I enjoyed this reading because it got into the conversation of what constitutes as sculpture. It was fascinating to see how Krauss mapped the structure of the event of the expanded field of postmodernism.
- I immediately thought, how did this essay influence sculpture?
This essay is about sculpture and what sculpture had become in the second half of the twentieth century. In the essay Krauss is questioning the three-dimensional art form of ‘sculpture’. She states “nothing, it would seem, could possibly give to such a motely of effort the right to lay claim to whatever one might mean by the category of sculpture. Unless, that is, the category can be made to become less critical.” I can stand by this thought and agree, sculpture is not just metal and stone. I was drawn to the mention of how sculpture is more becoming more elastic. The argument is that no one knows what sculpture is now that is obscured. But, then again, Krauss comes back to state something beautiful: “we very well know what sculpture is…sculpture has its own
…show more content…
That leads me to question how much the critic influences the present and how history influences the work of today whether it is conscious or subconscious.
Krauss goes to mention the gradual fade of logic. Krauss cites two examples that mark the transition: Rodin’s Gates of Hell and his statute of Balzac. These works marked the start of the idea that the sculptor can express their personality in their work. This change is illustrated more fully by the abandoning of the pedestal upon which traditional sculpture might have sat.
- All this questioning of is “what is sculpture,” has me questioning how everyone defines sculpture now, or maybe not define, but how they believe sculpture functions in the present day. Is there any one way and does anyone have a clear