Re: <documenta X><blast> fields

murph the surf (murph@interport.net)
Fri, 13 Jun 1997 16:58:12 +0100

I'm reminded of Rosalind Krauss' essay "Sculpture in the Expanded Field"
where she attempts to come to terms with new configurations for the term
"sculpture" and attempts to historicize:

"As the 1960s began to lengthen into the 1970s and 'sculpture' began to be
piles of thread waste on the floor, or sawed redwood timbers rolled into
the gallery, or tons of earth excavated from the desert, or stockades of
logs surrounded by firepits the word *sculpture* became harder to pronouce
-- but not really that much harder."

She goes on to say that the historian/critic simply adapted their
techniques and terms to the new environment and eventually the word became
obscure and not very useful.

The Harraway example was enlightening though I worry about taking the
Internet swimming in film theory. It does give me a picture of what we
might be talking about in terms of the number of different spaces that can
occupy a space. I tend to agree that the space is what we end up.

Robbin Murphy