The Representation of Vernacular Architecture in the Gates of Paradise by Lorenzo Ghiberti
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe topic is relevant, as historical documents on vernacular architecture are scarce, making iconographic sources an essential tool for understanding the evolution of rural landscapes and constructions. However, there are some issues of research design, consistency and scientific communication that could be improved.
The article seeks to demonstrate that Ghiberti’s biblical scenes represented in the Gates of Paradise are set in a landscape familiar to the artist and thus depict the vernacular architecture of the Florentine countryside. Although this seems reasonable, this work does not fully demonstrate the specificity of rural constructions, but rather confirm the diffusion of architectural and landscape visual codes that can be found in other works of art of the period. Even assuming Ghiberti represented archetypes of rural buildings inspired in his local context, it is not clear how faithfully they reproduce the historical reality, since they are idealized constructions intended to serve an allegorical message.
It would be advisable to include more evidences on the vernacular architecture of the area which together could strengthen the iconographic interpretation and thus provide a more comprehensive and robust methodological approach. It would therefore be useful to have the concurrence of other materials, sources and disciplines: historical documentation, archaeological studies, landscape studies, investigations into traditional materials and techniques, and other iconographic sources (such as photographs, drawings, cartography and other recent representations), all of which should be cross-checked with the panels of the Baptistery.
The list of references reflects a national (Italian) focus, suggesting the need for an updated global literature review on the use of iconographic sources as a tool for research on vernacular architecture. It is advisable to frame this work in terms of past and present theoretical background and empirical research, to check whether there is other similar studies from which to draw methodological resources, to identify research gaps and to highlight the innovations that this work brings to the table. Indeed, this article addresses a case of the utmost artistic relevance, but lacks a clear, structured and integrative methodological approach that could have implications for further research.
Moreover, the article would benefit from a clearer structure, as the content of the sections does not always correspond adequately to the headings. Please clearly state the objectives, hypotheses and methods, reorganizing the headings, numbering and structure of the manuscript if necessary. For example, section 2. Materials and Methods constitutes a presentation of the case study but does not properly disclose the methods used. Similarly, sections 3.1 and 3.2 provide a contextualization or conceptual framework rather than a result of the research. Moreover, in the first paragraph of the conclusions, the reference to Emilio Sereni would fit better in the introduction or in the theoretical framework.
English writing would benefit from editing to improve quality and readability. Also, check other possible errors, such as in footnote 2, where there seems to be an incorrect link. Some statements could be supported by additional references.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageSome parts of the text are unclear and lack fluency. Please enhance the writing for better quality and readability.
Author Response
Dear referee,
thanks for your suggestions, which have allowed us to improve the papar, we are sending you the revised version.
We await your kind opinion.
Best Regards, Alessandro Merlo and Gaia Lavoratti
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAuthors successfully draw attention to the representations of vernacular architecture in the ten bas-relief panels of the Gates of Paradise of the Florence Baptistery by Lorenzo Ghiberti furthermore they follow similar typologies and underline the similarities between those and the ones in the rural paintings from mainly 15th and 16th centuries.
As they also mentioned in their manuscript, although it is not possible, it is not impossible to find traces of the memories of rural architecture in the present. In the authors' own words: “However, traces of their memory can still be found in the barns, tool shelters, and temporary dwellings used during the work in the fields in summer and autumn [22] (p. 14) (Figure 2).” If possible please find a more recent representation of the architectural typology that is the subject of this paper in addition to the one in Figure 2.
The paper is straightforward and to the point. The language is good, and I believe it is nearly ready for publishing with the abovementioned additions.
Author Response
Dear referee,
thanks for your suggestions, which have allowed us to improve the papar, we are sending you the revised version.
We await your kind opinion.
Best Regards, Alessandro Merlo and Gaia Lavoratti
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you very much to the authors for this interesting contribution about “The representation of vernacular architecture in early fifteenth century works. The gates of Paradise by Lorenzo Ghiberti”. I have reviewed this article and here are my opinions and suggestions for this manuscript
Title:
I think the title of the article is a bit long, but since it is divided into two parts, it focuses on the subject of the article. However, and given the subject matter of the article, I think it would be interesting to incorporate the word 'landscape'.
Abstract:
The current abstract of the manuscript is too descriptive. A good abstract contains four elements: background, methods, results, and conclusions. The abstract of this manuscript effectively incorporates this scheme. However, now it is not very specific; it would be advisable to establish the topic on which the paper focuses a little more, especially to generate curiosity in the work. It would be good if, in some way, you indicated or suggested what the main findings that have been obtained are; that would generate more interest in reading it. The abstract has to be revised to answer this question: What are the main findings of the research?
Introduction:
In the introduction, the research objective should be clearly stated. The contextualization of the object of study of this work (the vernacular architectures and the rural landscape of the Florentine countryside in the gates of Paradise) is very brief. It would be important to elaborate further in this section on what is meant by vernacular architecture and, above all, what the authors mean when they talk about rural landscape. Perhaps some reference to Petrarch's ascent of Mont Ventoux and the famous letter to his brother explaining how he was amazed when he saw the panorama from the summit would be interesting to mention. In the introduction, please highlight your research problem and the main hypothesis. The introduction should also reveal the difference and novelty of your work, considering the related literature. I would advise you to better signpost your findings also in the introduction. Putting a short statement on your findings in the intro may increase the readability of your piece.
Material and Methods:
I am not sure that what is presented in this section are the materials and methods used in this research. I think that the few paragraphs in this section are part of the state of the art. In the Material and Methods section, the authors should indicate what type of methodology they have used to achieve the proposed objectives, that is, whether the research is empirical, theoretical, experimental, comparative, compilation... etc. and also indicate what the main tools used are: surveys, photogrammetry, written texts, etc. In short, they should explain much better how the method used was and describe it clearly.
Results:
The section on results represents the heart of a paper. This is the best and most developed part of the manuscript. Congratulations on the great work done, which is complete and coherent. They explain in detail the results, but, at the end, the main findings should be described in such a way that they are quickly and clearly recognisable to the reader, and it must be comprehensible from which set of analyses the findings result. This part is the best part of the manuscript, however, I consider that the epigraph dedicated to the hut as Housing Archetype, has now too much prominence, it should be revised.
Discussion:
There is no section dedicated to Discussion in this manuscript and it would be important if there were one. Results come from or are directly based on data analysis. In contrast, Conclusions come from Discussion and represent the climax of discussion. If the Result is regarded as the heart of an academic paper, the Discussion can be treated as the nerve center of the paper. Discussions form a bridge between Results and Conclusions.
The section of Discussion in a paper is generally involved with 3 or 4 parts: (1) main points, which response to the questions put in introduction; (2) comments on related studies or problems; (3) shortcomings or deficiency in study method or process; (4) conclusions, which can be separated to make the final section. [See: Bjorn Gustavii (2002). How to Write and Illustrate a Scientific Paper. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; and Robert A. Day, Barbara Gastel. How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper (Sixth Edition). Cambridge University Press, 2003].
Figures:
The figures and images are of good quality, and the comparison discourse between the historical paintings and the landscapes of the Gates of Paradise is well understood, and adequately support the discourse of the manuscript. Nevertheless, I have found that figure 9 is not coherent with the rest of the graphic discourse of the manuscript, from my point of view it could be dispensed with without any problem.
Sentences:
Too many long sentences are used in the article, and long sentences leads to unclear semantics and is not easy to read. The sentence length of a scientific paper should not exceed 3 lines.
----
In any case, the points stated above are formal issues that can be improved and completed so that the manuscript will gain in impact and effectiveness. I consider the content very interesting and original, as well as susceptible to future developments in subsequent research works, which should also be indicated in some way by the authors.
Author Response
Dear referee,
thanks for your suggestions, which have allowed us to improve the papar, we are sending you the revised version.
We await your kind opinion.
Best Regards, Alessandro Merlo and Gaia Lavoratti
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article has improved significantly, in particular regarding the structure and readability. However, some issues still need attention in the final version.
The abstract is now too lengthy. It should be condensed to clearly and concisely present the purpose, methods, and findings of the study. It should avoid bibliographic and web references. Large parentheses must be removed.
In the introduction, the contextualization and presentation of the object of study have been reinforced. However, the purpose of the research has not yet been clearly stated. It is essential to declare at the beginning of the article the research question or hypothesis and the main objectives of the study.
The Materials and Methods section is clearer now. However, in my opinion, the authors missed an opportunity to develop a more comprehensive methodology by incorporating additional materials and sources, which would significantly strengthen the iconographic interpretations presented. Furthermore, the article lacks a review of international literature to identify other studies that explore the potential of artworks as a source for understanding landscape evolution. Such a review could have offered valuable methodologies and insights to enrich the research.
While there are still areas that could be enhanced, this article presents original and valuable insights, making it a worthy contribution for publication.
Author Response
We thank you for your careful review and would like to point out the following:
Comments 1: "The article has improved significantly, in particular regarding the structure and readability. However, some issues still need attention in the final version. The abstract is now too lengthy. It should be condensed to clearly and concisely present the purpose, methods, and findings of the study. It should avoid bibliographic and web references. Large parentheses must be removed."
We have reduced the length of the abstract by eliminating the two large parentheses. We have deemed it necessary to maintain the two bibliographical references since the definition of "indirect sources" and "buried landscapes" was taken directly from the two cited texts.
Comments 2: "In the introduction, the contextualization and presentation of the object of study have been reinforced. However, the purpose of the research has not yet been clearly stated. It is essential to declare at the beginning of the article the research question or hypothesis and the main objectives of the study.."
We believe that the aim of the research is clearly stated in the abstract (lines 17-22) and repeated, although with less emphasis, in the introduction (lines 58-64).
Comments 3: "The Materials and Methods section is clearer now. However, in my opinion, the authors missed an opportunity to develop a more comprehensive methodology by incorporating additional materials and sources, which would significantly strengthen the iconographic interpretations presented."
As stated in the abstract (lines 16-18), the contribution reports the first results of a research still in progress. For this reason, only the sources analyzed up to now have been explained, without indicating those that will surely be integrated in the continuation of the research.
Comments 4: "Furthermore, the article lacks a review of international literature to identify other studies that explore the potential of artworks as a source for understanding landscape evolution. Such a review could have offered valuable methodologies and insights to enrich the research.
While there are still areas that could be enhanced, this article presents original and valuable insights, making it a worthy contribution for publication."
We have introduced at the beginning of paragraph "2. Materials and Methods" an appropriate reference to the relevant bibliographical framework.
We thank you very much for the careful and fruitful work of revision of our article.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
