Site Specificity

For this section, we have to read two articles from Miwon Kwon about site specific art. The first one is “Genealogy of Site Specificity,” where Miwon mainly discusses what is site specific art. In it, Miwon argues that anything can be categorized into this particular genre ranging from a studio, gallery, landscape, to even runaway show. The second article “Unhinging of Site Specificity,” Kwon goes on and focuses on the authenticity of site specific art; it cannot be site specific anymore if the art piece was moved. “To remove the work is to destroy the work. (12)” It loses its originality and meaning when replicate since it would not be in the same environment and it would be set up by someone else rather than the artist him/herself. However, Kwon mentions several ways to solve such problem, such as having the certification for the replication from the artist, or if the artist was present during the reproduction, then it is still considered to be authentic. Reproducing these art works also takes away their aesthetic values. When an art is reproduced, it becomes more common, which Miwon call commodity. Reproducing art seems inauthentic to me because all the original conditions were gone. I believe in craftsman's work a lot. However, Kwon doesn't think consider that the meanings behind the art works are lost through the process of transported. There are two things I'm a little bit confused about, is minimalism the same with site specificity? Also, since reproducing an art work looses its aesthetic value because its not original, how about Andy Warhol's work?