Some of you seem confused

[nataliecoronado]

Art History major here, it is EXTREMELY worth noting that "Perfect Lovers" is believed by art historians to be specifically about the tragedy of the AIDS crisis. Gonzales-Torres's partner Ross Laycock was diagnosed with AIDS in 1987, and a letter with a rough sketch of the piece, at the time simply titled "Lovers", was sent to Laycock in 1988:

_"Don't be afraid of the clocks, they are our time, the time has been so generous to us. We imprinted time with the sweet taste of victory. We conquered fate by meeting at a certain time in a certain space. We are a product of the time, therefore we give back credit were it is due: time. We are synchronized, now forever. I love you."_

The fact that one of the clocks is destined to wear out sooner than the other, and eventually that clock will stop entirely while the remaining one has no choice but to keep ticking forward without its partner, is a raw reflection people like Torres faced during the height of the AIDS crisis. And it's very important that this facet to the piece be acknowledged

[Turtlee.]

thank you!! you're so rightt, i think it all goes back to that meme with the guy pointing to some abstract piece like "Ha ha What does this represent?"

and then the painting points back to him like, "What do YOU represent?"

with art to understand another artist, you give as much as you get back and i think a lot of people dismiss modern/post modern art because they simply aren't giving that part of themselves, that empathy and connection that art is supposed to foster.

[saramicspottery]

I really wish I hadn’t had to cut this down to fit it into 60 seconds, so here’s some of what I cut:

The two lovers start in sync, but due to the flaws inherent in their mechanics they will slowly, millisecond by millisecond, desynchronize, falling out of step with each other over time. And inevitably one clock’s batteries will give out first. You don’t know which clock, or when, but at some point there will be one clock, ticking alone, with its partner frozen at the time it ceased to function beside it. With just two clocks Torres lays out two entire human lifetimes. And this is just one, quite literal interpretation of this piece.

[HuntingSunder]

-Pointing aggressively at Marcel Duchamp's Fountain-
You're so right! Art is more than just the physical matter molded by someone into a different shape than before. It's also the movements required to make the work, the intention of the artist, the reception and reactions of the viewers, the culture that the work contributes to and builds off of, and a thousand other things.
You can have an opinion of whether the art is good or bad, but that too becomes part of the work, part of the history of the piece.

[kennedygrff]

I love that you addressed this topic! Fun fact (and a modern art rant), most historians will classify the start of “Modern Art” with the impressionists in the late 19th century France because the massive shift in their style and reason for making art because of an increase of private art collectors (there’s a lot more but I’m trying to keep this somewhat concise). These famous impressionist artists like Manet, Monet, Degas, Renoir, Cassatt, and many were able to build a career creating what they wanted to make, not what they thought would get them commissioned.

This change allowed them much more artistic freedom defined by the artist rather than the patron and gradually evolved to later artists pushing the boundaries of the medium through color, shape, space, design, medium, and concept. Modern art and post modern art is just artists expanding and experimenting with techniques and concepts like Felix Gonzalez-Torres, Damien Hirst, Chris Ofili, Andres Serrano, Lynda Benglis, Yayoi Kusama, Banksy, Jackson Pollock, Andy Warhol, Frida Kahlo, Pablo Picasso, and Marcel Duchamp.

Modern art developed from breaking past rules and restrictions of the medium, and we are just looking at a new evolution of it today. Not all art is supposed to aesthetic, make you comfortable, or be initially understandable (which is why many artists label their work as untitled so that the audience can find their interpretation first). You do not need to like the artwork for it to be art.

Modern art and post-modern art is supposed to be and very intentionally different from more traditional art. Also I’m not trying to say the one is better than the other, they’re just different. It’s like looking at a tomato and expecting it to taste like an apple because they both are red things you eat.

Sorry that this was so long but I hope that was interesting and it might have helped you learn something!

[savannahcarlon]

Gonzalez-Torres' work is heartbreakingly beautiful. It takes some understanding to really get it, but once you do it will rip you to pieces.

[grxngetrash]

one of my absolute favorite artists of all time. All of his different portraits of his partner tell a beautifully heartbreaking story with simply mundane, everyday objects. Portrait Of Ross will forever be one of my most favorite works of art

[lilyjade]

i dont think ive heard a better verbal explanation of art and artists than this in a long time. u did an incredible job at elaborating this for 'non-artists'

[potatokinishes]

i also feel like that perfect lovers piece speaks to the whole “right person wrong time” phenomenon, like people can be so in love with eachother and yet the timing is somehow not right for one person or another, and while one partner might feel ready to commit, another one is terrified.

if they could somehow let go of their reservations and find their way back to eachother, their timing just might be perfect.

[blitszina]

I think a big issue is that people assume all art needs to be judged ok similar criteria. Like, object art aint gonna be similar like a painting which can already be different kinds of ways.

Like you're not going to think an action movie and a detective movie are similar. Heck complaining that the detective movie doesnt have enoiygh fights in it can be weird.
You aint gonna judge metal and classical on the exact same merits.

I feel like with any art theres going to be crossover but people need to realize that not all modern art was made to be pretentious. And a lot of it shouldnt be judged on the same criteria as you'd think of and judge a van gogh.

Also speaking of great art, theres this candy pile art piece where visitors are encouraged to take the candy. (I think its called portret of ross)
And its such a good art piece as it represents the weight loss and other complications thanks to aids that Felix's lover had before he passed (Ross passed from aids).
Its heart wrenching and makes you think deeply.

[anthonythomas]

the work that brought me to realize this is.... actually another Felix Gonzalez-Torres piece, "March 5th": two lightbulbs hanging next to each other, cords entwined, which, like the clocks, derives poignancy from the likelihood that one of the bulbs will burn out first and leave the other shining alone. it didn't mean anything to me until I read the little wall plaque, and then it meant so much

[Totallynotsweg]

I mean, I really didn't think much of the clocks until you explained it, and damn that's beautifully sad 🥺

[rezzy]

Thank you for breaking this barrier in my mind. Now I might need to go find some tissues because these clocks are breaking my heart.

[mrggy]

My issue with postmodern visual art is that the visual aspect is often secondary to the idea, so secondary in fact that it's arguably unnecessary or superfluous. The idea behind perfect lovers is really interesting and impactful. But you telling me about it with words is the impactful part. The visual aspect added little. I like for my visual art to be both thought provoking *and* visually interesting.

[solaniamorgansteign]

Art is subjective, just because one person doesn't appreciate or enjoy a piece doesn't mean the art has less meaning. It's still art no matter who fails to see it

[BYakimets]

in my opinion, if it makes you feel something, its art. even if that emotion is disdain or anger, it still made you feel. its an artist reaching out through a medium and being reinterpreted by the observer. art can be as simple or as fancy bullsh*t as you want

[denelian]

I enjoy most art - there's some that feels very "minimal effort" that I dislike, but even the shapeless modem art conveys emotion.
My current five artist is here on YouTube too - he uses spray paint to create planets and systems and its amazing... just a circle and some blending of spray paint but... it makes you DREAM
(I'm anti- crafty.i mess up every single visual art except greenware, and even that I often need someone else to clean. But your pottery is AMAZING art and I love watching you, in part because I'm incapable. Just like I love to watch dance, now that I can't even walk anymore...)

[jessicacass]

I think art is everything.
Humanity amd quite literally all of vreatuon is reliant on evolution and progression. Nothing progresses without some navigation of change and thus you need fresh ideas. Freah ideas lead to what works or what doesn't.
Elitists take over but thats mostly due to the fact that they cant come up with what id fresh by their own exploration of deesh...they rely on the exploration of others. The leading edge of creation is quite literally always next. 💜

[AshleeKnowsNot]

I really like how you did this video. Like the editing quality and the live commentary versus the voiceover. I suspect this is probably more work but it works really well.

[ash-is-trash]

Glad you explained the work here because you showcased them still so I got the meaning wrong. To me, they looked off by a minute or so, so I thought it was more of a "right person wrong time" just missed the person of your dreams "ships passing in the night" type of meaning

Also, anyone complaining about the visuals is bothering me bc the visual of the clocks next to each other IS really beautiful imo