LeWitt in Progress

Q1: Krauss talks about how art has progressed through time, from art prior to the discovery of systematic perspective, to the Renaissance, and then to modernism. She claims that "the modern period...cognitively outdistances the Renaissance by withdrawing this power of coordination from the real world entirely" (248). Many others would argue that the Renaissance was the peak of high art due to the many famous and glorified paintings from this era. Why would Krauss think that something like LeWitt's pieces are superior to these paintings? How does demonstrating the "independence of all deductive or logical systems from the process of observation" make it better? It seems like a lot more skill and talent goes into those Renaissance paintings than LeWitt's work.

Q2: LeWitt's work (and much of the work from that era) is supposed to be against rationality and logic, but it seems to me like there is still a very blatant use of these things. For example, the use of so many squares and cubes in something like "Floor Piece #4" on the first page reminds me of math and reasoning, maybe even something I'd see in a math textbook. There is a uniform shape and the large square is divided into many equal smaller squares in a mathematical fashion. So, how can he claim to be free from rationality and logic, when it seems like those very concepts were the basis for creating his work?