I’d like to add some content to a previous project to respect some of the feedback I’ve received on it – 1800-2000 words should suffice. I’ll quote said feedback below: 1. A main observation was that in the section on Brancusi a lot of space was given to The Kiss and only one Maiastra sculpture was analyzed; this could be adjusted/restructured – “either repositioning the discussion of The Kiss, and/or making it more clear why it needs to be there in the analysis or by developing more writing around a second or third work from the Maiastra series, not extensive but so that the reader obtains a broader sense of the series, and comes to understand why you selected the work from 1912 to receive the prominence. Perhaps generally, the section on Brancusi needs restructuring or reordering, so that you take on the key issues in turn: how his work represents the myth; how it is ‘modern’; what its link is to Eliade’s concepts of time and cosmology; how it works formally; how it has been misunderstood (the US customs debacle); and how it returns the gaze. (Hope that covers/characterises your argument). My one question at the end of that section is to what degree is this reading specific to Maiastra (1912) or to Brancusi’s work more generally?” 2. “You’ve brought in the ‘gaze’ but you haven’t provided a technical understanding of it. In critical writing it usually means Lacan’s gaze theory, or perhaps Laura Mulvey’s concept of the gaze from her 1976 essay on Narrative Cinema. You may or may not be referencing these, but your use of the gaze is not simply looking, either. Whilst an argument about the gaze as a concept may be difficult to square with your other theorizing, I think it would be important to show that you understand that the ‘return of the look’ is an important critical issue in 20th century philosophy—whether Sartre’s existentialism or Lacan’s re-reading of Freud’s psychoanalysis. Your viewer of Brancusi (whether in 1912 or 2021) is intermixed with these ideas, too! Since the gaze is so central to this interpretation you’ve put forward, I think this can only make it better to expand a bit.” 3. Footnotes were not clear/correct; could these be expanded? https://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/tools_citationguide/citation-guide-1.html I believe the ‘Notes’ version detailed in these examples is preferred over the ‘Shortened’ version. Thank you.