Term "heirloom" in marketing portraits?

[Leslie Ficcaglia]

Recently a discussion arose on an artists' list I frequent about whether the term "heirloom" was a propitious one to use when marketing portraits. Someone asked, "Right now, is the 'heirloom' approach necessarily a good one for portraits? Maybe another word that doesn't sound so, well, hoary? Dunno, but maybe worth some exploration?

Another person objected, "Yeah, in today's instant gratification society, the word 'heirloom" conjures up images of old money, old people in ornate gold frames hanging in some dark foyer, and a future that today's people don't even think about. Somehow there has to be a spin on it that can make it seem more attractive than that..."

Someone else chimed in, "I don't see a problem with promoting the idea of a future family heirloom as a selling point. Stress the use of archival materials to enhance the thought of the portrait being around for generations, along with the potential for enjoyment by the current generation. In the case of children, you are 'capturing' more than a moment in time, such as a photo would, but encompassing the whole personality... the essence of the child. We all know how fast kids grow and how rapidly they change... a portrait holds them in time."

This was prompted by my mentioning that an upscale magazine just included a large photo of one of my paintings in an article about unusual gifts, with the text "Artist Leslie Ficcaglia of Port Elizabeth suggests creating a new heirloom as a gift: a portrait of the person. Ficcaglia's subjects have included Gov. James McGreevey, and she also has created images of individuals, couples, children, pets and families, etc. "

Since that artists' list includes people who use a wide variety of mediums and subject matter, I was interested in portrait artists' opinions on use of the term heirloom. Is it stuffy or a turn-off, in your experience, or does it inspire people to commission a painting for themselves?