There seems to be a kind of circular rhetoric that weaves in and out of the 'art within a context' discussion, or the 'what is art' question. Both of which will probably forever continue to fuel many debates and commentaries. In this paper, I would like to provide a discourse on the topic of gallery space vs. traditional museum space, beginning in the 19th Century and going through the late 20th Century. It is interesting to read about such topics and find yourself walking in and out of a 'revolving door' of sorts. Through my research, I started at one point and found, in the end, that I returned to the fundamental ideology with which I began. In doing so, it led me to another question of what the gallery space and the traditional museum space mean to us (our society) at present. In other words, these architectural structures (museum and gallery space alike) inevitably had analytical issues and vernaculars surrounding them published essays that one reads about in today's libraries. However, what would the perceptual implications of the form and function of those structures be today? Time and technology have brought about change so quickly and steadily that things that were architecturally innovative in the late 20th Century have now become seemingly obsolete in the eyes of the general public. A sort of anesthetization of what we notice, or don't notice in the structural world that we inhabit. These are all topics I will get to throughout the paper. Let's first begin with the 19th Century.
             In response to the excesses of the previous period brought on by the Industrial Revolution, the 19th Century witnessed a type of return to the historical faith in reason. With a resurgence of conservatism, the styles of self-limitation and entrapment began to work their way back into the architecture of the times. However, a conflict continued to grow between this conservatism and the inevitable forces of change. The Industrial Revolution b...