Sculpture, You Ask?
Rethink sculpture? The question is addressed to us, obviously, those of us who reflect on art. Critical thought, somewhat like the fire brigade, always comes late: we try to keep up to date with reality’s transformations, its upheavals. But when we realize that critical thought no longer holds true, we tend to want to reinvent reality, when in fact it is thought that is reinvented in the hope that it will correspond to reality. This is fortunate, for that matter, because nothing is worse that a paternalistic position that gives directions about methods and techniques. If in art history and criticism we must rethink sculpture, it is because sculpture has been transformed. This metamorphosis is interesting, because it henceforth emphasizes how fragile the term “sculpture” is for describing some of the strongest contemporary art works.
Often, we write “sculpture,” because we have to find a synonym for “object” and “work,” yet without considering this word’s history and possible connotations. We know very well what the medium of sculpture is, though only retrospectively when we think about it: this history and its connotations no longer have much to do with our current view of the works and their effects. Such and such a work may well be a sculpture, but this category is no longer useful, revealing or functional. Everything takes place as though it is no longer truly a concern of sculpture, even of mediums that are problematic, the implications of contemporary practices.
I remember being shaken
…