Krauss uses a "logical" process to explain her invented set of categories for sculpture-type artworks. However, what is the actual differentce between "not landscape" and architeture, or "not architecture" and landscape? In her didagram she draws boldface dotted lines, which she calls lines of "implication." Meaning N.A =>L and N.L=> P. My question is, what IS the difference? If a Japanese garden is "landscape and architecture", and a sculpture is "not landscape and not architecture" then doesn't this therefore imply that a Japanese garden IS sculpture? I can see a difference between the two if I think about it subjectively, but according to her diagram and her "mathematical logic" they ARE the same.
Krauss begins her article by talking about how we have stretched the meaning of the word sculpture so much that it has "collapsed" under the stress of the eclectic category of things now called sculpture. The instead proposes her own set of categories. How is this not just as bad as what she is criticizing people for doing? She uses "logic" to make the reader think that her categories came from somewhere other than her own mind, but it seems more like she invented it. The problem is that in order for there to be a difference between NA and L, or NL and A, you can't think of it in her either/or methodology. Things make sense when she gets to her examples and starts speaking English again, not abused and misused logic. My question is why did she feel the need to justify her new categorization with something so phony? And also, if that diagram and such were removed, would anyone have paid attention to her, and started using her new buzz words like "axiomatic structures" ?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment