Ensign Censorship

[CASteinman]

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.

What makes you think the author is not the one who made these changes?

[CASteinman]

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/e...y=dore adam eve

http://www.lds.org/e...y=dore adam eve

Aren't both of those article prior to the Church's stand on such pictures? I am pretty sure the older one is. I thought it was within the last 5 years.

[CASteinman]

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?

The Bloch website indicates he painted various versions of this. I agree, it is confusing. How many versions are there? Some have quite a different composition from this one.

Edited May 20, 2012 by CASteinman

[volgadon]

Aren't both of those article prior to the Church's stand on such pictures? I am pretty sure the older one is. I thought it was within the last 5 years.

CFR.

[CASteinman]

CFR.

I have been meaning to ask.. what does that mean? I have seen it before and do not know it. When I see it I think "Chemical Fire Retardant".

[Libs]

CFR = Call for references.

[Sine Saw Square]

The Bloch website indicates he painted various versions of this. I agree, it is confusing. How many versions are there? Some have quite a different composition from this one.

A quick google search for Bloch and Resurrection all returned with similar compositions. The angels all wore wings.

When I paint angels, I put wings on them too. Not because I believe they really have them but because it's a convenient symbol to show that they aren't just a regular person. Plus I think they look kinda cool.

What makes you think the author is not the one who made these changes?

Having a bit of experience in the illustration/publishing world I can say with about 95% confidence that the author did not make or request the changes to the art that appeared in the article.

Edited May 20, 2012 by Sine Saw Square

[Garden Girl]

If someone issues you a "CFR" (Call for References), board guidelines require that you provide your source of info...

GG

[CASteinman]

CFR = Call for references.

Ahhh... OK... good. Well, in the case where I was asked for references, I was not making a claim, really. I was asking a question. Wasn't it just in the last 5 years that the Church started being vigorous about pictures and wings and so on? I thought so, but I don't know when it started. But I think it was recently that they began to alter pictures this way.

I am under the impression that two things led to this: 1) Photoshop and the ability to do it by more than a few people and 2) the Church's strong growth in Catholic and Animist areas.

[CASteinman]

Having a bit of experience in the illustration/publishing world I can say with about 95% confidence that the author did not make or request the changes to the art that appeared in the article.

Uh huh. Have you seen the instructions that the Ensign Issues for articles? I don't know if the Ensign is typical but these instructions but responsibility heavily on the submitter.

[CASteinman]

If someone issues you a "CFR" (Call for References), board guidelines require that you provide your source of info...

GG

Really. So now I must issue reference merely because someone types CFR and I asked a question?

Why should board rules insist I come up with references for a question?

And you know what is interesting about that? I could have been banned apparently, all because I didn't know what that "CFR" thing meant.

Weird.

Edited May 20, 2012 by CASteinman

[Bernard Gui]

Having a bit of experience in the illustration/publishing world I can say with about 95% confidence that the author did not make or request the changes to the art that appeared in the article.

Could you explain? By author, do you mean the person who wrote the Ensign article?

Bernard

[volgadon]

Ahhh... OK... good. Well, in the case where I was asked for references, I was not making a claim, really. I was asking a question. Wasn't it just in the last 5 years that the Church started being vigorous about pictures and wings and so on? I thought so, but I don't know when it started. But I think it was recently that they began to alter pictures this way.

I am under the impression that two things led to this: 1) Photoshop and the ability to do it by more than a few people and 2) the Church's strong growth in Catholic and Animist areas.

The way it read is that you assert that when it comes to angelic wings the church has an official position tightened within the last 5 years or so. If you really don't know that there is such a policy, I'll withdraw the CFR.

[CASteinman]

The way it read is that you assert that when it comes to angelic wings the church has an official position tightened within the last 5 years or so. If you really don't know that there is such a policy, I'll withdraw the CFR.

That may be the way you read it. I did not assert anything! I asked a question! I didn't know. Really, I don't know. Its just an impression I have. In fact, I don't even know if I have the timeline right in my impression!

Edited May 20, 2012 by CASteinman

[volgadon]

That may be the way you read it. I did not assert anything! I asked a question! I didn't know. Really, I don't know. Its just an impression I have.

A lot has to do with the way you asked the question. You asked if it had to do with the church's strict position. That is, the question part had to do with the relationship of the painting to the policy. I was calling for refernces on the policy. If you don't know that there is such a policy, let alone one tightened within the past 5 years, then I withdraw the CFR.

[CASteinman]

A lot has to do with the way you asked the question. You asked if it had to do with the church's strict position. That is, the question part had to do with the relationship of the painting to the policy. I was calling for refernces on the policy. If you don't know that there is such a policy, let alone one tightened within the past 5 years, then I withdraw the CFR.

1. I believe the Church has indicated a policy of this sort. I don't know if they announced to the world in detail, but I am sure they have discussed it.

2. I believe it was implemented in the last 5 years. I don't know that. I don't know if it was before or after.

3. I think it has something to do with where we are getting our converts and the ability to do it. I don't know that.

4. I am pretty sure that the Church shied away from older art showing wings, but did not entirely avoid it before they were able to photoshop.

5. I know that the Church strictly rejected pictures with wings in its own art for decades now.

Good grief, I would never think just a question would be such a problem.

[CASteinman]

I withdraw the CFR.

Even if you don't Nothing I can do about it. If I get banned for not knowing the answer to my own question... then so be it. I can't work a miracle here.

[Sine Saw Square]

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.

Thank you CASteinman for the courteous response and taking the time to consider what I wrote.

By no means did I intend to claim supreme authority in analyzing art- just wanted to provide some context for my observations. One of the awesome and frustrating things about art is that it remains subjective.

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.

These triangles are created by laying out grids (a common thing when composing paintings, especially in ye olden days). They were pretty deliberate. There are a lot of triangles in this particular piece. The ones I pointed out were, by my estimation, ones that were interacting with each other to establish the primary movement- meaning the movement of the eye over the painting to the main focal point of the piece- which I can say Bloch most assuredly meant to be Christ's face. Some of these triangles don't vanish with the removal of the wings but they are left less focused, less in harmony with the balance of the piece as a whole.

For the author to write a piece based on his experience with viewing great art and then to have that story illustrated with a false representation of the very subject of that experience seems kind of convoluted. At least to me. In a way the edited image is denying the true experience of the author.

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.

As I said at the start of my post. I agree with you on what the purpose of the Ensign is and the motivation of those behind it. However, my point was I don't think this was a necessary alteration to keep within those standards. If an illustrator were commissioned to deliver a piece representing angels visiting the earth to accompany an article in the Ensign and that illustrator submitted in a piece showing a winged ninjas-angle battling velociraptors it would be the Art Directors job to request changes to the illustrator- regardless of the artist's claimed use of symbolism and rightly so. That's what Art Directors do. To sum up my view on this- if it's an image commissioned by the Church or her auxiliaries to represent her doctrines, they have full creative control. If we're adopting work from non-LDS artists intended for a non-LDS audience, doctoring their work to reflect our beliefs and then presenting in such a way to leave the reader thinking that was original work- well then maybe the article wasn't appropriate to be included in the Church's magazine?

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.

Again I agree that is not the purpose of the gospel (And I don't expect it to be). But I think there is room for everyone with in the gospel including us artists One of the beauties of real art is that it isn't literal. It's abstract- even if it's painted realistically. There is a layer of meaning that the artist infuses and another one that the viewer extracts. I don't believe any member would start thinking angles have wings if a non-lds, historically referenced painting graced the pages of the Ensign unmolested. Especially if a statement to that end were worked into the article.

Edited May 20, 2012 by Sine Saw Square

[Sine Saw Square]

Uh huh. Have you seen the instructions that the Ensign Issues for articles? I don't know if the Ensign is typical but these instructions but responsibility heavily on the submitter.

I found this: http://www.lds.org/gospellibrary/pdf/EnsignWG.pdf what i see regarding providing images is for use as reference for passing on to an illustrator and that otherwise all art is provided for internally. Is there some other source you are thinking of?

Magazines employ art directors who report to editors. Their job is to solicit, guide, and deliver art for articles. They usually enjoy a lot of creative control but the editor they report to can (usually) override them. And in a Church magazine I'd be very surprised if the ultimate approval did not come directly from the General Authorities.

[Sine Saw Square]

Could you explain? By author, do you mean the person who wrote the Ensign article?

Bernard

Yup. I think the modifications to the painting were done well enough that it would indicate it was done by someone with experience and probably using Photoshop and a drawing tablet which isn't a cheap set of tools.

[CASteinman]

Thank you CASteinman for the courteous response and taking the time to consider what I wrote.

Your whole post, with its good humor and interesting insights had me chuckling all the way through.

::One the awesome and frustrating things about art is that it remains subjective.

I love art and I am not sure that I consider the subjectivity frustrating.. but again, I am not an artist. I visited the Hessisches Landes Museum a few times and loved it. The art there goes from ancient prehistory through to modern art -- each floor has a different age, so as you ascend, you see art progression.

On the top floor was Claus Oldenburg stuff, that I did not value much, but then there was this piece that was ONLY a textured canvas of one color of deep blue-purple. I really liked it!

::These triangles are created by laying out grids (a common thing when composing paintings, especially in ye olden days).

I have heard of this. I don't really know much about it. I accept what you are saying. One thing that seems to go in your favor is that there were other versions of this painting that did not have quite the angles and relationship of the wings. Maybe it took some time to get it right and this was the result -- in which case, the evidence would be that the worked it over til he got it to his preference.

I don't see the same patterns coming and going the way you do, but as I said, I think your post was interesting, because it might show what I like about the changes. I like that the eye would be drawn up and away from the painting. sort of spiritual. And you end up looking where Jesus is looking.

::As I said at the start of my post. I agree with you on what the purpose of the Ensign is and the motivation of those behind it.

I should mention that I have developed a pretty "harsh" view of this as I reviewed the position of the Church during Nazi Germany 3rd Reich and Hitler supremacy in Europe. Private correspondence, diaries and even a few between the lines statements during conference show that the leadership did not seem to think much of Hitler. In fact, I have read some things that indicate to me that they held him contempt. But, they never denounced him from the pulpit.

I wondered why they did this. Why knowing what they knew of him did they tell the German Saints to obey and sustain their political leaders?

Why do they continue this pattern to this day?

Slowly, over time, I realized the reason: The Church is not a political entity. Getting into too much politics would distract and even injure its ability to perform its mission.

When I realized this a great many things came into place for me about many of the decisions of the Church and how it must operate and what a challenge the leaders have in this whole big world -- To get through it all, the Church and its Leaders stay focused on the Mission and do their best to avoid dealing in political issues as long as it feels that the Mission is not at too much risk.

The Mission of the Church ends up trumping their personal feelings -- A LOT. The Apostles have really given their lives over to Christ, even to the stifling of their own personal opinions on many many things.

So it is that something like the Ensign is going to be a slave to the Mission of the Church and not be too concerned about things that distract from that. If this issue were to be something that injured the Mission of the Church, they would change. But as we must contend with a world that has God, Angels, Men and the Great Work of God all confused and bent, they want to make sure they do not participate and that they send a clarion message.

I support that, even if it is annoying.

:::But I think there is room for everyone with in the gospel including us artists

One of the best lines I ever read.

I believe that there are members who will readily believe Angels have wings.. if given half a chance. False teachings are constantly trying to make their way in and the Apostles have the responsibility to set up the bulwarks against that. I support them in that. I sustain them. I agree with them.

And I don't care if they are ham handed about it sometimes. We are not fighting a war with a whimp who will back down because we are polite about it. When I think about this whole deal of altering art work, and the idea of focusing on the mission of the Church, my only thought is that the critics who make this a public issue would either rather see the Church stumble than succeed in its mission or at the very least would like to see the Church dilute its mission and subjugate it to worldly concerns.

I hope that does not happen.

Edited May 20, 2012 by CASteinman

[CASteinman]

I found this: http://www.lds.org/g...df/EnsignWG.pdf what i see regarding providing images is for use as reference for passing on to an illustrator and that otherwise all art is provided for internally. Is there some other source you are thinking of?

I am going to have to defer this until tomorrow. I saw other guidelines that discussed specifics with regard to pictures that I did not see in your link. I will have to deal with it tomorrow or Monday though.

[Hestia]

This thread has turned to squabbling and repeating same arguments. Time to close.