Reading this article sucked. (stones)

Actually, I found this reading more engaging than the usual, mostly because it didn't try to introduce the next best method of categorization...

Krauss seems to be criticizing critics for doing exactly what she does. In particular, the excerpt "for these writers...it is obvious that the form [cognitive moment] takes is a kind of centering of thought-the discovery of a root principle, an axiom by which all the variables of a given system might be accounted for" seems to remind me particularly of Krauss's other writing. *cough* an expanded sculptural field? *cough* Krauss later argues that Lewitt's art doesn't provide that central viewpoint, but she also says that it doesn't represent human cognition. Isn't it possible that Lewitt's art shows that human cognition isn't that logical? Krauss's incorporation of the sucking stones excerpts seem to hint that while one can have a "logical system" for doing something, the fundamental action itself can still be absurd. like sucking stones.

Lewitt's incomplete open cubes progressively get closer to a complete cube, but the finished cube is omitted from the series. Why didn't he allow the "logical progression" to culminate , why leave it unfinished?