It is or it isn't?

Throughout the presented stories, what I was most intrigued with was the argument posed: How do you define what is sculpture and what is instillation? I am of the opinion that they are almost one and the same, but I am sure there are artists out there who view themselves as sculptors and would be appalled to be called ‘instillation artists,’ and likewise many instillation artists whom would never refer to themselves as sculptors. However if this line between the two really does exist, how and where should it be drawn? In the story on matter, matter is referred to as pretty much any sculptural tool, but to be defined as a tool representative of sculpture is restricting, because many of the materials described as matter are used in other areas of art. This whole idea brings back the topic from the beginning of the year where we tried to discover what was really drawing, for instance, it could be many things, not just drawing with a pencil on some paper. So what is really happening here and with every aspect of art, is that the lines are starting to blur. The edges and definitions we have used are starting to disappear, and calling something a ‘drawing’ or ‘sculpture’ has become a much more defining and hard to accomplish task. The role of the artist has started to complicate itself because we no longer even know an exact title for what it is we’re doing anymore, which if you think about it, is kind of hilarious.