Anthony Burnham, Mobile Perspective (detail), oil on linen, 103 cm x 120 cm, 2009.

I met Anthony Burnham after I saw his work at this year’s RBC Painting Competition.  Struck by his work, Fragment (2009), I decided to look him up so we could talk about his art.  I met with him in his studio.  He paints full time now, which is a luxury for a young artist.  The advantages of painting full-time aren’t lost on Burnham.  In fact, one of the first things he said to me was – “It’s nice to not be an e-mail artist”, meaning he can focus primarily on painting instead of the day-to-day preoccupations surrounding the frustration artists often face in getting their work and their art out of the studio and into the world.

A sculptural element – this is the first thing you notice when you stand in front of Burnham’s work.  When I saw Fragment at the Musée d’art contemporain, I was tempted to inter-act with the work the same way I would with a sculpture.  I wanted to walk around the work, to see it from all sides and never mind that it was hung on the wall.  This is intentional and stems from the artwork’s close connection to the “constructed” image that Burnham makes before he actually sets out to paint.  In fact, I think it would be fair to say that, for Burnham, the painting is the next step in the rendering of the object.

The traditional starting point of representational art is always derived from an already existing object or figure – after all, you can’t invent a lamp if the lamp already exists.  This means that you, as a viewer, approach the work with a preconceived idea of what to expect.  You arrive at the work with a “history”.   For example, if you look at a painting of a lamp, your preexisting knowledge of lamps  will, whether consciously or unconsciously, influence your perception.  It is up to the artist to re-interpret, re-configure, re-invent…

But Burnham’s art is neither about re-interpreting nor representing.  His artistic concern focuses on the physical essence of the object.  This is why the size of the canvas mimics the size of the object and this is why Burnham first constructs, then manipulates, then paints.  Only in this way can he understand the object more fully as a physical object in and of itself.

Anthony Burnham, studio Darling Foundry, 2009, sculptures in production and triptych Mobile Perspective, oil on linen, 103 cm x 120 cm (each), 2009.

The object’s presence takes over the work.  It activates the space and brings into play the relationship between object and space.  It also brings to attention the relationship between the object and us.  This interaction between us and the work is important to Burnham.  It is his way of allowing us to explore our connection to the objects that surround us and, more particularly, the object in his painting.  Where do you stand with the image?  What do you think about when you look at the image? – two of the questions Burnham might ask if he were standing next to you as you contemplate his art.   Two questions that also relate to one of Burnham’s recent preoccupations – the relationship between photography and the painted object.  It used to be that an artist painting an object had more flexibility than a photographer taking a picture of an object.  The painter could manipulate and change the object unlike the photographer whose photographic image was not as malleable.  Enter the digital world of photoshop and suddenly we find ourselves questioning the “reality” of every picture we see.

Burnham showed me a series he’s working on – a series depicting lined paper, the kind you would find on a legal-sized notepad.  My first reaction was to reach for a pen and start writing.  Ditto for the Mobile series where my initial reaction was to construct my own creation with the various objects on the canvas.  And this, I think, answers how we see objects and the work of Burnham: they are extensions of ourselves.

L'intimidante, mixed media, 2009

Jasmin Bilodeau, Sébastien Giguère, and Nicolas Laverdière – these are the three Quebec artists who,together, make up BGL. Their latest exhibition, at the Parisian Laundry, displays the usual humor with which they address their concerns, in this case the issues of wasteful consumerism and its effect on the environment. In fact, the theme of consumerism tied in with environmentalism seems to be a current theme in Montreal exhibits these days – I’m thinking of the Tricia Middleton exhibit at the MAC which I highly recommend.

Most of BGL’s art isn’t for the home – if only because the installations are too large and sculptural and need to be experienced from all sides.  And yet, I have chosen to talk about them in the “art at home” section for two reasons.  1] There are smaller, more affordable pieces offered which I will speak about later; 2] Artists such as BGL help the beginner collector understand that art is not simply a framed picture you hang on your wall.  Take the piece L’intimidante for example. I loved this piece. Inspired by the existing Mies van der Rohe styled chairs that belonged to the gallery, BGL created their own version of the chair by adding a witty twist – a large Excalibur-like sword leans against the tattered back of the chair suggesting that even pieces that have achieved iconic status are little more than wasteful commodities. I also enjoyed a piece entitled Born Again, 2007 – a melting storm trooper’s [those thoughtless killer clones] helmet and its suggestion that a commodity like Star Wars can never be over-marketed. Quite honestly, if budget and taste allowed, why not this art for your home? You would be welcoming serious artists concerned with issues that are both current and relevant.

Les puces, mixed media, 2009

BUT has BGL outdone themselves? Artists critically examining the notion of consumerism is especially tricky when these artists exhibit their work in an art gallery. After all, the basic raison d’etre of an art gallery is to sell art to its clients, otherwise known as consumers, and Parisian Laundry is no exception. So imagine this potential scenario: You walk into the gallery, you look at art which questions the consumer-based culture we inhabit, and then you buy the art. If you accept this interpretation, then it could be argued that BGL takes the whole humor/interaction component to the extreme: I, the buyer, have bought a non-essential commodity [if we consider essentials to be food, clothing, and shelter]; Moreover, I, the buyer, have participated in the very action that the art I have bought is ridiculing. In effect, the physical act of my purchase completes the irony of the work. The only thing missing is idiotic me standing next to the art with the VISA receipt in my hand – something that probably isn’t necessary once my purchase enters my home since my participation as greedy consumer will be completed.

I don’t know, call me cynical, but there is something about this that bugs me. I don’t mind art that pushes me and I certainly don’t mind art that makes me question and/or re-visit the things I thought I knew – in fact, I embrace this.  And for the most part, BGL is such art but installations such as Les puces [remember I said I would return to the smaller, more affordable pieces] – where every single item is for sale at a somewhat affordable price – borders on absurdity.  After all, if you were to buy one of these useless items, say one of the little men inside the glass cases, will you have bought art or just some item that, on its own, doesn’t mean very much?   Hmmm, while I get the ideology, I’m not quite sure I agree with how it’s expressed in a piece like Les Puces.  Art is about respect.  Respect for the artist, respect for the work, respect for the collector and I can’t help but feel that pieces like Les Puces are more about ridicule than they are about respect.  It is as if BGL is saying, [and so what if they do it with a wink and a smile] – Hey!  For those of you who can’t afford our bigger pieces, here are the smaller ones which, on their own, are about as useless as the trinkets you buy in a flea market.  Well guess what?   Buying useless trinkets is not what buying art [be it for the home or office] should ever be about.