Church alters classic works of art.

[JAHS]

At various times the Church has used classic works of art or photos on its website or magazines, but has altered those paintings or photos to make them more modest or more doctrinally correct.
See https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2022/12/30/gordon-monson-when-lds-church/ (Subscription may be needed to read the article)
Wondering how proper you think this is to do this and how much of an alteration can be performed before they are in danger of copyright infringement?

Can you spot the differences?

[Tacenda]

Not cool at all. I didn't see a difference on the comparison with all the women though. 

[Calm]

12 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Not cool at all. I didn't see a difference on the comparison with all the women though. 

They inserted pictures of Jesus.

It depends on wher3 they got the photos from.  If the photos were done by the Church and later someone thinks, “too bad we didn’t have them holding pictures of Jesus” and therefore they get photoshopped in, I don’t have a problem with it.  I don’t believe they should alter others’ work unless they get permission from the person who took the picture or the participants.  I think it’s awful when they alter classical works.  If it’s that important, find an artist who will paint a picture like you want.

What’s going on in the second picture, it just seems to have the color altered a little, more red tones….never mind, the stupid short sleeves on the little girl…ridiculous, but okay if the church produced the picture themselves or got permission from the photographer who submitted it.

I have seen the picture of the women before…it seems there was a bigger issue than just inserting a picture of Christ or three.  Do you have a link to the original and the Church use?

I can’t remember if it was this picture or another classical one with angels, but it turned out there were variations prior to the church changing it…but it destroys the beautiful composition of the piece as the angel wings create a triangle that points to Christ.  

Edited December 30, 2022 by Calm

[Tacenda]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

They inserted pictures of Jesus.

It depends on wher3 they got the photos from.  If the photos were done by the Church and later someone thinks, “too bad we didn’t have them holding pictures of Jesus” and therefore they get photoshopped in, I don’t have a problem with it.  I don’t believe they should alter others’ work unless they get permission from the person who took the picture or the participants.  I think it’s awful when they alter classical works.  If it’s that important, find an artist who will paint a picture like you want.

What’s going on in the second picture, it just seems to have the color altered a little, more red tones….never mind, the stupid short sleeves on the little girl…ridiculous, but okay if the church produced the picture themselves or got permission from the photographer who submitted it.

I have seen the picture of the women before…it seems there was a bigger issue than just inserting a picture of Christ or three.  Do you have a link to the original and the Church use?

You probably meant the question for the OP, you might have thought I was the poster. Which would be very understandable, I've shared stuff like this before. I hope in the future the church will back away from the modesty thing. It's kind of creepy doing that to a child's photo. And even the artist's rendition. What, women should be as smooth as a 9 year old at the chest? 

[Calm]

12 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

You probably meant the question for the OP, you might have thought I was the poster. Which would be very understandable, I've shared stuff like this before. I hope in the future the church will back away from the modesty thing. It's kind of creepy doing that to a child's photo. And even the artist's rendition. What, women should be as smooth as a 9 year old at the chest? 

No, I knew you weren’t, just tired today and not as clear as I should be.  I am hoping JAHS has links, not you.  We have discussed it on the board before, I think, as I can’t imagine where else I might have seen some of the comparisons before, but not even trying to look for it.

But if JAHS has the artist’s name (angel painting), I might try…added:  never mind, remembered

Edited December 30, 2022 by Calm

[Calm]

Here we go…my obsessive nature never allows me to truly rest….

 

[bluebell]

I think it's fine to alter some things but not on others.  For example, I don't think we need to alter famous paintings to make them "doctrinally correct".  We can either use them as they are or not use them.

Adding sleeves onto little children for "modesty" is embarrassing.  There is nothing immodest about a 4 year old's upper arms.  I really hope that example is a few years old because I feel like we are moving to a much healthier place on modesty--a place where that kind of stuff is made fun of.

The etiquette of photoshopping things into photos that weren't there previously depends on whether or not they have permission to alter the photos from those they belong to (and also from the subjects they are editing).

[JAHS]

20 minutes ago, Calm said:

They inserted pictures of Jesus.

It depends on wher3 they got the photos from.  If the photos were done by the Church and later someone thinks, “too bad we didn’t have them holding pictures of Jesus” and therefore they get photoshopped in, I don’t have a problem with it.  I don’t believe they should alter others’ work unless they get permission from the person who took the picture or the participants.  I think it’s awful when they alter classical works.  If it’s that important, find an artist who will paint a picture like you want.

What’s going on in the second picture, it just seems to have the color altered a little, more red tones….never mind, the stupid short sleeves on the little girl…ridiculous, but okay if the church produced the picture themselves or got permission from the photographer who submitted it.

I have seen the picture of the women before…it seems there was a bigger issue than just inserting a picture of Christ or three.  Do you have a link to the original and the Church use?

I can’t remember if it was this picture or another classical one with angels, but it turned out there were variations prior to the church changing it…but it destroys the beautiful composition of the piece as the angel wings create a triangle that points to Christ.  

Quote

I have seen the picture of the women before…it seems there was a bigger issue than just inserting a picture of Christ or three. Do you have a link to the original and the Church use?

The place I got the photo of the women didn't give the source.

Quote

I can’t remember if it was this picture or another classical one with angels, but it turned out there were variations prior to the church changing it…but it destroys the beautiful composition of the piece as the angel wings create a triangle that points to Christ. 

Notice the angels also had sleeves added.
 

Quote

 

We have discussed it on the board before, I think, as I can’t imagine where else I might have seen some of the comparisons before, but not even trying to look for it.

 

The problem on this board is that everything has been discussed before. But there's always new people joining.
The one where the angels lost their wings appeared in the Ensign, page 54 in the December 2011 issue.

 

[JAHS]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

Here we go…my obsessive nature never allows me to truly rest….

 

Yes. I thought I remembered discussing this before too, but that was 10 years ago. Maybe we can get some fresh opinions.

[Calm]

Here’s the Ensign it was in.  It has an interesting composite picture of two paintings at the beginning of the article (go to page 50)

https://media.ldscdn.org/pdf/magazines/ensign-december-2011/2011-12-00-ensign-eng.pdf

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think it's fine to alter some things but not on others.  For example, I don't think we need to alter famous paintings to make them "doctrinally correct".  We can either use them as they are or not use them.

Adding sleeves onto little children for "modesty" is embarrassing.  There is nothing immodest about a 4 year old's upper arms.  I really hope that example is a few years old because I feel like we are moving to a much healthier place on modesty--a place where that kind of stuff is made fun of.

The etiquette of photoshopping things into photos that weren't there previously depends on whether or not they have permission to alter the photos from those they belong to (and also from the subjects they are editing).

At least 2012

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Yes. I thought I remembered discussing this before too, but that was 10 years ago. Maybe we can get some fresh opinions.

I don’t have a problem repeating it…just some of the previous research might be interesting or even helpful….plus I like to think about posters no longer here.

Edited December 30, 2022 by Calm

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Notice the angels also had sleeves added.

And an undergarment so no skin was showing in the gap.

[JustAnAustralian]

11 minutes ago, bluebell said:

For example, I don't think we need to alter famous paintings to make them "doctrinally correct".  We can either use them as they are or not use them.

On the other hand, I'm ok with that.

You just need to look at the number of "the church lied to us" type posts in various social media sites relating to paintings of the BoM translation process.

If people are going to base their beliefs on artwork, I'm ok with the church doing things to counteract that.

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, JustAnAustralian said:

On the other hand, I'm ok with that.

You just need to look at the number of "the church lied to us" type posts in various social media sites relating to paintings of the BoM translation process.

If people are going to base their beliefs on artwork, I'm ok with the church doing things to counteract that.

Agreed. But my choice, rather than alter a famous historical painting, would be to commission artwork that is actually doctrinally correct. 

[JAHS]

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Agreed. But my choice, rather than alter a famous historical painting, would be to commission artwork that is actually doctrinally correct. 

In some cases there may be a reason for showing the original art if the subject of the article is about classic art depicting Jesus or Mary.

[blackstrap]

While we are getting picky, the original of Mary and child, Jesus looks like a two year old toddler and a bit deformed at that . 

I agree that the Church should not be changing original art unless they have full ownership rights. 

Edited December 30, 2022 by blackstrap

[bluebell]

22 minutes ago, JAHS said:

In some cases there may be a reason for showing the original art if the subject of the article is about classic art depicting Jesus or Mary.

Then photoshopping it to match our doctrines wouldn't make any sense, right?  If the article was about classic art depicting Jesus or Mary.

 

[Calm]

16 minutes ago, JAHS said:

In some cases there may be a reason for showing the original art if the subject of the article is about classic art depicting Jesus or Mary.

The article the Bloch painting was in was about the painting, so hard not to use it.  But also it was the painting with wings the author had his own experience with, so I think it very unfortunate the choice was to edit them out.  I wish they would have shown it as he saw it, though I can also see why they thought it unnecessary.

I just think by pulling out the wings and destroying much of the composition, it shows a lack of respect for the desire and effort Bloch put into getting the painting just so.  Apparently there are several variations with the wings at different angles, which tells me the angle was important to him…he needed then to point towards Christ in order for the image to be right…

[Amulek]

2 hours ago, JAHS said:

Wondering how proper you think this is to do this and how much of an alteration can be performed before they are in danger of copyright infringement?

Old works of art, like those of Carl Bloch and other classical painters, are all in the public domain, so there's no issue with respect to copyright infringement.

And I assume the picture with the primary class was taken by the church themselves, so there would be no copyright issues there either.

As for how proper I think the practice is, well...to be frank, I doubt there's a single piece of print media that hasn't been edited, enhanced, photoshopped, etc., so it's really just a matter of personal preference as to where you draw the line. And I can live with the people in the Church's editing departments drawing those lines differently that how I would personally.

 

2 hours ago, JAHS said:

Can you spot the differences?

Yup.

 

Edited December 31, 2022 by Amulek

[Calm]

In the original women’s gathering picture, the women are all holding pictures of the RS presidency, I believe.  It is from an article about sisterhood.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/daughters-in-my-kingdom-the-history-and-work-of-relief-society/a-worldwide-circle-of-sisterhood?lang=eng

Part of me dislikes the Church changing it even though I have no doubt the sisters would have happily held pictures of Christ if asked.  I dislike that it loses that sense of greater sisterhood when their joy at the presidency is visiting is replaced with something else, even with what is a greater teaching.  It also feels like it wasn’t worth it to the editors to get the real thing, but I know the Church tries to keep the cost of the magazines and other things down so they can be sold at very low cost covered prices, so I can’t really fault the short cut used in trying to be more diverse in their pictures.

 

[Calm]

Primary picture discussed here:

https://bycommonconsent.com/2012/09/03/editing-photos-to-add-cap-sleeves-is-a-bad-idea/

Since the link to the original in the Church News no longer works and google image doesn’t bring it up, we have to trust the below is accurate and I think Ardis is trustworthy…

In one of the comments (she is a reliable, well known poster/historian):

Quote

The unaltered photo was published in June of this year. The doctored version was published in February of this year (or perhaps earlier; February is the date of the last update, but who knows when the original stock photo was taken.) I will take heart in knowing that as recently as three months ago, the unaltered photo passed muster with the photo editor of the Church News.

I’d be interested in knowing the unknowable: Was the editing done because someone with real culture-making authority (someone in the General Primary presidency, or an apostolic adviser, say) reviewed the material and requested a change because she or he actively objected, or because some low-level page-designer or supervisor made the change thinking (rightly or wrongly) that higher-ups would object and said low-level functionary was being hypervigilant? Once the editing was done, no reviewer would have been aware of the alteration to say it was unnecessary.

This is a quote from the unaltered picture’s article so I might be able to track it down, but seeing as how the unaltered one was published second, it sounds like it is from a stock picture collection put together and owned by the church, which imo can be altered however they want.  I do take issue with the need to hide the shoulders of such a young girl…or any girl for that matter.  Wearing sleeves to me is not about modesty, but respect for the temple garment, which is irrelevant for anyone under 18 and often for those over.

Quote

I love to serve in Primary!’ Those are often words we hear from brothers and sisters all over the world. Our first response is always ‘Tell me why.’ They smile when they talk about how they have come to love each individual child as they see them for who they are and what they can become. That is the secret to enjoying Primary!” (emphasis added)

Added:  here is the Church News article that used the unaltered photo, however some has been deleted and any picture is not included.

https://www.thechurchnews.com/2012/6/9/23225493/i-love-to-serve-in-primary-love-participate-and-prepare

Edited January 1, 2023 by Calm

[bluebell]

27 minutes ago, Calm said:

Wearing sleeves to me is not about modesty, but respect for the temple garment, which is irrelevant for anyone under 18 and often for those over.

Especially when you consider that with the newer cap sleeve garment tops, you can almost show your entire arm and still completely cover the garment.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, JAHS said:

At various times the Church has used classic works of art or photos on its website or magazines, but has altered those paintings or photos to make them more modest or more doctrinally correct.
See https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2022/12/30/gordon-monson-when-lds-church/ (Subscription may be needed to read the article)
Wondering how proper you think this is to do this and how much of an alteration can be performed before they are in danger of copyright infringement?

Can you spot the differences?

The sports columnist sharing his opinion ("man-pining?") comes across just as heavy-handed and extreme as he says the Church does.

And somebody PLEASE do him a favor: modify his press photo!

[JAHS]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Especially when you consider that with the newer cap sleeve garment tops, you can almost show your entire arm and still completely cover the garment.

I wonder how many of these alterations would even happen if the Apostles themselves actually had any say in the matter. I get the feeling it comes down to the authors or editors of the articles and publications trying to strictly follow the principles of modesty and doctrines, more than they really need to.