counter-hinging Spec Siteificity

Interesting to note, why would anyone write about the genealogy of a topic that they did not feel compelled was important enough to write about? This motive is evident in the interesting choice of title in the following chapter, "Unhinging of Site Specificity." Though the initial chapter bears seemingly no evidence of criticism or bias, it is through various subtle wordings and forms of content that this bias is made explicit (though I claim this to be nothing more than obvious, filler space to ensue).
First page, first chapter, Kwon states an odd paradox, "site specific works used to be obstinate about 'presence,' even if they were materially ephemeral, and adamant about immobility, even in the face of dissappearance or destruction," bringing together two (non-respective) opposing viewpoints on site-specificity: 1) a criticism and 2) a support. The latent criticism comes about in pointing out inconsistencies with the art form -- that the artwork's meaning be tied to the location even after it has lost its presence, for example moving from exhibit to exhibit. The support, on the other hand, comes in the nature of (as the author notes later on) suggesting that even when a site-specific work is removed from its original location, that it still maintains its original meaning because it is still attached to it (because of the controversy, the artist sees, in the removal or transfer of the piece; it is the tension in the move itself that Kwon claims gives rise to the piece's clear connection to its original location, or spacial frame as I call it).
Unfortunately (for me?), it seems that perhaps neither may be the case, as Kwon seems to be arguing that site-specific works were better the way they 'used to be,' and Kwon points out this detail (the paradox) as a used-to form of site-specificity. Therefore, it would remain that either Kwon somehow subtly is opposing the origin of site-specificity, perhaps in a sense encouraging this new commodification of the artist; or quite possibly she is just arbitrarily announcing that there is a paradox apparent in the realization of the art piece.