In his articles "The Function Of The Studio" and "The Function of the Studio Revisited" Daniel Buren discusses the role of the artists studio in establishing a context for the work.
In his essays the author makes an argument for the studio as a true showcase of artwork stating, "It is therefore only in the studio that the work may be said to belong." (pg 53) The more the work is exhibited outside its studio the more disconnected it becomes from its origin. However, he also recognizes that the work can't live only in the studio either. The artist must sell the work to earn a living, and the work was created with the understanding that it would leave the studio.
It becomes a lose-lose situation. He describes Museums as cemeteries coldly lining up artwork. They become so disconnected from their context that they've lost their original meaning...But he describes the artworks life in the studio as a purgatory with limited viewers, impact, and eventually storage out of sight.
It's not surprising to me given the authors view on the studio and the museum, that the author is a site specific installation artist. In his revised article from 2007 he states, "It is a different case when the artwork calls on the specifics of its location for its identity and completion and cannot be installed or seen in another place." (pg 90)
I'm happy I took the time to read and contemplate his article. Too often art is rotated solely because of logistics. I think more artists and curators should consider the impact the venue and context has on the lifespan of the artwork.