CASteinman Posted May 17, 2012 Posted May 17, 2012 Ummm, yes, I hold the one true Church on the face of the planet to higher standard than I do NASA....So the high standard you hold the Church to, is that it should not support its own teachings. As I said, everyone is different. 1
volgadon Posted May 17, 2012 Posted May 17, 2012 We may not merely disagree about the painting. We may even disagree about what constitutes "good" and "Faithful". ::: Shrug :: I don't know these people.Precisely. We have no way of knowing that you are good and faithful. 1
cinepro Posted May 17, 2012 Posted May 17, 2012 (edited) As far as the legal ramifications, once a work enters the public domain, the creator of the work loses the control s/he had under copyright.P.S.: I should, of course, clarify: Under the old copyright statute, the term of copyright was for 28 years. Thus, it was not uncommon for works to enter the public domain while their creators were still very much alive. Today, of course, such a situation is much less common , since the current term of copyright is life of the creator plus 75 years.The article carries this note:THE RESURRECTION, BY CARL HEINRICH BLOCH; USED BY PERMISSION OF THE NATIONAL HISTORIC MUSEUM AT FREDERIKSBORG IN HILLERØDWhy did the Church need their "permission", and I wonder if the museum knew about the alterations?Even curiouser is the bare-chested Jesus. In post #28, Lightbearer opines on the subtleties of shoulder-nudity but doesn't mention whether or not he'd feel comfortable if a man showed up baring a nipple in Sacrament meeting. Edited May 17, 2012 by cinepro
Darren10 Posted May 17, 2012 Posted May 17, 2012 Ummm, yes, I hold the one true Church on the face of the planet to higher standard than I do NASA....I don't. especially when i'm forced to pay NASA's bills. The money I give to the LDS church is volunatary.
CASteinman Posted May 17, 2012 Posted May 17, 2012 (edited) My suspicion is that it was actually the author of the article who provided the art work. If we could get some pitchforks and flaming torches we could storm his house and show him just how horrible he really is. Edited May 17, 2012 by CASteinman
Darren10 Posted May 17, 2012 Posted May 17, 2012 The article carries this note: In post #28, Lightbearer opines for three sentences on the subtleties of shoulder-nudity but doesn't mention whether or not he'd feel comfortable if a man showed up baring a nipple in Sacrament meeting. Egag!!! Not a chance in the world. Especially if it was Mathew Tandy who showed up bearing a nipple. Mat, Darren luvs ya, Dude. 1
CASteinman Posted May 17, 2012 Posted May 17, 2012 Precisely. We have no way of knowing that you are good and faithful.I would like to encourage you to remove that unkind post. 1
volgadon Posted May 17, 2012 Posted May 17, 2012 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"?If she represented it as a direct quote of Shakespeare's, then I might be upset.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?Had he passed them off as the artists' original works, then, yes, he should have been castigated.
Cushan Rishathaim Posted May 17, 2012 Author Posted May 17, 2012 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.I'm sorry you can't see the problem. As reported to me, these large chested sisters had spent weeks shopping to trying and find the most non-revealing attire they could possibly find; a very difficult task given their body type. To call out these two girls in front of their peers (male and female) and send them home in tears for being "immodest" because their single piece suits couldn't help but show a bit of cleavage was a harsh act. It really was. But even if they were in the wrong (and they weren't), any time we hurt others and embarrass them to the point that they may not feel comfortable in further Church activity, I believe we should carefully reconsider our approach.
volgadon Posted May 17, 2012 Posted May 17, 2012 I would like to encourage you to remove that unkind post.What did you expect when you are hinting that others, including myself, aren't good and faithful members.
Darren10 Posted May 17, 2012 Posted May 17, 2012 Then why alter it, as that turns it into a different image.It was altered anyway as CASteinman pointed out. Just look at the painting posted all by its lonesome self at the bottom ofthe article. It would be sillier to alter it for the combination paintings and leave it unaltered when by itself.
Cushan Rishathaim Posted May 17, 2012 Author Posted May 17, 2012 So the high standard you hold the Church to, is that it should not support its own teachings. As I said, everyone is different.I just believe that truth, honesty, and respect for the feelings of others are much more important Church teachings than wingless angels. It's really not even close.
Cushan Rishathaim Posted May 17, 2012 Author Posted May 17, 2012 (edited) What did you expect when you are hinting that others, including myself, aren't good and faithful members.Precisely. Volgadon is a faithful member and effective defender of the Gospel, and yet he disagreed with the decision. Neither the Church itself, nor those making these types of decisions are perfect, and it doesn't make a person a faithless member to find this issue unfortunate.I too disagree. Edited May 17, 2012 by Cushan Rishathaim
CASteinman Posted May 17, 2012 Posted May 17, 2012 Why did the Church need their "permission", and I wonder if the museum knew about the alterations?While it is not against copyright to use a picture that you have taken of some piece of art that is old, if someone else takes a picture of that art, their new photograph of that artwork is potentially copyrighted. Often this is not enforced very hard, but museums make money off the reproductions in their shops, so they tend to be a bit fussy. But as long as you are not going to compete against them, they do not necessarily care -- as long as you bought it from them in their shop. So, you ask for permission and tell them how you will publish it. I don't think that there would be any requirement to tell them of the changes you were making though.
volgadon Posted May 17, 2012 Posted May 17, 2012 I'm sorry you can't see the problem. As reported to me, these large chested sisters had spent weeks shopping to trying and find the most non-revealing attire they could possibly find; a very difficult task given their body type. To call out these two girls in front of their peers (male and female) and send them home in tears for being "immodest" because their single piece suits couldn't help but show a bit of cleavage was a harsh act. It really was.That really is harsh and uncalled for. It would have been far better to take them to the side and engage them in an understanding conversation, finding out if they had anything better, maybe offering some alternatives if there are any. Not that it need have been an issue, really.But even if they were in the wrong (and they weren't), any time we hurt others and embarrass them to the point that they may not feel comfortable in further Church activity, I believe we should carefully reconsider our approach.I can recall only a single incident in which I made an issue of immodest clothing. A non-member attended the English class I held as a missionary. This being the summer in southern Russia, she was in a mini-skirt. When I say mini-skirt it really was little more than a wide belt which left her underwear visible. After the class I had a quick, quiet word with her boyfriend and explained why it could be an issue for us. He had no problems with that. Imagine how it would have gone over had I made a stink and kicked them out of class.
CASteinman Posted May 17, 2012 Posted May 17, 2012 What did you expect when you are hinting that others, including myself, aren't good and faithful members.I made no such hint and did not even intend it. If you do not know what I mean by something -- ask.
Darren10 Posted May 17, 2012 Posted May 17, 2012 I'm sorry you can't see the problem. As reported to me, these large chested sisters had spent weeks shopping to trying and find the most non-revealing attire they could possibly find; a very difficult task given their body type. It's not that hard. Just wear a t-shirt. That's what I do at the public pool. And believe you me, I'm providing the public pool patrons a favor by covering up.But even if they were in the wrong (and they weren't), any time we hurt others and embarrass them to the point that they may not feel comfortable in further Church activity, I believe we should carefully reconsider our approach.What you shared to me does not necessitate the conclusion that said youth were "treated harshly". It could be that they took it the wrong way. You need to provide a better example to this "concern" of your which I find unrelated to covering up female angel's shoulders.
volgadon Posted May 17, 2012 Posted May 17, 2012 What you shared to me does not necessitate the conclusion that said youth were "treated harshly". It could be that they took it the wrong way. You need to provide a better example to this "concern" of your which I find unrelated to covering up female angel's shoulders.Let's see, making a public issue of it with self-conscious teens is far from helpful.
CASteinman Posted May 17, 2012 Posted May 17, 2012 If she represented it as a direct quote of Shakespeare's, then I might be upset.Had he passed them off as the artists' original works, then, yes, he should have been castigated.The article does not represent that this is a direct original work of the artist. It overtly changes the image and points this out.
Cushan Rishathaim Posted May 17, 2012 Author Posted May 17, 2012 (edited) It's not that hard. Just wear a t-shirt. That's what I do at the public pool. And believe you me, I'm providing the public pool patrons a favor by covering up.So young teenage girls with large chest sizes should not only wear one piece swim suits, but also a t-shirt in order to be "modest." I'm not trying to offend, but I've found your comments in this thread deeply concerning. Edited May 17, 2012 by Cushan Rishathaim
volgadon Posted May 17, 2012 Posted May 17, 2012 I made no such hint and did not even intend it. If you do not know what I mean by something -- ask.Please do explain what you meant by this. "We may not merely disagree about the painting. We may even disagree about what constitutes "good" and "Faithful". ::: Shrug :: I don't know these people."Don't you agree that it comes across as you stating that you disagree that said members are good and faithful, especially as you don't know them?
Darren10 Posted May 17, 2012 Posted May 17, 2012 That really is harsh and uncalled for. It would have been far better to take them to the side and engage them in an understanding conversation, finding out if they had anything better, maybe offering some alternatives if there are any. Not that it need have been an issue, really.While that is quite possible, it is not nessecarily true. If immodesty is actively affecting other,s calling the culprits out on the spot may very well be appropriate. Was there any pre-conversations regardeing dressing modestly? If so then I can sympathize with the chastisers. Obviously an investigator showing up for the first time in curch would very likely not know better and a private conversation would be appropriate but I get the impression that these "abused" young women were active members and thus should have known better. My main point is that Cushan's example lacks concrete reason to conclude that the LDS standards of no bare shoulders leads to treating young women harshly. In fact, I do not even see any such direct connection.
CASteinman Posted May 17, 2012 Posted May 17, 2012 I just believe that truth, honesty, and respect for the feelings of others are much more important Church teachings than wingless angels. It's really not even close.Using the same standards of truth, honest and respect for the feelings of others, the Church did what was right. After all, the truth is, Angels do not have wings. The Church would be dishonest -- or at least neglectful -- if it did not remove them when it could and as for feelings of others -- who can know this sort of thing? It goes both ways. People get upset over rainbows in sprinklers and you certainly cannot win a "Feelings" argument on this issue.
Darren10 Posted May 17, 2012 Posted May 17, 2012 Let's see, making a public issue of it with self-conscious teens is far from helpful.You don't know the background of the situation, do you? Thus how can you conclude with absoluteness that these youth were "treated harshly"? Heck, I even wonder if Cushan's example is merely showing how specific teens need to learn not to take criticism so harshly. I'm merely pointing out that Cushan needs to provide better examples to lead others, I guess me in particular, to conclude that the "no bare sholuder" standards of the LDS Church leads to harsh treatment of young women.
volgadon Posted May 17, 2012 Posted May 17, 2012 The article does not represent that this is a direct original work of the artist. It overtly changes the image and points this out.You are correct that the article points out that the superimposed images are a composite and that they saw this through the glass reflection in the gallery. Beyond that it mentions no changes. Here is the information for the individual image. THE RESURRECTION, BY CARL HEINRICH BLOCH, USED BY PERMISSION OF THE NATIONAL HISTORIC MUSEUM IN HILLEROD.
Recommended Posts