Siting of Public Art: Integration Versus Intervention

"Siting of Public Art: Integration Versus Intervention" by Miwon Kwon was fairly interesting to read.

The central issue here (of public commissioned artists) is the placement of the discrete art. Instead of the intention previously being the main concern, from what i gather here it is the location and the viewing of that work in its location.
The physical aspects of the location/space do not matter. It is the artwork becoming the feature, the "extraneous element" within that building or space that matters.
Alternatively, many other artists used location/space as a foundation for their work creating strict separation between art & architecture: "complimentary visual contrast as the defining relationship between the two"
*Does the viewer's response/reaction mean anything- are we looking at any means of engagement like Relational Aesthetics? (or am i just trying to relate relational aesthetics back to everything?)
So basically, works become legitimate "public art" when the location that the work is situated in is outdoors with public access.
What i found interesting was that Kwon goes on to say the relationship of the work to the site is incidental, and the conditions of the site are irrelevant.

Expectations were being made of public art - that it was to rectify boring architecture, to supplement the "ill effects of the repetitive, monotonous, and fuctionalist style of modernist architecture" (p.64) Here public art was to enhance and bring something to its enviornment/location (here being the urban space). Then when the public art wasn't meeting these high expectations at play, the art- in-public-places approach began to be criticized. Kwon describes that "the autonomous signature-style art works sited in public spaces functioned more like extensions of the muesum": the problem being that the individual artists work was being produced produced- works which did not necessarily relate to the audience or particularly engage the audience. These works ("uninteresting and meaningless") were not for the general public eye, they were not suitable for a public site specific location.
I think that placing an individual/personal artwork in a public space is obviously always going to be problematic. And for such high expecations of these public artworks there must have had to be some criteria for to which they could achieve these expecations.
We can never please everybody- as some people found these works satisfying ("pleasant visual contrast") and others reciprocated "hostility" towards these works, the fact of the matter is they are viewing the works in a general public space. Usually when viewing works in a gallery, the audience are people who at least appreciate art (because they have taken that step to walk into the art gallery etc), the artworld, artists.. But a public work is a different story because the general public is practically everybody. People who do not necessarily appreciate art are being confronted with it, almost undoubtedly without a choice - because it is there in a public space, and you can't miss it.

The part about the expansions of corporate real estate developments increasing pressures to rehabilitate the art-in-public-places program. This made me think to question does the location also add pressure for the expectations of the artists' work? Does it determine the art work at all? Does a wealthier area deserve more "urban beautification"? Does a less wealthy area have fewer expectations for appropriateness when it comes to public art?