Christopher Knight at the LA Times asks whether an as-yet-unrealized Felix Gonalez-Torres sculpture should have been chosen to represent the United States at the Venice Biennale (hat tip MAN). The two primary concerns are whether Gonzalez-Torres really needs the exposure, and whether it is appropriate for a curator to undertake the realization of a new work for which there are only notes and sketches. MAN took up the second issue back in early March, and asked Michelle Reyes to address it in a brief interview. According to Reyes, who is the director of the Felix Gonzalez-Torres Foundation and the Andrea Rosen Gallery:

This is fully formed, completely, no questions. But as per Felix’s working practice, there were parameters for the flexibility intrinsic to the work – there is a choice of two sizes and a choice of materials. As with the majority of Felix’s work, it will look different each time it is installed. There is no one true installation. This is one of the core aspects of the nature of all of Felix’s work.

If, as Sol LeWitt said, “the idea is a machine that makes the art,” there shouldn’t be any problem using the concept and sketches to realize a piece posthumously. But to what extent did Gonzalez-Torres subscribe to this idea of art-making? Although Gonzalez-Torres often built (endless) reproduction into the concept of his pieces (as in the piece Untitled (For Jeff), displayed around San Antonio on billboards to “welcome” the Alameda), and encouraged curator involvement in the production process, it is a question worth asking.

No Comments »