Conversation

Will Scullin
@willscullin
When I don't renew my
@artinstitutechi
membership for the first time, it's because AIC desecrated "Untitled" (Portrait of Ross in L.A.) by Felix Gonzalez-Torres. The erasure of Ross's memory and Gonzalez-Torres's intent in the new description is an unconsciable and banal evil.
A beige Art Institute of Chicago gallery plaque reading: Felix Gonzalez-Torres American, born Cuba, 1957-1996 "Untitled" (Portrait of Ross in L.A) 1991 Candies individually wrapped in multicolor cellophane This installation is an allegorical portrait of the artist's partner, Ross Laycock, who died of an AIDS-related illness in 1991. The 175 pounds of candy can be seen to correspond to Laycock's ideal body weight. Adult visitors are invited to take a piece of candy; the diminishing pile parallels Laycock's weight loss prior to his death. The museum can choose to replenish the pile, metaphorically ensuring Laycock perpetual life, or to let the pile disappear over time.
A banal beige Art Institute of Chicago gallery plaque reading: Felix Gonzalez-Torres American, born Cuba, 1957-1996 "Untitled" (Portrait of Ross in L.A) 1991 Candies individually wrapped in multicolor cellophane, endless supply Overall dimensions vary with installation; ideal weight: 175 lbs. Felix Gonzalez-Torres's work is characterized by a sense of quiet elegy. He possessed an uncanny ability to produce elegant and restrained sculptural forms out of common materials. "Untitled" (Portrait of Ross in L.A.) consists of commercially available shiny wrapped confections. The physical form of the work changes depending on the way it is installed. The ideal weight of the work, 175 pounds, corresponds to the average body weight of an adult male. As visitors choose to take candy from the work, the volume and weight of the work decrease.
Readers added context they thought people might want to know
Both labels posted are old. The current label text is as published on the website: artic.edu/artworks/15296…
Context is written by people who use Twitter, and appears when rated helpful by others. Find out more.
3,717
Retweets
899
Quotes
11.3K
Likes
389
Bookmarks
Gareth Clarke
@lockonandfire
Not just erasing the memory of the person that the work is actually about, but in doing so also robbing the piece of almost all meaning. An astonishingly awful job of curation.
1
1,044
VirginiaM🦉
@VirginiaMohlere
Wow, that piece is one of the first things I talk about when trying to explain how vital context is to art - especially modern art. To strip out the context from this brutal & poignant piece is a travesty. I’m so surprised AIC would make this choice.
3
763
Josephine Stewart
@jostewart
WHOA. I've never seen this piece in person, but I know about it, and the *first*, most important thing I learned about it was that it was a lament for a lost partner and an indictment of the systems that failed him. How can they possibly justify this?
1
287