What Is an Art Object? How It Differs from Sculpture and Installation

An art object is a standalone work made as a physical object. It exists in space and is read as a whole, not as an image on a flat surface. It can be any size and made from any material.

With that definition in hand, it’s tempting to draw a sharp line straight away: this is an art object, this is a sculpture, and this is an installation. But a system like that works poorly with contemporary art. Whether it’s an installation, a sculpture or an art object, the point isn’t to sort works into boxes on the principle of “either A, or B, or nothing at all”.

For an artist, it’s more interesting to unsettle those boundaries. To look at how we see a work, how we make sense of it and how we think about it. The argument over which category a work belongs in is, by and large, secondary to what the artist wants to say.

Art object, sculpture or installation

It’s still useful to keep the practical difference between the terms in mind. Sculpture works with form and volume. An installation is assembled from several elements and takes over the space around the viewer, whereas an art object exists as a separate thing.

But these aren’t three closed territories. The same work can be read both as a sculpture and as an art object. Where the line falls depends on how the work is put together and what the artist is trying to resolve.

You see, we often try to judge art through the frame of reference we’re used to. When we’re looking at a painting, attention drifts easily towards visual language. When an artist works with light, sound or space, criteria of visual resemblance alone are no longer enough. A work has to be looked at through the system within which it was made.

That’s why the question “what is the right name for my work?” shouldn’t become the main one. A term isn’t there to force a work into a category. It helps a viewer, a curator or a gallery understand what they’re dealing with.

That is exactly where I would start. If what we have is a separate physical thing that exists in space as a work in its own right, the term “art object” may be perfectly accurate. If the work is built on several elements interacting with the space, we’re already closer to an installation.

Where artists come across art objects in practice

Art objects don’t necessarily exist only within the main exhibition display. At a gallery’s front desk, next to the catalogues, there may be small editioned sculptures, art objects or the artist’s own merch. In that situation, artists need to understand for themselves where the line runs between their institutional strategy and the editioned side of their practice.

Here I like a very simple way of putting it. Setting up a shop inside a gallery would be strange. Giving merch a small space on the reception desk isn’t strange at all.

The mere fact that an edition exists doesn’t devalue the main practice. The question is how everything is separated out and presented. An artist’s merch can exist on its own, for example on a page of its own or in a different space, while small editioned objects can take their place next to the exhibition.

There’s also a neighbouring field: collectible design. An artist can make art objects and, in parallel, work on pieces of collectible design. Sometimes these pieces sit at the same level of presentation and speak to the same audience. In that case it makes perfect sense to show this related experience in your professional documents.

Here again, the division into disciplines turns out to be largely a matter of convention. An artistic practice can come out of architecture, design or another field and then continue in the gallery space.

When related experience becomes part of an artistic practice

Alexander Brodsky is a good example of this kind of transition. His professional background is in the “paper architecture” movement. He designed the renovation of Winzavod, the Moscow art centre, and represented his country at the Venice Architecture Biennale.

Today his gallery-format works and art objects are shown by galleries and museums that have no connection with architecture. The form has changed, but the ideas and motifs carry on. In a situation like this, architectural experience isn’t a separate, former profession that has to be kept out of an artist’s documents.

For an artist, this is quite a telling case. Related experience is worth listing when it’s connected to your current artistic practice and helps people read it. If an artist works with architecture or collectible design and that line continues in their art objects, having the two side by side makes perfect sense.

The same goes for the label “art object” itself. There’s no need to use it to lend extra weight to an ordinary item. It’s far more useful to ask whether the term helps people understand what kind of work this is and how it exists in space.