05.2023.)

Kritovac, Fedor (1972). Pokrenut znak. Plakati Borisa Bućana na ulicama. Život umjetnosti: časopis o modernoj i suvremenoj umjetnosti i arhitekturi, 18, 94-97.

Maroević, Tonko (1982). Jedan za sve: noviji radovi Borisa Bućana u kontekstu likovnih tendencija osamdesetih godina. Život umjetnosti: časopis o modernoj i suvremenoj umjetnosti i arhitekturi, 33/34 (1), 20-29.

Mzyk, Błażej (2018). Moritz Geiger’s Postulate of Aesthetics as an Autonomous Science. The Polish Journal of Aesthetics, 49 (2), 71–84.

Novalis (1998). Himne noći. Fragmenti. Zagreb: Matica hrvatska.

Novi zavjet (1990). Zagreb: Kršćanska sadašnjost.

Sedlmayr, Hans (2001). Gubljenje središta. Split: Verbum.

Srhoj, Vinko (2023). Materijalistički pasional Kieferove puste zemlje. Art magazin Kontura, 158, 50-55.

Škrbić, Tomislav (2015). Ontologija umjetnosti Ivana Fochta (Doktorski rad). Repozitorij Sveučilišta u Zagrebu. https://urn.nsk.hr/urn:nbn:hr:111:301451 (05.07.2023.)

Šuvaković, Miško (2007). Konceptualna umetnost. Novi Sad: Muzej savremene umetnosti Vojvodine.

Point 2

The idea that the work of art is a synthesis between contingency and the absolute need for a more adequate development, both in the philosophical and theological sense.

Response:

Philosophical and religious arguments are strengthened by philosophical and religious reasons for the notion that a work of art is the fruit of the co-creation between contingency and the absolute. All changes are highlighted by yellow backgrounds. Please see the following lines:

from 29 to 47;

from 58-101;

from 114 to 122;

from 149 to 154;

from 183 to 187;

from 244 to 249;

from 287 to 295,

from 331 to 337;

from 412 to 436;

from 458 to 469;

from 506 to 514;

from 557 to 582.

Reviewer 3 Report

I find the topic of the paper and its major themes to be highly relevant and compelling. I was interested to learn much from the paper. 

Unfortunately, I felt as though I was reading two paper compressed into one article. The discussion in the first two major sections ("On ontological and ontic - why relational dynamics?" and "Visibility and manifestation of the form") of the article feels very different and removed from the third major section ("Form as the unconventionally beauty in the dynamics of creativity"). I struggled to follow the flow of your argument in the first two sections but found the final sections to be more accessible and interesting. I admit that I'm not as intimately familiar with the current debates in ontology and hermeneutical philosophy as I would like to be, but I should expect to be able to follow the discussion with more comprehension. The perceived divide between the foundational philosophical issues in the first two major sections and the latter, more focused section on art's ontology needs to be addressed for the viability of this article. Here are my recommendations:

1. Make more direct connections to art's ontology in the first two sections. The thrust of the argument should not be saved for the latter half of the paper. It needs to be addressed, at least in part, throughout each section. Perhaps, the practical concerns of art-making (that emerge at the start of the third section) could be moved up to the introduction. At the same time, I would recommend avoiding too much philosophical jargon or overly confusing philosophical terminology or thematics in the first two sections. It makes it difficult for your reader to access the essence of your argument well. Relatedly, the bibliography is too sparse. Are there other scholars that provide helpful summaries of these issues that you could draw on?

2. The third major section is the strongest part of the article in my opinion, but it does not elucidate the important implications of the article's thesis. Please consider spelling out why the perspective of the paper actually matters and might make a big difference. For instance, you could say more about the implications immediately following this statement: "At this point, we have concluded that if the immutable 521 essence (it refers to both ontology and art) is co-creative freedom, then the only 522 “determination” is co-creative transformation and growth." Help your reader see why this is important.

3. Lastly, there are a few spots where a new idea is introduced but not developed. These should be addressed and either developed or removed. For instance, Derrida's concept of 'chora' is brought up in line 390 but not referenced again in the rest of the article. That seems strange. 'Chora' is a concept that is very much debated among philosophers who are interested in the theological side of Derrida, and it should not be invoked without caution and adequate definition. At this point, it is not clear why 'chora' is brought in at all. Also, I believe that line 542 is the first time in the article that the topic of God's "Kingdom" comes up. Such an important category should not be left for the end of the conclusion. 

I'm intrigued by the themes of this paper and would be interested in seeing their development help to shape a stronger article. 

Additional matters:

Check the quote on line 216.

Change the use of "absolute" to "the absolute." For example, line 226.

"Profundity" instead of "profound" on line 512, etc.

I believe that the use of English is fairly strong here and I only detected a small set of inconsistencies. Mainly these happened with subject-verb agreement and with confusion between adjective and adverb forms. 

Here's a list of lines where care should be taken with the grammar: 34, 76, 111, 118, 128, 173.

Author Response

Please also see the attachment.

All modifications are denoted with yellow backgrounds in the text that you can find in the attachment.

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

Thank you for your constructive and very thorough review. Your recommendations have all been taken into consideration, and I have made adjustments based on every one of them.

Point 1

Unfortunately, I felt as though I was reading two paper compressed into one article. The discussion in the first two major sections ("On ontological and ontic - why relational dynamics?" and "Visibility and manifestation of the form") of the article feels very different and removed from the third major section ("Form as the unconventionally beauty in the dynamics of creativity"). I struggled to follow the flow of your argument in the first two sections but found the final sections to be more accessible and interesting. I admit that I'm not as intimately familiar with the current debates in ontology and hermeneutical philosophy as I would like to be, but I should expect to be able to follow the discussion with more comprehension. The perceived divide between the foundational philosophical issues in the first two major sections and the latter, more focused section on art's ontology needs to be addressed for the viability of this article. Here are my recommendations:

1. Make more direct connections to art's ontology in the first two sections. The thrust of the argument should not be saved for the latter half of the paper. It needs to be addressed, at least in part, throughout each section. Perhaps, the practical concerns of art-making (that emerge at the start of the third section) could be moved up to the introduction. At the same time, I would recommend avoiding too much philosophical jargon or overly confusing philosophical terminology or thematics in the first two sections. It makes it difficult for your reader to access the essence of your argument well. Relatedly, the bibliography is too sparse. Are there other scholars that provide helpful summaries of these issues that you could draw on?

 Response

I made an effort to strengthen the connections between the three sections of the text so that the reader could more easily understand what the starting point is and what conclusions are reached. The introduction, conclusion, and entire text have all undergone revisions, whereas yellow backgrounds indicate all changes and red letters indicate deletions.

In the introduction, special effort is made to present the subject to readers and to make it easier for them to follow the text as it progresses. The text is expanded by examples of works of art (Boris Bućan, Anselm Kiefer, Mark Rothko, Gustav Gnamuš). The bibliography is expanded by adding authors as follows:

Dufrenne, Mikel (1972). Bitak estetičkog predmeta. U: Danilo Pejović, Nova filozofija umjetnosti: antologija tekstova (str. 377–402). Zagreb: Nakladni zavod Matice hrvatske.

Fiedler, Conrad (1978). On Judging Works of Visual Art. Berkeley-Los Angeles-London: University of California Press.

Focht, Ivan (1959). Istina i biće umjetnosti. Sarajevo: Svjetlost.

Dufrenne, Mikel (1972). Bitak estetičkog predmeta. U: Danilo Pejović, Nova filozofija umjetnosti: antologija tekstova (str. 377–402). Zagreb: Nakladni zavod Matice hrvatske.

Fiedler, Conrad (1978). On Judging Works of Visual Art. Berkeley-Los Angeles-London: University of California Press.

Focht, Ivan (1959). Istina i biće umjetnosti. Sarajevo: Svjetlost.

Ingarden, Roman (2012). Mala knjiga o čovjeku. Zagreb: Naklada Breza.

Ingarden, Roman (2006). O književnom djelu. Beograd: Foto Futura.

Kant, Imanuel (1975). Kritika moći suđenja. Beograd: Beogradski izdavačko-grafički zavod redakcija „kultura“.

Kedmey, Karen (2017). Art and artist: Mark Rothko. The Museum of Modern Art New York. URL:  https://www.moma.org/artists/5047 (23.05.2023.)

Kritovac, Fedor (1972). Pokrenut znak. Plakati Borisa Bućana na ulicama. Život umjetnosti: časopis o modernoj i suvremenoj umjetnosti i arhitekturi, 18, 94-97.

Maroević, Tonko (1982). Jedan za sve: noviji radovi Borisa Bućana u kontekstu likovnih tendencija osamdesetih godina. Život umjetnosti: časopis o modernoj i suvremenoj umjetnosti i arhitekturi, 33/34 (1), 20-29.

Mzyk, Błażej (2018). Moritz Geiger’s Postulate of Aesthetics as an Autonomous Science. The Polish Journal of Aesthetics, 49 (2), 71–84.

Novalis (1998). Himne noći. Fragmenti. Zagreb: Matica hrvatska.

Novi zavjet (1990). Zagreb: Kršćanska sadašnjost.

Sedlmayr, Hans (2001). Gubljenje središta. Split: Verbum.

Srhoj, Vinko (2023). Materijalistički pasional Kieferove puste zemlje. Art magazin Kontura, 158, 50-55.

Škrbić, Tomislav (2015). Ontologija umjetnosti Ivana Fochta (Doktorski rad). Repozitorij Sveučilišta u Zagrebu. https://urn.nsk.hr/urn:nbn:hr:111:301451 (05.07.2023.)

Šuvaković, Miško (2007). Konceptualna umetnost. Novi Sad: Muzej savremene umetnosti Vojvodine.

Point 2

2. The third major section is the strongest part of the article in my opinion, but it does not elucidate the important implications of the article's thesis. Please consider spelling out why the perspective of the paper actually matters and might make a big difference. For instance, you could say more about the implications immediately following this statement: "At this point, we have concluded that if the immutable 521 essence (it refers to both ontology and art) is co-creative freedom, then the only 522 “determination” is co-creative transformation and growth." Help your reader see why this is important.

Response

In conclusion, I attempted to explain the results better (yellow backgrounds indicate all changes).

Point 3

3. Lastly, there are a few spots where a new idea is introduced but not developed. These should be addressed and either developed or removed. For instance, Derrida's concept of 'chora' is brought up in line 390 but not referenced again in the rest of the article. That seems strange. 'Chora' is a concept that is very much debated among philosophers who are interested in the theological side of Derrida, and it should not be invoked without caution and adequate definition. At this point, it is not clear why 'chora' is brought in at all. Also, I believe that line 542 is the first time in the article that the topic of God's "Kingdom" comes up. Such an important category should not be left for the end of the conclusion.
4.  

Response

The terms in red are ones that may be overused philosophical jargon, and the passage in red is one you suggested should be either clarified or deleted (Derrida's invocation of the chora). Red letters indicate deletions.

Adjustments were also made in the mention of the category of the Kingdom of God, where this category was referenced multiple times in the text.

Point 4.

Additional matters:

Check the quote on line 216.

Change the use of "absolute" to "the absolute." For example, line 226.

"Profundity" instead of "profound" on line 512, etc.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I believe that the use of English is fairly strong here and I only detected a small set of inconsistencies. Mainly these happened with subject-verb agreement and with confusion between adjective and adverb forms.

Here's a list of lines where care should be taken with the grammar: 34, 76, 111, 118, 128, 173.

Response

I made all the requested grammatical correction.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for the opportunity to read this revisited version of the article. I am pleased to see that although you were not able to access the material I suggested, you have worked to access other material that extends the article in response to my initial review. This makes for really interesting reading. 

I think that you are making a very important argument that the ontic origin of the work of art also tells us something about the nature of the artist - ie that the artist is not a genius... but simply a being, stretching towards the call of the divine. This becomes clear through the position you state: 

There are three key moments in this relationship: the artist’s initial stretching towards the absolute (ecstasy), inspiration, and the concrete work of art as the result of the relationship between contingency and the absolute. Creative endeavors are free, and it is in this freedom that they come closest to the absolute.There are three key moments in this relationship: the artist’s initial stretching towards the absolute (ecstasy), inspiration, and the concrete work of art as the result of the relationship between contingency and the absolute. Creative endeavors are free, and it is in this freedom that they come closest to the absolute.  

I think that you are positing a good argument to dispel the myth of the artist as genius and it would be worth noting that rather than suggesting that genius persists in the presence of these conditions. If creative endeavors are free - then they are open to all and this is a really important point. You do well to note the link between this idea and the reference in 2 Corinthians. 

The paper is vastly improved by the inclusion of the material relating to the voice of the art itself and the images that have been included.  I wonder if you could include one of Leonardo's images to ensure that all the artists you refer to are visually represented. A small point to consider would be referencing Leonardo by his surname, Da Vinci, to ensure consistency. The comparison between work by Leonardo and Kiefer  really strengthens the argument you are making here. I wonder if it is worth noting, maybe around line 785 that the materials Kiefer uses are deeply contingent, often literally breaking down even as they are on display, and thus evidence the agency of the artwork in this dynamic relational practice.   

I appreciate the time it takes to work on a paper of this nature and I congratulate you on your achievement with this work. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The result of the review is certainly appreciable.
The idea of ​​co-creation applied to the work of art needs greater
clarity on its theological and philosophical presuppositions.

  For greater intelligibility of the text, shorter periods are recommended.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear author, 

I appreciate that you have responded so fully to my suggestions for improving the article. Thank you for providing additional context and explanation in the first two major sections of the article. It certainly helps. 

I believe that I am getting a better idea of what you are, in fact, trying to argue in this article, but I'm not sure that I understand it fully. From my perspective, there is still much room for improvement. 

Overall, I think you need to focus on one half of your proposed title. While I think you can offer something helpful in the discussion of the ontic nature of art, I do not think that you can reasonably argue - in the scope of one article - whether or not art can tell us anything about God. That is too large an issue to satisfy with an article. Instead, I think you should limit your scope to indicating in the conclusion specific trajectories of thought that might begin to address that larger issue. This concern is related to a more pressing issue with the article. 

There does not appear to be a clear definition of beauty here. This is a problem as beauty can be a very contested category. You should not assume that your reader has the same philosophical or theological understanding of beauty that you do. It seems very important to your argument that works of art defy their conventions and display new forms of beauty, but you have not clearly delineated what beauty is or what beauty does exactly to give this article a  meaningful claim. These questions need to be answered if your reader is going to be convinced of your argument. 

Relatedly, the examples of different artists certainly help to ground your ideas in practical realities, but these artists are very different from one another and most critics would not use the term "beauty" to describe Rothko or Kiefer. These are very important artists in the Western art canon, and there are differing schools of thought regarding their engagement with religion (cf. Mark C. Taylor). I would encourage you to focus on one of them and explicitly detail how their works are 'unconventional' or surprising. This  would necessarily involve Rothko's interaction with the short history of abstraction (cf. Thomas Crow's "No Idols") and Kiefer's deconstruction of the genre of history painting. Such efforts can be done, but they would require careful attention to the art historical narratives that inform both artists' practice, especially if you are planning to compare such artists to Leonardo as your prime exemplar. You should not simply raise these examples to then quickly assert that they glow with an inner beauty. This is shallow and unhelpful. If there is so much to be learned about being from such artworks, why spend so little effort at explaining how these images work? I don't understand that.

In other words, there is still significant work to be done here. 

No major concerns here.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf