Site Specifically

As Kwon discussed, and as issac pointed out, in whatever type of site specific art you may or may not always have controversy. i think that, (and i think this of all art) you must have works that provoke and distress, and works that bring comfort or are socially friendly... you have to have night and you have to have day.. it is natural. i believe in Serras point of interrupting the site specific space, of interferring or destroying its monotony or normality... as an artist, you would want this to happen, otherwise you would end up with a great variety of shading areas, seats and pointless fountains... and anything that is generally accepted slowly will become absorbed into everyday monotony.. people will just get used to it, even if at the time of its construction they deemed it fit, it soon becomes just another material communal motif..
but if you have something totally ruining the flow of architecture.. something for the general public to comment on whether for or against, then you have something of worth, something of equal worth to say.. an artwork made to shade people, but on the opposite side of the spectrum. You need the two opposing sides to have the whole i think. In that sense niether type of site specific art is wrong or right...
you could have public endorsed art that would benefit the community, or another artist shooting her or his own guns for the sake of ruining everything, to bring ruin to the norm.. both is beneficial for society i think, whether at the time it seems so or not...