Talk:Félix González-Torres

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lizsantillan30. Peer reviewers: Dreasalvador, Gabbsterxoxo.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mtong14. Peer reviewers: Lreyes391, Vetukudo.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:57, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image[edit]

I've been trying to add a fair use image of González-Torres. It has been removed a number of times, most recently with the reasoning that he did not approve of having images of himself reproduced during his lifetime. I could not find a source confirming that that was how he felt, but wonder whether that is a legitimate rationale to exclude an image of him anyhow, since Wikipedia is not censored. Gobōnobo + c 15:33, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant discussion copied from user talk:
Please refer to the preface of the book "Felix Gonzalez-Torres" edited by Julie Ault. She writes: "Felix was reticent to speak about his own life in public lectures and generally refused to allow his photograph to circulate in art publicity, preferring that people focus on the work rather than him or his image. He never wanted to distract from his language as an artist, and frequently said “I am not the work.”
I am not sure why you are adamant about reposting this image, but doing so clearly runs counter to the artist's intentions. We ask you again to stop posting the image. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FGTF (talk • contribs)
Thank you for providing a source that describes the way González-Torres felt about his photograph while he was alive. I can appreciate the intention behind such a refusal as well as the urge to respect an artist's wishes. Still, I wonder whether he would have gone so far as to forbid the reproduction of his photograph in this context. Wikipedia is, after all, not a tool for publicizing art, but an encyclopedia and it is not uncommon for Wikipedia and other encyclopedias to have photographs of its subjects.
Even if Felix would had not have wished to have his photograph appear on his Wikipedia article, it isn't clear that his wishes should have any bearing on how we represent him here. I invite you to read Wikipedia's policy about censorship, which may be relevant to this question. I assume that FGTF stands for the Felix González-Torres Foundation and should point out that we also have a policy concerning the ownership of articles as well as a guideline for conflicts of interest. My understanding is that the Foundation's mission is to foster the appreciation and study of Felix's works. I support that mission and feel that Wikipedia's mission, while different, can be very much compatible.
The subject of this Wikipedia article is the person Felix González-Torres and not his art. Good articles on Wikipedia include images and our readers often like to know what the people they are reading about look like. I would support including some language in the article that describes his reticence to have his photograph circulated if it would be beneficial to our readers. Gobōnobo + c 05:32, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Félix González-Torres. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:39, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Work[edit]

Hi,


I'm considering adding a couple sentences to the introduction portion of the "Work" section regarding Ross Laycock's influence on Gonzalez-Torres's work. It's only mentioned briefly, but I think Laycock and his eventual death played a significant role in inspiring Gonzalez-Torres's work. My proposed text is below:


"Ross Laycock is also thought to have inspired many of Gonzalez-Torres's other works, including "Untitled" (Placebo) (1991) and "Untitled" (1991). With Laycock's death in 1991, Gonzalez-Torres created works that could help him cope with the loss of his partner. These pieces often involve installments that slowly disappear or expire over time, a metaphor for Laycock's passing due to AIDS-related illnesses."


My references are as follows:

"Collections Online: Felix Gonzalez-Torres". www.guggenheim.org. The Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation. Retrieved 2017-10-20. (https://www.guggenheim.org/artwork/artist/felix-gonzalez-torres)

"Felix Gonzalez-Torres". SFMOMA. Retrieved 2017-10-20. (https://www.sfmoma.org/artist/Felix_Gonzalez-Torres)

Storr, Robert (January 1995). "Félix González-Torres: Etre un Espion". ArtPress. pp. 24–32. (This is already included in the "References" section)


Mtong14 (talk) 18:36, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mtong14: You might want to look at some more sources in addition to those. There is a master's thesis by Jared LeDesma at SFSU that discusses this issue and that you might find useful. Professorsmith (talk) 18:27, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Professorsmith: Thanks for your feedback. I found a couple of Master's thesis that speak to the possible relationship between Laycock and Gonzalez-Torres's work (references below). I will also be looking at Jared LeDesma's master's thesis.
1. Wurst, Christian A. "Remember Me: Felix Gonzalez-Torres and the Construction of Memory". Master's thesis, University of Florida, 2011. http://ufdcimages.uflib.ufl.edu/UF/E0/04/29/98/00001/wurst_c.pdf. Retrieved 2017-10-26.
2. Diamond, Shawn. "Requiem for the Shadows: Poetry, Spirituality, and Future Memory in the Light Strings of Felix Gonzalez-Torres". Master's thesis, Kent State University, 2016. https://etd.ohiolink.edu/!etd.send_file?accession=kent1461781004&disposition=inline. Retrieved 2017-10-26. Mtong14 (talk) 21:40, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Mtong14: These may be particularly useful in that might reference items in the FGT archives. Professorsmith (talk) 21:43, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]


@Mtong14:

Additions to Work[edit]

Hi,

I've added the following text to the "Work" section, along with relevant references:

"Ross Laycock is also thought to have inspired many of Gonzalez-Torres's other works, including "Untitled" (Perfect Lovers) (1991) and "Untitled" (Placebo) (1991). For instance, in "Untitled" (Perfect Lovers) (1991), the two clocks are suggestive of the relationship between the two and their time spent together. With Laycock's death in 1991, Gonzalez-Torres created works that could help him cope with the loss of his partner. These pieces, such as "Untitled" (Placebo) (1991), often involve installments that slowly disappear or expire over time — a metaphor for Laycock's passing due to AIDS-related illnesses."

  • Diamond, Shawn. "Requiem for the Shadows: Poetry, Spirituality, and Future Memory in the Light Strings of Felix Gonzalez-Torres". Master's thesis, Kent State University, 2016. https://etd.ohiolink.edu/!etd.send_file?accession=kent1461781004&disposition=inline. Retrieved 2017-10-26.
  • Storr, Robert (January 1995). "Félix González-Torres: Etre un Espion". ArtPress. pp. 24–32.
  • Wurst, Christian A. "Remember Me: Felix Gonzalez-Torres and the Construction of Memory". Master's thesis, University of Florida, 2011. http://ufdcimages.uflib.ufl.edu/UF/E0/04/29/98/00001/wurst_c.pdf. Retrieved 2017-10-26.
  • "Felix Gonzalez-Torres". SFMOMA. Retrieved 2017-10-27.
  • "Collection Online: Felix Gonzalez-Torres". www.guggenheim.org. Retrieved 2017-10-27.

As stated above in my 20-Oct-2017 post, I believe that Ross Laycock's influence on FGT and his work is important to include in this article. This is currently not mentioned in enough detail, therefore the added text is meant to better capture this influence. Laycock is mentioned by name in a few interviews with FGT and I feel that this further supports the impact that Laycock had on FGT's work. I chose a couple of examples ("Untitled" (Perfect Lovers) (1991) and "Untitled" (Placebo) (1991)) that I think best represent Laycock's influence in FGT's pieces.

Any concerns or comments are appreciated.

Thanks, Mtong14 (talk) 23:40, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Previous additions to Work[edit]

Hi Tommietu, I think that the phrase "The most important message behind this" in your addition to the article is a bit extreme. Using milder language, such as "Another important message...", may help it seem less biased or opinionated.

Thanks, Mtong14 (talk) 23:50, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the input sorry as this is really my first time editing an article for school (Tommietu (talk) 05:29, 30 October 2017 (UTC))[reply]

I added to Félix González-Torres 'work' with his art piece United (Portarit of ross in L.A.) to add on more about hiv/aids 

His piece "Untitled (Portrait of Ross in L.A.)" for example, illustrates not one, but combined moments that represent the history of the queer community. This may portray, the dissolution of the gay community that was diagnosed with HIV/Aids. As a person eats the candy and throws it away, the pile decreases in size, which represents how society ignored the existence of this epidemic, which then led to deaths of many gay people.

source: Queer Art : A Freak Theory by Renate Lorenz (page 140)

(Tommietu (talk) 04:02, 3 November 2017 (UTC))[reply]

I'm not even sure if I am commenting in the right area, but there is no mention of his candy installments being precisely replenished by the museum staff/curators to symbolize eternal life. I can find a source but just throwing it out there BrookeMcKenzie (talk) 22:14, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review for @Mtong14[edit]

1).Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you? 

 - All of the information and corrections that @Mtong14 made contributed to the relevant topic. A relevant addition that kept the flow of the article without distracting me from the overall idea.

2).Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? 

 - The additions added were neutral they did not try to persuade the reader to feel a certain way about the artist particular work.

3).Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? 

 - I believe that most view points are equally represented. With some extra emphasis on his work since he is an artist and that is what he is known for.

4).Check the citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article? 

 - The citations are from a creditable source and they all seem to work.

5).Is each fact supported by an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted? 

 - The facts are supported by the references. He mentions his art work its meaning and supports it with creditable sources from organizations and a thesis statement.

6).Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that should be added? 

 - The information not out of date. You can always have extra additions to the article, in particular additions to his work and their meaning. Such as the "Untitled" (Go-GO Dancing platform) 1991.

Ronyaguilar (talk) 20:45, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ronyaguilar: Thank you for your peer review and comments. I will consider mentioning more of FGT's artwork, but also do not want to create too much emphasis on only this portion of the article.
Thanks, Mtong14 (talk) 04:12, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is describing FGT as a "gay" visual artist restrictive?[edit]

I previously modified the first sentence of the article by removing the word "gay" from the following sentence: "Felix Gonzalez-Torres (November 26, 1957 – January 9, 1996) was a Cuban-born American gay visual artist". Less than two hours after I removed the word "gay", my edit was deleted.

My reason for the edit was that I find it restrictive to define his artwork by his sexuality. Are all the gay artists on this page described as "gay" artists? Having clicked on a few, I can't actually see any, so why should FGT be described as such? Equally, should Basquiat be described as a "black" artist? For example, looking at the Wikipedia entry to Barkley L. Hendricks, the fact that he was black is clear from the first sentence, but it is in the context of his art; he isn't just described as " a black artist".

So rather than start a battle of wills and undo the undoer, I thought I would ask the editors of this page how relevant that FGT be described as a "gay visual artist" is. Missfroguk (talk) 11:50, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the reference before removing the word, you would see why it is necessary in the lead. All best. Icarus of old (talk) 12:24, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, being black and gay are radically different, so that's quite an offensive comparison actually. But I don't care to fight about again maligned as a minority on this website. I would prefer to stick to proper argumentation on the subject at hand. Your problem with him being termed gay in the lead is, in my opinion, homophobic. But that's the thing about opinions, everyone has them. So let's stick to the references, please, and not make racist/homophobic comparisons. Icarus of old (talk) 14:51, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a major issue. No one is maligning anyone. We should write the article in such a way as to not give undue weight to sexual orientation. You point to a "note" in defense of this. But the note itself implies that this artist preferred to see the two audiences as one. The "note" itself is saying that he found it more "powerful" to perceive the gay and straight audience as one audience. Bus stop (talk) 15:06, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Icarus of old: This is a "Talk" page for people trying to improve an article, so please don't assume anything nor use misplaced patronizing tone. When I edited the post, I clearly explained why; you didn't when you removed the edit. I had read the note before removing the word "gay" and didn't see how this justified him being reduced to a "gay" artist: if it is much more powerful to him to assume that the gay and straight audience was the same audience, wouldn't it be more powerful if this article assumed that gay and straight artists are "just" artists?Missfroguk (talk) 13:46, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Icarus of old—can you please tell me why sexual orientation belongs in the fist sentence of the lead of this article? Bus stop (talk) 14:32, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The note clearly states that being gay was important to him. Your gender/sexuality politics aren't important here. It's obvious if you read the note. In addition, this note has been present for a while, so coming along to remove it now seems like an erasure of gay importance on Wikipedia. Maybe YOU don't understand why a gay artist would like to be termed as such, but that's up to the artist, not YOU. Also, this is cited, verifiable information (hence the use of a reference note). All best. Icarus of old (talk) 14:34, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For me, this all amounts to an erasure of gay identity on Wikipedia, which I've seen many editors attempt or do in the past. This is just sad. I hope meaningful understanding, in addition to consensus, can be achieved. But it looks like business as usual. Icarus of old (talk) 14:54, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion the "note" to which you refer constitutes an argument against the inclusion of the artist's sexual orientation in the first sentence of the lead. The note reads: "For Felix it was much more powerful to assume that the gay and straight audience was the same audience, that being a Cuban-born American is the same as being an American. And being American was something he was extremely proud of." Bus stop (talk) 14:57, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We do all want meaningful understanding and consensus. Part of the reason why I cited the article about Barkley L. Hendricks is because of the lead sentence "Barkley L. Hendricks was a contemporary American painter who made pioneering contributions to black portraiture and conceptualism". As I said previously, it is clear from the start that he is black, but he isn't described as a black artist. Couldn't something similar be written for FGT e.g. "he is a visual artist whose work work is sometimes considered a reflection of his experience with AIDS". Not necessarily this sentence as it comes later in the article, but something like this...Missfroguk (talk) 15:25, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

−

@Icarus of old: I really think you are misinterpreting the issue. This isn't an attempt to erase gay importance on Wikipedia, it is an attempt not to restrict this artist's work to gay work. Besides, I never suggested the note should be removed, nor that his sexuality shouldn't be mentioned. Your comments to me and others show a lack of objectivity: you keep on making assumptions, this time that I am homophobic and racist. This is offensive. As I mentioned before, why should FGT be described as a gay artist but someone like Hockney shouldn't? After all, it is obvious in much of his work that he is gay, and he was very explicit about it in his work when homosexuality was still illegal in the UK. And yet, he is not described as a gay artist. As an artist, his work is influenced by everything that he is, including, but not restricted to his sexuality.Missfroguk (talk) 15:12, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I won't let myself be gaslit. I'm just going to unwatch this page and hope others, who are less jaded by this constant and unbearable heteronormative behavior, will come along in the future and correct past mistakes. This is erasure, of the subject and of gay contributions at large. Please do not ping me or include me in further discussions. I have no desire to communicate with linguistic oppressors.
On the other hand, thank you to Bus stop, for keeping the discussion on-point and civil; I hope you find a way to make meaningful change on here. Icarus of old (talk) 15:23, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to :@Bus stop: and Icarus of old for the discussion. I have removed the word "gay" from the lead sentence, but added "Throughout his career, Gonzalez-Torres’s involvement in social and political causes as an openly gay man fueled his interest in the overlap of private and public life" as a second sentence. I find it is now a more complete description of how his sexuality influenced his art and more in tune with how he produced his art "Gonzalez-Torres explained how he resisted the label of "gay art" during a period of increased censorship and furor over the NEA funding for Robert Mapplethorpe: "Two clocks side by side are much more threatening to the powers that be than an image of two guys sucking each other's dicks, because they cannot use me as a rallying point in their battle to erase meaning. It is going to be very difficult for members of Congress to tell their constituents that money is being expended for the promotion of homosexual art when all they have to show are two plugs side by side, or two mirrors side by side..." (http://www.theartstory.org/artist-gonzalez-torres-felix-artworks.htm)

As to the note discussed above, it is now a full citation in the text under the "Work" section. Missfroguk (talk) 17:06, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Félix González-Torres. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:57, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarism in the Early Life Secion[edit]

While checking out some of the sources I couldn't help but notice that the early life section of this article is a direct quote from the exhibition description found in citation number one. I believe this violates some part of the wikipedia codes of conduct. This should likely be fixed, have a nice day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.36.161 (talk) 04:50, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:36, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Restructuring article[edit]

Just a heads up that I plan to do some restructuring of this article in the coming weeks. Several rounds of edits over the past few years have taken this article way out of alignment with how biographies should be structured. Specifically, this article reads as essentially a compendium of González-Torres' bodies of work, as opposed to a chronological, narrative biography that also details his stylistic evolution and different forms of artistic production, in the context of his life and career. Just right off the bat, the first thing someone reads in the body of this article should not be an analysis of the artist's production - it should be background on his early life and education, much of which has been detailed in reliable publications. There are other issues here, but structure is the most obvious. There is helpful guidance available at the Manual of Style/Biography, but I wanted to flag this now as folks seem to have put a lot of work into adding/adjusting this page over the past year or so. Want to give others a chance to update/edit/bring it in line with the MOS themself before I try to make some major structural changes. 19h00s (talk) 19:18, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Félix_González-Torres&oldid=1209828197"