The Correlation Committee strikes again

[SoCalCoug]

I think it is a form of desecration. Sure, the original was unchanged (duh), but they fundamentally altered the painting as it was transmitted to the readership at large. It's a form of censorship. You are right, if they don't like what it shows, pick something else.

At the same time, I am embarrassed that someone felt that using a classic piece of art with angel wings and bare shoulders would be harmful to the membership at large. It's insulting. Treat us like adults, for heaven's sake.

I agree 100%. If I wrote a novel (which would definitely not contain the word "Psion" in the title, by the way), and post-publication, someone without my knowledge or permission reprinted it with a few minor changes to the text, I would be beyond pissed.

You either use the art as the artist intended, or you don't use it at all. Any work of art is entirely personal to the artist, and nobody has the right to make any changes, no matter how innocuous they believe them to be. The work of art is the means the artist has to communicate his/her thoughts and emotions to the world. Nobody has the right to censor that.

It pisses me off that the church would do this to a work of art, and it pisses me off that people think so little of art that they're okay with it. Both are absolutely wrong.

[UtahDan]

I read creektser's comment as more about this thread than about JL, and about the tendency on this board, quite often, to take a "shoot first, ask questions later" approach to perceived mistakes by the institutional church. As creek noted, "Good thing that doesn't happen often around here."

It was satire.

[SoCalCoug]

So lebowski, are the images here a desecration of art? Are you outraged?

There's a difference between satire and parody, and what the church did.

[DrumNFeather]

It was satire.

Creekster's comment wasn't exactly unique to these types of discussions. We see value judgments being made here all the time based on what someone posts. Nature of the beast wouldn't you say?

[RobinFinderson]

I agree 100%. If I wrote a novel (which would definitely not contain the word "Psion" in the title, by the way), and post-publication, someone without my knowledge or permission reprinted it with a few minor changes to the text, I would be beyond pissed.

You either use the art as the artist intended, or you don't use it at all. Any work of art is entirely personal to the artist, and nobody has the right to make any changes, no matter how innocuous they believe them to be. The work of art is the means the artist has to communicate his/her thoughts and emotions to the world. Nobody has the right to censor that.

It pisses me off that the church would do this to a work of art, and it pisses me off that people think so little of art that they're okay with it. Both are absolutely wrong.

How do you feel about illegal sampling in noncommercial hip hop?

[SoCalCoug]

How do you feel about illegal sampling in noncommercial hip hop?

I've never been a fan of sampling, whether legal or not. But music's also a little different. If someone were to electronically alter a recorded performance, and pass it off as an original, that would be similar to the painting stuff. Playing someone else's song (i.e., your interpretation of another person's song) has always been acceptable in music.

[purplmonkeydishwashr]

It was satire.

I got it. I thought it was funny.

[UtahDan]

Creekster's comment wasn't exactly unique to these types of discussions. We see value judgments being made here all the time based on what someone posts. Nature of the beast wouldn't you say?

I was giving Jeff the defenses often given to the church.

[DrumNFeather]

I was giving Jeff the defenses often given to the church.

Haha...Ok.

[Sullyute]

More like "wasn't nearly as clever as RF thought it was". It merited a smile, maybe a mild chuckle. I sure you got some of those. Besides, everybody knows there aren't any v-neck garments.

I had a v-neck garment top up until just recently when I cleaned out some old garments. It was just like the regular cotton t-shirt but a v-neck. I had picked it up a long time ago when trying to see what type of garments I liked best. I didn't realize that they no longer sell them.

[Donuthole]

I had a v-neck garment top up until just recently when I cleaned out some old garments. It was just like the regular cotton t-shirt but a v-neck. I had picked it up a long time ago when trying to see what type of garments I liked best. I didn't realize that they no longer sell them.

I always suspected you were as old as Nephi, and now I have confirmation. Thanks.

[Sullyute]

I agree 100%. If I wrote a novel (which would definitely not contain the word "Psion" in the title, by the way), and post-publication, someone without my knowledge or permission reprinted it with a few minor changes to the text, I would be beyond pissed.

You either use the art as the artist intended, or you don't use it at all. Any work of art is entirely personal to the artist, and nobody has the right to make any changes, no matter how innocuous they believe them to be. The work of art is the means the artist has to communicate his/her thoughts and emotions to the world. Nobody has the right to censor that.

The problem is that the Church has the right to do it. The images are either in the public domain or they have purchased the digital rights or the original painting (I assume the former). If they own the piece of work, then they are within their rights to destroy it if they want. If it is the public domain then the can digitally alter it as they wish, it is their right to do so.

You can argue that it is not ethical to do what they did (which I would probably agree with you) but they have the right.

It pisses me off that the church would do this to a work of art, and it pisses me off that people think so little of art that they're okay with it. Both are absolutely wrong.

So thinking little of art is absolutely wrong? I would actually be interested in Tooblue opinion on all of this.

[lambdacoug]

The problem is that the Church has the right to do it. The images are either in the public domain or they have purchased the digital rights or the original painting (I assume the former). If they own the piece of work, then they are within their rights to destroy it if they want. If it is the public domain then the can digitally alter it as they wish, it is their right to do so.

I seem to recall a couple companies during my time at BYU that would edit out parts of R-rated movies for good LDS folk. Legal battles ensued and the result was the companies had to shut down because they were destroying the whole piece by removing pieces the artists deemed important to the whole. This is my recollection at least... Which seems to contradict what you said.

[Jeff Lebowski]

A letter to the editor is actually a really good idea.

ensign@ldschurch.org

[SteelBlue]

Didn't the church purchase many of Bloch's originals? If so, and if this were one of them, I suppose they can do whatever they like with the repros. It's embarrassing to me, but whatever. I'd be interested in hearing from one of the experts on how and when a woman's shoulders became such an erotic zone that they needed to be covered at all times.