Site Specificity

Sorry for the rambling blog. I've been sick, and I'm not sure if I'll make it to class to today.

Miwon Kwon in “Genealogy of Site Specificity” and “Unhinging of Site Specificity” explains patterns of art throughout the 20th century and how it is dependent on time, place and context of the origination. Before reading these articles, I would not have considered anything but location to contribute to or make artwork "site specific." There is ultimately no escape from meaning of the setting. Kwon says that specific art should not only be aesthetically enjoyed by it should also be an experience of the here and now. Kwon also says that artwork loses its meaning when its reproduced in more then one exhibit in two different places, producing two widely polarized results. For the most part, I agree with Kwon on this. I think that by producing two pieces of art, they cannot be called the same thing. The artwork loses its uniqueness, which to me is the main idea behind art. Also, I like the point Kwon makes about how relocating art is destroying it on page 268. This shows that site is just as important as the artwork itself, which to me, is very interesting. However, Kwon explains that as time goes on more and more art is considered “site specific” and now almost anything can be considered so. Because of this, Kwon doesn't believe there is such a thing anymore.

1. Is museum space considered public or private space?

2. How have the guidelines to make something “site specific” changed over time?