Ensign Censorship

[CASteinman]

I wonder how the LDS Church or its members would respond to another religious group's usage of this painting if they added angels' wings back in.

I'm not venturing a guess as to the reaction, just curious what you guys think.

Well, first, they would have to get permission -- as it is certainly copyrighted.

[Stargazer]

Two points here: Making copies, replicas, and adaptations of old master paintings is an old and perfectly legitimate and honourable practice. The most famous Old Masters have been copied by lesser artists with adaptation thousands of times down in history. There is nothing unusual about that. Secondly, that painting may not have been made by an lds artist at all. I have an adaptation of a famous Turner painting made an unknown artist hanging in my living room.

An old friend of mine took this painting by Jacques-Louis David, The Oath of the Horatii:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bb/David-Oath_of_the_Horatii-1784.jpg/620px-David-Oath_of_the_Horatii-1784.jpg

And photoshopped M16 rifles into the place of the swords. He then proceeded to try to sell it online. He even applied for a copyright in the US copyright office and they duly issued him his copyright. There was nothing wrong, immoral or illegal about it.

[volgadon]

Well, maybe it's time for the Church to move along from it's fascination with Carl Bloch

Seconded.

[AddamS]

Well, first, they would have to get permission -- as it is certainly copyrighted.

I doubt most people that would take umbrage with adding wings first concern would be with the copyright.

[mrmandias]

I couldn't care less.

Carry on.

[ERayR]

So, rights issues aside, would anyone have a problem if the Catholic Church used this LDS painting in a magazine and added wings to the angel?

Nope none at all.

[AddamS]

Of course it was!! The notion that angels have literal wings is not only a biblical concept, but an important part of the traditional Christian theology that inspired Bloch. Having lived and studied art for several years in Italy, his theology on angels was directly influenced by Roman Catholicism, which very much maintains that angels have literal wings.

I wonder... Would anybody that sees no issue with adjusting the artwork think differently if it was in written form and used in Ensign?

For instance, if a poem was written:

When I whispered to the Father,

I asked for Him to bring;

A touch of love and goodness,

Sent forth on angel's wings.

Is it acceptable to change it to:

When I whispered to the Father,

I asked for Him to bring bolder;

A touch of love and goodness,

Sent forth on angel's shoulder.

Aside from entering debate on the poetic value of the stanza (Coleridge, it is not) would anybody who takes no issue with The Ensign updating visual art have an issue with updating written art?

(The Red Herring of copyright aside)

[CASteinman]

I doubt most people that would take umbrage with adding wings first concern would be with the copyright.

It might never get to that point. You have to clear the copyright hurdle before you can put the wings on.

[ERayR]

What evidence does anyone have that the editoral staff of the ensign has not received the proper permissions and releases before changing and using said art? I think if anybody would be aware of propriety in these matters they would.

[omni]

What if another church used a beloved LDS painting in one of their publications and made alterations to fit their doctrinal beliefs or removed articles of clothing for aesthetic reasons?

Why are the angel's shoulders immodest, but Christ's chest is not? Why are Arnold Freeberg's paintings of buff half naked men not immodest?

[ERayR]

What if another church used a beloved LDS painting in one of their publications and made alterations to fit their doctrinal beliefs or removed articles of clothing for aesthetic reasons?

Why are the angel's shoulders immodest, but Christ's chest is not? Why are Arnold Freeberg's paintings of buff half naked men not immodest?

As long as permissions and releases were sought and obtained - no problem.

[selek1]

Hmmm....

I wonder if Cishan is as bothered by this image in Newsweek....

Edited May 18, 2012 by selek1

[The Nehor]

Really, this is a very silly debate. Religious censorship is a historical reality. This does not constitute an arcane or obscure use of the term "censorship." Religious censorship is defined as the act of suppressing views that are contrary of those of an organized religion:

And this would make some sense if the LDS church was destroying all representations of angels with wings. That would constitute suppression. Sharing your views in a religious magazine that overtly proclaims to be sharing your views is not suppression.

The editors of the Ensign suppressed the theological view of Carl Bloch that angels have wings and possess refined human-like shoulders, the beauty of which should be exposed.

The LDS church has taken no official stance on the comeliness of angel's shoulders and whether angels expose them in public or not.

Whether you or agree with the suppression of the Bloch's views does not change the fact that altering the painting to convey a message about divine beings contrary to what the artist himself wished to share constitutes an act of religious censorship.

No it doesn't. Bloch's original is still freely available and if you want to hang the sleeveless version in your living room you can.

It's unfortunate that rather than addressing the issues raised in this thread, several posters have instead tried to suppress these concerns by quibbling over semantics.

I'm sorry if this is offensive but if this is a serious concern for you I suggest you need to get out more so you can see real concerns. This barely qualifies as a quibble.

[volgadon]

And this would make some sense if the LDS church was destroying all representations of angels with wings. That would constitute suppression.

That would constitute consistency.

[The Nehor]

That would constitute consistency.

So the Catholic Church became inconsistent when it stopped burning heretics?

[volgadon]

So the Catholic Church became inconsistent when it stopped burning heretics?

It stopped wasting good matches.

[The Nehor]

It stopped wasting good matches.

More likely it was all the horrible foul-ups that come with good old fashioned heretic punishing:

[Hamba Tuhan]

Wait, if the Ensign staff choose to reproduce as-is an artistic impression of the Book of Mormon translation which may not exactly match some accounts of the process, then they're in trouble, and if the Ensign staff choose to alter an artistic impression of the Resurrection since it doesn't exactly match some accounts of angelic appearances, then they're in trouble?

Why am I reminded of these verses from Matthew 11?

'For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, He hath a devil. The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber ...'

[Avatar4321]

As no government was involved, I dont consider it censorship. People are free to modify artwork as they see fit as long as there are no copyrights on it.

[volgadon]

As no government was involved, I dont consider it censorship.

That is a very idiosyncratic definition of "censorship."

People are free to modify artwork as they see fit as long as there are no copyrights on it.

That isn't the issue. The issue is that no mention was made of the modification, but instead the artwork as it was printed in the Ensign was accredited to Bloch.

[Libs]

I donno, perhaps, it's not censorship, exactly, but I am just wondering, why use the painting, at all, if it is not considered an accurate representation of the Church's beliefs about the event?

Putting sleeves on everything reminded me of something an older LDS woman told me about their BYU proms. She is about my age and graduated in the late 50's, I think...and she told us, in RS, that they wore sleeveless/strapless gowns to prom, back then. She has pictures. I was wondering when that changed and why it was allowed and then not allowed?

Edited May 18, 2012 by Libs

[blackstrap]

Somebody made a mistake. If enough people call attention to the significance of the error,then perhaps a lesson will be learned from the matter. Use the actual picture as the story indicates .There is a point to the complaints.I doubt that point was considered in the decision to 'adjust' the pic. We can hope that such considerations will take place in other similar situations. It was wrong to make changes to the picture without at the very least noting the changes clearly.

How about " The photo of the original Bloch painting has been modified to reflect the current doctrine and standards of the Church"

Edited May 18, 2012 by blackstrap

[CASteinman]

I donno, perhaps, it's not censorship, exactly, but I am just wondering, why use the painting, at all, if it is not considered an accurate representation of the Church's beliefs about the event?

Once again... the article was about the visual overlap of that specific painting with another painting. It cannot be substituted.

[CASteinman]

Somebody made a mistake. If enough people call attention to the significance of the error,then perhaps a lesson will be learned from the matter. Use the actual picture as the story indicates .There is a point to the complaints.I doubt that point was considered in the decision to 'adjust' the pic. We can hope that such considerations will take place in other similar situations. It was wrong to make changes to the picture without at the very least noting the changes clearly.

How about " The photo of the original Bloch painting has been modified to reflect the current doctrine and standards of the Church"

Tempest in a teapot.

What makes you so sure the Ensign altered the painting?

[CASteinman]

That isn't the issue. The issue is that no mention was made of the modification, but instead the artwork as it was printed in the Ensign was accredited to Bloch.

So what?

This is a silly complaint.