Expanding the expanded field

Earlier in the semester’s discussion of “Sculpture and the Expanded Field,” we talked about the progression of Rosalind Krauss’s understanding of sculpture from the classical era to the early 70’s:

“Over the last ten years rather surprising things have come to be called sculpture: narrow corridors with TV monitors at the ends; large photographs documenting country hikes; mirrors placed at strange angles in ordinary rooms; temporary lines cut into the floor of the desert.” (Krauss 31)

In the article, Krauss explains how we understand sculpture as a historically bounded category, not a universal one, which has it’s own internal logic, rules, and rules that can be broken.

In a traditional sense, she describes the logic of sculpture as inseparable from the logic of the monument, and that it sits in a particular place and speaks in a symbolical tongue about the meaning or use of that place. At this point she describes the turning point of sculpture of the late 19th century, and how the idea of the sculpture as monument begins to fade to something “largely self referential” that doesn’t require site specificity.

By the early 60’s she describes sculpture as “what was on or in front of the building that was not the building, or what was in the landscape that was not the landscape.”

In a very logical diagram, she describes her theory that sculpture, in its contemporary (late 70’s) existence falls into four categories— site construction, axiomatic structures, marked sites, and sculpture.

I am curious if Krauss’s view is still relevant to today's practices, as well as what sort of logical bubble she would put my practice in. I recently found this diagram of a further expanded field and thought it was with sharing. Here is Douglas Burnham’s updated version, relating more specifically to installation art: