Billy Conklin
Is London Burning
Museum of New Art, November 5 – December 30, 2005
7 N Saginaw Street, Pontiac, MI
http://www.detroitmona.com/

There are two ways to approach Billy Conklin’s exhibition at the Museum of New Art. The first is sincerely. The second is honestly.

**********************************************************

In the sincere perspective, the viewer approaches the work as they normally would – reacting to aesthetics, form and content. The exhibition consists of a series of portraits. Always frontal, each portrait is an image of a single individual, depicted from their head to their midsection. The colors are always rich, saturated to the point of a painterly quality. There usually is a stark color somewhere – blue or red, for example – that draws attention to the subject. The background is always a neutralized white, black or grey, thus isolating and accentuating the individual depicted. The images are life size but rather than being printed out on one large sheet of paper, they are printed out on numerous smaller sheets and then pieced together to make one larger image.

And the pictures were taken in London within the first 24 hours of the 7/7 subway bombings of this past year.

Given the background and context of these works, Conklin pulls at the heartstrings of viewers. The unfolding narrative Conklin presents evokes strong emotions from any viewer. A picture is truly worth a thousand words.

Portraiture, as an art form, is arguably one of the easiest forms of art for the audience to access. The entry point of human empathy is given. Rather than searching for what the artist intends, the audience simply has to find how the subject feels. The messy nature of context and history are given – me, you, emotion – and it takes a form that everyone can relate to – people.

However, unlike most portraiture, where the subject is often posed in order to induce a reaction, Conklin’s imagery correlates a singular tragic social event with individual feeling.

His artistic endeavor, however, is not about the human emotion itself but rather the act of doing it. Although the audience knows that these images were taken in London, any allusion to the city itself, save the people, is taken away. These pictures could have been taken anywhere. They could be anybody. It is only because of our contextual knowledge – that being the 7/7 subway bombings – that give these works meaning.

As a result, these works are very much about what is happening in this consequential instant, not what led to this instant. It is from this point and this point only, that empathy is evoked. The emphasis is on effect rather than cause.

**************************

On the other hand, the honest approach to this exhibition offers a COMPLETELY different understanding. In this perspective, you, the audience, knows that there is no such person as Billy Conklin. You, the audience, knows that Billy Conklin is really (gasp!)…Jef Bourgeau, director of the Museum of New Art. You also know that these images are not even Londoners, but rather Detroiters. In fact, the images weren’t even taken within the past two years. They have been sitting on file, waiting for Bourgeau to appropriate them for a project.

So what does this mean?

For one, if you didn’t know these essential facts before viewing the work, then you need to stop thinking about this body of work in whataever manner you were thinking. While your experience when you thought the work was by Billy Conklin contributes to Bourgeau’s intent, it is NOT the true nature of the artwork.

For reasons too various and detailed to list, Bourgeau’s work, for the past ten years or so, has always taken a pseudonym. In addition, it has extended into the realm of the real world, where he has fabricated staff members for his Museums. Misdirecting the viewer has become the crux of Bourgeau’s dialogue.

So, whenever you see something like this at MoNA – usually in the front room – know that intent and meaning stems from the artwork in an unconventional manner. Whatever form the work takes, it acts as a vehicle for Bourgeau’s ten year dialogue. To make things more confusing, MoNA actually does show real artists – that is, those without pseudonyms.

It may seem deceptive and, well, it is. But the points that Bourgeau raises are actually very interesting. Even if the audience is fooled, the experience is not invalid – merely misdirected. Through this chicanery, Bourgeau makes the audience think about their art experience. Specifically, Bourgeau brings into question how meaning is created.

Of course, Bourgeau has answers to all of the questions that he raises. Consequently, the conversation with Jef is actually more interesting than the artwork itself. But that means you will actually have to drive there and go see the exhibition in person…

Jacque Liu

Send comments to Nick Sousanis, ws@thedetroiter.com