Pretty sure you're giving me shit instead of asking a genuine question but whatever, I'll explain myself anyway.

To me, the bench contextualizes the human form within existing infrastructure.

Ok so you can't successfully design a bench without thinking about the human body, right? Its entire purpose is for people to sit on it so you have to consider how people like to sit on stuff. Its height above the ground should probably be about the height of the average person from knee down, not too low that it's hard to sit on or stand up from, not to high that it's awkward or dangerous to get on top of it. Maybe you're intentionally making it a weird height / shape as some sort of commentary on the human form or something, but I don't think that's the designer's intention here. There's a whole minutiae of other measurements and materials that the designer is likely considering as well - every detail about the bench's width, length, surface materials, supports, etc has an impact on both its form and function. All of these factors should take into consideration the way human bodies can interface with it.

I'm assuming the city square that these benches are built on was there before. All those measurements I'm talking about don't really apply to just making a walking surface. But in using the bricks from the ground as the medium for the bench, the designer is creating a dialogue between the ground and the bench, and since the bench is directly related to the human form, so too are the bricks beneath it. Basically the designer is using stuff that's built for one purpose and interacts with people one way, and translating it into stuff that has a different purpose and interacts with people another way. That's cool to me.

It gives multi-axis motion to an otherwise flat landscape.

Think this is pretty self explanatory, but I think it's cool the way the flat city square rolls up into the bench. It's kind of a playful way of exploring how one surface can take on shapes that it wasn't really meant for. I also like how the bench seamlessly blends into the ground, which to me gives it the sense of motion, elegance, fluidity. Those aren't words I typically associate with that sort of object, and it's cool to see them at play here.

It's a reimagination of the park bench, which is inherently innovative.

Again, pretty self-explanatory, and sort of on the subject of semantics that I was trying to steer away from. But for me, innovation doesn't have to be electric cars or new applications for stem cells, it can be as simple as causing people to think about an object that they're used to interfacing with in a new way. Doesn't sound like much, but I do think helping people think differently is absolutely related to progressing our society. Plus it looks pretty sweet and different - aesthetic innovation is certainly impactful even though the utilitarian function isn't really different from any other bench.

I wasn't trying to sound smart or self-righteous or whatever, it's just easier to write a couple sentences instead of all this shit.