The Chameleon
What did you think of David Grann’s New Yorker article on Frederic Bourdin? While any observation is welcomed, I’m particularly interested in ideas the article might have sparked in you about the differences, or similarities, between art and life.
17 comments
After reading that long article I noticed the fine line between reality and art. Bourdin, simply, was acting- but when that went too far, that’s when troubles began. He lived the character, not acting it. Once he mastered how to live it, people defined him as dangerous.
Funny how acting is not acting anymore once you really devote yourself into it. That struck me after I finished reading.
After reading this article, I find that Frederic is really talented to be able to impersonate younger teenagers even though he is a man. The one similarity between art and life is the freedom of expression. You can express your feelings all different ways in the world of art whether it be in acting, drawing, writing, etc. In life it becomes realistic since you can change yourself into a piece of art, like Frederic does here. He changes his physical appearance and his accent to match the different identities he wants. One difference is that, like Miji said, his form of art can be perceived as dangerous. In other forms of art, you are free to express yourself as much as you can. You can create even the most bizarre masterpieces and people would still appreciate you if your works do not do any harm to society. Here Frederick takes it to the extreme, which makes him a dangerous character. The difference between art and life is that I think there is a fine line between what is legal and illegal. Although Frederic does not do any harm by impersonating other people, the fact that he chooses a new identity and lives with an unknown family in San Antonio, for instance, already makes him an intimidating character. There is still this one person who is violating a family’s right of privacy. I can see why others perceive him as a dangerous character because of his extreme form of acting. I find it really strange that doctors found nothing wrong with him and that he was perfectly sane. I wonder what kind of pleasure he seeks from this…
I found the article to be extremely interesting and probably the best article I’ve read in any of my classes since I started this year at Baruch. I think I kind of understand where Zoe sees the connection between art and life that this article touches upon. I think that in some sort of interesting way, Bourdin was like any other artist on his way to achieve self-fulfillment. Artists make their art a part of their lives.
Often I hear that people are exploring their artistic abilities. I think that this exploration has a lot of meaning to it. It is a part of everyone’s life to explore and find out what works for them and makes them happy. When drawing or painting works for them and makes them happy, they are then considered to be an artist. Bourdin was just like every other person in the world, in that he was exploring different things until he found what worked for his own life. He had to explore through other people’s lives before he finally found that making something of his own life was the best thing for him.
Like Walter said I think this is one of the best articles I have read since school started. It was very long but interesting. It was like reading a story. In the beginning I just thought it would be a story of a man impersonating orphans. I did not know he would become involved in such a big lie. He would take an identity and come all the way to the United States. It is amazing that he could act someone else and be fine with it.
This story reminds me of a short story I read in English. It is called the “Hunger Artist”. In the stories, boy artists keep doing their arts because they feel empty and are looking for a solution. I guess in Bourdin’s case, what he really wanted was a nice family with his wife and kids. He disguised into other people because he was not happy with his life and wanted to run away from reality. Because his reality is becoming better, with a job and a family, he will not change into other people anymore.
I often reflect back upon my childhood with a certain sense of emptiness. I see a world of euphoria, lacking the responsibility, trepidation, and emotional conflict that’s associated with adolescence and adulthood. I had in my hands a world of unlimited potential–all my mistakes were forgiven and my actions, for the most part, had no repercussions.
Mr. Frederic Bourdin, as “The Chameleon” by David Grann proclaims, “didn’t want to grow up.” Rather than face the full brunt of nature’s inevitable force, the “Chameleon from Nantes” did everything within his power to deceive those around him. A pathological liar, he sought not the perverse love of prepubescent children, but rather to be accepted, to be loved. He knew not the functioning of a normal family, but only of a distinct dysfunction that has slowly filtered its way into the very fabric of his being.
Impersonation is an art form. To assume the identity of a missing child is not impersonation, not art, but a perverse crime against humanity. To play with the emotions of a distraught family in such a way as Mr. Bourdin did is unfathomable and grotesque. No amount of childhood abuse or neglect can justify such actions–he is a criminal and should be treated as such.
Bourdin (notice the lack of ‘Mr,’ signifying my disrespect for this pathetic individual) found pleasure in assuming different adolescent identities. A twisted individual through and through, his grandest scheme involved assuming the identity of a Nicholas Barclay for a period of five months. The family (excluding the wary mother and degenerate half-brother) greets him with elation, attempting in vain to rationalize the quite obvious change of his distinct features (his eye color, hair color, and ear shape). The impostor is eventually confronted by an FBI detective and a private investigator, bringing to an end his pathetic life of deception.
It is at this point that an age-old proverb rings in my head. “You can take the girl out of the city, but you can’t take the city out of the girl,” or something to that effect. After having been caught and jailed, Bourdin has started a family with a woman whose interest in him is propped up by the unusual nature of his crimes. There is no likelihood that Bourdin has changed for the better–like his family rightly proclaims, he is now acting the role of a father.
The term “art,” as we’ve so passionately discussed in class, is nebulous and subjective. What may be considered art by one person might be considered rubbish by another. The loopy mind of Bourdin would interpret his own actions as a creative art form–“he tried to elevate his criminality into an art form,” says the article. He meticulously shaved his face and chose only clothing that would be appropriate for a teenager. He attempts to rationalize his perverse crimes by claiming that he just sought the love and affection he personally never knew as a child. Is crying out for the attention of others art? Is assuming the identity of dead boys something profound? I think not.
The plagued mind does not function as the normal mind does. It sees the world with a distorted perspective. What Bourdin did is considered a crime, not an art form.
Walter, and others, what do you do with Corey’s argument about the pathological element of Bourdin’s act, and its real consequences on people’s lives?
And for everyone, including Corey, what do you all make of the role of the mother, brother, & other Nicholas Barclay relatives in this saga? It seems to me that the actor implicates his audience in a profoundly troubling way in this story. But that complicity between the actor and his audience might tell us something important about how art works. And you haven’t really explored that yet in your responses.
Corey’s argument is very persuasive and bold. I can clearly see what his points are. I certainly agree with Corey. When Bourdin’s acting skills acquired someone else’s identity, art has lost its value. His profound acting skills can only be respected when its used properly. As for the role of the family, they become the bridge between reality and art of Bourdin. They clearly see the oddness of Bourdin, something unfamiliar that they cannot point out. Staying with them, however, makes Bourdin guilty and uneasy more and more. The reality sets in when he truly realizes that he can be stuck in this situation forever- if he does not sacrifice.
What I can conclude from analyzing this article is that the value of any art work is defined by how much influence of an actor was to his audience. This influence cannot be odd, intimidating or unfamiliar. Many art works which are considered as a master art piece have influenced people greatly. In case of Bourdin, other than the fact that his acts were unethical, his influence over the boy’s family was not enough. Thus the family was left feeling uncomfortable constantly.
The Chameleon was by far one of the most interesting articles I’ve ever read. I started to read the article not long after class ended and I couldn’t stop reading it even as we board the train to visit the waterfalls that day. Although it gets disturbing at times, there is no doubt that Frederic Bourdin’s ability of imposing other people’s identity is astonishing. Although most people might see his actions as acts of crimes since he is stealing other people’s identities in a way as well as deceiving people around him, I agree with Bourdin that he is creating a form of art instead. It takes a lot of skills to completely erase his individual identity in order to obtain other identities. As the article moved on to the part where he was forced to take over an actual person’s identity to escape prosecution, I can understand how he was reluctant to do so because it was not his intended motive at all. I can see that it pained him a lot to see how Nicholas’s (the person he imposed) family was so happy to see him since it gave them hope that their son is alive and well. It is easy to see why a lot of people fault him for what he did, but I sided with Beverly on having sympathy of Bourdin. It takes a lot of courage to do what he did and he only did it because certain circumstances in his life had forced him to hide in identities other than his own. It was really satisfying in the end to read that Bourdin found himself a family. Maybe some people still have doubts as to whether or not he is telling the truth, but I believe that he had finally found himself the identity he wants to be in for the rest of his life and.
Acting is an art form. Actors are artists. Mr. Bourdin is not an artist. He is simply a manipulator, and I completely disagree with the notion that he didn’t harm anybody with his “art”.
The ability to deceive people is a common – look at politicians- anybody with the enough motivation and diligence can pick it up. Bourdin does not have the proper motivation; he works through depravity. He wanted attention, and that very desire that manifested his talents as an “actor” was the same vice that eventually brought him to justice.
His plan was not original, as shown by the example in the article about the eleven year-old who pulled off the same trick. Many adults have enrolled in schools pretending to be teenagers to elicit attention or satisfy some desire, but Bourdin has only reached this level of infamy because he was arrogant enough to talk to investigators. Many pedophiles have been caught in classrooms and sent to jail. Even a genius (Rick Rosner) with an off-the-charts IQ has pulled the same stunt, and gotten away with it. There is nothing original about Bourdin, he’s not even good; these other impersonators have gotten away with it for years while Bourdin was caught constantly.
So what is the distinction between Bourdin and these others? Depravity. His arrogance to tattoo “chameleon” on his body as if he were proud of it. His complete lacks of morals entwines a struggling and vulnerable family into his life to escape punishment. His devotion to willingly modify his body to fool innocent strangers rather than accept the consequences shows that he is more of an animal than a man. He is the Chameleon.
His crime isn’t as much impersonation as much as it is murder. He murdered Nicholas by reviving him through false hope, and killing Nicholas’ identity with lies. Bourdin will forever be a stain in the family’s memories about Nicholas. So while Bourdin may exhibit some talent in impersonating, it is an insult to actors everywhere to call this man (or teenager…) an “artist.”
As for the relationship between the actor and his audience, and its relevance to art: the audience’s perception of the actor shapes the meaning of the art. Art is not a one way street; and so while Bourdin can call himself whatever he wants, he still has no power to shape their perception directly. The Barclay’s were particularly vulnerable targets who yearned for their loved one back, and that made Bourdin’s “work” so much more believable (at least on the surface).
I thought this article was interesting but I find Mr. Bourdin to be very disturbing. What he did was not considered art to me. It just another sick crime to hurt families emotionally. Sure he is looking for “love” that he never got from his family but that’s not the way to do it. He does have a family of his own so he should just try to work towards a better relationship with his REAL family rather than tricking all these poor families. He’s also committing identity theft which is definitely an indisputable crime. While I was reading the story at first I felt bad for Bourdin and I thought the Barclay family were obviously hiding a murder. After finishing the article and realizing that wasn’t the case, I really did not like Mr. Bourdin at all. He was responsible for Jason’s suicide and he put the entire family through so much unnecessary trouble. The fact that he repeats the same old method each time gets boring and unoriginal.
Actor and audience relation to art: The only thing that Mr. Bourdin really did was try to change the appearance of himself to resemble the lost child. His ability to get people to feel sorry for him was his strongest point. However he was still unable to connect with the family or develop any sort of close relationship with anyone. This proves that his so called art is only trick people from appearance but he could never be the REAL thing.
I really do wonder if he can be a good father and husband to his wife and future husband. He seems mentally unfit for the job when he’s always trying to be a kid. However perhaps this the love that he needs to turn over a new leaf and be a father that he never got the chance to meet.
Am I the only person who thought it was likely that the brother had a role in the real Nicholas Barclay’s death/disappearance, and the mother was also involved in covering it up? I had the feeling that the mother knew Bourdin was not her son, but saw Bourdin as a kind of ghost whose role was to punish her. So there was a kind of very disturbing complicity between Bourdin (the performer) and his family (the audience). Of course, Bourdin manipulated and preyed upon the family; but the family members in turn knew more than they was letting on, and was going along with the act for their own reasons and their own (albeit twisted and/or sad) fulfillment.
I also think about how belief and consciousness play a role in defining this act as life or art; in a way, as long as the audience believes Bourdin’s act, it is experiencing the act as life – but when they, and we, no longer believe Bourdin’s act, or are conscious of it as an act, then it is experienced as art (and, in this case, as pathological). So, one could say that in order for us to understand something as being art, we have to know it is not real, or at least we have to be able to direct our consciousness toward it as being somehow removed from the fabric of reality.
Yet at the same time when we see a performance we often commend it as being ‘convincing’ or ‘life-like’, or of a painting we might say ‘it looked so real’, as a way to express our approval and amazement. So clearly we (tend to) value a certain continuity between the performance, or the painting, and the fabric of reality.
Its almost as though we have to convince ourselves that the art could be “real” at the same time that we have to fundamentally know that it isn’t real. It’s a funny little mind game we, the audience, play on ourselves; we have to both believe and disbelieve at the same time. The artwork needs to both convince us and remind us that we are being convinced at the same time. There is a complex manipulation going on in the artwork that we are willingly complicit in as the audience. This leaves us, the audience, in an awkward position where (I think) we feel vulnerable and perhaps we are indeed vulnerable, as we have to leave ourselves vulnerable to the artwork in order to allow it to affect us. Is it any coincidence that we often worry that art is ‘scamming’ us? Isn’t that ‘scam’ the very condition we seek as appreciative audiences, yet condemn as a con game at the same time?
I am sure there are many logical inconsistencies in my argument and I trust you will let me know what you think.
I think most people connected the disappearance and the mother and the brother (the mother’s drunken words, brother’s mysterious behavior, etc), but focused more on than Bourdin’s actions than the possible wrongdoings of the family. I don’t know if I would say that the family was going along with it for their fulfillment. If a family member were taken away, and the family rejects the possibility that someone who says that he is the missing person, it would be very suspicious to the public and the law as to what the family might know but isn’t telling… So it could be for protection more than it is for their fulfillment.
I disagree with the point that we must know that something is unreal in order to appreciate it as art. I think the virtue of art is that it transcends both reality and fantasy, for being able to synergize both to engender a complex range of emotions. I agree with the “could be real” aspect in shaping art since there are very few people who go to theater, the movies, and etc with intent of observing things that can be seen in mundane everyday life.
For example in drama, catharsis (purification) is the emotional climax which elicits sorrow, pity, joy, or any other emotion because it is such a rich and complex moment. An awareness about the unreality of what is being seen can strip away what can the most important and beautiful scene in a drama. On the other hand, the critic who disparaged the show for its portrayal of Asians might have learned much more about the development and the love between Nelly and Emile had he simply come to terms with the fact that it is just a show and meant to be enjoyed, but scrutinized for its other facets.
So while I do agree with some of your ideas about what constitutes art, I don’t think that we have to know something is unreal to appreciate; but rather, it depends on what exactly is being viewed. The difficulty in appreciating what Bourdin did as art is overlooking his transgressions and the extent to which he affected the family. Also, I don’t think that his “art” accomplished any of the things we defined in class as the roles of art.
I’m sure there are fallacies in mine…heh
Like most of the class, I thought Bourdin was a little creepy. To play with the minds of others and give them false hope is indeed very cruel and disrespectful, and sometimes dangerous. Bourdin impersonated teenagers to try to blend into public schools. Imagine someone like that in our school now– it’s kind of creepy. Though acting is a type of art, I think Bourdin took it a little too far. Acting is now part of his life. Everyone acts at one point or another, but living a lie and playing with the minds of others does not seem like art to me.
I do feel sympathy for Bourdin’s childhood. He never knew who his father was and his mother was always out drinking, not wanting anything to do with him. I would think this had a big impact on his decision of being a “chameleon.” Because he had such a sorrowful childhood, Bourdin never wanted to grow up. Even at such an early age (16), he was able to devise his first fake identity. Soon after, he would begin to research the missing child’s biography, personality, etc. To me, this seems very stalker-ish, even though the child is missing.
When Bourdin played Nicholas Barclay, he acted for about 5 months. I do agree with Zoe that Beverly and Jason knew that this was not Nicholas. Even though their loved one had been gone for a few years, I do believe that, as a family, there is a certain connection– especially between mother and son. There is a possibility that Jason was involved in Nicholas’ disappearance. When Bourdin returned to them, both were somewhat cold-hearted to him, rather than being excited and overjoyed. They probably could not believe how another person could be so similar to Nicholas at that moment. Also, if Jason and Beverly were involved with Nicholas’ disappearance, Bourdin’s presence can help mask what they may have done. which could have been illegal. I think they used this chance to save themselves by pretending to really believe it was Nicholas.
I agree with Chang on the comment about art having to be unrealistic to be appreciated as art. Sometimes, I think of life itself as art. This certainly isnt unrealistic. Like Chang said, art should both include reality and fantasy. For something like dancing, who could decide whether it is real or not? Yet, everyone considers dancing a type of art.
Bourdin is certainly a difficult character to understand. According to him, all he wanted was love and attention. Since he lived through a lie all his life, it is very rare to find someone to believe in him. This kind of reminds me of “The Boy Who Cried Wolf.” Sooner or later, everyone will lose trust in you. I do feel sorry for Bourdin if he really decides to change.
I really agree with what many others have already written here. I don’t believe that what Bourdin was doing was really “art” — there’s definitely a separation between art and life, and what Bourdin was doing was living out his deception, not just portraying it. Everyone can appreciate acting when they know that it’s acting — but when faced with someone “acting” in real life, without know that it’s acting — that’s when their appreciation turns to anger. No one likes to be played or made a fool of, and to be deceived by someone like Bourdin, to find out that someone you connected to was lying to you the whole time? I really feel sympathy for all the people that he conned. Although Bourdin’s actions were not actually hurtful in any measurable way — he never physically harmed anyone or stole anything — there’s something emotionally disturbing about a character who would do something like that. To the people that he fooled, his actions probably brought out a certain level of!
distrust. The fact that someone you sympathize with, care for, and believe in could look you in the face and lie to you constantly is probably a very deeply scarring notion.
It reminds me very much of a friend I used to have in junior high (“used to” being the important phrase). I knew her for several years, and we weren’t very close, but we were good enough friends. She always liked to tell a lot of stories to everyone that she knew — she was very funny, entertaining, and the stories she told always impressed everyone because she seemed so interesting, knowledgeable, and experienced. For about two years, no one really questioned what she said — but then, people began to find out inconsistencies in her some of her stories. Sometimes she didn’t even remember a story that she told, or she would tell it differently. Everyone realized that a lot of the time, she lied — and it had a noticeable affect. People, myself included, didn’t want to be very close to her anymore. We took every story that she told with a grain of salt — she never quite captured our interest or respect anymore, just because every time we listened to a story, we had to wonder if it was really true. Although she did absolutely nothing hurtful by lying about her experiences — she NEVER told any lies about things that immediately affected us (like claiming someone hates you, said bad things, or lying about when things are due, etc.) — we were hurt anyway, just knowing that she’d been pretending and lying to us the whole time. Her “art”, in the same way as Bourdin, was the art of making herself into something that she wasn’t. But bringing it into real life — telling these tall tales just to impress us — is, in reality, quite unacceptable.
{I wrote something that I’m sure was very profound 🙂 here, but I didn’t save it, and it disappeared in the eportfolio crash. It said, among other things, that perhaps Bourdin’s work was not art because it was neither created nor received as art. But nevertheless as a reflecting mirror for what art is, and what art does, it might be a useful case study – if more than a bit creepy]
I hate to use the cliché, but I definitely think that Bourdin was a con artist. Everything he did was artistic, whether or not it was intentional. In class I recall that we came to some sort of conclusion that art was comprised of many different attributes, including skill, entertainment, and distinction. What Bourdin did had all of these attributes, and quite a few more from the list. I really think he was an artist. I doubt there are very many people that could do what Bourdin did for a large part of his life. This aspect alone is enough to consider his action’s “art”, at least in my opinion.
Zoe puts forth an interesting theory about the definition of “art.” I would agree with the fact that “if its not created or received as art then it isn’t art.” Essentially, art is subjective–art is, of course, powerful and meaningful in the context of the conceiver’s mind. In my understanding of the article, Mr. Bourdin didn’t consider his deed art, but rather felt like he was being consumed by an interminable state of guilt. As a result, his attitude around his newfound “family” fluctuated to various degrees of hostility. In his own mind, Bourdin wasn’t creating the “art.”
In terms of an outside perspective–most morally sound individuals would consider Bourdin’s acts grotesque violations of human emotions. Consequently, they mustn’t be considered art, as considering his actions art would be to break the chains of conformity that society impresses upon us. By Zoe’s logic, Bourdin’s deeds are considered “art” is they are received as “art”–is that to say it’s art to the individual or in general? Is achieving the status of “artwork” even achievable on a more general level?
You must log in to post a comment.