SItings of Public Art

Question 1:
On page 67, Kwon says it was understood that there was "a casual relationship between the aesthetic quality of the built environment and the quality of social conditions it supported". This translates to me as: the commissioners, and the money they provide for their public works of art are directly correlated to the socioeconomic status and culture of the area. However, isn't public art supposed to be more about the people, the heart of the city? These are works are supposed to be more "accessible and socially responsible, that is, more public". Yet, these public works of art (and the ones I am used to seeing) are all located in wealthy and scholarly areas - i.e. universities, city's financial districts, etc. and seem like merely an extension of the museum, the white cube, and the power relationships it plays to.

Question 2:
What exactly is "plop art"? Is this art that is incongruent and a relative eye sore amongst the architecture and gardens of the surrounding grounds? The author discusses how some artists try to create a uselessness in their art sculpture (i.e. Tilted Arc). Is the purpose of this uselessness actually to be harsh and contrasting with its surroundings and shake up the landscape of a public space? Kwon also talks about discomposure between the art work and site and its important is breaking up the "repressed social contradictions" that run through public spaces by being site-specific. Is "plop art" site-specific?