CASteinman Posted May 17, 2012 Posted May 17, 2012 I just returned from viewing the actual Ensign article in question.That really is interesting. The artist must have somehow had the crucifixion painting in mind when he put together the resurrection painting, especially the outstretched arms.
CASteinman Posted May 17, 2012 Posted May 17, 2012 This is not a big deal in my life, but just an interesting issue. In the future, I think we should be more sensitive to these matters and simply choose another painting if the image bothers correlation.Couldn't really choose another image. The article was about that painting and its match.As for whether people get offended at this stuff and run around making accusations -- and whether that should affect the editorial decisions of Ensign, I would say that whatever advances the Mission of the Church best is the path to take. I don't really know which choice that would be and I have no reason to criticize the editor of the Ensign.Also, I like the adjusted image better anyway. 1
Lightbearer Posted May 17, 2012 Posted May 17, 2012 On looking more closely at the two paintings I noticed the adding of the "sleeves" which is so subtle it was not that noticealbe... neither is it annoying or objectionalbe. I think it is brought up because those who would trumpet it love any reason to bash the church or it's standards. I note for those who have been to the Temple that those extra sleeves may have some point! When a woman wears a strapless dress to sacrament meeting I believe it very inappropriate, many are desensitized to the inappropriatenss, because they want to emulate the fashions of the world. And yes it does have meaning and does reflect the spiritual maturity of those who are immodest in dress and in manner. It is understandable in investigators or new members, but it is inexusable in those who have been in the Church a long time and ought to know the standards of dress expected by the Lord. 1
Log Posted May 17, 2012 Posted May 17, 2012 It is understandable in investigators or new members, but it is inexusable in those who have been in the Church a long time and ought to know the standards of dress expected by the Lord.Heh - which, you'll note, the Lord is not presented as abiding by in that painting! O, teh ironiez.
volgadon Posted May 17, 2012 Posted May 17, 2012 I do think that a footnote acknolwedging / explaining the alterations would have been warranted and even ethical.Short of leaving the image unaltered, that would have been best.
Cushan Rishathaim Posted May 17, 2012 Author Posted May 17, 2012 (edited) As soon as I did that I almost lost complete interest in Rishathaim's concern of cenrsorship and of treating young women harshly (a silly concern by him in my opinion). It's unfortunate that you find the act of treating young women harshly a silly concern. This has happened recently to a couple of young women I know with larger chest sizes than their flat chested adult young women leaders. They came home from a Ward activity in tears because of they way they were embarrassed in front on their peers for being "immodest" because their body types couldn't help by show a bit of curve at the top in their one piece suits.I don't believe that this is a silly concern at all and that disciples of Christ should be deeply concerned about even the mere possibility of people treating young women harshly.**Added as either a man or a flat chested woman, you do not understand this issue when it comes to the challenge of buying modest swimsuit attire. These girls already struggle with body issues, and the last thing they would ever want is to wear a suit that draws attention to themselves, which makes the event all the more tragic. We really, really have to stop beating each other up over these issues. Edited May 17, 2012 by Cushan Rishathaim
volgadon Posted May 17, 2012 Posted May 17, 2012 Couldn't really choose another image. The article was about that painting and its match.Then why alter it, as that turns it into a different image.
CASteinman Posted May 17, 2012 Posted May 17, 2012 Then why alter it, as that turns it into a different image.The image was going to be altered anyway, as part of the article. You know, its not like this painting was actually Jesus. Its not a sin to alter it. 1
kolipoki09 Posted May 17, 2012 Posted May 17, 2012 This was idiotic editing, no doubt, but I have to confess to a strong dislike of Bloch. Ok, I hate his paintings with a passion.I think hate is a strong word here. I just try to look at it from the worldview in which he understood Christ and the New Testament. 19th Century Danish Lutheranism is in my blood, so I appreciate his work in the sense that it gives me a glimpse of how my ancestors might have imagined the world of the Bible. It's Nordic influences notwithstanding (I prefer Semitic depictions of Christ by far), his work has a sort of cultural relevance in my personal conception of Mormonism. Film adaptations of his work in Finding Faith in Christ illustrate that point. No, hate is something better reserved for this kind of art. https://www.mcnaughtonart.com/ 1
Flyonthewall Posted May 17, 2012 Posted May 17, 2012 Well, it is a distortion of history on two levels. Bloch did not espouse LDS theology and painted his angels with wings. Censoring that image therefore presents a distorted view of the original historical painting and Bloch's theology. I suppose I would agree with you on this IF the church owned the rights to this painting and ONLY allowed the altered version to be shown...but I guess that's just my opinion.The problem with these types of actions is that they provide further fuel to the fire for those who maintain that the Church perpetuates a culture of manipulation and deception in the name of achieving an allegedly good end, i.e. wingless angels and females not showing a bit of shoulder. It could be argued that this type of censorship which seeks to alter a work of art to match Mormonism's teachings and contemporary views of female modesty smacks of egotistical self-righteousness.Egotistical self-righteousness? I suppose there are those out there that would argue just about anything.This is not a big deal in my life, but just an interesting issue. In the future, I think we should be more sensitive to these matters and simply choose another painting if the image bothers correlation.Glad to hear it is a non-issue for you. I suppose that if there were a painting that better portrayed the concept with fewer alterations, it would have been used. I would not have even noticed there was a difference as I was unfamiliar with the original.
Lightbearer Posted May 17, 2012 Posted May 17, 2012 One other point about altering artwork, I recall the first time I had a photograph of mine altered by a unthinking graphic artist! How dare they touch my vision of the subject! Don't even mention using photoshop to alter an image of mine! Abomination... However I did grow to understand the use of an "illustration" to tell a story or the subject of the article! When I started to do some graphic art work of my own and soon my concept of the proper use of art in publications changed drasticly. I looked at the original usage in the Ensign and behold! It is an improvement on Blocks works, at least it is an adaptation of it which was the purpose of the usage in the first place. It was not an article on the history of Block's work, but an illustration for the article... that told the story of the Condesension of God! So I say to the OP get over it!
CASteinman Posted May 17, 2012 Posted May 17, 2012 How many purists here are opposed to sampling of other music in songs -- a common practice these days?How many of you are upset that Gertrude Stein tore up the Beauty of "A Rose by any other name would smell as sweet" -- and made it the brassy, industrial "A Rose is a Rose is a Rose"?How many of you think that when Van Gogh went out his way to copy other painters (say .. "Prisoners' Round" by Dore or maybe the Pieta -- which he did twice) -- but then changed those copies to suit his taste -- that he was bad and should be castigated for revisionist history?Who here has launched an attack against NASA for recoloring or false coloring scientific pictures?Where are the howls over stuff like this: http://www.freakingnews.com/pictures/97500/COIFFEUR-LEO-including-MAKE-UP--97886.jpg 2
Cushan Rishathaim Posted May 17, 2012 Author Posted May 17, 2012 So I say to the OP get over it!I'm certainly "over it." My concern has always been over the way that this type of censorship effects others negatively. I don't think it helps when people express the types of concerns that I have raised in this thread for Mormon apologists to simply say things like "get over it!" This is the type of response that only solidifies their feelings that believing Latter-day Saints are oftentimes spiritually self-righteous and insensitive to the feelings of others. I would humbly recommend rethinking your approach to defending the Church. 1
Freedom Posted May 17, 2012 Posted May 17, 2012 Of course, if the painting was not altered, the church would have been condemned for printing false doctrine, or alternatively, people who believe that everything published by the church is doctrine would conclude that angels now have wings. Damned if you do, damned if you don't 4
CASteinman Posted May 17, 2012 Posted May 17, 2012 I'm certainly "over it." My concern has always been over the way that this type of censorship effects others negatively. To me, it is a bogus complaint. Anyone who gets their nose out of joint over something like this is on the hunt for offenses. 1
Darren10 Posted May 17, 2012 Posted May 17, 2012 That really is interesting. The artist must have somehow had the crucifixion painting in mind when he put together the resurrection painting, especially the outstretched arms.Exactly my thought. That would make it more difficult to just "choose another painting" which is one thought i had in mind before viewing the article.
Cushan Rishathaim Posted May 17, 2012 Author Posted May 17, 2012 How many purists here are opposed to sampling of other music in songs -- a common practice these days?How many of you are upset that Gertrude Stein tore up the Beauty of "A Rose by any other name would smell as sweet" -- and made it the brassy, industrial "A Rose is a Rose is a Rose"?How many of you think that when Van Gogh went out his way to copy other painters (say .. "Prisoners' Round" by Dore or maybe the Pieta -- which he did twice) -- but then changed those copies to suit his taste -- that he was bad and should be castigated for revisionist history?Who here has launched an attack against NASA for recoloring or false coloring scientific pictures?Where are the howls over stuff like this: http://www.freakingn...E-UP--97886.jpgI don't see how any of these examples of modifications can begin to compare to the type of theological censorship witnessed in the Ensign article by a religious tradition designed to promote moral values such as honesty, and respect, not to mention the "truth."Apples to oranges...
cinepro Posted May 17, 2012 Posted May 17, 2012 This was idiotic editing, no doubt, but I have to confess to a strong dislike of Bloch. Ok, I hate his paintings with a passion.No pun intended?
Cushan Rishathaim Posted May 17, 2012 Author Posted May 17, 2012 Anyone who gets their nose out of joint over something like this is on the hunt for offenses.Anyone? Everyone? Having witnessed the concerns raised by several good, faithful members, you and I will simply have to agree to disagree.
CASteinman Posted May 17, 2012 Posted May 17, 2012 I don't see how any of these examples of modifications can begin to compare to the type of theological censorship witnessed in the Ensign article by a religious tradition designed to promote moral values such as honesty, and respect, not to mention the "truth."So false coloring scientific photos is OK with you but changing a painting to reflect the teachings of the Church is dishonest. Hmmm. Everyone is different. 1
Darren10 Posted May 17, 2012 Posted May 17, 2012 It's unfortunate that you find the act of treating young women harshly a silly concern. This has happened recently to a couple of young women I know with larger chest sizes than their flat chested adult young women leaders. They came home from a Ward activity in tears because of they way they were embarrassed in front on their peers for being "immodest" because their body types couldn't help by show a bit of curve at the top in their one piece suits.I don't believe that this is a silly concern at all and that disciples of Christ should be deeply concerned about even the mere possibility of people treating young women harshly.That's not an example of "treating girls harshly". I do not think Jesus pays much attention to swimsuit issues lest the swimsuit itself is immodest. There is nothing immodest about wearing a modest swimsuit and having the natural curves predominate the user's body. There is, however, the reality of asking oneself, "if I wear this will it provoke immodest thoughts and desires towards others," no matter how modest the swimsuit is. If the answer is "yes' than it would be prudent and wise for that particular person to avoid wearing said swimsuit. There is nothing wrong in teaching young girls 9and boys too) to live up to these standards.I still think your "concern" over treating young girls harshly is silly and I do not find anything you mentioned by which Christ would be 'deeply concerned' as to how a young woman was treated.
Cushan Rishathaim Posted May 17, 2012 Author Posted May 17, 2012 So false coloring scientific photos is OK with you but changing a painting to reflect the teachings of the Church is dishonest. Hmmm. Everyone is different.Ummm, yes, I hold the one true Church on the face of the planet to higher standard than I do NASA....
CASteinman Posted May 17, 2012 Posted May 17, 2012 (edited) I deleted this because it has been misinterpreted. Edited May 17, 2012 by CASteinman
volgadon Posted May 17, 2012 Posted May 17, 2012 (edited) No pun intended?I like layers of meaning, but no pun was intended. Edited May 17, 2012 by volgadon
Darren10 Posted May 17, 2012 Posted May 17, 2012 When I started to do some graphic art work of my own and soon my concept of the proper use of art in publications changed drasticly. I looked at the original usage in the Ensign and behold! It is an improvement on Blocks works, at least it is an adaptation of it which was the purpose of the usage in the first place. I find it was tastefully done as well.
Recommended Posts