In looking at this piece I find myself much more inspired by its attempt to define public/site-specific art. To be honest I'd never much considered creating public art before taking this class, nor had I thought critically about public art beyond appreciating its overall design. Instead of bogging us down with overly nuanced terminology. Practicing 'critical spacial practice' doesn't seem as overbearing as the way site-specific design is defined in the other reading. Coming up with problems/questions in a specific site or a way to cause the audience to question the site seems demanding but invigorating.
Though I was formerly a Poli-Sci major I can't seem to understand why in talking about critical theory why Rendell connects all of the writers through their interest in Marx, Freud, and Hegel. Though combined they represent major players in the history of Political-Science/Psychiatry/Sociology respectively I don't see why she brings the subject up.
In reading this what I truly realized is that public art doesn't/shouldn't just beautify a space. It can critique a space, call into question the use/problems that exist around the site. To me this is a fairly different way of thinking on site-specificity.
