Minimal?

i've been thinking a lot recently about definitions. Why do we call something a given name? What characteristics of an object actually allow us to define it? By what criteria do judge our definitions as valid?

This existential questioning about the nature of things was provoked by this image from Dan Flavin's retrospective at the Guggenheim:

Untitled (to Tracy, to celebrate the love of a lifetime), 1992

The reason this piece provoked such thoughts was that it contradicted what i had thought  about Flavin. I had always seen Flavin as the quintessential minimalist. His work was not concerned with demonstrating authorial skill but rather with creating 

a dialoguebetween object and space. When we look at a piece like the nominal three (to WIlliam Ockham) it is not the technical skill of the artist that we marvel at. The simple materials used and basic arrangement prevent any such reaction. Rather by keeping the objects simple we move away from thinking about them in isolation towards a consideration of how they interact with the context in which they are displayed. Flavin's work then is an important turning point in art and paves the way for conceptual art and site specific practices. 

Under the literal definition of the word the work is 

certainly minimal. Firstly there is not much to the lights used  by. They are basic strip lights that could be bought anywhere. It is also minimal in the sense that very little production is required to make the work. The lights are just attached to the wall. But the work is also part of the Minimalist tradition. Beyond the physical properties of the work the concepts that inform the piece adhere to principles of a specific genre of art. It is a combination of all these parts that make the piece such a clear articulation of Minimalism.

When we turn to Untitled (to Tracy, to celebrate the love of a lifetime) the work feels quite different. The work could no longer be described in any physical sense: it is simply too big. Yet in many ways it still adheres to the principles so indicative of Minimalism. This not a piece that fails to take into account the place in which it is being shown. Rather the strong vertical column draws our attention to the spiral staircase that surrounds it. It is not trying to overpower the space but enter into a dialogue with it. Within this dialogue elements of both parts are revealed. The light from the sculpture literally, and metaphorically, illuminates the staircase. In turn the stair case provides and ever changing platform from which to view the work. It is this sort of relationship that was integral to Minimalism and this is continued here. 

But there is no escaping the fact the size of the work introduces a degree of monumentality to it and this seems to contradict some of the principles shown in the earlier piece. It may be Minimal is principle but not so in execution. So can both pieces be said to represent Minimalism? I guess it depends on how you define it. If a piece is defined solely by its' concept then yes they could. But this neglects a huge part of the work and seems unsatisfying. Rather we should not use definitions so stringently. To define anything in fixed terms is an injustice to the mutable nature of the world we live in. Instead lets accept that things develop and change as is necessary. We can borrow and combine various aesthetics and concepts but ultimately is the end product the is of consequence.