Sculpture in the Expanded Field

1) Krauss mentions that in the 1960s and 1970s people had to fight for their artwork to be in the sculpture category saying, "anything at all could be hauled into court to bear witness to this work's connection to history and thereby to legitimize its status as sculpture" (279). She makes it seem like the definition of sculpture required that it had to have historical implications in order to be considered in that classification. If that was the case and people indeed fought for their art to be considered part of what sounds like a "sculpture market," then what would a large monument or statuesque piece of art be considered if it did not have historical significance? Do these historical requirements still exist when determining whether a piece of art is a sculpture, or has the distinction changed?

2) Krauss also talks about criticisms of sculpture as becoming eclectic revealing that "with regard to individual practice, it is easy to see that many of the artists in questions have found themselves occupying, successively, different places witin the expanded field. And though the experience of thefield suggests tat this continual relocation of one's energies is entirely logical, an art criticism still in the thrall of a modernist ethos has been largely suspicious of such movement, calling it eclectic" (288). However, just because the artists goes outside the normal boundaries in mediums or types of projects or even multiple projects, why should that determine the quality of the artwork? Shouldn't each piece that the artist makes be judged individually sort of like a blind experiment, where they don't know who the artist is or the process behind how it was made? How can criticism be made about a piece of art based solely on how the artist divided his time and energy between projects and how he used mediums?