Church alters classic works of art.

[JAHS]

5 minutes ago, CV75 said:

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!

Right. And he said the following:

"Not only are the alterations an affront to classic art — the church’s image also edited out surrounding angels depicted in the original — but they also either unwittingly or wittingly send the aforementioned message to women that there’s something shameful about their bodies. In other works, the church has previously covered the shoulders of female angels."

The problem with this observation is that almost nobody would know what the original piece of art looked like so how could they get that kind of a message?

[carbon dioxide]

I am just glad they are not covering up ankles and knees.  However they left Christ immodest by not covering up his left side in the resurrection picture.  Lots of skin is exposed in that image.  In all seriousness, this stuff makes the church look silly and petty.   I support modesty but it should be up to every member to define what modesty is for themselves.  Its the whole teach correct principles and let people govern themselves.  There simply is nothing immodest about a girl or woman wearing a dress that shows bare shoulders.   My son wears shirts that show his shoulders and I think nothing of it.  If I had a daughter it would be the same.  Showing a bare shoulder simple is no different than a knee or ankle.   Sometimes I think LDS church strive to be like the ancient jews who had rules for every little thing. 

Edited December 31, 2022 by carbon dioxide

[JAHS]

42 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

I support modesty but it should be up to every member to define what modesty is for themselves. 

I agree, as long as the level of modesty they choose is appropriate for the place and occasion. 

[Thinking]

Sometimes the Church is so worried about what the reaction will be if the original photo is published that it doesn't consider the reaction when photos are edited.

If a photo isn't appropriate as is, use another photo.

[The Nehor]

7 hours ago, CV75 said:

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

Man-pining? What?

7 hours ago, CV75 said:

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

That is not very nice. How bad could it possibly be?

*Loud Screaming*

Okay.....yeah, it is bad.

I think it wants to rip me open and feast on my blood. The eyes are following me.

Why is it smiling like that? What does he know? What terrible truths will it use to break my soul?

[Thinking]

5 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

Sometimes I think LDS church strive to be like the ancient jews who had rules for every little thing. 

Church Handbook of Instructions

[rodheadlee]

Yeah I don't know on a little dinky phone screen it's hard to tell the difference. I guess if I was looking at my laptop I could tell.

[The Nehor]

13 minutes ago, Thinking said:

Church Handbook of Instructions

The CHI is many things but pretending it is the equivalent of the Talmud is more than a bit of a stretch.

[CV75]

8 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Man-pining? What?

That is not very nice. How bad could it possibly be?

*Loud Screaming*

Okay.....yeah, it is bad.

I think it wants to rip me open and feast on my blood. The eyes are following me.

Why is it smiling like that? What does he know? What terrible truths will it use to break my soul?

He's in competition with this:

[Tacenda]

18 hours ago, JAHS said:

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. 

I thought the same thing, unless before publishing the Ensign it must be run before one of the apostles.

[Teancum]

21 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?

It reminds me of the NT Pharisees.  The LDS Church leaders and their approach to this stuff would rival them.

[Teancum]

20 hours 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.

Of course you are.  Anything the Church does is quite fine, right?

[Teancum]

20 hours ago, bluebell said:

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

What is doctrinally correct?

[carbon dioxide]

19 hours ago, JAHS said:

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. 

They should have put the resurrected Christ in a nice suit or perhaps a tux.  They left him completely immodest.

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, Teancum said:

What is doctrinally correct?

I was quoting the OP by using that term, and I'm assuming that JAH was referring to how--doctrinally--we don't believe that angels have giant bird wings attached to their backs and that's why the wings were photoshopped off of the angels in the paintings.  To make the painting match our doctrine.

 

[JAHS]

24 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I was quoting the OP by using that term, and I'm assuming that JAH was referring to how--doctrinally--we don't believe that angels have giant bird wings attached to their backs and that's why the wings were photoshopped off of the angels in the paintings.  To make the painting match our doctrine.

 

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. 

[california boy]

21 hours 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.

What would be those cases?

I can't even imagine any artist being ok with someone altering their paintings to push their own agenda.

Do another damn painting if you don't like the one someone else did.  This is disgusting.  There is absolutely no justification for bastardizing someone else's creation and vision to push your own agenda..

Edited December 31, 2022 by california boy

[Okrahomer]

I am appalled, I tell you!  Literally nobody should ever touch a classic piece of art. Ever!

…unless…

…er…

 

…hmmm…well?

OK.  So I am…appalled…when the LDS Church does it.

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Okrahomer said:

I am appalled, I tell you!  Literally nobody should ever touch a classic piece of art. Ever!

…unless…

…er…

 

…hmmm…well?

OK.  So I am…appalled…when the LDS Church does it.

In order:

Hey Baby.
Hey Baby.
Awww, he’s a cute baby.

[boblloyd91]

Dan Peterson discussed this over in his blog https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2022/12/stained-swords-false-prophecy-and-accurate-history.html

If I'm reading things right, there were already alterations made by the artist himself. Call me cynical, but it seems the trib makes its money catering to angry/bitter ex members and other folks who live in Utah that don't like the church or its values. This is basically an example of that.

[california boy]

3 hours ago, Okrahomer said:

I am appalled, I tell you!  Literally nobody should ever touch a classic piece of art. Ever!

…unless…

…er…

 

…hmmm…well?

OK.  So I am…appalled…when the LDS Church does it.

There is a HUGE difference from parody and selective editing an image to push your own agenda.  The pictures you showed are clear that the intent is a parody.  

What the Church did was try to impose it's agenda on a painting where the artist was expressing his own vision and presenting his beliefs.  It was an expression of faith.  The Church bastardized the artists beliefs.  Can you not see the difference between the two examples?

My background is in art.  I have done gallery work most of my life.  Not as a full source of income, but specifically to create things that come into my mind and express those ideas for others.  I would be livid if someone modified any of the works that I have done.  By doing that, they are misrepresenting what I was expressing, even though my name would still be on my piece. 

In the pieces the Church decided to vandalize, the artist who did the paintings is still clearly recognizable.  What is not recognizable is what he expressed and what the Church did to HIS paintings, his ideas, his vision, his faith.  This is like taking the Book of Mormon, rewriting the scriptures in that book to suit another Churches beliefs and then passing it to others to read, never acknowledging that the book had been modified.  Think about all the confusion that would bring.  Which one is the real one?  Which one represents the beliefs of the author?

[Okrahomer]

20 minutes ago, california boy said:

Can you not see the difference between the two examples

Hi California.  Sorry!  I meant no offense.  I was trying un-artfully to show that there are apparently instances where alterations of classic art is appropriate.

I do understand and appreciate your point; although, it seems like parody could also potentially be contrary to the original artists’ intent.  At the end of the day, I would also prefer that the folks who work for the Church who do this sort of thing would stop doing it.  I don’t see any utility in causing offense — even if the artwork is beautiful and the alteration is small.

 

[MustardSeed]

I’m not a fan of changing art.  Someone changed lyrics to a song I wrote once and we are no longer friends.  For a few reasons… but the original crime primed the pump. 

[JAHS]

5 minutes ago, Okrahomer said:

Hi California.  Sorry!  I meant no offense.  I was trying un-artfully to show that there are apparently instances where alterations of classic art is appropriate.

I do understand and appreciate your point; although, it seems like parody could also potentially be contrary to the original artists’ intent.  At the end of the day, I would also prefer that the folks who work for the Church who do this sort of thing would stop doing it.  I don’t see any utility in causing offense — even if the artwork is beautiful and the alteration is small.

 

IF there weren't critics of the Church actively searching for these things and announcing them to the world the small changes would only be seen by church members who would have no clue alterations were made. The Church's so-called "agenda" would be the same agenda as those members who are looking at the art. 
But since that can only be wishful thinking at best, it would be better to use alternate pieces of art that already conform to Church standards.

[california boy]

25 minutes ago, JAHS said:

IF there weren't critics of the Church actively searching for these things and announcing them to the world the small changes would only be seen by church members who would have no clue alterations were made. The Church's so-called "agenda" would be the same agenda as those members who are looking at the art. 
But since that can only be wishful thinking at best, it would be better to use alternate pieces of art that already conform to Church standards.

Are you serious?  Are you suggesting that it is ok to do something like this as long as you don't get caught????  

You think that people are outraged just because they are critics of the Church?  You think it is impossible to be upset about the Church bastardizing artists works if they are faithful members?  Unbelievable.  

Edited January 1 by california boy