Ok, I recently saw a video by Spanish artist and YouTuber Antonio García Villarán about this so-called «artist» Félix González-Torres and I just had to tell you about it. First, the «artist» has been exhibited in great venues like the Guggenheim and the Museum of Modern Art in Manhattan. That tells me nothing about his art. It tells me he has the right connections…
The above «art-work», composed of two cheap clocks (I mean there is nothing special about them), is supposed to symbolise him and his partner (who died of AIDS). The clocks are set to the same time, but as the installation runs, the clocks eventually run a bit out of sync with each other. I must admit that I do not see any of this is the two clocks. If this explanation was not provided I would have no clue.
And the information itself is rather contrived. The two clocks are identical. I do not think the «artist» and his lover were identical twins. Also there is indication there of anyone dying of AIDS as the international symbol of AIDS is a red ribbon…
To me this is taking us for a ride, having us on, bullshitting! This is the art of nothing! No one would see anything on the MoMA’s wall except for two ordinary, office style clocks. They do not represent two lovers, or one who died and the other kept ticking or anything about synchronisation of their lives. It is utter rubbish!
How installations like these get into great museums makes me wonder about the curators and directors of these supposed fine art institutions. I would feel cheated after paying and being subjected to such «art».
And I am not going to mention anything about the «artist». If anyone is interested in his work, I am sure they will look him up. I usually feature art and artists, both of my liking or dislike, but the main requisite is that they must be «artists» not posers.
What do you think?
JaZzArt en València 
I can accept that the artist believes this to be art, but it does not say anything to me, certainly none of the things you mentioned.
Me gustaLe gusta a 1 persona
I would have never imagined any of the things in the narrative by just looking at those clocks…
Me gustaLe gusta a 1 persona
It seems to me that something is missing from a work if it needs some kind of additional explanation
Me gustaLe gusta a 1 persona
Visual art needs no explanation… but this conceptual art, without an explanation is basically nothing…
Me gustaLe gusta a 1 persona
I have serious problems with modern art of this type. We say in Spanish, «Hazte fama y échate a la cama». Once someone has the label of artist attached, he can sell anything (phenomenon shown in experiments). The label doesn’t come from talent exclusively, it can be purchased with money and connections (as the posts suggests), and the audience doesn’t challenge it because it represents status, no art.
Me gustaLe gusta a 1 persona
Yes, I know that saying, but I believe that just because you have a uni degree and your work has been exhibited at the MoMA, you do not get a free pass. An artist has to vindicate himself with every work he makes. But these artists are not making art, they are making money… and there is nothing wrong with making money but you cannot have people on. Es una auténtica tomadura de pelo. Un saludo y muchísimas gracias.
Me gustaLe gusta a 1 persona
I agree utter bullshit.
Me gustaLe gusta a 1 persona
For sure!
Me gustaMe gusta
I think you have hit the nail on the head (perhaps that should be an image displayed at MoMa…). Perhaps it is politically incorrect to regard this type of art as «bullshit» by those who believe they are more refined and sophisticated!
Me gustaLe gusta a 1 persona
Right! And they think we’re stupid or incapable of recognising the bullshit they’re feeding us. But we’re not. If we do not see anything in those ridiculous instalments it’s because there’s nothing there…
Me gustaLe gusta a 1 persona
If I were in that exhibition, the image will make me rage
Me gustaLe gusta a 1 persona
And rightly so Cassa Bassa!
Me gustaMe gusta