This is a work of art that engages the public through interaction by encouraging gallery patrons to take a piece (or a few) from the pile home with them. I'm not sure if that's a comment on an ill-informed public, but its certainly a subversive comment on accepted art-gallery norms. I think that it can be perceived as a comment on ownership and the relationship of art to the public, amongst others.

If I remember rightly, the description of the work includes the words "an unlimited supply..", so despite taking a handful home, the work is replenished and remains the same each time it is shown. The handful at home perhaps speaking of the boundary referred to between public and private.

It may have been made in response to conservatism and censorship, but I think the work succeeds because it challenges individual assumptions.

Kez,
that is a more sophisticated interpretation than mine. I went though the exhibition fairly quickly, due to time constraints, and this work was towards the end of a large and interesting exhibition. It was grouped within the "Contemporary Art: Between Public and Personal" stylistic category next to some Robert Mapplethorpe photographs. It looked oddly out of place.

Gary
in the Wikepdia entry you linked there is a quote from an interview, where Gonzales-Torres said "When people ask me, 'Who is your public?' I say honestly, without skipping a beat, 'Ross.' The public was Ross. The rest of the people just come to the work." Ross was his lover, who died of AIDS. I suppose it all depends on what 'the public' means.

Gonzales-Torres also died of AIDS related complications --in 1996.

The Wikipedia entry says that many of Gonzalez-Torres's installations invite the viewer to take a piece of the work with them: a series of works allow viewers to take packaged candies from a pile in the corner of an exhibition space.

The entry says that the most pervasive reading of Gonzalez-Torres's work takes the processes his works undergo (lightbulbs expiring, piles of candies dispersing, etc.) as metaphor for the process of dying.

Pam,
I missed the whole 'taking the candy bit.' In too much of a rush. I saw a Minimalist installation.

I didn't see the invite to viewers to take part in the metaphorical and literal evolution of his work’s meaning.It is our participation that grants the work a kind of perpetually renewed life and relevance.

Kez,
Your interpretation is very plausible. The series of homemade candies that he offered to museum patrons are seemingly friendly and lighthearted. For art lovers, the realm of the aesthetic is often an escape from mass culture; high art is the a realm in which freedom and imagination run free in contrast the culture industry. Beign invited to take some breaks the tanoo of the art institution.

However, "candy licorce bullets" call attention to our escapist desires. So they are a subtle, sweetly posed bitter pill. Modern art, rather than offering a cure for society’s ills as Adorno argued, is just another means of self-gratification.

Kez,
the undermining of the conventions of the art institution can also be seen in terms of process of people taking licorice that you highlight.

Rather than follow the model of most gallery shows, in which an artist displays the same work over the life of the show, Gonzalez-Torres constantly changed his pieces. He made the gallery a field of flux, of mutability and uncertain duration. So made the gallery a metaphor for life in all its fluid and incomplete narratives.

It looks to be nonsense to me. I would of asked the cleaners to sweep it up.

Les,
From memory you critiqued some indigenous works for being simplistic--could have been done by school kids you argued. I defended them, pointed the finger at the art institution but was seen as naive. So I am rather suprised that an art sophisticate such as yourself would dismiss this highly informed post minimal work as nonsense.

It really is just giving people Lollies.
The comparison between my opinion of this and my opinion of some aboriginal art is pointless.
I just don't like it. Perhaps monkeys like it. I don't know. I don't know what monkeys think about really.

Les,
we all have our likes and dislikes re works of art we see in our art galleries. I didn't much like the work of Elger Esser in the Guggenheim Collection. I'm plain tired of minimalism.

But personal opinion doesn't help us to understand these works of Gonzales-Torres within the context of the aesthetic concerns and meaning of the work in the art gallery. What are such works saying to us in the art gallery system ?

i've been to this exhibition too. i would love to know more about Torn II (can't recall the brazlian artists name?). are there previous works (suggested by the title)?

i'm surprised how affected i was by the Jeff Koons paintings. Not that i didn't like it, but i thought the table of animal teeth belonged in a museum.

Pam, i had simply imagined a courageous patron with a little pile of their own at home, i hadn't imagined anyone actually eating them! Perhaps someone could do a work of the excrement of this work and Les would find it more interesting.. a comment on reincarnation or the dialectic of the digestion of time and public opinion.

I do sympathise with Les though. A work of art doesn't necessarily speak to everybody but meaning in a work can be illuminated by an understanding of the description, the artist, its history, many things. This is shown by Gary's initial interpretation without having read the above works description and his subsequent view.

i think personal opinion is the ONLY thing that can provide meaning in a work. Gonzales-Torres may provide a description, but it's still just his opinion. Surely there is no explicit meaning?

i see modern art as a provocation towards an opposing point of view. It's an excuse for modern man to contemplate being. a lack of time does not do minimalist art any justice!

it is interesting how often people agree on the quality of a minimalist work of art.

My personal opinion as to my view of art that I like or dislike is all that I search for. Others are quite welcome to ponder for a greater explanation. To me dumping a wheel barrow load of licorice on the ground may look nice, taste good be fun and friendly and stimulate conversation but to me it is hardly special.

I once wrestled a 25 meter piece of black Ag pipe naked. I am sure that was much more interesting too

Pam,
re your link, Yes I agree but this sort of stuff does look nice in a modern home because it does not comand you to look at it.

The Gonzalez-Torres Untitled(Public Opinion) work is better described as post minimalism was the work of Rachel Whiteread

Kez I don't recall seeing any work called Torn 11 in the exhibition. I cannot find it in the catalogue.

Searching on the internet for opinions about the recent Guggenheim exhibition at NGV, I came across this interesting discussion. Some of the work, I found astonishing and some of it just seemed like crap.
I have some questions:
Was the pile of licorice(I took some home-very tasty!)meant to be replenished by the gallery? Otherwise why say something about an unlimited supply?
Shouldn't a work of Art be able to stand alone? Shouldn't explanation(purpose/artist's background,etc) be like that little bit extra and not a necessity for appreciation?
I found the space in which the exhibition was held to be absolutely stifling. That stair thing, for instance, you could hardly view it and it didn't impress me but I saw a photo of it somewhere else(presumably the Guggenheim) and it looked beautiful. Another piece - the bits of metal leaning against the wall... How did people react to that?