Talk:WikiJournal Preprints/DARK REFLECTIONS: Rossetti’s Ecce Ancilla Domini! and Manet’s Olympia
Add topic
This article is an unpublished pre-print undergoing public peer review organised by the WikiJournal Preprints.
You can follow its progress through the peer review process at this tracking page.First submitted:
Article text
QID: Q100400716
Suggested (provisional) preprint citation format:
"DARK REFLECTIONS: Rossetti’s Ecce Ancilla Domini! and Manet’s Olympia". WikiJournal Preprints. Wikidata Q100400716.
License: 
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction, provided the original author and source are credited.
Frances Di Lauro 
(handling editor) contact
Eystein Thanisch contact
Article information
This is the pre-publication public peer review for the article DARK REFLECTIONS: Rossetti’s Ecce Ancilla Domini! and Manet’s Olympia
Plagiarism check
[edit source]Check with TurnItIn returned only trivial similarity to attributed quotations from previously published works (e.g. Hunt 1905), not regarded as plagiarism. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 05:39, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Peer review 1
[edit source]
Review by anonymous peer reviewer , scholar of eighteenth- and nineteenth- century British art
These assessment comments were submitted on , and refer to this previous version of the article
This is a fascinating article, that reflects the great deal of research undertaken by the author. It contains a wealth of information, and the work situating the work of Rossetti into the complex religious picture of the period is particularly useful; representing an important contribution to Pre-Raphaelite Studies. Likewise, the work it does to place Pre-Raphaelite works within their broader Continental European contexts is excellent.
Where the piece is comparatively lacking is in terms of structure. More could be done in the introduction in order to set out exactly what the piece is looking at and why. As it currently stands, the work moves quite quickly into issues of literacy and embroidery, which, although interesting, don’t allow the author to move through the issues at stake in the article. While signposting can sometimes criticised, it can be useful, particularly when writing for a broad audience.
The piece is characterised by two, relatively distinct sections; one setting up the reception of works in Britain, and one in France. The contrast between these two contexts is interesting, but again, it might be useful for the reader to have these more explicitly laid out – what is at stake in reading the two together? Indeed, I would suggest that the two halves might be better interrelated. Currently there are long sections on Manet and Courbet that appear without reference to the first half of the essay, so more clarity as to the interrelationship between all of the works discussed would really help. Perhaps if the conclusion came back to this issue it would help you to stake some of your claims more clearly.
In terms of some more minor points, the language is a little repetitive at times: for example ‘The Pre-Raphaelites weren’t the only artists recognised by Baudelaire and Gauthier: Edouard Manet would soon enjoy their recognition as well’ – with various forms of to recognise repeated here. Finally, there are some inconsistencies with referencing in terms of ordering of names etc.
Overall, however, this is a absorbing piece that explores a lot of material in a compelling manner.
Thank you very much for reviewing my article, as well as your contribution to this Wikimedia project. I am currently awaiting comments from another reviewer; in the meantime, rest assured that I deeply appreciate your suggestions on how my paper can be improved, and am currently going through them, one by one. I may require elaboration for some of your comments; in order to avoid duplication of effort, I will get back to you after I read the comments from the second reviewer. Thanks again for your help! Karistich (discuss • contribs) 19:46, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Karistich Did you finish improving your manuscript based on reviewer 1 and 2's comments? If yes, please provide your response to both reviewers' comments. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:48, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
@OhanaUnited I am currently struggling with the reference format. Reviewer 2 rightly pointed out inconsistencies, but I don't know what is the preferred format for WikiJHum. Please advise. Karistich (discuss • contribs) 16:29, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Karistich I will find that out for you. Thanks for flagging this issue. OhanaUnitedTalk page 21:02, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Karistich The preferred reference format is MLA, but we accept all major styles as long as it is consistent throughout the submission. OhanaUnitedTalk page 00:33, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Karistich I will find that out for you. Thanks for flagging this issue. OhanaUnitedTalk page 21:02, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
Peer review 2
[edit source]
Review by anonymous peer reviewer , Scholar of 19th-century art
These assessment comments were submitted on , and refer to this previous version of the article
Reviewer’s report: ‘DARK REFLECTIONS: Rossetti’s Ecce Ancilla Domini! and Manet’s Olympia’
This article provides a detailed description of the reception of several important paintings produced in Britain and France from the 1840s to the 1860s, with a focus on Dante Gabriel Rossetti’s Ecce Ancilla Domini! and Edouard Manet’s Olympia. It successfully situates the reception of these artworks in a number of contexts not frequently amalgamated in studies of nineteenth-century art. Of particular note is the author’s ease in combining discussion of the religious context of the artworks’ reception with French critical commentary on Pre-Raphaelite paintings, while highlighting important distinctions between responses to the paintings by critics, the general public and artists. Overall, the article is written in an engaging style and introduces the reader to a wide range of issues pertaining to the context and reception of the paintings discussed.
With a few exceptions, which I note below, the article displays a commendable depth of research. However, a significant amount of the text essentially summarises previous scholarship on the paintings. I expected this to be preparatory ground for the author’s key findings yet, ultimately, while the British and French material is skillfully blended, I was left wondering what was at stake in comparing the reception of Ecce Ancilla Domini! and Olympia, as well as the other paintings discussed? The article needs to enunciate its aims more clearly and I would suggest that, rather than ending through reference to other scholars’ analysis of Olympia, the conclusion, and the latter part of the article more generally, are used to foreground the key argument the author wishes to make in considering the paintings together. This would make the article’s overall purpose clearer, and this could also be reflected in the abstract, which remains quite vague.
I would also suggest that the author considers the formal characteristics of the paintings in more detail, especially as these aspects were frequently commented upon by critics. This is exemplified in the Times quote (ref. 40), which is used to support an argument regarding the problematic religious aspects of Ecce Ancilla Domini! but is itself focused on compositional issues. More consideration of the paintings’ formal elements will also enable the author to bring to the fore further correspondences between the works discussed. This is demonstrated very successfully when the criticism of Manet’s painting style is compared with that of the Pre-Raphaelites (refs. 72 and 73) but only touched upon briefly in other examples, such as the comparison between Millais’ Ophelia and Manet’s Déjeuner sur l’herbe (in which the similarities are not clear).
More specifically, I would recommend the author addresses the following questions / points:
- Why does The Girlhood of Mary Virgin lack a definite article?
- The section discussing Hunt’s and Rossetti’s lack of any awareness of political turmoil in France requires more nuance. I question if the artists’ focus on aesthetic issues necessarily means they were unaware of political issues. The author might consider integrating more of the scholarship on this topic.
- Why is ‘Medieval’ capitalised while ‘quattrocento’ isn’t?
- While Hunt refers to Couture’s painting as The Decadence of Rome, a translation more accurately reflecting the original French title would be more appropriate when the author refers to the work (i.e. The Romans of the Decadence)
- Why is Morgan’s Gallery in Berner’s Street not named when discussing the display of Whistler’s Symphony in White, No 1?
- ‘Art for art’s sake’ was not solely Whistler’s motto and there are multiple correspondences between his work and that of the Pre-Raphaelites in terms of their understanding of art’s purpose. Overall, the discussion of Whistler’s work, as well as the article more broadly, would benefit by integrating more of the rich recent scholarship reassessing the art of the Pre-Raphaelite and Aesthetic Movements.
- The page numbers in some of the footnotes need to be clarified.