Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Church alters classic works of art.


JAHS

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, gav said:

Yawn... Someone obviously needs to do more homework

Point out what they said was wrong maybe? Too often it's left wide open and you may come off as reactionary instead of really wanting to help them see the error of their ways.

Link to comment
13 hours ago, JAHS said:

You are comparing apples and oranges. Art is made by man. Scriptures come from God and we will always have the original to refer to. There was someone who actually did rewrite the Book of Mormon but tried to convert it to modern English. I found it interesting but not repulsed by it because I know it is not the original. I don't know what Joseph Smith or God would think about it.
 

Not really.  Many artists creating religious art especially feel the help of God in creating their works of art.  

Link to comment
8 hours ago, gav said:

Coming back to the OP. My take on the whole matter is which is more preferable for children, youth and new members? A clear signal or mixed messages. After all, as the saying goes, a picture speaks a thousand words. For these reasons I think alterations are acceptable if the artwork/picture is to accompany gospel/doctrinal/ensigny type articles and text or a church setting.

Similar to the lines of no smoking on church grounds and the mixed messages that could convey.

I thought the Church has learned it's lesson to not distort the truth of history by pushing narratives that are not really true just to make those stories more preferable to children, youth and new members.  Doesn't your suggestion just perpetuate that kind of deception that have hurt so many member's testimonies?  

Link to comment
14 hours ago, CV75 said:

I think you need to use examples of original Church artwork venerated by Church members to make a fair comparison and point. What artwork are you thinking of, and what changes do you think they would make to reflect their religious sensibilities?

Interesting.  So you would be ok with the Seventh Day Adventist taking an iconic painting of Joseph Smith in the grove talking with God the Father and Jesus Christ, painting out God the Father and replacing Joseph Smith with Ellen G. White, founder of their religion who also claimed to have over 2,000 visions from God.

I can't honestly believe how some members think this kind of thing is ok.  Are you just so used to letting the Church do whatever it wants and think your job is to go along with it no matter how dishonest and deceptive it is?  The Church is actively distorting someone else's religious beliefs.  They are distorting the very reason the artist did the painting to literally impose it's own beliefs on what that person created.  And for what reason?  Because they couldn't be bothered to find a competent artist to express the message they want to express.  

All I can say is, I don't want to hear one more complaint about the CES letter distorting the Church's teachings to fit someone else's agenda when the Church as an institution itself commits the same kinds of distortion of religious beliefs of others.  You can't condemn one and be ok with the other.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, CV75 said:

The only logo that qualifies as art in my book is MAD Magazine's Alfred E. Newman.

What religion would do this, an offshoot or something? Sounds like a reasonable hypothetical. But for discussion purposes, it wouldn't bother me in the least. I don't venerate the logo, the text, the original statue, etc. I don't even venerate copyright laws.

You are not the artist, nor are you understanding this from the artist's point of you so it is no surprise that it doesn't bother you. It is not about venerating logos or copyright laws.

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

And don't get me started on how Peggy Fletcher Stack's press photo is doctored up.

 

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, california boy said:

Interesting.  So you would be ok with the Seventh Day Adventist taking an iconic painting of Joseph Smith in the grove talking with God the Father and Jesus Christ, painting out God the Father and replacing Joseph Smith with Ellen G. White, founder of their religion who also claimed to have over 2,000 visions from God.

I can't honestly believe how some members think this kind of thing is ok.  Are you just so used to letting the Church do whatever it wants and think your job is to go along with it no matter how dishonest and deceptive it is?  The Church is actively distorting someone else's religious beliefs.  They are distorting the very reason the artist did the painting to literally impose it's own beliefs on what that person created.  And for what reason?  Because they couldn't be bothered to find a competent artist to express the message they want to express.  

All I can say is, I don't want to hear one more complaint about the CES letter distorting the Church's teachings to fit someone else's agenda when the Church as an institution itself commits the same kinds of distortion of religious beliefs of others.  You can't condemn one and be ok with the other.

Wow, this is such a ridiculous hypothetical, but of course I wouldn't mind, not my problem. That's also my attitude about the Church modifying artwork (copies or originals) as presented in the OP.

But I suspect more SDAs might have a problem with it than LDSs -- this painting is not true enough to her accounts*. You've made your own problem clear, as have others, and I listen politely and encourage you to provide sensical comparisons. And not to get hysterical.

*[samples from “I Saw the Lovely Jesus” | Adventist World] “I then saw the lovely Jesus and beheld an expression of sympathy and sorrow upon His countenance. Soon I saw Him approach the exceeding bright light which enshrouded the Father. Said my accompanying angel, ‘He is in close converse with His Father.’ The anxiety of the angels seemed to be intense while Jesus was communing with His Father. Three times He was shut in by the glorious light about the Father, and the third time He came from the Father we could see His person. His countenance was calm, free from all perplexity and trouble, and shone with a loveliness which words cannot describe. He then made known to the angelic choir that a way of escape had been made”

“I was taken off in vision to the most holy place, where I saw Jesus still interceding for Israel. . . . Jesus was clothed with priestly garments. He gazed in pity on the remnant, then raised His hands, and with a voice of deep pity cried, ‘My blood, Father, My blood, My blood, My blood!’”

The CES letter is a "piece of work", not an art piece or work of art. I was hoping we wouldn't derail.

 

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, Rain said:

You are not the artist, nor are you understanding this from the artist's point of you so it is no surprise that it doesn't bother you. It is not about venerating logos or copyright laws.

 

Let's hear from the artist.

Link to comment
On 12/31/2022 at 1:18 PM, JAHS said:

Also, in the Mary and Christ child painting there were little child-like angels looking over Mary' shoulder. Generally we don't think of angels as looking like small children, although I suppose it is possible if they have already been resurrected. 

The original artist did multiple versions of that painting, including a version without any cherubs and depicting a less bosomy Mary (see, e.g., here). 

If the church art department ultimately synthesized those two pieces together, I really don't see the harm in them having done so. 

 

Link to comment
11 hours ago, M4rcus said:

  

JAHS:  

We NEVER have the original to refer to, unless you have the Gold plates at your house for the BoM?  Also, the LDS Church has changed the BoM over 10x, with over 32,000 edits.  When I went on my mission in 1986 I had a very different BoM than what you can buy new today. Also, to remind you, The LDS Church finally admitted that JS did not translate the Peal of Great Price from the Scrolls, since we actually DO have the originals of those (with JS notes in hand written on the back).  He clearly had no idea what he was doing, and the POGP is simply made up by JS.

Wow! When I say the original I mean the Book of Mormon scriptures that have been determined by the Church leaders to be the official scripture for the Church. We will always have that to refer to to determine if someone else has made changes. 
For the Pearl of Great Price, that's news to me about Joseph Smith having no idea what he was doing and was just made up. When and where did they say that?

Link to comment
1 hour ago, california boy said:

Not really.  Many artists creating religious art especially feel the help of God in creating their works of art.  

I can agree with that, but that is only for the artist's benefit who felt that inspiration. The scriptures are the word of God directly from God for the whole world; not just art lovers. 
We can refer to the current official Book of Mormon scriptures to determine if someone has made changes. For that matter art lovers could do the same for any piece of art. 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Point out what they said was wrong maybe? Too often it's left wide open and you may come off as reactionary instead of really wanting to help them see the error of their ways.

Do you engage with drive buys that bring up antiquated tropes for their first post trying to stir a little/lot and get a rise out of somebody? generally these are sock puppets of bored trolls... 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, california boy said:

I thought the Church has learned it's lesson to not distort the truth of history by pushing narratives that are not really true just to make those stories more preferable to children, youth and new members.  Doesn't your suggestion just perpetuate that kind of deception that have hurt so many member's testimonies?  

The above asserts much... defensiveness and unwillingness to feed the trolls constantly circling the wagons can hardly be called "distort the truth of history by pushing narratives that are not really true"

My suggestion does not suggest deception but if that assertion is the lense you look through then that is what you will likely see.

The way I see it everything needs extra nurturing when it is young or just getting started and then there comes a time to grow up. Milk before meat. We still wont get beef jerky served in general conference and most general meetings no matter what scholarship of all varieties is bringing to light. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, california boy said:

... no matter how dishonest and deceptive it is?  The Church is actively distorting someone else's religious beliefs.  They are distorting the very reason the artist did the painting to literally impose it's own beliefs on what that person created.  And for what reason?  Because they couldn't be bothered to find a competent artist to express the message they want to express.  

... when the Church as an institution itself commits the same kinds of distortion of religious beliefs of others. 

There is that lense again... Are you sure your lense is not "distorted"?

Edited by gav
Link to comment
1 hour ago, california boy said:

I can't honestly believe how some members think this kind of thing is ok.  Are you just so used to letting the Church do whatever it wants and think your job is to go along with it no matter how dishonest and deceptive it is?  The Church is actively distorting someone else's religious beliefs.  They are distorting the very reason the artist did the painting to literally impose it's own beliefs on what that person created.  And for what reason?  Because they couldn't be bothered to find a competent artist to express the message they want to express.  

Works that are in the public domain are free to be used as the foundation for new creative works - even if those new works alter, either in whole or in part, the original intended meaning of the artist who first created them.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with this. 

 

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Point out what they said was wrong maybe? Too often it's left wide open and you may come off as reactionary instead of really wanting to help them see the error of their ways.

I agree.  If you are going to criticize or correct, then don’t be vague about it.

Link to comment
17 hours ago, california boy said:

How did you feel about a religion going through the Book of Mormon and changing verses to reflect their own religious beliefs and then presenting that to people as being the Book of Mormon?  Would you be bothered to have multiple versions of the Book of Mormon floating around?

I assume that offshoot LDS faiths have done exactly this. I am content to let them worship how, where, or what they may.

 

17 hours ago, california boy said:

 I mean Joseph Smith has been dead for over 100 years.  Would he really be upset?

I believe Joseph's attention would be on the Church and within the Church the Book of Mormon is what it should be.

 

17 hours ago, california boy said:

There are people who venerate those paintings the same way you venerate the BoM.  Should any consideration be made to them?

Yes. Pretty much every conference teaches me to extend compassion, consideration and courtesy to other faiths.

 

17 hours ago, california boy said:

 Again, should Catholics be allowed to alter the BoM to reflect Catholic beliefs and then distribute that version to their congregations?

Yes. To not allow it would seem to violate the 11th AoF - and legally compelling Catholics' use of scripture may run afoul of their 1A rights.

 

17 hours ago, california boy said:

Works of art are meant to be left as they were created.

Says who?

17 hours ago, california boy said:

Having multiple versions of a famous work of art is very problematic.

Multiple versions of works is the opposite of problematic. eg: Song covers are integral to a healthy music ecosystem.

Edited by Chum
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Rain said:

You are not the artist, nor are you understanding this from the artist's point of you so it is no surprise that it doesn't bother you. It is not about venerating logos or copyright laws.

 

An artist has often made the effort to share something through their art, even to teach something if it is religious art.  They may even use it as an expression of their worship of God.  By changing the art, you risk silencing their voice, removing the principle they mean to teach.  I don’t believe that is as respectful as we should, could be towards others.  Doing something because it is convenient and produces something useful may be a ‘good’ practice, but there could be other better and best ways of achieving the same.  As disciples of Christ, I think we should aim for the best when possible and never just skip the extra work because something is “good enough” if we have the resources to do better.
 

We get after critics who use ellipses to remove content to alter what church leaders have said in the past to make it say something they want it to say (usually so they can critique it).  We see it as selfish and manipulative to do so.  Of course it is tons worse when it is done to make someone look bad, but I think we should be empathetic even when using others’ work in positive ways.  While someone may have better motives for changing art  in church produced works, I think it is still risking silencing someone’s voice; in essence, altering someone’s work without asking them is telling them to shut up because you know better…and if we heard that said out loud, we would think that rude and arrogant.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, CV75 said:

And not to get hysterical.

Please don’t attribute emotional reactions to others.  It typically backfires and the person doing that comes off as arrogant and self centered who is trying to diminish the other (especially when the emotion isn’t there).

California boy used an absurd example intentionally to prove his point.  It wasn’t an emotional choice.

Link to comment
28 minutes ago, Calm said:

By changing the art, you risk silencing their voice, removing the principle they mean to teach.

(acknowledging your use of 'risk' here) When we adopted Masonic iconography into our rites, did we silence Masonic voices or negatively impact their principles?

My overarching point is that all art is changed art. All these use cases we are considering: they involve creating new works based on the original - while the original remains unaltered and available for the same uses it always was.

edit: To clarify my position on the OP's specific usurpations, I am generally unhappy with them.  Some of it smacks of inconsideration and small mindedness, both of which are at odds with our principles. We should be better.

What I am arguing against is the following mentality: That we should have an ability to trivially stifle creativity, due to other creators (or fans) getting upset or having feelings of lost control.

Edited by Chum
Link to comment
4 hours ago, california boy said:

And for what reason?  Because they couldn't be bothered to find a competent artist to express the message they want to express.  

In the case of the removing of the wings, the article was about the specific piece of art.  The story wouldn’t have worked if they had replaced it.  But for that very reason I wished they had used the art the writer had interacted with rather than a more doctrinally correct version.

In the case of the girl’s sleeve, because it appeared in two different church articles and is very generic my guess is it came from the collection of stock images the publishing arm of the Church has collected for that purpose, so I don’t see an inherent problem with that being altered.  At worst to me it shows someone in the editing department of the Ensign is too uptight about little girls’ clothing.  It comes across as unnecessary to me (and there apparently wasn’t a church standard that required it given the Church News published the photo without sleeves) but if no one had noticed the difference no one would have thought “the Church thinks showing little girls’ shoulders is immodest”; it wasn’t a change that is noticeable as a teaching moment as the change of the Bloch painting is since it is a famous work.  

The photo of the women is more an issue imo because it was taken to commemorate a specific event and the women were holding pictures of the RS Presidency to welcome them.  It is not a stock picture or illustration, but one that is documenting history so to speak.  By changing it into something else, it is like a museum taking a dug up artifact and using it in a display it doesn’t belong in.  I don’t think it is a massive issue, but I think it would be a bad habit to get into.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
25 minutes ago, Chum said:

(acknowledging your use of 'risk' here) When we adopted Masonic iconography into our rites, did we silence Masonic voices or negatively impact their principles?

My overarching point is that all art is changed art. All these use cases we are considering: they involve creating new works based on the original - while the original remains unaltered and available for the same uses it always was.

Breaking down a piece into separate symbols and then using those symbols in a different language so to speak is different than using an entire piece.  It is like adapting words in new ways vs taking a chapter in a book and removing language and inserting your own.

But your point is a good one and I can even think of books that are abridged and altered some in order to make them more accessible to a less educated audience, the children or Readers’ Digest version, which has value even if problematic at times.

Hollywood makes billions off of abridging books and altering them to fit their own story and many applaud them.  But at least I am consistent because I find the Tolkien adaptations horrendous where they turn Strider into an angsty teenager in doubt of his calling as king and they dump Glorfindel for a liberated, assertive Arwen out to save her man or at least his companion instead of sitting at home patiently waiting for the men to resolve all the world’s problems before taking her place besides her destined love.  I tend to be a purist when it comes to book adaptations, though I don’t mind filling in gaps as long as consistent with the story.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
11 minutes ago, Calm said:

Breaking down a piece into separate symbols and then using those symbols in a different language so to speak is different than using an entire piece.  It is like adapting words in new ways vs taking a chapter in a book and removing language and inserting your own.

I agree but I don't see how this moves us into the This Must Not Happen place.

 

12 minutes ago, Calm said:

I tend to be a purist when it comes to book adaptations, though I don’t mind filling in gaps as long as consistent with the story.

I am as well. Abridgments annoy me and I avoid them. Except for Flowers for Algernon. I think the short story version is more approachable.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Amulek said:

Works that are in the public domain are free to be used as the foundation for new creative works - even if those new works alter, either in whole or in part, the original intended meaning of the artist who first created them.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with this. 

 

By my son Artisticosso…”I did this homage to Vermeer's "Girl with the Pearl Earring" last year. I had the opportunity to revisit the theme as a commission. I learned a lot the second time around. Think it turned out pretty good. Here she is again with her earbuds.”

 

16B12CDA-4606-4A2A-AFD8-58F6C1406DEC.jpeg

Edited by Bernard Gui
Link to comment
52 minutes ago, Calm said:

Please don’t attribute emotional reactions to others.  It typically backfires and the person doing that comes off as arrogant and self centered who is trying to diminish the other (especially when the emotion isn’t there).

California boy used an absurd example intentionally to prove his point.  It wasn’t an emotional choice.

Is pre-emptive advice permissible?

Link to comment

I had a minor argument one time with a Primary child (aged 6, I believe) when we got into a debate over a Book of Mormon story as he was insisting the story followed the video version he had memorized (Living Scriptures version, I believe) and I just couldn’t convince him that was not part of the actual story.  I much preferred the Church’s graphic novel/video version because it didn’t add so much stuff that would likely impact how kids read the scriptures as adults even while I think it a very worthwhile cause to involve children more in scripture.

One of the reasons I spent so much time reading and studying scriptures as a youth was because I started out quite young reading a lengthy child’s version of the Book of Mormon, basically a kid’s novel, that helped the ‘characters’ in it come alive for me so I could visualize what was occurring while reading the actual scripture (Sam was my favorite and someone I identified with as the middle child known for being a good, but quiet kid who could take care of himself and didn’t need the limelight or glory, who did the right thing because it was the right thing to do…this was my idealized version of myself, of course; I was quite disappointed so little was said about him in The Book of Mormon).

So I see both positive and negatives in the practice of reinterpretation to present a different view that fulfills the needs of the audience in one’s views.  But I try never to watch a movie first because I don’t want someone else’s vision to rob me of my own opportunity to create a new world out of my first encounter with a book, so I tend to lean towards keeping the original intact even while realizing I may be interpreting the book quite differently from how the author intended anyway.

Plus I dislike visual art whose message is so explicit it is spoon fed to one (Jon McNaughton providing footnotes so everyone knows exactly what he means with his images annoys me even without the heavy politics) though I don’t mind an artist sharing how they came to create a piece and why and little Easter eggs revealed here and there can be fun.

It is all so messy.  What works at times doesn’t work at others.  In the end, for me it all depends on what greater context one places the choice to alter/to make more accessible/to make more correct into.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...