Article+1+Expanded+field

Krauss Review by Nicole Evans The topic of discussion in the article was very theoretical and used words and ideas that are hard at first to digest but are things that are sometimes difficult to explain when questioned. The famous questions like, "What is art?" and specifically referencing this article, "What is sculpture?" As artists it is good to know the era of our making which is still post-modernism. Though this isn't strict to all artists, but is the era of our time that describes the majority of our marks. This is a time for pushing boundaries. Because these questions are so often asked and contemplated the article reduces the field to what it is not, to only then expand on what it is, what is sculpture. I found it interesting that the field of study (sculpture) only represents a fourth of the field's possible outcomes. In answering these questions I find that it engages the artist to ponder the ways to express their ideas and familiarizes the viewer with what they are observing. Once something is catagoriezed I feel that both the artist and the viewer meet in a place of subtle comfort and confidence with the creation. This is the prime situation for an idea to be exchanged, reviewed and discussed.

Elizabeth Castillo The idea that sculpture is not easily defined when one is asked what is sculpture?, but can still be placed into categories such as expressed in the Klein Group is what stood out for me in the article. I agree that it seems throughout history, sculpture went from not exactly being easy to label to having a set guideline on what category sculpture or architecture can be placed in. Sculpture has been changing drastically and is sometimes not able to be identified in a specific category. I never really thought about the distinct categories that the art can be placed into before seeing the diagram on page 38 of the article. I would have previously considered some marked sites as sculpture instead of sculpture being the leftovers of non-landscape and not-architecture.

Christine Nolan Like Nicole, I thought that the basis of this article was largely theoretical, in that Krauss attempts define sculpture in very abstract terms. I thought that the article was enlightening, since I had not previously considered the fact that there are different categories of sculpture, but I did not think the author reached a solid definition. I think this is largely because sculpture itself is so abstract that it is difficult to apply a single definition to it. What I found most interesting, however, was the idea of negativity. Krauss describes modern sculpture as the combination of exlusions: non-landscape and non-architecture. I find the idea that something can derive meaning and significance from the //absence// of a definition to be extremely fascinating.

Ashley Smith Before now I did not know the history behind the definition or categories of the term sculpture. I had thought about it before while in my art history class. I wondered how so many things that one might not look at as art could be categorized that way. I enjoyed with krauss wrote that when it is not landscape and it is not architecture then it must be sculpture. I am sure life as a sculptor was hard in the 60's. Krauss spoke of sculptures being questioned during the processes of categorizing things into sculpture. I also enjoyed the article near the end when he started writing about sculpture involving landscape and non landscape. It made me think of rebellion and that is what I believe an artist is someone who dares to do their own thing. I think another topic that would be interesting for Krauss to write about would be paint and sculpture. If a person paints a sculpture then is it now a painting or a sculpture or should there be another word for this. Will the future artists of the world one day venture into a new type of art or sculpture that we could not even begin to imagine. I have heard people speak of virtual sculpture and that also makes me think of how far art or sculpture has come. We will just have to wait and see.

Julia Lipe Krauss's article has an insightful approach in understanding how and why the changes seen in sculpture have drastically evolved over time. His idea that the new era of modernism to post-modernism has brought endless possibilities for the artist to work with seems to be exactly right. Most people know that it is difficult to define what art really is and along with this is the acceptance of new work. A strong part in this article is reiterating the importance of the logic of representation in early sculpture and how this idea slowly began to fail. Sculptors have began to recognize the importance of medium choice and exploring space. The new aspects sculpture deals with are things like negative spaces, architectural elements, and how it works with the environment. These kind of ideas have really pushed artist to explore many options and whether this be accepted by critics or historians it is leading us in a new direction that will only continue to develop over time.

Catherine Gauthier The Krauss article was unique in it's way of exploring the contrasts of sculpture as it used to be represented and how it is commonly expressed now. The ideas regarding architecture and landscape were interesting in that sculpture can be defined as a combination of the lack of the two. Krauss quotes, "...sculpture had entered the full condition of it's inverse logic and has become pure negativity: the combination of exclusion." I found this to be very insightful, especially considering the work we had done it class and the ideas of negative or implied space. I enjoy the theory that sculpture can enclose or contain something that is not seen or is purely non-existent.