Church alters classic works of art.

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, Chum said:

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

I am not a This Must Not Happen kind of person.  I don’t think my ramblings on the subject are going to help much as I see positives and negatives in alterations.  I think when the choice gets made, context matters and so I would take each on an case by case basis.

Edited January 2, 2023 by Calm

[Calm]

58 minutes ago, Chum said:

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

 

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.

I went looking for the unabridged version of The Princess Bride by S. Morgenstern as soon as I finished Goldman’s adaptation.  I was looking forward to reading those pages of descriptions of clothes, etc.  It was going to be a test of my commitment to the pure art.  I started looking when I first read it at 15 and it took me till I went to BYU and learned about how to use Books in Print to end my search.

I was also pissed off when I couldn’t find the more complete version of The Count of Monte Cristo anywhere, I began to doubt that I had read what I had read in fact (one of the side stories about the Prosecutor) that summer at Grandma’s when I ran out of library books (she had nothing for a kid to do, so I read her collection of great literature.  Would have been 11 since we moved near her when I was 12 and no longer stayed at their home for part of summer vacation.  It was a great point of pride that I had made it all the way through at that tender age (I can’t point to much I accomplished in my youth, no exotic places visited, musical instrument learned nor finely developed skill or hobby, but I did read masses of books for all ages.) There was even one claimed to be unabridged that didn’t have it (claimed by the store I bought it at).  However, I eventually found it and now the side story is even in the Wiki summary, so I can feel justified it was worth the effort to track down the ‘real’ version.

Edited January 2, 2023 by Calm

[Tacenda]

4 hours ago, gav said:

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... 

No, I use to be like that, lol. No, I'd just like you to call their bluff.

[CV75]

Anybody know where I can get some good fan art for Richard Dutcher films?

[Chum]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

I was also pissed off when I couldn’t find the more complete version of The Count of Monte Cristo anywhere, I began to doubt that I had read what I had read ...  However, I eventually found it and now the side story is even in the Wiki summary, so I can feel justified it was worth the effort to track down the ‘real’ version.

I had regular access to the Library of Congress as a kid (mom worked in DC). I used to go there looking for obscure books I heard about. Basically just to see if they existed.

I didn't have many friends.

[Chum]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Anybody know where I can get some good fan art for Richard Dutcher films?

I know a couple of former members you could commission.

[rodheadlee]

On 12/31/2022 at 5:00 PM, boblloyd91 said:

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.

Not only that but in music a lot of times people cover a song and change it. Sometimes the cover is better than the original. I imagine you have to get permission from the artist.

Edited January 3, 2023 by rodheadlee

[MustardSeed]

2 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

Not only that but in music a lot of times people cover a song and change it. Sometimes the cover is better than the original. I imagine you have to get permission from the artist.

You do.  You also pay a fee. 

[Bernard Gui]

38 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

You do.  You also pay a fee. 

Depends.

[Amulek]

13 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

Not only that but in music a lot of times people cover a song and change it. Sometimes the cover is better than the original. I imagine you have to get permission from the artist.

Not just covers. Sampling from prior works has been a long time staple of the music industry.

Now, sometimes the sampling is done with the artist's permission. For example, Coolio's 1995 hit Gangsta's Paradise is an interpolation of Stevie Wonder's Pastime Paradise. Stevie Wonder was actually involved in the process (which is why there is no cursing by the way) and was credited as a co-writer.

Other times, the sampling is done without the original artist's knowledge or permission, as was famously the case with Vanilla Ice's use of the bass line from Queen's Under Pressure in his number one hit Ice Ice Baby. That resulted in a lawsuit with both Queen and David Bowie but was eventually resolved to everyone's satisfaction (read: remuneration and royalties).

Of course, these are all just examples of situations where artists are making use of the creations of other artists who happen to still be alive. As anyone who listens to classical music knows, music from the public domain gets reused by artists all the flipping time.

The melody from Celine Dion's All By Myself comes from Rachmaninoff's Piano Concerto #2 in C Minor, Opus 18, 2nd Movement. Hip-hop rapper Nas included a sample of Beethoven’s Für Elise in his song I Can. And, my goodness, Pachelbel's Canon in D Major has been used in tons of songs over the years - including, fairly recently, Maroon 5's lead single Memories.

And to prove that I'm not a hypocrite or just okay with whatever the church happens to do, I readily admit that I likewise find no issue whatsoever with any of these artists making use of prior works which have fallen into the public domain. As I said before, 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.

 

Edited January 3, 2023 by Amulek

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

As I said before, 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.

You are making some very good points here.  But it does seem like there is a line between sampling and outright appropriation, but where that should be drawn isn’t obvious, so we get an border area where some see a particular alteration as okay and others do not.  

_____
 

Do you require credit to be given to the past work used (to at least avoid claims of plagiarism) or are you alright with artists who do not?  I think of poetry that has allusions and how weird it would be if poets had to footnote.  Songs are the same.  But then I like artists who explain the process, etc. While I haven’t read all of the Tolkien notebooks his son had published to show the development, I have spent quite a bit of time the sections about where he got his ideas and how he put first them together.

[Rain]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

You are making some very good points here.  But it does seem like there is a line between sampling and outright appropriation, but where that should be drawn isn’t obvious, so we get an border area where some see a particular alteration as okay and others do not.  

_____
 

Do you require credit to be given to the past work used (to at least avoid claims of plagiarism) or are you alright with artists who do not?  I think of poetry that has allusions and how weird it would be if poets had to footnote.  Songs are the same.

That is an interesting idea.  In the classes and groups I have been in the idea is that when posting online you should definitely credit art/class teachers you are copying or inspired by .  All of these classes/groups are visual arts.  

But what I'm talking about there is different than what the church is doing.  What I was talking about is copying to learn etc. The art "painted by Rain and copied from Botticelli's Primavera" where the church is making a digital copy of it, changing it and then putting it out as the original painting (at least from what I understand, not having read the article).

2 hours ago, Calm said:

 But then I like artists who explain the process, etc. While I haven’t read all of the Tolkien notebooks his son had published to show the development, I have spent quite a bit of time the sections about where he got his ideas and how he put first them together.

As I was writing above there are 3 different issues with the pieces presented:

1. Changing an original and putting it out as the original

2. Modesty issues

3. Historical issues.

You've already stated that, but its hard to really discuss it all when since it's presented as something that all has the same problem to start with. It would be interesting if people's feelings stayed the same if presented separately.

Edited January 3, 2023 by Rain

[Calm]

There is no info in the article that it has been changed and it is implied imo that it has not been changed because of the writer referring to seeing the painting in the museum and then the painting is shown…but is altered.

Quote

During the time my family and I lived in Europe, we visited the Frederiksborg Castle in Denmark, where many of the Carl Bloch paintings of the Savior are displayed. The paintings are crowded into a small room, sometimes called the King’s Oratory. There is a
glass partition on the floor in front of the altar. As we viewed the paintings, our family mem-
bers took turns explaining what was happening in each one. We progressed from the birth of the Lord through His temptation by the devil and His preaching and healing. When we got to the Crucifixion I said, “And this is when He died.”
The two youngest children insisted, “No, He’s alive.” I stooped down to ask them to use their quiet voices and to explain more about
the Crucifixion. That’s when I saw what they were seeing. From their angle, we could see on the glass partition the reflection of one painting superimposed on another painting. One was the painting of the Lord on the cross, and the other was the painting of His Resurrection. In both paintings His arms are stretched out, in the one on the cross and in the other as He is leaving the tomb. When I first saw the paintings imposed one on the other, it startled me. In that moment the images seemed to match perfectly. It seemed as if I were looking at the Savior’s spirit leaving His body on the cross.
Upon closer inspection I discovered the illu- sion, then enjoyed looking at each painting sepa- rately—The Crucifixion and The Resurrection. But the memory of the two paintings superimposed
is imprinted on my mind. In a single view, they encapsulated the Lord’s condescension and His transcendent glory. And in one moment, the real- ity of the Crucifixion and of the Resurrection was confirmed by the Spirit in my heart and soul.
This experience has come to my mind over the years when I have studied and pondered three aspects of the Lord’s condescension: the reality of His condescension, the breadth and totality of His condescension, and the continuing blessing of His condescension for us today.

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

The overlapping pictures are shown at the beginning on page 50.  There are no captions save the typical quote from the article nor footnotes attached to any of the pictures accompanying the article, so the only info about the painting is in the article, which I quote above.

I am going to see if there is mention elsewhere in the magazine, if I don’t say anything, there isn’t.

added:  oops, I missed it.  There is a vertical note on the edge of the page with the name and artist and a “used by permission…”.  No mention of alteration.  The combined picture just says “composite image”.  There is no reason not to suppose it is identical to the museum piece and every reason to suppose it is, imo.

While not the painting itself (it’s from the store, selling a copy of the actual painting), this indicates what the painting looks like…

https://dnm.dk/en/produkt/passepartout-opstandelsen/

Edited January 3, 2023 by Calm

[JAHS]

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

added:  oops, I missed it.  There is a vertical note on the edge of the page with the name and artist and a “used by permission…”.  No mention of alteration.  The combined picture just says “composite image”.  There is no reason not to suppose it is identical to the museum piece and every reason to suppose it is, imo.

Perhaps since it is now in the public domain there is no reason or requirement to mention anything about the alteration of the original. 

[Chum]

22 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Perhaps since it is now in the public domain there is no reason or requirement to mention anything about the alteration of the original. 

This is correct.

[rodheadlee]

7 hours ago, Amulek said:

Not just covers. Sampling from prior works has been a long time staple of the music industry.

Now, sometimes the sampling is done with the artist's permission. For example, Coolio's 1995 hit Gangsta's Paradise is an interpolation of Stevie Wonder's Pastime Paradise. Stevie Wonder was actually involved in the process (which is why there is no cursing by the way) and was credited as a co-writer.

Other times, the sampling is done without the original artist's knowledge or permission, as was famously the case with Vanilla Ice's use of the bass line from Queen's Under Pressure in his number one hit Ice Ice Baby. That resulted in a lawsuit with both Queen and David Bowie but was eventually resolved to everyone's satisfaction (read: remuneration and royalties).

Of course, these are all just examples of situations where artists are making use of the creations of other artists who happen to still be alive. As anyone who listens to classical music knows, music from the public domain gets reused by artists all the flipping time.

The melody from Celine Dion's All By Myself comes from Rachmaninoff's Piano Concerto #2 in C Minor, Opus 18, 2nd Movement. Hip-hop rapper Nas included a sample of Beethoven’s Für Elise in his song I Can. And, my goodness, Pachelbel's Canon in D Major has been used in tons of songs over the years - including, fairly recently, Maroon 5's lead single Memories.

And to prove that I'm not a hypocrite or just okay with whatever the church happens to do, I readily admit that I likewise find no issue whatsoever with any of these artists making use of prior works which have fallen into the public domain. As I said before, 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.

 

Not to mention House of the Rising Sun.

[Rain]

1 hour ago, JAHS said:

Perhaps since it is now in the public domain there is no reason or requirement to mention anything about the alteration of the original. 

No requirement yes.  Reason is a different story. I remember not being into art much.  Then I felt a very strong impression that I needed to go to Italy.  I actually fought going.  After all, I wasn't going to drink wine, wasn't into religious art, wasn't into architecture and wasn't fond of seafood (which until I started preparing to go I never realized was actually pretty common in Italy). 

One day I was watching a video about 2 weeks before we went and the travel guy (Rick Steves) said that an awful lot of Europe was churches and religious art and that he had many people saying "oh no, another church".  He encouraged the viewer to go to the library and get some books on art and actually learn about it.  It would add so much to the trip.  

So I promptly went to the library and checked out literally an arm full of books and then started pouring over them and learned so much. But what really caught me was a book that had pictures than were better than any other book/picture I had seen of art.  I quickly changed my schedule in Italy to include a couple of art museums I was at first planning on skipping because those pictures.  But what I saw in that art when I was actually there moved me in a way I couldn't describe.  And that learning about them just added so much more not only for me, but for my husband as I explained what I had learned in the 2 weeks prior.

So reasons to mention the art has been changed.  1. It would have been disconcerting for me to have learned from the pictures and then see it wasn't really that way when I saw the original piece.  2.  There are things that a viewer will miss that the artist wanted there- how the light shines, the color, the patterns, the perspective, the symbolism.  3. If those things are missing it may discourage viewers from seeing the original like the pictures in most books discouraged me. 

I am sure there are other reasons to mention the alteration.  Even if there are no legal requirements there are very definitely reasons.

Edited January 3, 2023 by Rain

[BlueDreams]

2 hours ago, Rain said:

 As I was writing above there are 3 different issues with the pieces presented:

1. Changing an original and putting it out as the original

2. Modesty issues

3. Historical issues.

 

2 hours ago, Rain said:

You've already stated that, but its hard to really discuss it all when since it's presented as something that all has the same problem to start with. It would be interesting if people's feelings stayed the same if presented separately.

Minor quoting error, but I like this idea of splitting this up in concerns. FTR I consider myself an artist, largely paintings with very limited commercial output since it's something I do on the side. 

So 1) would depend and my emotions around it would differ strongly based on that. The depends is based largely on if the artist is alive or not and if it fits within the parameters of their contracted use. As a living artist, if someone used my images in a way that wasn't written in contract I'd have a problem. I'd have a bigger problem if said images were then used to make money and I didn't get some form of payment for the use. After all, they're getting paid off of my work. But if I were dead and my work was not part of a specific, post death contract with my kids/relative then I have less feeling about it. If it fits the parameters of the contracts with whatever entity owns my pieces, that's there's to decide to do. I'm dead, I don't care anymore. So I'm not super perturbed by the Bloch piece being edited when they had permission to use the image from the museum. I think it's dumb for historical reasons (see below) and though. 

 

2.) That one bothers me more. It maintained a really rigid definition of modesty that we're just barely nudging out. And it's just dumb. 

 

3) the historical Bothers me least, but still is concerning. Based on it highlighting Bloch's work as a historical artist, it seems disingenuous to place an edited version of the piece when describing history. Particularly when there's nothing offensive or controversial about the piece, it just doesn't fit an lds  picture of heavenly beings. Something no one should expect when the piece was made by a non-lds artist. I don't really enjoy catering to the 2-3 **** people who can't handle something not matching their sensibilities when learning about historicql figures, works, and movements. 

BUT I don't really care that much about the photo with the women holding jc pics instead of the RS leaders. It seems a little silly, but I can imagine wanting to have a universal image that can be used for other commercial purposes and having this image in stock to edit. As long as there's an OG record of the historical pic/event somewhere, I don't really care that much. 

 

With luv, 

BD

[Amulek]

10 hours ago, Calm said:

You are making some very good points here.  

Well, as they say, even a broken clock is right twice a day. Unless it's on military time...then I guess maybe just the once.

 

10 hours ago, Calm said:

But it does seem like there is a line between sampling and outright appropriation, but where that should be drawn isn’t obvious, so we get an border area where some see a particular alteration as okay and others do not.  

But appropriation in art isn't exactly new. Something like Andy Warhol's Campbell's Soup cans series would be an iconic example.

And if you've ever made a collage out of newspapers or magazines, you've engaged in appropriation as well.

I don't really consider appropriation to be something that is intrinsically wrong, so for me it doesn't really make a big difference as to how it gets characterized (e.g., sampling vs appropriation).

For me, the primary consideration is whether or not the person doing the altering is acting within their rights. And if the answer to that question is 'yes,' then - at least, in my mind - everything else after that point pretty much boils down to personal preference. One person's perception of a given alteration may be seen as an improvement; another person may be largely indifferent to the change; and yet another may consider it somewhere between an art-foul and outright bastardization.

 

10 hours ago, Calm said:

Do you require credit to be given to the past work used (to at least avoid claims of plagiarism) or are you alright with artists who do not?  

So long as the original creator's rights aren't being infringed, I'm pretty indifferent as to formal attribution.

I mean, it doesn't really bother me that West Side Story is pretty much lifted straight from Romeo and Juliet...which, in turn, was likely lifted from one or more preexisting Romeo and Juliets...which, in turn, were all pretty much just knockoff's of Ovid's story of Pyramus and Thisbe. Yes, vanity of vanities...there is nothing new under the sun!

 

10 hours ago, Calm said:

I think of poetry that has allusions and how weird it would be if poets had to footnote.  Songs are the same.

I can only imagine how long the credits would have to be if movies were required to document all of the influences, camera shots, etc. that were inspired by (or blatantly copied from) prior films. As one who generally likes to sit through the entire credits, that's a solid 'thanks, but no thanks' for me.

 

Edited January 4, 2023 by Amulek

[Calm]

3 hours ago, JAHS said:

Perhaps since it is now in the public domain there is no reason or requirement to mention anything about the alteration of the original. 

Requirement, sure…reason, I can think of a very good one as that was not how Bloch painted his angels in any of his variations. Better no to cause people to think he did.  If they are using something by permission of the owner, they should actually use it, imo.  Otherwise, why didn’t they just put up the name or not e en bother doing that?  I don’t think it was intentional to give the wrong idea, but I still think they did and best practices would be to not to where it can be helped.

Edited January 4, 2023 by Calm

[Calm]

24 minutes ago, Amulek said:

For me, the primary consideration is whether or not the person doing the altering is acting within their rights. And if the answer to that question is 'yes,' then - at least, in my mind - everything else after that point pretty much boils down to personal preference. One person's perception of a given alteration may be seen as an improvement; another person may be largely indifferent to the change; and yet another may consider it somewhere between an art-foul and outright bastardization.

For me, once the artist is dead it is more about how a presentation educates others and if it allows people to research ideas that are triggered by the experience. By sharing the name of the work and the artist, the Ensign did that well, imo.   If a derived work gives the wrong idea about the original work, where possible that wrong view should be corrected.  The Ensign did not do that.

Edited January 4, 2023 by Calm

[california boy]

2 hours ago, Amulek said:

Well, as they say, even a broken clock is right twice a day. Unless it's on military time...then I guess maybe just the once.

 

But appropriation in art isn't exactly new. Something like Andy Warhol's iconic Campbell's Soup cans series would be an iconic example.

And if you've ever made a collage out of newspapers or magazines, you've engaged in appropriation as well.

I don't really consider appropriation to be something that is intrinsically wrong, so for me it doesn't really make a big difference as to how it gets characterized (e.g., sampling vs appropriation).

For me, the primary consideration is whether or not the person doing the altering is acting within their rights. And if the answer to that question is 'yes,' then - at least, in my mind - everything else after that point pretty much boils down to personal preference. One person's perception of a given alteration may be seen as an improvement; another person may be largely indifferent to the change; and yet another may consider it somewhere between an art-foul and outright bastardization.

 

So long as the original creator's rights aren't being infringed, I'm pretty indifferent as to formal attribution.

I mean, it doesn't really bother me that West Side Story is pretty much lifted straight from Romeo and Juliet...which, in turn, was likely lifted from one or more preexisting Romeo and Juliets...which, in turn, were all pretty much just knockoff's of Ovid's story of Pyramus and Thisbe. Yes, vanity of vanities...there is nothing new under the sun!

 

I can only imagine how long the credits would have to be if movies were required to document all of the influences, camera shots, etc. that were inspired by (or blatantly copied from) prior films. As one who generally likes to sit through the entire credits, that's a solid 'thanks, but no thanks' for me.

 

Sorry, but I don't  think you really understand the difference of editing a piece of art to fit your agenda and creating an entirely new piece of art based on a previous work done.  No one is going to confuse West Side Story with Romeo and Juliet.  But taking the wings of of angles and presenting it as work done by the same artist when in fact, it no longer is what he painted is ENTIRELY different.  

Andy Warhol's iconic Campbell's Soup cans series is creating something entirely new that had never been done before.  It is not just a can of soup.  If that was all there was behind those paintings, they would not be selling for millions of dollars.  Completely different than clipping angles off of wings and giving the impression that the painting is a work of art by whoever did the original.  

Same with a collage.  When someone does a collage, they are creating a completely different work of art.  It is clear that what they create is not done by the original artist that might have created the images used.  

As far as sampling music, there are very clear rules one must follow when sampling music.  If I recall correctly, you can sample only like 5 seconds from another artists work. If you sample more than that, they have to both get credit for being one of the song writers and be paid.   

Maybe what. you don't also understand, is that the person who wrote the music controls the music.  If multiple artists record the same song, each of them have to pay the writer of the music.  Each of those artists also has to get permission from who wrote the music before they can use the music commercially.  They are then doing vocals that are always different. Not the same at all as editing a piece of art.  It is apples and oranges and are not handles or thought of as being comparable.  

I have never heard of any other religion taking a masterpiece, modifying it to fit their religious beliefs and then passing it off as if that is how the original artist painted the image.  I guess I would be less concerned if the Church noted in the caption all the changes they made to the painting.  Here is a painting by Carl Bloch but we clipped the angle wings and added clothing so naked shoulders wouldn't show.  Hey I am ok with that kind of disclaimer.  But to represent the work and not note the modifications is really dishonest.  The painting has been changed.  It should be noted what was changed at the very least.  It really should never happen.  I find it a dishonest representation of the actual painting and changing the intent of what the artist intended to suit it's own agenda.  

 

[Amulek]

20 hours ago, Calm said:

For me, once the artist is dead it is more about how a presentation educates others and if it allows people to research ideas that are triggered by the experience.

I suppose I just see it differently. Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for preserving art in its original form. But once an artist is dead and his works have entered the public domain, I don’t see any legal or moral reason why those works can’t then be used by others however they see fit.

If a modern artist finds that the Bloch paintings were lovely but happen to present a too-Anglo version of Jesus for her liking, I’ve got no problem with her browning the subjects up a bit and reproducing them that way. If someone doesn’t like the angels at all and wants to replace them with boulders, or the women who witnessed Jesus, or anything else – that’s okay with me too. And if some overzealous employee working in the Church art department thinks the wings need to be done away with in order to get the article through correlation with as little hassle as possible, then yeah – I can live with that (even though, personally, I prefer the version with wings).

 

20 hours ago, Calm said:

If a derived work gives the wrong idea about the original work, where possible that wrong view should be corrected.  The Ensign did not do that.

The article was about the condescension of Jesus, not about the anatomy of angels, so I guess I just see the changes as being fairly inconsequential - at least, in that context. And in the digital age that we live in now one can literally access the original work with the click of a button – okay, maybe two buttons, but it’s still a pretty trivial thing.

I get that others feel differently though, and I’m sensitive to that. And the church seems to be as well, as you can see from the cover of the New Era just a little over a year after this particular article was published (see, e.g., here). It also features a painting by Carl Bloch with an angel whose wings are clearly still intact. Same goes for the images in these articles from 2014 and 2015 as well. In fact, I can't find another contemporary example of the church editing out angel wings from an original work of art post-2011.

And I guess that's a point that probably needs to be mentioned as well. The article containing this change was published in print media over a decade ago. It's too late to go back and change it now. There are no images contained in the online version for that article - only references to the original pieces, so I'm really not sure what else anyone expects the church to do at this point.

 

Edited January 4, 2023 by Amulek

[Amulek]

17 hours ago, california boy said:

Sorry, but I don't  think you really understand the difference of editing a piece of art to fit your agenda and creating an entirely new piece of art based on a previous work done.  

It isn’t that I don’t understand the difference, it’s just that I don’t think the difference matters with respect to this discussion.

Carl Bloch passed away in 1890. The guy is dead. His family is dead. Everyone who ever knew him is dead. I want his house burned to the ground…wait a second; sorry, I started channeling Al Pacino there for a moment (Untouchables reference, for those who care).

Everything Carl Bloch ever created has entered the public domain. And once a work of art has entered the public domain, anyone is free to do whatever they want with it, for whatever purpose they want, or to send whatever message they want.

As such, editing a pre-existing piece of art in order to communicate the message you want is, in my opinion, no different from using a previous work to create an entirely new piece of art that communicates the message you want.

 

17 hours ago, california boy said:

No one is going to confuse West Side Story with Romeo and Juliet.  

Nobody said otherwise. Calm was asking about my thoughts about attribution, and I used that as an example.

 

17 hours ago, california boy said:

As far as sampling music, there are very clear rules one must follow when sampling music.  If I recall correctly, you can sample only like 5 seconds from another artists work. If you sample more than that, they have to both get credit for being one of the song writers and be paid.   

Actually, it’s more like 2 seconds, but that’s neither here nor there.

You are talking about artists who are still alive and possess valid copyrights. Who does Maroon 5 have to pay for their use of Pachelbel’s Cannon in D Major which was used on their lead single Memories?

 

17 hours ago, california boy said:

Maybe what. you don't also understand, is that the person who wrote the music controls the music.  

I appreciate the condescension, but I understand how copyright law works. And I believe I have a fairly good grasp of the why behind the existence of copyright law in the first place.

Copyright provides the incentive of exclusive rights (for a limited duration) to artists, writers, and other creators to produce culturally valuable works – works that they might not invest the time, energy, or money to create without this protection for fear that their works might be copied cheaply by others and thereby greatly reduce (or potentially eliminate) their ability to profit from their own work.

The theory behind copyright law is strictly utilitarian - which is why, once the utility to the original creator has passed (typically 70 years following their death) there is no longer any need to preserve the right to copy and those works enter the public domain.

 

17 hours ago, california boy said:

I have never heard of any other religion taking a masterpiece, modifying it to fit their religious beliefs and then passing it off as if that is how the original artist painted the image.  

Neither have I. Of course, that’s not really the sort of thing that I spend my days looking for either.

Edit to add (because I had some free time, it seems kind of relevant, and maybe even a little ironic): So, apparently, the Catholic Church actually had wings added to the angels depicted in Michelangelo's The Last Judgment in order to make it better fit with their religious beliefs. Those changes were only recently undone when the work underwent restoration in the 1980s-90s. At least the guys working for the Ensign left the original Bloch painting untouched and still accessible to the world.

 

17 hours ago, california boy said:

I guess I would be less concerned if the Church noted in the caption all the changes they made to the painting.  

I think listing out all of the individual changes would be kind of silly (and not at all practical).

That being said, I would see no problem with the editors having referred to the included picture as being a representation of Carl Bloch’s The Resurrection instead.

 

17 hours ago, california boy said:

I find it a dishonest representation of the actual painting and changing the intent of what the artist intended to suit it's own agenda. 

Well, if the artist has a problem with it, he can bring it up with the church.

Of course, he is probably a member himself by now, knows that angels really don’t have wings, and is likely delighted that the Church has purchased and preserved so much of his work.

 

Edited January 4, 2023 by Amulek

[Calm]

13 hours ago, Amulek said:

But once an artist is dead and his works have entered the public domain, I don’t see any legal or moral reason why those works can’t then be used by others however they see fit.

I don’t have a problem with it either as long as it is conveyed to be an alteration and not implies it is the original so that viewers/readers know enough to go looking for the original to educate themselves on it if they do desire….wouldn’t have to be much, something along the lines of “bold added” after a quote that has highlights in it would probably satisfy me in most cases.  If people don’t realize something is not an original, they will never even ask the question ‘what is the difference’ or what was it like before ‘.  I find that limiting education where we should instead be helping others expand their thoughts…for example, noting it was an alteration might trigger the question of why is it so important to convey angels don’t have wings and could lead to a further exploration of how important the doctrine of humanity as children of God, the plan of salvation and our involvement in the perfection of our fellow human beings through acting as agents of our Father, whether as angels or members of his Church or disciples of Christ or even just an important moment’s reflection on how we are to serve and look to God in this life and the next.  
 

“That being said, I would see no problem with the editors having referred to the included picture as being a representation of Carl Bloch’s The Resurrection instead.”

That would be a very easy way of informing people that there is an original out there they could check out if curious. I could get behind that.  

Edited January 5, 2023 by Calm