Expanded Field

Q1: This new movement in sculpture is meant to exemplify a new set of cultural terms, that defies any logic in sticking to one medium, or staying within the traditional guidelines of that medium. The author also says that this new category should map the “axiomatic feature of the architectural experience –the abstract conditions of openness and closure” onto whatever space or site chosen. My question is regarding the difference between sculpture and architecture –once you start using the term architecture, there implies a certain aspect of functionality and practicality. What if these ‘postmodern’ art pieces are only embodying the aesthetics of architecture? Is the term still appropriate? Or do these artworks have a function or use? If so, what are they?

Q2: The author argues that these new sculptural projects embody a nomadic homelessness and occupy a negative space. Yet they are also autonomous by nature, grounded in the nature of their base. Yes, this independence, to be “essentially transportable” and “self-referential” is reinforced by the base of the sculpture, but I would argue that their self-sufficient nature also gives them a positive sense of being, that these sculptures are not just defined by what they are not, by this negative space.