'Initially set to the same time, these identical battery-powered clocks will eventually fall out of sync, or may stop entirely. Conceived shortly after Gonzalez-Torres’s partner was diagnosed with AIDS, this work uses everyday objects to track and measure the inevitable flow of time. When one of the clocks stops or breaks, they can both be reset, thereby resuming perfect synchrony. In 1991, Gonzalez-Torres reflected, "Time is something that scares me. . . or used to. This piece I made with the two clocks was the scariest thing I have ever done. I wanted to face it. I wanted those two clocks right in front of me, ticking."'

I'm usually the guy willing to defend contemporary art, but there's not much I can do here. The work lacks any craft and the insights are shallow, better expressed by the label than the piece.

Clearly the curators of these very famous museums disagree with me. But when people mock "modern art" (which this technically isn't), this is what they're thinking about.

If I glimpse another consciousness and walk away a different and more empathic person, then who am I to mock it?

Agreed. I view myself as a pretty casual person, someone who's not overly concerned with the minutae of modern life. But with a digital watch, it's "12:47" and not "a quarter to one", which to me sounds infinitely cooler. With a slightly inaccurate mechanical movement, I fall into the latter manner of speaking, which is more what I want to be. Weird psychological preferences, but something that counts, to me.

That's pretty amazing to me that basically a spring and some gears can be that good at keeping time.