Leo Steinberg’s account describes a change in artists’ way of working to more radically changing fields, of which he believed was harshly critiqued by society due to their strict regime of working at the time. He makes the case that Rauschenberg believed that the flatbed picture plane would deal with a different order of experience for the viewer, no longer being a head-to-toe correspondence with the human posture- an exciting new prospect for artists.

In comparison to Steinberg, Richard Serra talks of his own practice in site specific works, and how he was first introduced to the world of sculpture due to his work in steel mills since the age of seventeen. Serra believes that works dedicated to one site should be constructed in that site and be inseparable from their location; rather than being made in a studio and shifted from one space to another. Unlike Steinberg’s description of Rauschenberg’s entry to a ‘Nature in Art’ exhibition, hanging a square patch of grass in a gallery and returning to water the piece daily, transitioning the piece from nature to culture in a radical manner. Serra continues to describe the importance of site specific works as they can be inferred as representative of the institutions around the piece, so the artist must be careful not to offend. Along with this, corporate funded works could be read as a public service; therefore, meeting these needs could be suggested as giving into consumerism.