Ensign Censorship

[CASteinman]

Any time someone is purposefully presenting something other than the genuine article when the item has been purposefully altered by the presenter I believe it is wrong.

Is that true, even if God does it?

I don't think this was presented as "the genuine article" in the Ensign. I cannot even imagine it as this is not the first time that they have presented an image differently from the original and without describing the differences. The Ensign is not about "artistic purity". I have no problem if they want to describe and discuss such things, but I do not see how they are any moral obligation to explain such things.

[CASteinman]

But I do have to give you credit for living up to your signature.

Do you believe this horse is dead? I don't.

[why me]

I started an Ensign censorship part 2 thread because of this same painting that I found on the web. In this painting the angels have wings but their shoulders are covered. This tells me that the lds church may have uploaded an altered version of the original. Check it out for yourselves.

http://www.the-athenaeum.org/art/full.php?ID=49673

[ERayR]

I don't think that is really the issue. I think the real issue here is that Art is Sacred and must never be altered, but the malevolent LDS powers that be are anally retentive and evilly dishonest -- so they are inclined to do such things and must be spanked by their betters who exist out in the general world.

That certainly limits the possibilities.

Edited May 18, 2012 by ERayR

[Craig Paxton]

I find it interesting that the church felt the need to "cover" the immodest female angels...yet left the immodest exposed Jesus in all of his glory...not even this Jesus would be allowed to enter Temple Square dresses as he is depicted in the picture without some major dress modification.

[CASteinman]

it certainly is the general practice.

Again... Cite Please.

I think we may have misunderstood each other again. Bloch, an artist, created an original painting. Another artist took the original and modified it. This is what I mean by interaction.

I don't see where another artist did this for the ensign -- and that is what I was getting at. Are you upset that an artist violated his "artistic integrity"? I would not have thought that was your issue.

But Van Gogh redid the works of other artists without "attribution". So did students of great artists throughout time -- as well as the great artists themselves once in a while. Michelangelo copied Leonardo -- without ANY attribution. But Michelangelo was also copied without attribution (and he got quite furious about it as it hurt his brand).

I read that Ritchie Blackmore says that the secret to his genius is that he steals shamelessly. And it can be proven that he does. He stole from "Its a Beautiful Day" (without attribution) and LaFlamme (who was a Mormon by the way) was upset about it until someone pointed out that LaFlamme stole the same tune from a Jazz Saxaphonist). Ritchie also ripped off Gershwin's "Fascinating Rhythm" -- and for a long time that was unattributed.

And what about music sampling -- without attribution -- which is RAMPANT?

I don't see a "general practice" here that matches your view of things.

When someone does a cover song -- lets say David Bowie's version of "O Superman" -- that is an ENTIRELY different (almost unrecognizable) arrangement of the original, does he meet the sufficient requirements of your general practice to merely put the name "L. Anderson" in the writing credits? Or does he fail because he has presented it as original and genuine but it isn't?

[CASteinman]

I find it interesting that the church felt the need to "cover" the immodest female angels...yet left the immodest exposed Jesus in all of his glory...not even this Jesus would be allowed to enter Temple Square dresses as he is depicted in the picture without some major dress modification.

Are you sure the Church did this?

[AddamS]

Is that true, even if God does it?

I don't believe God is the current editor of The Ensign. I would guess the current editor would be likely to agree with me.

I don't think this was presented as "the genuine article" in the Ensign. I cannot even imagine it as this is not the first time that they have presented an image differently from the original and without describing the differences. The Ensign is not about "artistic purity".

Was the photo of a painting decribed as being a work of the artist or an altered work of the artist?

I have no problem if they want to describe and discuss such things, but I do not see how they are any moral obligation to explain such things.

And I don't see how a temple recommend holding saint is under any moral obligation to abstain from coffee. Or any Muslim is under moral obligation to abstain from pork. These choices are all based on subjective morals they are certainly entitled to, as am I.

I'm not implying they need to live by the same set of morals I do. I'm just voicing an opinion.

Edited May 18, 2012 by AddamS

[AddamS]

When someone does a cover song -- lets say David Bowie's version of "O Superman" -- that is an ENTIRELY different (almost unrecognizable) arrangement of the original, does he meet the sufficient requirements of your general practice to merely put the name "L. Anderson" in the writing credits? Or does he fail because he has presented it as original and genuine but it isn't?

Bowie has never made attempts to market the song as being Laurie Anderson's recording.

[CASteinman]

I don't believe God is the current editor of The Ensign. I would guess the current editor would be likely to agree with me.

I would agree with him also. But that is off the track. I was not asking about the Ensign or about the Editor. I was asking about your "rule". What if God violates your rule?

Was the photo of a painting decribed as being a work of the artist or an altered work of the artist?

See my post about David Bowie and his alteration of "O Superman". This does not involve an artist long dead and a work out of copyright. Its two contemporaneous artists both known for avant gard. David redid her "O Superman" and all he did was, on the album, give her writing credits. He did not bother to mention he altered it.

And it is pretty common not to mention that a work was altered from the original from what I can tell. In fact, if I do a random survey of 10 songs so covered, I find it is the rule.

And I don't see how a temple recommend holding saint is under any moral obligation to abstain from coffee. Or any Muslim is under moral obligation to abstain from pork. These choices are all based subjective morals they are certainly entitled to, as am I.

Hmmm, I don't get any of that at all. But apparently you do not think that there was any moral issue relative to this that you could object to. I presume that for you, its not a matter of honesty (which falls under morals) and not a matter of integrity (which falls under morals) and yet you are bugged by it.

So, exactly what is the problem if it is not a moral issue? (Note, I agree with you, it is not a moral issue, but somehow its a problem for you and not for me).

[Log]

I don't think David Bowie is God, even if he is the Goblin King.

Edited May 18, 2012 by Log

[CASteinman]

Bowie has never made attempts to market the song as being Laurie Anderson's recording.

Right. And it wasn't.

The Print in the Ensign was not originally printed by Bloch either.

[Log]

Hold up - because the thread is overly whiny, judgmental, slanderous, and long - did the source of the Ensign's print ever come to light? Was this done by the Ensign, or the artist's estate?

Edited May 18, 2012 by Log

[CASteinman]

I don't think David Bowie is God, even if he is the

.

Of course not. Even Bowie would tell you that "Clapton is god"

[sethpayne]

Again... Cite Please.

I've provided a few examples. A google search should provide you with plenty of examples of the practice.

I don't see where another artist did this for the ensign -- and that is what I was getting at. Are you upset that an artist violated his "artistic integrity"? I would not have thought that was your issue.

I don't know if an artist did this *for the Ensign* but some artist, at some point, made the alterations, thus creating a derivative work.

I'm not upset about this issue in any way. As I mentioned before, I find it amusing more than anything else.

But Van Gogh redid the works of other artists without "attribution". So did students of great artists throughout time -- as well as the great artists themselves once in a while. Michelangelo copied Leonardo -- without ANY attribution. But Michelangelo was also copied without attribution (and he got quite furious about it as it hurt his brand).

I read that Ritchie Blackmore says that the secret to his genius is that he steals shamelessly. And it can be proven that he does. He stole from "Its a Beautiful Day" (without attribution) and LaFlamme (who was a Mormon by the way) was upset about it until someone pointed out that LaFlamme stole the same tune from a Jazz Saxaphonist). Ritchie also ripped off Gershwin's "Fascinating Rhythm" -- and for a long time that was unattributed.

And what about music sampling -- without attribution -- which is RAMPANT?

I don't see a "general practice" here that matches your view of things.

I'm no art historian so I can't speak intelligently on the examples you provide. If I were to guess, at least in some of these circumstances, perhaps the original was so well-known that the derivative was seen as tribute, parody, or obvious derivative. Just a guess .... but I'm probably wrong. In the world of classical music I have never seen an arrangement or derivative work that did not provide attribution. Perhaps things are different in the world of paintings.

In most cases (and I'm thinking of dj remixes and Puff Daddy) attribution is always given to the original artist/song.

When someone does a cover song -- lets say David Bowie's version of "O Superman" -- that is an ENTIRELY different (almost unrecognizable) arrangement of the original, does he meet the sufficient requirements of your general practice to merely put the name "L. Anderson" in the writing credits? Or does he fail because he has presented it as original and genuine but it isn't?

Well, it isn't *my* general practice because, as I stated above, I don't produce anything of artistic value.

I don't know about David Bowie but I can tell you about Tori Amos. Amos has covered many many many songs and the vast majority bare little resemblance to the original (at least musically ... the lyrics are generally the same). In my mind the most interesting example is her cover of Slayer's "Raining Blood." She took one of the best-known thrash metal songs of all time and turned into a darkly beautiful piano arrangement. In the album notes she makes it clear that the song was orginally written by Jeff Hanneman and Kerry King. Yet, her version is nothing like the orginal.

[CASteinman]

Hold up - because the thread is overly whiny, judgmental, slanderous, and long - did the source of the Ensign's print ever come to light? Was this done by the Ensign, or the artist's estate?

I think you will see, several times, that I have said something to the effect of "Are you sure the Church did this?".

Here is what I think might be really interesting: Suppose that somehow this was done in some legitimate fashion by someone outside the Church as you suggest (I don't think that's the case, but let's suppose)... If this was done by the Artists estate for example, would the critics still be upset? And who would have upset them?:

1. Just the Ensign -- just because.

2. Just the Estate for the alteration.

3. Both the Estate and the Ensign.

4. God and life in general.

5. No one.

[mapman]

This somehow made the news:

Mormons alter Bloch's angels

[AddamS]

I would agree with him also. But that is off the track. I was not asking about the Ensign or about the Editor. I was asking about your "rule". What if God violates your rule?

I don't believe God exists. As such, I have no opinion on the matter.

See my post about David Bowie and his alteration of "O Superman". This does not involve an artist long dead and a work out of copyright. Its two contemporaneous artists both known for avant gard. David redid her "O Superman" and all he did was, on the album, give her writing credits. He did not bother to mention he altered it.

And it is pretty common not to mention that a work was altered from the original from what I can tell. In fact, if I do a random survey of 10 songs so covered, I find it is the rule.

I would hope you could see a difference between Bowie performing a cover of an original song and selling it as an interpretation of another artists' work being performed by Bowie is different than if Bowie had released the song as a recording done by Anderson. If you don't, there's no further need to discuss this point.

Hmmm, I don't get any of that at all. But apparently you do not think that there was any moral issue relative to this that you could object to. I presume that for you, its not a matter of honesty (which falls under morals) and not a matter of integrity (which falls under morals) and yet you are bugged by it.

So, exactly what is the problem if it is not a moral issue? (Note, I agree with you, it is not a moral issue, but somehow its a problem for you and not for me).

Intentional misrepresentation of the work of an artist/writer/prophet without clarifying the work has been altered is, to me, a moral issue.

Don't confuse my thoughts on the subject as an implication that I believe the rest of the world should live according to my opinion. Both of us can only voice our opinion on the subject. That's why we're here, isn't it?

[CASteinman]

I don't know if an artist did this *for the Ensign* but some artist, at some point, made the alterations, thus creating a derivative work.

I would agree the work is derivative. I would not agree that it was necessarily an artist. I have done this sort of thing and I am not an artist. (Even if I wish).

Perhaps things are different in the world of paintings.

In most cases (and I'm thinking of dj remixes and Puff Daddy) attribution is always given to the original artist/song.

In my mind the most interesting example is her cover of Slayer's "Raining Blood." She took one of the best-known thrash metal songs of all time and turned into a darkly beautiful piano arrangement. In the album notes she makes it clear that the song was orginally written by Jeff Hanneman and Kerry King. Yet, her version is nothing like the orginal.

Yes, you are right, in dj remixes, attribution is ALWAYS given. Because it is an homage and creative cred ensues by virtue of citing the original source and then "improving" (so-called) upon the original.

And yes, you are right, although she covers the songs and makes them dramatically different -- she does nothing more than give the original writers credit.

Well the article did say who painted the original painting. Just as Amos. But somehow this is not enough for critics who seem to be of two schools:

1. It should not have been done at all (Art is, after all, very sacred and untouchable)

2. If done, it should have been recognized and footnoted (after all, the Ensign is a scholarly journal).

I think you are the first to mention genre's as affecting the nature of what is reasonable. And I think its fair to raise that as a key issue in this instance as well.

It is interesting to note that in Scientific Journals *any* adjustment of photographs or images is very suspect and usually, though not always, entirely forbidden.

However, in Newspapers -- dedicated to the news -- there is actually some flexibility here. Surprising eh? You are not allowed to alter a photograph for a Newspaper in a way that would materially alter impressions or reporting of a material fact. But you CAN alter the photograph to make it cleaner, less cluttered and to make the key image more prominent. And you can do that without any notes of any kind attached to the photo.

For other types of journals not associated with science or history or the news, pictures that are illustrative may be altered in the extreme. They may be posterized, they may be recolored, they may have content extracted, they may distort it, they may do all manner of things to the photograph to either set a mood for the piece or to illustrate a point being made. Accuracy is not necessarily a standard. It may not even be desirable in some cases.

So genre and purpose, as you have suggested -- but not said, does make a difference.

Edited May 19, 2012 by CASteinman

[CASteinman]

I don't believe God exists. As such, I have no opinion on the matter.

I am sad for you on this matter but it explains things a bit better. Not entirely, but somewhat. I hope you recover your faith.

I would hope you could see a difference between Bowie performing a cover of an original song and selling it as an interpretation of another artists' work being performed by Bowie is different than if Bowie had released the song as a recording done by Anderson. If you don't, there's no further need to discuss this point.

He never sold it as an "interpretation of another artist's work". He merely let it be known that someone else wrote it. So if it was important to let it be known that it was an interpretation -- he failed.

Intentional misrepresentation of the work of an artist/writer/prophet without clarifying the work has been altered is, to me, a moral issue.

And yet David Bowie intentionally sold the song as written by someone else and never clarified that the work has been altered.

Not only that, but this sort of thing is common.

Don't confuse my thoughts on the subject as an implication that I believe the rest of the world should live according to my opinion.

Actually, I don't think that is a confusion. It is well understood that when people give moral pronouncements that this is a normative as well as descriptive statement.

I am pointing out that your approach to the issue is inconsistent -- and inexplicably inconsistent.

[sethpayne]

I would agree the work is derivative. I would not agree that it was necessarily an artist. I have done this sort of thing and I am not an artist. (Even if I wish).

Yes, you are right, in dj remixes, attribution is ALWAYS given. Because it is an homage and creative cred ensues by virtue of citing the original source and then "improving" (so-called) upon the original.

And yes, you are right, although she covers the songs and makes them dramatically different -- she does nothing more than give the original writers credit.

Well the article did say who painted the original painting. Just as Amos. But somehow this is not enough for critics who seem to be of two schools:

1. It should not have been done at all (Art is, after all, very sacred and untouchable)

2. If done, it should have been recognized and footnoted (after all, the Ensign is a scholarly journal).

I think you are the first to mention genre's as affecting the nature of what is reasonable. And I think its fair to raise that as a key issue in this instance as well.

It is interesting to note that in Scientific Journals *any* adjustment of photographs or images is very suspect and usually, though not always, entirely forbidden.

However, in Newspapers -- dedicated to the news -- there is actually some flexibility here. Surprising eh? You are not allowed to alter a photograph for a Newspaper in a way that would materially alter impressions or reporting of a material fact. But you CAN alter the photograph to make it cleaner, less cluttered and to make the key image more prominent. And you can do that without any notes of any kind attached to the photo.

For other types of journals not associated with science or history or the news, pictures that are illustrative may be altered in the extreme. They may be posterized, they may be recolored, they may have content extracted, they may distort it, they may do all manner of things to the photograph to either set a mood for the piece or to illustrate a point being made. Accuracy is not necessarily a standard. It may not even be desirable in some cases.

So genre and purpose, as you have suggested, but not said, does make a difference.

You raise a good point about genre and scope. In the case of Tori Amos, it isn't necessary to state explicitly that the work was altered because it appears on an album dedicated to cover songs and Amos is known for her creative reworking of existing music.

I wonder if that would apply to the Bloch painting? Is the painting so well-known that the derivative work would be instantly recognized as having altered the original?

Seth

[CASteinman]

I wonder if that would apply to the Bloch painting? Is the painting so well-known that the derivative work would be instantly recognized as having altered the original?

More to the point.... the Ensign is not an objective, scholarly art magazine. It is not a science magazine. It is not a news magazine.

All of these would be decent types of magazine to criticize if they were to alter a photograph that way. But this is a magazine with concepts and thoughts and admonitions and encouragement. It is didactic, not scientific. Its pictures are not intended to be recognized for precision but rather for illustration.

That is the key.

Not the popularity of the art, but rather the purpose of the journal. It is a journal where the pictures are highlights and impressions -- illustrations for connection to the article not for precision in a scientific manner and not for analysis as artwork separate and apart from the article.

[volgadon]

And yes, you are right, although she covers the songs and makes them dramatically different -- she does nothing more than give the original writers credit.

Well the article did say who painted the original painting. Just as Amos.

Now who is confusing genre. In a recording of performance art, such as music, it goes beyond saying that unless the original writer and the performer are one and the same, the performer is the one performing the piece and its arrangement. This is hardly just as the Ensign.

But somehow this is not enough for critics who seem to be of two schools:

1. It should not have been done at all (Art is, after all, very sacred and untouchable)

2. If done, it should have been recognized and footnoted (after all, the Ensign is a scholarly journal).

I have already stated that, preferably, the painting should not have been altered, but failing that, at least an acknowledgement of the fact should have been made. Nobody expects a full-blown citation, but if the Ensign does accredit the art and did call the superimposed images a composite, then why couldn't it aply the same standard to a significant alteration?

Edited May 19, 2012 by volgadon

[sethpayne]

More to the point.... the Ensign is not an objective, scholarly art magazine. It is not a science magazine. It is not a news magazine.

All of these would be decent types of magazine to criticize if they were to alter a photograph that way. But this is a magazine with concepts and thoughts and admonitions and encouragement. It is didactic, not scientific. Its pictures are not intended to be recognized for precision but rather for illustration.

That is the key.

Not the popularity of the art, but rather the purpose of the journal. It is a journal where the pictures are highlights and impressions -- illustrations for connection to the article not for precision in a scientific manner and not for analysis as artwork separate and apart from the article.

I do disagree with your last point although I do see what you are driving at. I suppose the only thing I can say in response is that the MoTab always states when works have been rearranged or reworked.

[CASteinman]

I do disagree with your last point although I do see what you are driving at. I suppose the only thing I can say in response is that the MoTab always states when works have been rearranged or reworked.

Well, As I have pointed out, I can give contra examples. It boils down to genre and norms. The norm that should apply here is magazine publishing. And not scientific, historical, technical or current events magazine publishing but rather inspirational or didactic community oriented magazines.