Question 1: Krauss quoted Newman saying that “Sculpture is what you bump into when you back up to see a painting.” Is he suggesting that the domain of sculptures is so hard to define that we do not recognize the works as sculptures? Or does he mean that the sculptures are now disguised as an inseparable part of the landscape/architecture? What exactly is meant by this “black hole in the space of consciousness” and this “categorical no-man’s-land”?
Question 2: Is the example in the beginning, Mary Miss’ “Perimeters/Pavilions/Decoys” categorized in the group complex (both architecture and landscape)? I am really curious about what the artist wants to express using this piece of earthwork. Does it not “sits in a particular place and speaks in a symbolical tongue about the meaning or use of that place” (279), following the internal logic of the sculpture like what Krauss described on page 279? As long as a sculpture is representational and has a relation to its site, no matter if it’s nomadic or not, does it not still fit into this category?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment