Beyond Barniz de Pasto Mopa-Mopa Objects: Artisans and Harvesters in the 21st Century
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAs the authors mention, this paper differentiates itself from typical scholar ones since its purpose is to make known the difficult conditions of current artisans. For this reason, the tone is very different to what is usually expected from scholar papers. However, I think that in this case, this more personal, sometimes urging tone is justified for the critical condition that is described in the paper. A lot of field work has been done and the most relevant literature of the topic has been reviewed.
I am not qualified to assess the quality of the language in the English version of the paper, but in the Spanish one, I found some mistakes which I highlighted in yellow in the attached file:
p. 2 says: "Las telas del Barniz de Pasto, no solo decoran..."
Should say: "Las telas del Barniz de Pasto no solo decoran..."
p. 2 says: "transformación en delgadas laminas..."
Should say: "transformación en delgadas láminas..."
p. 2 says: "el nariñense Luís Eduardo Mora Osejo..."
Should say: "el nariñense Luis Eduardo Mora Osejo..."
p. 3 says: "agradecido mestizaje colonial hibridez o amalgama..."
Should say: "agradecido mestizaje colonial, hibridez o amalgama..."
p. 7 says "cooperación como lo diría Richard Sennett..."
Should say: "cooperación como lo diría Richard Sennett..."
p. 12 says "Paralelamente, en un sector cercano al barrio Obrero, en San Felipe, en una casa antigua de un piso construida en adobe y teja de barro que se parece más a una pulpería." <<This sentence is missing a verb
p. 12 says "En medio del dialogo..."
Should say "En medio del diálogo..."
p. 12 says "ayuda a armar el producto, más no lo empieza..."
Should say ""ayuda a armar el producto, mas no lo empieza..."
p. 18 says "reconociendo casi que exclusivamente..."
Should say "reconociendo casi exclusivamente..."
p. 21 says "...claramente hacia donde inclinamos la balanza."
Should say "...claramente hacia dónde inclinamos la balanza."
p. 21 says "...que narraremos cómo se encuentra actualmente..."
Should say "...que narremos cómo se encuentra actualmente..."
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
"Please see the attachment."
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article is a good starting point to carry out a rigorous ethnographic study that delves into the relationship between population groups and the different processes of technology in the 21st century. It is a significant topic from current conceptions that link territory, culture and materiality.
However, the article does not integrate the elements provided in each of the proposed ethnographies and must be reconsidered in its entirety since it does not achieve substantiated and analytical results on the topic.
It lacks a rigorous methodological structure that allows an adequate treatment of each of the proposed ethnographic reviews. Reflective guidelines are not established in each one, therefore, they appear fragmented and do not allow establishing a relationship between them.
There is no horizontal or vertical articulation between the aforementioned groups, much less the relationship between those called human and non-human.
The design of objects in the 21st century is not worked from the historical perspective of technique. New objects arising from commercialization, the needs of the cultural industry, tourism and consumption are mentioned without showing how these facts affect the development of the technique.
From a formal point of view, the text has unfinished or meaningless phrases or propositions. In the text the poetic style is mixed interchangeably with some academic concepts and therefore there is no same scriptural line.
Most of the bibliography at the end appears as a list but is not specifically referenced in the text.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsReview Beyond the objects
This is an important contribution to the literature about the Barniz de Pasto mopa-mopa tradition. I have no qualms about including it in the Heritage special issue despite it being “unlike a conventional article” as the authors note. Importantly, the authors describe a pervasive failure, intentional or not, in the traditional scholarly literature on non-European art in which makers become invisible and the object is privileged over the people involved with creating the object. This failure has been much discussed in recent years (see the “decolonizing” trend in art history, museums, etc.). In the case of Barniz de pasto/mopa-mopa, this is perhaps also due to a dearth of resources accessible to those not working in Colombia; notably this has improved dramatically over the past decade or two as evidenced by this article and others in this special issue. The most interesting thing here is that Barniz de pasto/mopa-mopa is one of the few traditions with uninterrupted continuous generations of active artisans and contemporary living artisans. This is one of the reasons scholars and others are so interested in the tradition. Regarding ethnographies, the authors may want to consult Stuckart, J. M. 1982. Barniz de Pasto: the impact of tourism on a traditional craft (Ph.D. diss). University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA., one of the few other ethnographies I am aware of. This unpublished dissertation is difficult to find, I am happy to send the authors a pdf.
Photography credits in figure captions: please check consistency and journal guidelines. In English, the usual phrase would be “Photo: Giovany Arteaga Montes, 2023” and “Photo: © Fundación Mundo Espiral, 2023” etc.
Abstract: this should stand alone without notes. Line 1, Note 1 is unnecessary as it is addressed later in the article. Line 17, Note 2: I suggest incorporating part of your later definition of patrimonialización. Suggestion: “Our reflections from ten years accompanying artisans and harvesters during the process of including mopa-mopa on the UNESCO List of Intangible Cultural Heritage in Need of Urgent Safeguarding (patrimonialización)are always open for discussion.”
The English translation is overall a bit awkward. I include some examples and suggestions in my review. For example, readers of the English version will be familiar with the term “maestro”, it is ok to use maestro rather than master. “The” as an article is over-used, causing unnecessary awkwardness and is a bit distracting. I include some examples in my comments below.
Line 1. The title would read better as “Beyond Barniz de Pasto mopa-mopa objects: artisans and harvesters in the 21st century”
Line 10 could read “These relationships were lost when the focus ...”
Lines12-14 could read “… organised in the form of ethnographic overviews of home-workshops of master Barniz de Pasto artisans, woodworker workshops, …”
Line 12-13: “or mountain jungle” can be deleted
Line 17: “mopa-mopa” not “the mopa-mopa”
Line 30: “Elaeagia pastoensis Mora” not “Elaeagia pastoensis mora” (check for consistency with botanical terms throughout)
Lines 30-32: please add references
Line 35-36: “nomination file and special plan for the safeguarding” is a better translation than “(Dossier and Special Safeguarding Plan)”
Line 38 “hidden behind sheets of” not “hidden behind the sheets of”
Lines 33-39 and Reference 18: “With the exception of the 2019 Expediente y Plan Especial de Salvaguardia (PES) [18], perhaps include the English translation as a note rather than in the text. Referring to the document as PES is okay but it is not part of the title. “nomination file and special plan for the safeguarding
Line 40: do not capitalize “Home-workshop” throughout, it is not necessary.
Line 45 “crossbreeding, hybrid amalgamation” is redundant. “crossbreeding” is grammatically incorrect. Please consider “hybrid amalgamation”.
Line 46 -47: I think I understand the author’s intentions but this sentence is confusing. Do you mean “gratefully welcomed syncretism”? Do you mean “produces a forgetfulness and silence that erases tensions …”
Line 51: “… patrimonialización of Barniz …” not “ … patrimonialización of the Barniz …”
Lines 51-64: Could you begin this paragraph by stating more clearly that both authors, in different capacities, participated in the patrimonialización process? Also, perhaps provide a reference for Fundación Mundo Espiral? https://fundacionmundoespiral.blogspot.com/ or https://ich.unesco.org/es/ong-acreditadas/ong-acreditada-01327?ngo_id=01327
The following text from Fundación Mundo 52 Espiral 01327-en.pdf reads more clearly in English
Between 2014 and 2019, Mundo Espiral carried out an investigation and jointly prepared with the tradition bearers the nomination file and special plan for the safeguarding of the “Traditional knowledge and techniques associated with Pasto varnish mopa-mopa of Putumayo and Nariño”, as intangible cultural heritage of the municipality, department, nation, and humanity (via UNESCO), with the support of the Ministry of Culture, Government of Nariño, and the Mayor’s Office of Pasto. The element was inscribed in 2020 on the UNESCO List of Intangible Cultural Heritage in Need of Urgent Safeguarding.
Line 71: please clarify citation [19]. You cite Fabian, but what passage do you refer to? Is this a direct quote?
Line 86: “dirty hands”Perhaps you mean “getting our hands dirty”?
Line 132: I think readers are familiar with “AM radio”, you don’t need to spell it out
Line 140 Readers would be interested in ‘El indio’ analines? Perhaps add a note or a reference to the products https://cabarriaiqa.com/web/anilinas-el-indio/
Line 185: “electric lathe” not ‘electric lathe’ (no need for any quotation marks)
Line 223: clarify “ñapangas (peasant woman from Nariño)” Do you mean (representations of/figures representing peasant women from Nariño)
Line 236 “road of death” not “death road”
Line 260: “renamed recently” not “renamed modernly”
Line 281: do you mean “15 kilos of buds called bull horns” not “15 kilos of buds and bull horns”?
Line 288: Elaeagia pastoensis not Elaeagia Pastoensis (please check for consistency throughout)
Line 296 Section 5
Line 301 Can you provide references to any exhibitions online? This would be of great interest to readers.
Line 360 “the late charismatic master José María Obando” not “charismatic master José María Obando (RIP)”
Line 389 : “Sennett” not “Seneth”
Line 424 : add thanks to woodworkers as well?
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsFirs of all, I would like to congratulate the authors for this work. I found this article particularly interesting. It highlights an aspect of the Barniz de Pasto, Mopa-Mopa that has never been presented/researched before and I truly enjoyed reading it. I recommend to accept this article after the minor revisions below:
- Between lines 20-21: Consider to include quote from Giovany Paolo Arteaga Montes present in the Spanish version.
- Lines 67-68: Consider the change to [...,now known as "territories" where we were the protagonists and the authority...] as a more exact translation from the Spanish version.
- Line 158: Consider the replacement from "councillor" to "councilman" as a more exact translation from the Spanish version.
- Line 178: Note number 6 makes sense in the Spanish version since it's referred to different types of wood (madera) but not in the English version because it is associated to "woodworkers". Consider to associate it to "wood" in line 181.
- Line 197: Consider the term "one-story" as a replacement for "one-storey"
- Line 373: Consider to use cursive in "maquila" for consistency with format from other words in Spanish.
Additional edits to the version in Spanish can be found in the attached file.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsComments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
