wenglund Posted May 19, 2012 Posted May 19, 2012 Thank you, as Log was the one accusing the artist's estate.I see what you mean. Good thing no one accused the the folks at the Ensign. Thanks, -Wade Englund-
Log Posted May 19, 2012 Posted May 19, 2012 Since I no longer read nor respond to Volgadon, someone let me know when he posts the MP3 of his conversation with the Ensign editorial office about whether the Ensign altered the painting in question.
volgadon Posted May 19, 2012 Posted May 19, 2012 (edited) Since I no longer read nor respond to Volgadon, someone let me know when he posts the MP3 of his conversation with the Ensign editorial office about whether the Ensign altered the painting in question.How convenient for you. After I answered your CFR and reminded you of mine, you've put me on ignore. That won't fly. You've also edited your CFR post here. Nice. Edited May 19, 2012 by volgadon
selek1 Posted May 19, 2012 Posted May 19, 2012 The bottom line is this: The OP was a disingeuous attempt to sow dissension and incite discord among the faithful.A number of you- who should have known better- have taken the bait.There is zero evidence that teh Church, the editors at the Ensign, or even Jack frickin Bauer have behaved badly or unethically.All the rest is beating a drum in vacuum- pointless, foolish, and exhausting....in the meantime, the agent provocatuer and his/her cohorts back at the Sty are chuckling gleefully at the gullible Mormons. 2
why me Posted May 19, 2012 Posted May 19, 2012 ...in the meantime, the agent provocatuer and his/her cohorts back at the Sty are chuckling gleefully at the gullible Mormons.On an exmormon board, they are making a lot of hay about the change in the painting. And I can see why. When one searches for a negative, one is capable of grasping at any straw to do so. It feeds the ego and attempts to confirm the choices they have made about the lds church. I suppose that it is apart of our human nature. Of course, since there are variations of the painting on the web, the point is mute.
wenglund Posted May 19, 2012 Posted May 19, 2012 (edited) ...in the meantime, the agent provocatuer and his/her cohorts back at the Sty are chuckling gleefully at the gullible Mormons.I am glad. They have so little to be gleeful about at the ceespool.Anyway, I hope, for their sake, that they aren't clever enough to realize that some of us have been playing them back--and good. I wouldn't want to rain on thier little glee parade.Thanks, -Wade Englund- Edited May 19, 2012 by wenglund
CASteinman Posted May 19, 2012 Posted May 19, 2012 (edited) Now who is confusing genre.That would be just about everyone. But in my case I did it knowingly.In a recording of performance art, such as music, it goes beyond saying that unless the original writer and the performer are one and the same, the performer is the one performing the piece and its arrangement.Goes withhout saying eh? I think this is more of a personal opinion than an objective truth.I have already stated that, preferably, the painting should not have been altered, but failing that, at least an acknowledgement of the fact should have been made.Yes you have said that. Before.Nobody expects a full-blown citation, but if the Ensign does accredit the art and did call the superimposed images a composite, then why couldn't it aply the same standard to a significant alteration?Maybe because it did not know? ::Shrug:: It does not matter. It is not necessary. There is no damage. If you are hurt, you can just not subscribe.Tempest in a teapot. Edited May 19, 2012 by CASteinman 1
volgadon Posted May 19, 2012 Posted May 19, 2012 Goes withhout saying eh? I think this is more of a personal opinion than an objective truth.Ok, so if you bought the Byrds album "Turn! Turn! Turn!" do you expect "The Times They Are a-Changin'" to be performed by the Byrds, or do you expect Bobby Dylan (the original artist), or do you expect Runrig? Yes you have said that. Before.So obviously not everyone is split into those two extreme camps you've painted.Tempest in a teapot.How many posts do you have on this thread?
CASteinman Posted May 19, 2012 Posted May 19, 2012 Why did the Ensign have to resort to altering a non-members artwork? Why couldn't they commission appropriate artwork or why is there no already done acceptable artwork depicting the Resurrection?This is probably the 5th time this has had to be said: The article was about an experience that included this specific work of art -- and its structure vs a second piece of art. This was not really replacable,How much does this offend you?
CASteinman Posted May 19, 2012 Posted May 19, 2012 You could be right, although you are probably a youngster and are seeing the same story applied to a later pres. These types of stories with much the same lesson are also told of Buddhist monks, one of whom lives his religion internally, the other only outwardly."Youngster". I like the sound of that. Are you talking about Zen Koans?
CASteinman Posted May 19, 2012 Posted May 19, 2012 Ok, so if you bought the Byrds album "Turn! Turn! Turn!" do you expect "The Times They Are a-Changin'" to be performed by the Byrds, or do you expect Bobby Dylan (the original artist), or do you expect Runrig?I don't know. Don't like any of them. Never bought any of their albums.It might be sorta like when the Animals put out House of the Rising Sun. Lots of people thought they were the first to do it. They didn't really do much to abuse anyone of that notion. And their version was way different from, say, the Seeger version. So obviously not everyone is split into those two extreme camps you've painted.I agree with you that they are both extreme camps. However, it is not really obvious that someone who is in one extreme camp is not in that camp when all they are willilng to do is go to the other extreme camp should their position fail. It would be expected.How many posts do you have on this thread?Don't know. How does it relate?
volgadon Posted May 20, 2012 Posted May 20, 2012 This is probably the 5th time this has had to be said: The article was about an experience that included this specific work of art -- and its structure vs a second piece of art. This was not really replacable,How much does this offend you?The experience was with a painting containing angelic wings. Why edit it?
CASteinman Posted May 20, 2012 Posted May 20, 2012 (edited) The experience was with a painting containing angelic wings. Why edit it?Because it does not meet the standards of the Ensign, the Church, and/or the Author.. Edited May 20, 2012 by CASteinman 1
volgadon Posted May 20, 2012 Posted May 20, 2012 Because it does not meet the standards of the Ensign, the Church, and/or the Author..Yet a spiritual experience had with those wings present in the painting was good enough to be made an Ensign article. It is not as if Bloch painted obscene nudes. As much as I dislike Bloch, he did have artistic talent, definitely better skilled than a good deal of painters who work with the Ensign.
CASteinman Posted May 20, 2012 Posted May 20, 2012 Yet a spiritual experience had with those wings present in the painting was good enough to be made an Ensign article.Yes. Why are you so sure that Ensign editors changed the painting?
CASteinman Posted May 20, 2012 Posted May 20, 2012 As much as I dislike Bloch, he did have artistic talent, definitely better skilled than a good deal of painters who work with the Ensign.Yeah.. You have said you hate Bloch. Apparently hatred comes easy toward painters because so many others also earn your derision. And interestingly... the common denominator is that their works appear in the Official Organ of the LDS Church.
volgadon Posted May 20, 2012 Posted May 20, 2012 Yes. Why are you so sure that Ensign editors changed the painting?Why? When a significant modification that matches LDS teachings but not those of the artist's faith appears in an LDS magazine, it is entirely reasonable to conclude that the LDS magazine made the change. Unless, that is, you can show otherwise.
CASteinman Posted May 20, 2012 Posted May 20, 2012 Why? When a significant modification that matches LDS teachings but not those of the artist's faith appears in an LDS magazine, it is entirely reasonable to conclude that the LDS magazine made the change. Unless, that is, you can show otherwise.Of course I can. Anyone can. Look at the submission guidelines for the Ensign Magazine. You can figure out where the photos came from and possibly even why they were altered.
volgadon Posted May 20, 2012 Posted May 20, 2012 Yeah.. You have said you hate Bloch. Apparently hatred comes easy toward painters because so many others also earn your derision. And interestingly... the common denominator is that their works appear in the Official Organ of the LDS Church.Ok, if you really want to know, my soul is twisted and cankered, corroded by an unspeakable hatred towards the Official Organ (sic) of the LDS Church.I really don't know how to put it softly, but most LDS art that appears in the Ensign is poor. Disproportioned, poorly executed, sacharine, emotionally manipulative, bland. I think the Ensign could do a lot better, as there are some very talented LDS artists whose work could appear in the Ensign more often. You consider winged angels as failing to meet your standard, I think of poor art the same way. Has nothing to do with it being the Church's official organ.
CASteinman Posted May 20, 2012 Posted May 20, 2012 Ok, if you really want to know, my soul is twisted and cankered, corroded by an unspeakable hatred towards the Official Organ (sic) of the LDS Church.I didn't really want to know that. I am sorry for whatever has happened to cause you to feel this way.You consider winged angels as failing to meet your standardWoah. Hold on there. Its not my standard. Its the standard of the Church Magazine. But I probably agree with it, especially if the same articles go out to places in the world where false ideas about Angels are prevalent.The Church has no oblgation to make you feel better about the art. Its obligation is to prepare the World for the Return of Christ -- which includes correcting false doctrines. 1
volgadon Posted May 20, 2012 Posted May 20, 2012 I didn't really want to know that. I am sorry for whatever has happened to cause you to feel this way.It was a bit of heavy-handed sarcasm, that is all.Woah. Hold on there. Its not my standard. Its the standard of the Church Magazine. But I probably agree with it, especially if the same articles go out to places in the world where false ideas about Angels are prevalent.I'm pretty sure the Ensign has had at least one picture of a winged angel in recent years. Dore's Expulsion from the Garden. Unfortunately, the new lds.org doesn't show images for most of the back issues.The Church has no oblgation to make you feel better about the art. Its obligation is to prepare the World for the Return of Christ -- which includes correcting false doctrines.Why use art at all?
blackstrap Posted May 20, 2012 Posted May 20, 2012 I noticed the superimposition of the 2 paintings in the article.Is there not an error in the depiction of the crucifixion that should have been "corrected" by the editors? It is neither doctrinally nor historically accurate.
CASteinman Posted May 20, 2012 Posted May 20, 2012 I'm pretty sure the Ensign has had at least one picture of a winged angel in recent years. Dore's Expulsion from the Garden. Unfortunately, the new lds.org doesn't show images for most of the back issues.The PDF's are there.Why use art at all?In order to illustrate. Some people are more visual learners. And this article was about what the writer experienced with a painting. So, it was appropriate to illustrate what he was talking about.
Recommended Posts