…like smiling!
Last night, J and I took the T into town, where we attended the Boston premiere of David Tamés’ Smile Boston Project, a short documentary on the work of Bren Bataclan. I’ve blogged about Bataclan before: first when he brought his whimsical paintings to Keene to cheer us after the dismal floods of October, 2005, and next when J commissioned him to paint charmingly cartoonish portrait of Reggie.
The premise behind Bataclan’s “Smile Boston Project” is simple enough, and he’s translated the basic concept to dozens of locales far from Boston. In an attempt to spread the love, Bataclan leaves original paintings of his brightly colored characters in public spaces–on benches, inside college student centers, and elsewhere–with notes attached telling people they can have the paintings for free if they “promise to smile at random people more.”
In Tamés’ documentary, a camera chronicles one painting as it sits on a bench in a crowded Boston park, passersby pausing to consider it while others go about their business and at least one homeless man sleeps on a nearby bench. In interviews with people who were brave enough to take one of the paintings, Tamés shows how most folks’ initial reaction to the notion of paintings free for the taking was one of disbelief: surely there isn’t someone out there who is handing out art in exchange for a simple promise!
And yet, the promise behind the paintings is true. Tamés documentary explains how Bataclan, who went to college in my hometown of Columbus, Ohio, was surprised to discover when he moved to Boston that people here don’t make eye contact, smile, and say hello the way they do in the Midwest. More than 15 years after my own move to New England, I still share Bataclan’s reaction: when J and I walk with or without our dogs on the streets of lush and leafy Newton, we’re continually amazed at how many folks do not return our gaze or respond to our hellos. A graphic artist who, after the dot-com bubble burst, was relieved to discover that Boston art-appreciators would actually buy his paintings, Bataclan has spent the past five years trying to thank the people of Boston and beyond by literally giving people something to smile about.
Several of the “serious art critics” who discuss Bataclan’s work in Tamés’ documentary raise the question of whether his cartoonish characters, painted in a “primitive” style that changes little from painting to painting, are “really” art. And yet the gushingly appreciative folks who actually claimed Bataclan’s paintings–and the satisfied customers who willingly spend money to buy Bataclan’s gallery pieces–universally agree that the paintings make them happy. Do paintings qualify as “Art” only if they are serious and somber? Are brightly colored paintings that try for nothing more than to make viewers smile too simple to be “Art”?
In Smile Boston Project, Bataclan lists Keith Haring, who made fine art out of street art, as one of his inspirations, and the connection between Bataclan and Haring is apparent. In several previous posts, I’ve grappled with the question of whether street art is “Art,” and you can infer my own stance in the debate from the fact that I have an entire blog category dedicated to graffiti. The first time I snapped photos of the graffiti-covered walls of Modica Way in Central Square, Cambridge, I went specifically to see Bataclan’s work there. Although his images have long since been covered with those by other spray-can-wielding street artists, Bataclan’s paintings feature the same bold colors and clean lines you’ll see in larger-than-life street murals, the eye-grabbing “pop” of this kind of Pop Art deriving more from the bold statement of in-your-face images than from the subtle nuance of more “refined” works.
Bren Bataclan’s “Smile Boston Project” is definitely fun…but is it art? Whether or not the stern-faced critics nod in the affirmative is, to me, beside the point. Like performance art, Bataclan’s street-freebies invite viewers to get actively involved in the message by passing on the smiles the paintings inspire. Skeptics say it’s not possible for an artist to survive by giving his work away for free; one critic interviewed in Smile Boston Project suggests that Bataclan is more a marketer than an artist, his free paintings being nothing more than a public relations gimmick. But if we decry gimmickry for its superficiality, shouldn’t we also decry the kind of smug superiority that suggests skepticism is more valuable than smiles? One of the welcome outcomes of art is the way it conquers skepticism to suggest anything is possible, even the seemingly impossible task of melting New England reserve to bring a child-like glee to the streets of Boston.
This is my day-late contribution to this week’s Photo Friday theme, I’m feeling… Today’s photos are from an assortment of Bren Bataclan encounters: the first from last night’s Boston premiere of David Tamés’ Smile Boston Project, the next two from Bataclan’s appearance at this year’s Beacon Hill Art Walk, and the rest from a January visit to Bataclan’s studio in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Enjoy!
Oct 5, 2008 at 6:51 am
Ah, the old debate about what is “Art.” To me “Art” is a rich-folks throwaway word, much like “Class.” I submit that if we didn’t know it was famous “Art” we’d walk by the painting “Mona Lisa” is a gallery without a second glance, and the same would be true for other famous paintings. Rich folks “decide” something is “Art” and then have fun bidding up the price. Emperor’s new clothes, if you ask me.
As for Batclan being a marketer instead of an “Artist,” out doing public relations gimmicks, who cares? I watch (too much) TV, and see lots of things people want me to spend money on–isn’t that PR? Marketing? So what?
Art? Phooey and Hooey.
LikeLike
Oct 5, 2008 at 6:51 am
I meant “in” a gallery for the Mona Lisa.
LikeLike
Oct 5, 2008 at 8:46 am
It is art, literally so. What tempts people to reject it as ‘art,’ perhaps, has to do with its purpose. Whether it is mistrust of the artist (he’s just promoting itself) or the work’s gratuitous lack of ‘seriousness’ (he wants people to smile? puh-leez), there are people who will react with indifference or hostility.
Much the same way people react to people who are ‘nice’ just for the heck of it.
Something I liked about Burning Man was seeing art that had no place in a “serious” art world, and unapologetically connected adults to a childlike sense of fun and interactivity. This reminded me of that.
LikeLike
Oct 5, 2008 at 8:46 am
Err… “he’s just promoting himself.”
LikeLike
Oct 7, 2008 at 6:24 am
The documentary sounds great! And Bataclan seems like a lovely person, having also met him at the Beacon Hill Art Walk. Whatever it is, I’m glad he’s getting to live his dream and share the love.
LikeLike
Oct 7, 2008 at 6:28 am
Hey maybe he should try hotels like the Tomo I stayed at in San Francisco (recently posted about it)!
Check out their lobby: http://tinyurl.com/3mwbvm
LikeLike
Oct 7, 2008 at 11:33 am
Art is that which reaches out to people.
It is only when we bring in aesthetics or skill into the debate on Art does it get complicated.
Moreover the definition of art has been diffused greatly in modern times, with any and everything being peddled as art.
Even if it is about publicity what he is doing in commendable. It serves to add some cheer in these grim times.
LikeLike
Oct 8, 2008 at 7:12 am
I think Anil says it perfectly: “Art is that which reaches out to people.” All the rest is argument about “high brow” vs. “low brow,” and ultimately I don’t care much about people’s brows. 😉
I don’t know, Leslee, if Bren’s painted any hotels, but I know he’s done several hallway murals in schools, which makes perfect sense given the playfully child-like nature of his work.
LikeLike