The sculpture became a tool; but like a scale in a microscope, invisible when next to a specimen. The wall’s position directed our views and revealed what we missed as we passed through the first empty field. The simple, apparently flat field was transformed into a rich topographical play. The silhouettes of the trees appeared and disappeared; only their shadows assured their presence. The walls seemed to only surface with the wind, when the tall grasses would dance with their shadows on their aged faces. “Shift” could exist nowhere else. Its content - its purpose - was deeply rooted in the site. The scale was distinctly separate from its size - owing to its context.
Serra rigorously criticizes the common practice of most architects, of designing in the studio and away from the site. He claims setting miniature models in designed landscapes results in an architecture which appears as “blown up cardboard models” in reality. For Serra there exists a distinct difference between size and scale, the latter of which is dependant on context . Of course we as architects cannot feasibly make one to one models of our designs, but we can take in the contrasting notion of spatial experience.