One place after another: Notes on site specificity

Having read Miwon Kwon's 'One Place after Another: Notes on Site Specificity'
I now have a better understanding of the aims of site-specific art. An artist who is working on a site-specific art project would have to take into consideration of the physical elements that will affect the work. This means site-specific art will always be determined/directed to a certain degree by the environment that it is installed in. Therefore creating a relationship between the work and the site. A little text from the reading:

Robert Barry declared in 1969 in an interview that each of his wire installations was "made to suit the place in which it was installed. They cannot be moved without being destroyed."

Richard Serra wrote in a letter(15years after Barry's words) to the Director of the Art-in-Architecture Program: commissioned and designed for one particular site: Federal Plaza. It is a site-specific work and as such not to be relocated. To remove the work is to destroy the work."

Serra continues to add to this in the same year(1989): As I pointed out, Tilted Arcwas conceived from the start as a site-specific sculpture and was not meant to be "site-adjusted" or "relocated." Site-specific works deal with the environmental components of given places. The scale, size, and location of site-specific works are determined by the topography of the site, whether it be urban or landscape or architectural enclosure. The works become part of the site and restructure both conceptually and perceptually the organisation of the site.

The reading also goes on to talking about the many forms of site specificity that challenges the space in which an artwork is viewed. This form has been developed from the ideas of Minimalism and the various forms of institutional critique, and conceptual art. After Barry and Serra artists began to see the site defined by the constraining institutions of art rather than just the physical elements. These artists include: Michael Asher, Hans Haacke, Robert Smithson etc.

Some more text from the reading I found interesting: The seemingly benign architectural features of a gallery/museum in other words, were deemed to be coded mechanisms that actively disassociate the space of art from the outer world, furthering the institutions idealist imperative of rendering itself and its hierarchisation.

It seems to me that the site-specific works tend to return to the ordinary real space of the everyday, disconnecting itself from the artificial environment of the galleries and museums.