Sitings of Public Art

Q1. Are there any exact rules for a site specific art work to be a public art work? I don't really understand this part because it seems to be very subjective. In the article, there are critics argued that “autonomous signature-style art works sited in public places functioned more like extensions of the museum, advertising individual artists and their accomplishments (65).” So does that mean that if the art works were signed for recognition, they are more qualified to be the public art works?

Q2. Kwon argued in the article that the “public art was a pleasant visual contrast to the rationalized regularity of its surroundings, providing a nice decorative effect (65).” However, in today's situation, the art works that were being displayed were in a form of abstract art, and they usually had a deeper meanings in them. In this case, how can the public appreciate such genre since such type of art, the modern arts back then, was misunderstood? What do they expect the public to feel or think when viewing these art works? Are they really just for decoration purpose?