Ensign Censorship

[CASteinman]

Then please do.

As I said, check the standards for submission of articles to the Ensign.

[CASteinman]

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.

I think the Church is more concerned about correcting popular errors that affect insight into God and His Plan. I also suspect that they will make corrections that are easy rather than difficult. Both issues arise in the case you are concerned about.

[volgadon]

The PDF's are there.

Not for everything.

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.

So why use 2nd or 3rd rate art if there is something better out there.

[CASteinman]

So why use 2nd or 3rd rate art if there is something better out there.

Because that was the art that the fellow wrote the article about. Have you actually read the article? Its a nice article. Getting hinked up about the photos is straining at a gnat while swallowing a camel.

[volgadon]

Because that was the art that the fellow wrote the article about. Have you actually read the article? Its a nice article. Getting hinked up about the photos is straining at a gnat while swallowing a camel.

Yes, I have read the artice. Yes, it is a nice article, but I was not talking about that art, I was speaking in general terms.

[volgadon]

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.

Nobody said you had to like them for the example to work.

"House of the Rising Sun" is a bit of poetic justice. Dylan heard it from Dave Van Ronk and released a recording just before van Ronk did. Van Ronk always felt it hurt his carreer. The Animals heard Dylan's and performed a cover version, which became far more famous than Dylan's.

That all three versions have artistic merit doesn't necessarily make Dylan's behaviour right.

Don't know. How does it relate?

Why post so much if it is a mere tempest in a teapot?

[CASteinman]

Yes, I have read the artice. Yes, it is a nice article, but I was not talking about that art, I was speaking in general terms.

I think that they use as much good art as they can. Sometimes it may not be all that great. Some of the recent issues have had art I did not like because it reminded me of Watchtower Factory Art (I don't know who the artist is). But I don't feel inclined to castigate the editors -- or even the artist -- for those drawings that sorta bug me. People do their best and they should not be abuse for that.

I have had an experience where someone -- a person serving the Lord -- doing their best, made a mistake. Nothing evil or sinful. Just a human error in the way something was worded. This became the subject of substantial gossip and backbiting. Eventually 6 families left the Church and a Ward was turned upside down -- not because of the original error but because of all the gossip and backbiting.

Having observed this first hand, I oppose being critical of people who do their duty -- even badly -- if they are sincerely trying to do well (or even if I do not know one way or the other).

[CASteinman]

Nobody said you had to like them for the example to work.

Well, I have to like them enough to care for the example to work with me. But like you feel about Bloch, I feel about them, only probably I hate their work even more. I would never discuss it. So, it does not work for me.

Why post so much if it is a mere tempest in a teapot?

Most of my posts are responses to people's direct posts to me. I generally like to respond when people write posts to me.

[volgadon]

Well, I have to like them enough to care for the example to work with me. But like you feel about Bloch, I feel about them, only probably I hate their work even more. I would never discuss it. So, it does not work for me.

You don't have to like the Byrds for the example to work. Look at it this way. If you saw a track described as "The Times They Are a-Changin' - The Byrds" Would you listen to it? Why not? Because you would assume that it is the Byrds performing that track.

[CASteinman]

You don't have to like the Byrds for the example to work. Look at it this way. If you saw a track described as "The Times They Are a-Changin' - The Byrds" Would you listen to it? Why not? Because you would assume that it is the Byrds performing that track.

Just to be clear.. I would have to like them enough to want to talk about them. If I were to add all of the times in my entire life that I ever mentioned any of these characters, this one thread would have surpassed that by at least double.

[Yirgacheffe]

Because that was the art that the fellow wrote the article about. Have you actually read the article? Its a nice article. Getting hinked up about the photos is straining at a gnat while swallowing a camel.

And in the picture that the fellow wrote about there were wings.

[Log]

And in the picture that the fellow wrote about there were wings.

I don't think Jesus is that big a fan of Red Bull.

In any event, did you have any additional light or knowledge to bestow, or are you just here to stir the pot?

Edited May 20, 2012 by Log

[blackstrap]

And in the picture that the fellow wrote about there were wings.

And that,is exactly the way it should have been left. It is also the reason for this "tempest in a teapot" . Someone,somewhere decided to fix it.

[volgadon]

I think that they use as much good art as they can. Sometimes it may not be all that great. Some of the recent issues have had art I did not like because it reminded me of Watchtower Factory Art (I don't know who the artist is). But I don't feel inclined to castigate the editors -- or even the artist -- for those drawings that sorta bug me. People do their best and they should not be abuse for that.

I have had an experience where someone -- a person serving the Lord -- doing their best, made a mistake. Nothing evil or sinful. Just a human error in the way something was worded. This became the subject of substantial gossip and backbiting. Eventually 6 families left the Church and a Ward was turned upside down -- not because of the original error but because of all the gossip and backbiting.

Having observed this first hand, I oppose being critical of people who do their duty -- even badly -- if they are sincerely trying to do well (or even if I do not know one way or the other).

I agree with you up to a point.You might be surprised, but I usually refrain from criticising the church, however, sometimes people try to defend unacceptable behavior. This causes as much of a problem as gossiping.

[volgadon]

And that,is exactly the way it should have been left. It is also the reason for this "tempest in a teapot" . Someone,somewhere decided to fix it.

Exactly.

[blackstrap]

It would be nice if someone here,with the proper credentials,could ply the editorial staff of the Ensign with postum and ferret out the actual facts surrounding this photo situation. Scott???

[CASteinman]

I agree with you up to a point.You might be surprised, but I usually refrain from criticising the church, however, sometimes people try to defend unacceptable behavior. This causes as much of a problem as gossiping.

Well, in this case, they were not criticizing the Church -- they were criticizing the behavior of a member who they felt was engaging in unacceptable behavior. Interestingly enough, the worst accusations came from people who did not know what really happened -- did not have the facts for themselves, but just heard gossip and drew conclusions. Their criticism of the Church only occurred after this became a topic requiring a mention from the pulpit where it was noted that the offending party had done nothing wrong and that the criticism, gossip and backbiting was a sin -- that required repentance. This was seen as the Church justifying evil and led to people becoming apostate. I don't know what happened to all of them but I know at least one person later came back into the Church and was very very sorry for their role in the process.

[CASteinman]

And in the picture that the fellow wrote about there were wings.

So what?

[CASteinman]

And that,is exactly the way it should have been left. It is also the reason for this "tempest in a teapot" . Someone,somewhere decided to fix it.

No, it should not have been left that way if it violated the publishing standards of the Ensign.

[Sine Saw Square]

I debated responding to this thread as it's already 15+ pages (How you guys find the time I have NO CLUE). But I'm an artist so it's a topic I'm passionate about. And maybe I can add something helpful.

I don't expect the Ensign or the Church leadership that oversees it's editors to conform to my perspective at all. And I don't really want them to. I grant that they are motivated by a desire to serve the readers in the best way possible and to grow the kingdom of God on earth. But I think the decision to alter C.H. Block's artwork was a poor one and hope I can explain why:

It gives unnecessary ammunition to antis and critics.

I can imagine some members who, reading the article and wanting to add some religious art to their house, go out to find a print of the Resurrection painting only to be... confused? disappointed? asking the Museum where they can get the painting without the wings and shoulders?

What message does this send to artists? Especially us Mormon artists? Yeah, I know we're a very small group but it's the group that inspiring images should and do originate from. The message I get from something like this is, "Church culture doesn't understand or respect what you do" they'll change your stuff if it's not in line with an editor's view of How It Ought To Be- without even acknowledging that it happened..

The alteration distracts from the message David L. Frischknecht wrote about.

I've read a few responses here saying they like the edited painting better. I imagine this is on a theological or modesty level. It's not on an artistic level. Readers of the article also miss out on the full impact of the painting. What makes this painting work in part is in fact the wings. Removing them destroys the composition Bloch intended as a device to emphasize the subject of the piece! As I show below, The placement and coloring of the wings create an outer triangle that direct the eye of the viewer to the face of Christ, this is reinforced by the gaze of the two angels and an inner triangle is emphasized by the lower edge of the wings, the angles' robes and their kneeling legs. I would imagine the symbolic importance of the heavily used triangle here is to demonstrate the concept of the Trinity. Removing the wings destroys the focus of these harmonic triangles and leaves the viewer with a distracting connection between Christ's upraised hands and the backs of the angles that leads the eye up and off the top of the painting. This is the only outer movement left in the piece. This makes it an awkward and weak composition.

Perhaps I am straining at nats. But hey- this is my profession so I kind of care about it. (Why don't those that claim this considered it straining at nats to change the art in the first place?)

Still, as the painting was modified, I think it would have been very helpful to have included a note at the start or end of the article that stated the artwork had been altered for editorial purposes or something. That would have been a bit more courteous to the memory of the artist and to the education of the reader.

Edited May 20, 2012 by Sine Saw Square

[blackstrap]

I suppose I would need to see the chapter and verse in the publishing standards where it states " all angels must be represented without wings as per directive # 16 " In other words... CFR ,or is this one of those unwritten types of rules.?

[blackstrap]

As has been pointed out previously,and as I have called up several quite different versions of the painting,did Bloch paint several paintings of this subject?All the versions I have seen say the particular version is his. Whatsup?

Edited May 20, 2012 by blackstrap

[Yirgacheffe]

And that,is exactly the way it should have been left. It is also the reason for this "tempest in a teapot" . Someone,somewhere decided to fix it.

The author found it quite inspiring the way it was, he had no trouble with the "doctrinal deficiencies" in the painting. Are the readers so fragile that they could not be lead to the understanding the author had through his words, without altering the picture? I don't think so no member would be taken by surprise (at least they shouldn't) by the fact that the "mainstream" depicts angels with wings.

[CASteinman]

Still, as the painting was modified, I think it would have been very helpful to have included a note at the start or end of the article that stated the artwork had been altered for editorial purposes or something. That would have been a bit more courteous to the memory of the artist and to the education of the reader.

An interesting post. I am not an artist -- and maybe I should not be. However, I have taken some courses in photography and my favorite subjects were composition and lines of force. This is not the same thing as looking at what old time painters did, I am sure, but it is the limit of my knowledge and I wanted to get it out there.

I do not see the triangle with the wings that you see. Don't deny it is there but I do not see it.

I *DO* see the lines from the eyes to Christ! But for some reason, you see those disappearing even though the eyes remain in both paintings.

I did not see the triangle that you see with the arms up to Christ, until you pointed it out. It is subtle, but I see it. However, I do not see why it goes away in the second painting as the arms are still there.

I think you may have hit on something with the new lines, going up past Christ. I did not know what it was that I liked about the change, but when you point that out, I see it and I think that might be what I like about the second picture better. It leads the eyes upward. Like some of the great cathedrals would do.

However, even if it destroyed the artistic integrity, if the Magazine has standards that are associated with preaching the Gospel in places where Angels with Wings are considered real, then adjusting the art in the official Church Organ, is appropriate. Even if offensive to sensibilities of some artists.

After all, the Gospel is not about making artists feel better at the expense of leading people to think that the Church somehow covertly approves of false doctrines regarding God and Man and Deification.

[volgadon]

Does anyone have a hard copy of these articles? I don't anymore, unfortunately, so can't see if the Dore print has wings or not.

http://www.lds.org/ensign/2006/08/financial-freedom-on-any-income?lang=eng&query=dore+adam+eve

http://www.lds.org/ensign/1998/01/in-the-beginning-a-latter-day-perspective?lang=eng&query=dore+adam+eve