Ad agency BBDO blatantly stole its concept for a recent AT&T ad from art duo Christo and Jeanne-Claude. Watch as their ample “coverage” is demonstrated by sprawling, orange fabric that covers buildings and landscapes while commercial extras gawk in glee.
Not surprisingly, the CGI-laden travesty is followed by a disclaimer about the artists’ non-affiliation and an AT&T spokesman commented that the artists’ estate will not be compensated in any way. |Art Review|
Personally, I cringe every time I hear Nick Drake's beautiful song being used to hawk cell phones. I'm sure he's rolling in his grave right about now.
its just an ad. christo is art. comparing the two is like apples and oranges…if anything i see it as an homage to him and his freaking awesome art.
Yet another lame attempt to combat the Verizon maps campaign.
Seriously, stop advertising your shitty coverage (Which isn't 3G by the way) and fix you freakin network so my iPhone will finally work the way it's supposed to. AT+T coverage ads aren't fooling anyone.
It's also a rip-off of every spot Modernista ever did.
A concept in art as anything else is 'intellectual property' and is the property of the artist, writer, musician, etc.–when used for financial gain by another entity it is Theft.
I love this spot but immediately thought of Christo. Imagine my surprise when at the end of the spot, I saw the no-Christo disclaimer. To be fair, I work in advertising, so a beautiful, well produced spot always makes me stop and do a double take. Too bad for BBDO that this piece of art in its own right (admit it. It's beautiful) has been sabotaged by two BIG problems:
1) It bears way too close a resemblance to Christo's work.
2) AT&T criminally shoddy coverage.
The first problem is a BIG one for the agency. I mean, agencies are filled to the brim with former art students, culture mavens, and actual artists. The good agencies, anyway. There's no way in the world that the writer and art director of this spot didn't know the reference. That's probably how they sold it to the clients. "See, we'll drape the whole country with bright orange flowing fabric. You know, like Christo!" I guarantee this is what happened. Luckily, all agencies also employ business affairs professionals and legions of lawyers who should have covered off on Christo before anything was shot. In fact, they probably did. It's their job. The fact that AT&T and BBDO aren't being sued right now means either they got Christo's blessing beforehand or determined with legal certainty that they didn't need it. Either way, it's probably not an intellectual property theft. The fact that the spot is still on the air proves it. Spots get pulled for far less. Even so, I'm surprised it got produced. The potential of this exact backlash should have caused some thinking person at that agency to stop it. A shame.
Now , what are AT&T and BBDO going to do about that CRAPPY coverage and the ridiculous waste of ad space to suggest the opposite. Fix your coverage! Maybe then I won't get dropped calls 10 times a day. It is a gorgeous spot, though. Well done, BBDO. Good luck with the backlash.
It's possible that the settlement provided for compensation while giving AT&T a clever way not to concede it publicly. Note the AT&T spokesperson's exact wording, possibly negotiated by the lawyers:
"Neither Christo nor Jean-Claude nor any business entity of [theirs] has been or will be paid any compensation of any kind."
The specific reference to "any business entity" suggests there may have been a payout to a charity.
This is so rotten. Of course they're not getting any credit. Are people supposed to believe that AT&T's ad team just pulled this out of their asses?? Like artists don't have it hard enough, capitalism rips them off for financial gains. What else is new.
Spot on Dr. J. As an artist I hate being ripped off but on the other hand, inspiration must start somewhere. Begging the question; where do you draw the line?
IT MAKES ME SICK…Christo and Jeanne Claude had heart together, at&t shouldn't be allowed to steal blatantly…do we care here, in this country, of a lack of soul?
Nonetheless the point is that anyone with some education will recognize immediately the source of this so-called "inspiration" for the AT&T ad. It's not a nod to Christo nor an homage (although yes, proof of influence). Because it can be mistaken for Christo, because you pause for more than a moment and wait for an accreditation, and don't find it except as some odd disclaimer (as if lying makes it true), it is theft.
This is a beautiful spot. I work in media and television production and I will say there is nothing new in pop culture. There are no new stories or songs. All one can do is retell a story through their own eyes. That's ok and that's what is done here. I view it as homage to Christo and Jean-Claude.
I am really surprised at the lack of sophistication in most of these posts. This spot is not a "blatant rip-off" but a clear reference to Christo and Jean-Claude. I'm not an artist, an art student, or an advertising professional, but I appreciated the influence immediately. Art is all about inspiration and influence–and no attribution is required. Do you consider West Side Story a "rip-off"of Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet? Did C.S. Lewis "steal" from the New Testament when he wrote The Narnia Chronicles? Neither work, by the way, acknowledges its influence. I love Christo and Jean-Claude; their art was truly popular–of the people–and I believe they would appreciate the tribute. Unfortunately, If they were alive and had iPhones, they would receive only about a third of their congratulatory calls.
my immediate reaction is that the fabric is the same color as the oil floating on the top of the water in the gulf of mexico (subliminal advertising?), and the last frame, showing AT&T's "coverage" of the world looks like an oil slick.
As a promotions executive, it is quite possible that a donation was made to their charity which does receive donations, and they were given permission to "copycat" the work if they agreed to advertise the distance between the two entities. As anyone knows, Christo and Jeanne-Claude finance their public art works through their own foundation and do not accept direct corporate sponsors or commissions. I'm just saying that perhaps ATT did not rip them off at all!
This song is terrible anyway…who cares if they ripped it off!
These singers sound like wimps. I would kick their ass if I ever met them.
Seroiusly. F'ing liberal wimps.
I just did a search on the search engine for this commercial because after seeing the disclaimer on the commercial, I knew they must have ripped the artists off.
UNBELIEVABLE AT&T!
Doesn't get lower.
Guys, it's just a commercial. Everything today is CGI–who can believe anything is real. i'm happy with AT&T here in the West, but if I weren't, I'd just change companies.
So….An artist basically puts up a bunch of curtains on frames in Central Park. AT&T happens to have the same color theme for all of their advertising – orange. At one extreme someone noticed the correlation and used it in their advertising. BTW – 95% of the population don't have a clue who the artist is anyway. At the other extreme, someone noticed the correlation after the commercial was made and a note was put at the end.
Either way – the artist's popularity increased because of the commercial. Not the other way around (as noted by the numerous responses). I thought that was the name of the musician of the song for a second actually.
So…no offense, but you guys are flipping out for no reason. Intellectual property and/or artist's rights aren't being trampled. It wouldn't hold up in a court of law. And while I'm no fan of AT&T and big companies – I don't think they are in the wrong from a personal perspective either.
Don't worry boys and girls, (A)T'N'T will bite their nails to bloody stumps when the iPhone will be finally freed to the masses from under the tyrannic marriage between Apple and the "orange monster". Have you heard that is expected up to a million iPhone users to say bah-bah to the awful service that they currently receive??! I simply wonder why… NOT! As my buddy Lee rightfully said "stop ripping off Christo & Co and spend your bullions on fixing your crappy service."
I agree that credit should be given where it's due. However, I am not sure that I would call an artistic method intellectual art. Its a dangerous area. Where do you draw the line. I think there will be new WAYS to create art forever. Do we only allow the first person to do it to continue doing it? Did the second painter ever rip off the first painter ever by using paint? What about sculpture? At some point, no one sculpted anything. Someone got the idea to create art in that particular form, using that particular method. Do we consider that intellectual property? After the first sculpture, millions of other sculptures were created. Why would we limit the world of art to only forms of art that have never been created in any way similar to any other form of art? We should embrace new artistic ideas. This idea has opened up a whole new canvas, so to speak. Van Gogh is one of the world's most famous impressionist artists, however Claude Monet was the first. Did Van Gogh rip off Monet? Should Van Gogh have been prevented from creating his masterpieces because someone else had already introduced that particular idea? It's crazy to say no one can ever use a new method of art if someone else did it first. At&T did not use the actual art of Christo and Jenne-Claude, they were simply inspired by it, which I think should be considered flattering and a wonderful advancement for the world of art – a new idea, a new method, a new form.
Christo should sue them.
I assume whatever moron owns Nick Drake’s catalog got paid.
I love this ad–it’s absolutely beautiful. I know it’s mostly computer-generated, but I would love to see how they did it. It obviously is influenced by Christo & Jeanne-Claude’s art–any artist should recognize that. The added comment on the commercial makes sense. I only wish it said “This commercial was inspired by the art of Christo and Jeanne-Claude, They, however, have no direct or indirect affiliation or involvement with AT&T.” instead of just “The artists Christo and Jeanne-Claude have no direct or indirect affiliation or involvement with AT&T.”
I love the commercial. I knew it was in Christo’s style, but it’s beautiful on its own. It didn’t use any of Christo’s own work, so it’s a reference, not a theft. Christo isn’t particularly well known to the public, so the ad and its controversy actually raises his profile. I love this ad as well as AT&T’s ‘any moment could be the moment” Presidential parents ad, which always makes me sniffle.Great works of advertising; and I usually hate ads.
They’re not going to make me change my cell phone carrier as a result of the ad; I’m happy where I am.
The commercial fucking sucks! The stupid, lame-ass, no-beat, no melody song fucking sucks! And the entire concept of covering everything in stupid fucking ugly-ass orange banners fucking sucks! Christo and Jeane-Claude fucking sucks! All you artsy-fucking-fartsy people that come up with totally ridiculous ideas and have the nerve to call it "art" are fucking whackjobs anyway!
WHY IN THE FUCK IS COVERING ANYTHING IN STUPID FUCKING UGLY-ASS ORANGE FABRIC CONSIDERED ART ANYWAY????
YOU ARE ALL CERTIFIABLE FUCKING WHACKJOBS!!!!
I'm with joe raschit. Never could stand Christo's so-called "art." Who does he think he is, God? "Revelation through concealment…" what a load of pretentious shit. People who fuck with the environment and create waste on such a huge scale ought to be put in prison, not commended for it. This ad makes me reach for the remote every time it comes on. However, if it offends Christo and his fans, score one for AT&T.
iF THIS EVER GOES TO A JURY I HOPE I AM ON IT. AT&T ARE CROOKS
Do these two artists really think what they are doing is new? Give me a break. Yoko Ono wrapped the lions in Trafalgar Square (in London) in fabric back in the 70’s. She or another artist wrapped up some buildings in London and I think some rocks on Dartmore. They wanted to do more but everyone their was such an outcry they had to stop.
If anyone should sue it's these guys who seemed to have thought up the idea of wrapping up perfectly good objects in probably perfectly good fabric to make some ugly mess.
So ATT had a similar idea, at least their stuff is virtual not real. Best way to do that kind of art in my mind.
I can't see that wrapping a coastline in fabric is any better than smothering it in oil. It's destroying the habitat and killing any life that happened to be living there, that’s not art it's environmental murder.
If anyone has ever been to a Christo and Jeanne-Claude exhibit they would know it was art. Second, if anyone bothered to study the years of designing and planning that goes into their work before it finally happens people would know so much more about the difficulty and devotion required to create their art. For AT&T to even remotely copy their work is horrible and an insult to two very great modern environmental artists. Because I know that they are both as nice as they are great it may not be surprising that they look the other way about this theft. Shame on AT&T. Wish I had other phone options as I for sure would change.
I think the commercial is wonderful. I love the song–I love the orange billowy cloth and the feeling of soft breezes blowing. I had never heard of Nick Drake but loved the song and looked it up. I thought Christo and Jeanne-Claude were the song writers and my son told me they were the conceptial artists that inspired the immense waving fabric.
I have to agree that this commercial while beautifully done and embraced (even far more than At&T apparently) stands as an homage and awareness booster for both Drake and the artists.
AT&T caused people to respond-investigate and want to know more–I think that makes it a success.
Let's inspire one another.