An Apologia of Pol Pot?

As some of you may know, my work was included in a recent exhibition called "Art & Democracy IV". It has been brought to my attention that several members of the Visual Artist Guild, the organization which sponsored the exhibit, felt that one of my paintings was a glorification of Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge. My instant reaction was that it was not true. It could not be! My feelings toward Pol Pot are absolutely negative. I studied the history, visited Cambodia on one occasion, and in no way support the goals and tactics of the Khmer Rouge.
When I examined the process by which the painting was created, I realized that the VAG may have interpreted the painting correctly. And further investigation revealed that the painting’s title and premise were modified prior to its most recent exhibition.
The painting, now titled “Retreat from Ankar, 1979” (above) was begun in November 2008. I came upon the subject matter as such: I found a photograph of Pot Pot and other KR marching out of the jungle (middle image) and saw that it could be combined with one of the great paintings of 19^th century Russian realism—“The Bargehaulers” by Ilya Repin (top image). I reworked the composition at approximately twice the size of the original, while keeping the same horizon, color scheme and vanishing point.

Now for the big question: What was I doing?

The image was obviously a socialist realist heroic scale history painting—a formulation of propaganda, style and visual aggrandizement no longer in style. The biggest problem was that subject of the painting, Pol Pot, could never be (nor ever should be) celebrated. Therefore, a world in which such a painting could exist had to be created. To cryptically articulate this world, I wrote a provenance and auction estimate for this painting. When it was originally exhibited, in a show titled "Convergence" at 25th Street Armory (March 2009) the following paperwork was displayed prominently alongside:

Since the object of this painting is elucidated by this document, it should be examined as a primary source.

The following assumptions can be made:

• It is an auction form. The painting was put up for sale, and authenticated by the auctioneer.
• The title: In this respect VAG’s critique is wholly accurate.It is a celebration of Pol Pot’s and Nuon Chea’s achievements. But who is HK and why is he so prominently mentioned?
• The provenance is the biggest clue to the painting’s meaning. Hint: the PDRK did not exist in 1997, and when it existed, it did not have a Ministry of Fine Arts and Letters.
• The choice of artist (Boris Kaganoff-Roche) to execute the work is based on era, experience, style, likely international connections, and a tiny autobiographical reference: my grandmother’s maiden name was Kagan.

It is up for the audience to fill in the missing gaps of information. They may fill it with history, memory, primary sources, or a careful examination of the object for additional clues. I believe that in the end, the revelation is of a dark and tragic historical antithesis.

The piece may be seen until December 31st, 2009 at Gallery H, 222 E. 34st, NYC.