getting the public to understand what that metal thingy in front of the post office really means

Abstract, large sculptures in public spaces became seen as doing nothing "for" the public and thus seen as simply a status symbol for the upper class and large corporations, as Kwon put it, these artworks became seen as "architectural jewelery." The way to remedy this was to make the artwork melt into or at least harmonize with the atmosphere created by the architecture and provide for a physical need of the public, via seating/shade. It's lack of these features and strong opposition to it is the reason Serra's Tilted Arc was so strongly opposed. What is interesting to consider is that Serra's art really was doing a service for the people, by pointing out the strong boundary between the classes and the government and it's people. The only problem is that the public, seeing this embodiment of the borders and boundaries, feared and resented the representation, not the actual and institutionalized borders that were restricting them. My question is, why couldn't a compromise be reached, something like partially burying the sculpture to provide those grassy hills and shade, while still revealing the boundaries that used to be? If Serra's art really was a critique and not just aesthetically determined, then shouldn't a compromise be appropriate since it would represent a change in attitude of the upper class?

A similar case is in Meyer's article from Space, Site, Intervention. Fred Wilson's "mining the Museum" was a critique on the racist history of the city. He used only things that had actually been in the Museum, however people said he didn't know what he was doing. I'm guessing this is partly because they want to deny their city's negative past and act as though he wasn't getting the whole picture. The public's hostility is turned towards the artist instead of the social political issue he himself was trying to point attention to. I am wondering if there have been successful attempts to criticize without causing a controversy based around the artist. What methods have been employed to make the art accepted and understood by the public, without detracting from it's political critiquing power? Do signs with a written explanation help? Words incorporated into the art? A different kind of art perhaps, more readily understood? Anonymity of the artist?