Church alters classic works of art.

[Chum]

On 12/30/2022 at 5:34 PM, blackstrap said:

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

For works in the public domain, everyone has the same rights.

[Chum]

1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

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. 

I would offer this. A notion that If a work contains our input it must forever be unaltered is, itself, an attack on creativity. It denies the most primal facet of art; that all art is created from prior art.

Edited January 1 by Chum

[JAHS]

51 minutes ago, california boy said:

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.  

I guess I'm just a little more easy going about it. If after I have already been dead for a hundred years and someone needs to use my art for some reason and change it a little bit to fit their needs it wouldn't bother me a bit. 

[bluebell]

It would be interesting to hear what Jane Austen thinks of “Pride and Prejudice and Zombies”. 😂

[Rain]

 

2 hours ago, JAHS said:

I guess I'm just a little more easy going about it. If after I have already been dead for a hundred years and someone needs to use my art for some reason and change it a little bit to fit their needs it wouldn't bother me a bit. 

Is it easy going or lack of experience with creating art? As an artist California Boy will have a better understanding of what this means to artists.  

[JAHS]

4 minutes ago, Rain said:

 

Is it easy going or lack of experience with creating art? As an artist California Boy will have a better understanding of what this means to artists.  

I'm definitely easy going and I suppose it could also be lack of experience. But how could it mean anything to an artist that has been dead for a hundred years? We are guessing what the artist might feel if he were still alive. If he were still alive his piece of art would not be in the public domain and then we would have to get his permission to use it. Like I said earlier, I agree that the Church should probably not alter works of art but find something that can also be used without alteration. 

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

It would be interesting to hear what Jane Austen thinks of “Pride and Prejudice and Zombies”. 😂

It was the book she was never allowed to write but she wanted to. Oh, how she wanted to.

[The Nehor]

 

[california boy]

20 hours ago, JAHS said:

I guess I'm just a little more easy going about it. If after I have already been dead for a hundred years and someone needs to use my art for some reason and change it a little bit to fit their needs it wouldn't bother me a bit. 

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 mean Joseph Smith has been dead for over 100 years.  Would he really be upset?  Would people who liked the BoM the way it was be happy about someone bastardizing the BoM to fit their own beliefs?

There are people who venerate those paintings the same way you venerate the BoM.  Should any consideration be made to them?  Again, should Catholics be allowed to alter the BoM to reflect Catholic beliefs and then distribute that version to their congregations?  Works of art are meant to be left as they were created.  Having multiple versions of a famous work of art is very problematic.  Honestly, I really don't understand how this can not be a problem for you or anyone else for that matter.  

[CV75]

43 minutes 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 mean Joseph Smith has been dead for over 100 years.  Would he really be upset?  Would people who liked the BoM the way it was be happy about someone bastardizing the BoM to fit their own beliefs?

There are people who venerate those paintings the same way you venerate the BoM.  Should any consideration be made to them?  Again, should Catholics be allowed to alter the BoM to reflect Catholic beliefs and then distribute that version to their congregations?  Works of art are meant to be left as they were created.  Having multiple versions of a famous work of art is very problematic.  Honestly, I really don't understand how this can not be a problem for you or anyone else for that matter.  

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?

[The Nehor]

4 minutes 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?

What if someone took our Freiburg paintings and took away the ahistorical bodybuilder builds on all of the guys because they think it makes the painting look too homoerotic?

[CV75]

Just now, The Nehor said:

What if someone took our Freiburg paintings and took away the ahistorical bodybuilder builds on all of the guys because they think it makes the painting look too homoerotic?

You mean like Teancum's avatar? Are those works venerated? At any rate, which religion takes homoerotic sensibilities into account?

[JAHS]

1 hour 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 mean Joseph Smith has been dead for over 100 years.  Would he really be upset?  Would people who liked the BoM the way it was be happy about someone bastardizing the BoM to fit their own beliefs?

There are people who venerate those paintings the same way you venerate the BoM.  Should any consideration be made to them?  Again, should Catholics be allowed to alter the BoM to reflect Catholic beliefs and then distribute that version to their congregations?  Works of art are meant to be left as they were created.  Having multiple versions of a famous work of art is very problematic.  Honestly, I really don't understand how this can not be a problem for you or anyone else for that matter.  

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.
 

Edited January 2 by JAHS

[Rain]

58 minutes ago, JAHS said:

You are comparing apples and oranges. Art is made by man.

The art I make is made by me.  I am very much in the beginning stages and have a hard time listening to my feelings as I create it because I'm too focused on getting it technically right at this point.

There are many artists who work directly with the Spirit in creating their art.  It is a gift given to them from God.  The process is a work done by both of them.  For some of them doing some works it is intensely spiritual and is no more "done by man" than some scriptures are.

58 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Scriptures come from God and we will always have the original to refer to.

So none of the Old Testament is scripture? 

58 minutes ago, JAHS said:

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.
 

 

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

You mean like Teancum's avatar? Are those works venerated? At any rate, which religion takes homoerotic sensibilities into account?

The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster

[Peppermint Patty]

22 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster

[M4rcus]

  

3 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.

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.

[The Nehor]

7 minutes 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.

I think they meant you can refer to God directly and not that we have scriptural originals.

[gav]

1 hour 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.

Yawn... Someone obviously needs to do more homework

Edited January 2 by gav
added need for homework

[gav]

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.

Edited January 2 by gav

[sunstoned]

5 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?

Okay, how would you feel if someone took the church logo, the one that uses Thorvaldsen’s marble statue, and replaced the church's name at the bottom with "Mormon" and then passed it off as the original?

[Rain]

1 hour 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.

Yes. Which means we are honest with the works of others and don't alter them without permission or we use a different work.

This isn't a case of we can only use an original picture or alter it.  There are other choices like we don't use it or we commission an artist to create a new picture. 

1 hour ago, gav said:

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.

 

[CV75]

9 hours ago, The Nehor said:

The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster

There you go! They obviously have Freudian issues.

[CV75]

6 hours ago, sunstoned said:

Okay, how would you feel if someone took the church logo, the one that uses Thorvaldsen’s marble statue, and replaced the church's name at the bottom with "Mormon" and then passed it off as the original?

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.

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

[CV75]

P.S. I don't mean to derail by bringing up the differences between work of art, art piece and piece of work.