Aspects of Coexistence between Art Glass and Architecture—Façade Graphics

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic of the paper has been explored several times, in any case, the main thesis, "façade graphics support sustainability", seems quite original.

Unfortunately, the paper has some weaknesses:

1) the authors preferred to include recent references, many of which were published in the last five years; however, some previous texts had to be included in the references such as the fundamental one by Rowe and Slutzsky (Transparency: Literal and Phenomenal), or the one by Valeria Tatano (ed.) (Oltre la trasparenza. Riflessioni sull'impiego del vetro in architettura);

2) the paragraph "materials and methods" appears on page 17, perhaps it would be necessary to insert this paragraph first, to immediately declare the methodology and facilitate understanding of the text;

3) the paper has to be reorganized placing the paragraph of "Discussion" after that of "materials and methods"

4) how is the methodology (see lines 507-513) useful to demonstrate the main thesis, i.e. how can it demonstrate that façade graphics can be functional to sustainability? The methodological approach must be improved and described in more detail;

5) authors could carry out testings and simulations with daylighting software to demonstrate the efficiency of the solutions proposed in the case studies, also allowing a comparison between them;

6) the case studies are significant, but not all recent; the most recent dates back to 2013 (see line 513); why this time limit? the authors must clarify whether architecture with façade graphics has not been created in the last decade, and if so, attempt to explain this trend; otherwise, they must explain why they omitted the most recent examples;

7) line 49 - authors declare that large-scale graphics on glass in a façade of a building can increase user comfort as well as artistic benefits. Could the authors describe this statement in more detail?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are some typos e.g. line 135 scree

Author Response

Your review is much appreciated. The comments have been implemented and are marked in red in the text. I added a description for each of the comments and indicated the location in the text:

1) I have included in my article the papers by Rowe and Slutzsky (transparency: literal and phenomenal) or Valeria Tatano (ed.) (Oltre la trasparenza. Riflessioni sull'impiego delvetro delvetro in architettura); [rows 70–78]

2) I fully agree, but the order in which the parts of the article are presented follows the template published on the website; this is the exact order given in the MDPI's journal Arts Microsoft Word template file/ https://www.mdpi.com/journal/arts/instructions#preparation

3) The order in which the parts of the article are presented follows the template published on the website; this is the exact order given in Arts Microsoft Word template file/ https://www.mdpi.com/journal/arts/instructions#preparation

4) The methodology is explained in [rows 413–475] and described in the whole of chapter 4. I have also made some updates [rows 421–423; row 446].

5) Yes, such tests have been carried out. Unfortunately, the material was inconsistent due to varied forms of the buildings and images. I wasn’t able to find software that would enable me to examine the whole of the research material. Eventually, a decision was made to conduct digital and calculative analyses of the image; description in [rows 421–423 and rows 467–475].

6) The years in the introduction are not given as a limit. It’s more a statement of the fact that the article discusses works completed in these years. I agree this may be confusing, so I’ve changed the wording. 

The criteria for the selection of building are explained in section 4 [rows 538–542]. I was trying to select works as new as possible, taking into consideration the building of the façade in Fig. 1.

7) I elaborate on the statement from the introduction throughout the whole article, including in the summary. I added more details, and extra sentences about this in [rows 52–62].

Thank you again for your time, and I hope that the revisions to the text will be sufficient.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is well structured and organize with important references and examples.

I would suggest some corrections: 

 

In the introduction

Line 30 – the author speaks about the 2030 agenda of the United Nation, please provide the Web link so the reader can know that are the 17 objectives

 

Line 77 “The papers written by Alina Budzyńska (Budzyńska 2018) you only have a reference, and this is not a paper is a PhD thesis.

Please explain what the moiré patterns are.

 

Line 81 – please develop – what are the certain compositional problems. Give examples

 

Line 93 - the reference is 2026, it should be 2006, and Andrew Moore references are books, not papers.

 

2.1. It would be important to mention where the glass panels were made. What is the name of the studio? You do not mention the artists.

 

Please provide the information on where the glass panels were made in all the examples presented.

 

311- It says “giving them a coherent modern character” – how?

317 – “the screen print covered panels are computer controlled”- please explain

 

Please confirm all the references in the paper

Author Response

Thank you for your review, positive assessment and the comments. Nearly all comments are now reflected in the article. They are marked in red. I added a description for each of the comments and indicated the location in the text. Due to the revisions, the order of rows has changed. I have put the new numbers inside square brackets.

There is a link to a website added in row 30 [now row 35].

In row 77, I’ve added articles by Alina Lipowicz-Budzyńska [now rows 99–100].

I’ve explained what moiré patterns are [footnotes on page 3].

In row 81, I’ve slightly changed the text and expanded the description of a paper by Michael Bell and Jeanine Kim [now rows 104–107].

In row 93, the year should indeed be 2016, not 2026; I have corrected this [now row 116].

And Andrew Moore’s works are books, not articles — I have corrected this [now row 117].

2.1.  It takes several stages to complete a glass façade, especially when we are dealing with façade graphics. Usually, more than one company is involved in the process. And very often there are no detailed records. Since I wouldn’t like to omit anyone, I tend to avoid giving the names of companies working on façades. On a number of occasions editors have asked me to remove such information. They considered it to be advertising.

With regard to this research material, Alexander Beleschenko was confirmed as the creator only for the Kendrew Quadrangle Café. As for the other buildings, they are attributed to the design studios where they were conceived.

311— It says “giving them a coherent modern character” — how? I've added some explanations [now rows 335–336].

317 — “the screen print covered panels are computer controlled” — please explain. I’ve added some explanations about this [now rows 342–344].

Thank you for your time, and reading about my research.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article provides a useful explanation of various techniques used in the development and application of printed glass panels that are utilized in architecture. The article also features in-depth analysis of technical aspects and functions of printed glass panels used in building façades in contemporary architecture. Furthermore, the author helpfully includes information regarding related environmental sustainability concerns.

While the title includes the term “art glass”, the article generally lacks discussion of art and aesthetic matters. What is the underlying concept and aesthetic motivation from the perspective of glass art? Also, how do artistic elements interact with architecture?

 

Architecture may be viewed as forming the core structure of the building. The building itself may be regarded as a sculptural work of art with the glass panel and facade graphics forming the visual outlook of the sculpture. It therefore seems essential that the ideas/concepts communicated through the glass panel graphics contribute to the tangible manifestation of overall architectural design concepts or echo the guiding principles featured in the architecture.

 

While the technical information in the article is well developed, I suggest that the author revisit the article with the idea of further developing the discussion on visual arts aspects, specifically the concepts, approaches, and motivations that underpin the use of the graphics appearing on glass panels used on the architectural façade. With these revisions, the stated theme of "coexistence between art glass and architecture" will be more fully addressed.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for the review, and your valuable comments.

I’ve highlighted in green the parts that deal with the artistic and compositional aspects related to the image, as well as with the compositional relationship between the graphics and the building’s shape. Also, the parts of the text related to creating metaphors and messages are highlighted.

For each section, 2.1–2.6, information is now provided on the analysis of the elevation graphics related to both the artistic values as well as the architecture. They were conducted taking into account the environmental and cultural context. For each project, a description has been compiled explaining its individual articulation in relation to:

- The history of the place where it was created;

- The building’s shape;

- The nature and structure of the image.

The image analysis included the following aspects:

The shape and nature of the image;

Image structure (components: size, shape, element repeatability);

Composition (arrangement, dominant direction);

Colour;

Modification of light by the graphics;

Placement on glass layers, gaps between layers;

Dominant visual phenomena, interactions between graphic layers.

The information on and the analysis of the buildings have also been compiled in two tables. Table 1 includes:

- Information about the image (analysis of graphics on glass);

- Information on the elevation partition (façade details);

- Message analysis;

- Image importance — Image analysis — Compositional importance.

The motivation behind using the graphics; the examination of the integration between the interior and the exterior, as well as the averaged percentage coverage of glass by the image.

Table 2 includes examinations and analyses concerning:

- The compositional importance of the image in relation to the building’s shape;

- The examinations of the influence of the graphics on the visual integration of the elevation, taking into account the divisions on the elevation glazing (compositional integration of the image);

- The examinations of the visual relations between the images — concerns double-layer façades (visual interaction between image layers).

For each of the buildings, a description was prepared of the influence of the image on the perception of the entire building as well as the effects of the graphics and image structure on the functional properties of the elevation.

Images on each of the buildings were analysed in terms of their composition with regard to the building’s skin; integration between the image and elevation structure; and visual interactions between layers.

Also, information on the following has been included in the conclusion:

5.1 Compositional importance of an image

5.2 Message

5.3 Compositional integration of the image

5.4 Visual interaction

Thank you for our time, and reading about my research.

I hope that my explanations will be sufficient for the approval of the text to be published in the Arts journal.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article has been improved in some parts. However, weaknesses remain in the description of the methodology. The aspects presented in lines 463 to 470 must be described in depth; it is necessary to declare how the FI and FO integration values ​​were assigned according to the scale shown in the attached table (not prevented – 1, poor – 2, prevented – 3, slightly prevented – 4, complete – 5). Additionally, you must fully explain what software and method you used to determine the glass coverage percentage. A fundamental requirement of research is that the results are reproducible, therefore, if you do not clarify the previous aspects, other scholars will never be able to reproduce the results of your research

Author Response

Thank you for your comments. I have included the correction in the text in blue [row 464-485].

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please pay attention to typos

line 467 build-ing

line 469 build-ing

line 472 integra-tion

Author Response

Thank you for the correction, there were indeed some typos.
Thank you for your positive assessment of my article. I marked the correction in yellow.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf