Sitings of Public Art: Integration Versus Intervention

Question 1: In the article, Miwon Kwon talks about how Serra's sculpture and how he does not try to integrate the relationship of sculpture and architecture like other contemporary artists. Kwon uses Hal Foster's definition of sculpture and its "internal necessity" to explain Serra's artwork. He says ' to deconstruct sculpture is to serve its 'internal necessity' to extend sculpture in realtion to process, embodiment, and site is to remain within it.' I still don't understand what he's talking about even though later he says it's basically about distiguishing between a 'medium differential' and "meduim-specific" investigation.


Question 2: Miwon Kwon's article has just proven that contemporary art has too many limitations. Art should not have guidelines or rules. Art should just be (if that makes any sense). The fact that there is a timeline of all the years when NEA changed their policies for they viewed art in open space and simultaneously the changed thoughts of many artists that came to agree with their policies shows the uncreativeness of these kinds of art. It takes how the beauty of art. I agree with Serra when he criticizes both art-in-public-spaces and art-as-public-spaces as trying to work with architecture when in reality these art and architecture should not be made to complement each other. Art has become so controlled that is art even art anymore? Is it even created from someone's want or desire or the government's request?