Sculpture in the Expanded Field

-What would have been so problematic about the classification of these artists'  works at the time they were made? 

Classification of these artists' works was difficult due to the obscurity of the term "sculpture". This ambiguity of the genre began during the 1960's and 70's. I believe the paper was written by the author in order to explain the logic of sculpture vs monument, and spatial representation.

-This text was written in the late 1970's. How may we find ourselves in a similar situation today, with regards to identifying/cataloguing and understanding current creative practice? 

I believe we find ourselves in a similar situation with categorizing artworks, especially those that deal with multi media, or "new" media. With the advancement of technology, i believe it has become easier to be open and understanding to current creative practices, while at the same time, difficult to have a grasp on current applications, since technology moves at such a fast pace.

-Of the object-oriented "sculptural" work being made today, what type of work do you find most challenging to accept or understand?

I recently have been puzzled with the idea of "fallen paintings" to be at times categorized as sculpture. I find it challenging when very flat, two dimensional pieces are categorized as sculpture. I am wanting to understand how and when a piece that is either 2D or 3D should be categorized as sculpture.