Reading Response for “Sculpture in the Expanded Field” by Rosalind Krauss

This article discusses the modern history of sculpture and its historical background. It presupposes that sculpture has been rationalized using historical precedents. Modern and Postmodern sculpture have continually derived more abstract and old historical references. This use of historical reference, as well as scientific methodologies like the Klein group to justify the sculpture of the last century and categorize it based on not-landscape and not-architecture principles is, to me, besides the point. Art is a reflection of cultural ideas using a given medium and the specific perception of the artist. Logical operations do not necessarily have a play in the artwork. To summarize the entire field of sculpture into historical and logical categories negates the feelings, mood, ideas, and randomness of the art form. Art isn’t always logical. I’d argue that the art of the current era is highly illogical and does not reflect historical ideals.

The author’s labeling of postmodern art as an opposition of architecture and landscape seems an apt description. No longer is sculpture the mastering of a specific medium, it is a test of ideas represented in whatever form the artist deems necessary. When did the bad representation of an unusual idea surpass the mastering and skill of classical art? How did art and sculpture become a scientific endeavor? It is interesting to me the need to analyze a piece of art in terms of its historical significance, scientific references, and cultural heritage rather than an object of beauty to enjoy simply for the sake of enjoyment.

My Sites

Balboa Park:

Cabrillo Memorial:

Ocean Beach Jetty:

-Rachel Dentel