It was with great surprise that I opened up a recent New Yorker magazine to find a special offer from MasterCard offering me a commissioned portrait by the famous New York artist and film director Julian Schnabel. This credit card incentive offer was a two-page spread advertisement, that included a tipped-in envelope and invitation that was sealed with a faux candle-wax seal.
I read the fine print. The grand prize would be a 4-day trip to New York City for two that included a 30-minute consultation with Julian Schnabel. The rest of the fine print is fascinating to read: The “framed, original oil on canvas Portrait depicting Artist’s sole interpretation & rendition of artwork per direction provided during consultation with winner. Portrait to be delivered to winner’s residence on or about 12/31/08. Final delivery date subject to change at Sponsor’s sole discretion. Canvas size to be determined solely by Sponsor. Portrait to be awarded “as is” & without warranties, guarantees and/or modifications of any kind. Winner responsible for insurance, installation, & any other expenses not specified herein. By accepting prize, winner agrees (where legal) to personally retain ownership of Portrait for a minimum period of (2) years following delivery & that public exhibits of Portrait, if any, are subject to Sponsor’s approval (Maximum ARV of Portrait =$350,000)”
So the grand MasterCard prize is a painting of the winner by Julian Schnabel. The above legal paragraph stipulates that the painting will be accepted “as is” with no moderations. The size of the painting depends solely on the whim of “the Sponsor”. Would Mastercard really dictate to Julian Schnabel the size of the canvas? I don’t think so. I think the painting will be the size of some random primed canvas that Schnabel has lying about his studio. The winner and recipient of the artwork has to hang onto the painting for at least two years before attempting to sell it. It is interesting to see how this document is crafted to lay down the parameters of this unusual credit card promotion.
The advertisement includes a full-page presumed self-portrait of the artist at work in front of a canvas looking all Gauguin-y, and maybe just a little like Nick Nolte from the movie New York Stories (1989). In this self-portrait Julian Schnabel seems to lead with his belly and is wearing what looks like brown pajamas, with the top unbuttoned to his navel. The painting has been carefully framed in a traditional gold frame that denotes luxurious fine art. The Schnabel painting is presented with the upscale respect it deserves, but the advertisement doesn’t give us the art information that most museum-goers want to know. What is the title? What is the size and medium of the artwork?
Is it unseemly for fine artists to act as spokespersons for large banks or corporations? If Bob Dylan can do Victoria’s Secret commercials and no one blinks an eye, certainly Julian Schnabel should be allowed to sell for Mastercard. In case you’re wondering, I didn’t win the portrait painted by Julian Schnabel that was sponsored by MasterCard. Keep Searching, says the card. Not me, thinks I.
What do you think?
Another spin on the Julian Schnabel ad here.
I read the fine print. The grand prize would be a 4-day trip to New York City for two that included a 30-minute consultation with Julian Schnabel. The rest of the fine print is fascinating to read: The “framed, original oil on canvas Portrait depicting Artist’s sole interpretation & rendition of artwork per direction provided during consultation with winner. Portrait to be delivered to winner’s residence on or about 12/31/08. Final delivery date subject to change at Sponsor’s sole discretion. Canvas size to be determined solely by Sponsor. Portrait to be awarded “as is” & without warranties, guarantees and/or modifications of any kind. Winner responsible for insurance, installation, & any other expenses not specified herein. By accepting prize, winner agrees (where legal) to personally retain ownership of Portrait for a minimum period of (2) years following delivery & that public exhibits of Portrait, if any, are subject to Sponsor’s approval (Maximum ARV of Portrait =$350,000)”
So the grand MasterCard prize is a painting of the winner by Julian Schnabel. The above legal paragraph stipulates that the painting will be accepted “as is” with no moderations. The size of the painting depends solely on the whim of “the Sponsor”. Would Mastercard really dictate to Julian Schnabel the size of the canvas? I don’t think so. I think the painting will be the size of some random primed canvas that Schnabel has lying about his studio. The winner and recipient of the artwork has to hang onto the painting for at least two years before attempting to sell it. It is interesting to see how this document is crafted to lay down the parameters of this unusual credit card promotion.
The advertisement includes a full-page presumed self-portrait of the artist at work in front of a canvas looking all Gauguin-y, and maybe just a little like Nick Nolte from the movie New York Stories (1989). In this self-portrait Julian Schnabel seems to lead with his belly and is wearing what looks like brown pajamas, with the top unbuttoned to his navel. The painting has been carefully framed in a traditional gold frame that denotes luxurious fine art. The Schnabel painting is presented with the upscale respect it deserves, but the advertisement doesn’t give us the art information that most museum-goers want to know. What is the title? What is the size and medium of the artwork?
Is it unseemly for fine artists to act as spokespersons for large banks or corporations? If Bob Dylan can do Victoria’s Secret commercials and no one blinks an eye, certainly Julian Schnabel should be allowed to sell for Mastercard. In case you’re wondering, I didn’t win the portrait painted by Julian Schnabel that was sponsored by MasterCard. Keep Searching, says the card. Not me, thinks I.
What do you think?
Another spin on the Julian Schnabel ad here.
LesTout Recommends
