Condoms and Art - Over the line? (Page 2)

Hey Chris -

I've been spending some of my lunch time googling the copyright issue. You may be right about these images being in the public domain. I'm not sure. I did find a reference to a cease and desist sent to an artist who produced a piece called The Sistine Bowl-Off.

My understanding is that it is not only the physical work that is protected, but also reproductions. My own photographic work is protected both in its original form and in reproductions that may appear in other media.

There also is the issue of the restoration, which revealed an image that was not recently available before the restoration.

Anyway, until I can find something more substantial to back up my claim, I concede your point.

My objections:

1. Yes, partly it is because it is Michelangelo. Again, I think appropriated art is valid, but not when it is this cheesy attempt at promoting a commercial product.

2. Yes, partly it is because it is a religious painting. I've written here before about my own attempts to be respectful of other people's religions and practices. I want to be called on it when I fail to do so, as I most assuradely will. I'm holding them to the same standard.

3. Maybe. I am against contraception, but I recognize that PP has the legal right to sell condoms and the legal right to promote their use. I'm assuming that they did not intend to attack the Catholic Church. I hope that it is more a lack of sensitivity.

4. Maybe. I use to be a supporter and was very involved in PP. I've seen it from the inside, and considered it from both sides of the aisle. I've concluded that they have an agenda that is not good for our culture in the long term.

5. Yes. Would Coke do that in the first place? I believe in the free market, but it cannot run amok over our culture which is built up and inspired by art, among other things.

6. No, not so much because it is an analogous image of God. I worship God, not the images of God.

7. No. I didn't think of that until someone else mentioned it on this thread. If anything, I think of that image as being an icon of the creative and generative power of God infusing life into humans. I did have an image of God wearing the condom on his finger, which would have blocked this creative power and left Adam SOL.

Re: copyright.  Unless you sell the exclusive rights, you own and control the use and reporduction of your photos for a period until 70 years after you die.  After that, it's over, they're public.

Not by any stretch of the imagination could a painting painted in Italy (by Michaelangelo,,,, duh) in the 1500s be protected by any copyright protection.  Someone might OWN the painting, like someone (say, an heir) might OWN one of your photographs, but they cannot restrict the reproduction of them.

I'm familiar with Piss Christ, I think the brouhaha over that was wheter federal NEA funds should have been used for such a project. 

PS, by the time I got to the freaking Sistine Chapel, I was so exhausted and worn out that it was frankly underwhelming, then the overcharged me for lunch at the restaurant across the way :^

One last point:

You write "Yes, partly it is because it is a religious painting. I've written here before about my own attempts to be respectful of other people's religions and practices. I want to be called on it when I fail to do so, as I most assuradely will. I'm holding them to the same standard."

This is something I have never really understood.  I watched a new show called the Book of Daniel.  I understand some Christians are less than thrilled about the portrayal of Jesus in that show.  For television, I thought it was quite good (I lean toward the irreverent).  I guess I've never understood how some Christians are so defensive about any representation of their god that does not comport with their religion's official view. (In fact, I thought the show should have made Jesus black or more Persian, since most historians agree that Jesus of Nazareth was unlikely to be white, blond haired and blue eyed).  Is that "disrespect" even if it doesn't portray the figure n a bad light?  Is their belief system so fragile that they cannot stand to view a representation that is anything but perfect in their eyes?

And yes, I know it is not limited to Christians.  Muslims, as well, are known to react (sometimes quite violently) when Mohammed is represented to their disliking.

Although I have to say I never heard of Jews rioting after Mel Brooks History of the World Part I

Yea, the food is way overpriced for what it is. 

I made the point of stepping out from the crowds that move quickly through the Chapel.  Found a seat on first one side, and then another.  Spent a total of about two hours sitting there.

That room is the grandest work of art I've ever encountered.  It's not just the ceiling.  The Last Judgement is beyond words that I have.  Also, the biblical scenes along the north and south walls by Botticelli, Perugino, and others was a surprise.  I really had never looked at them before.

I walked out of there changed. 

(sistine.jpg)

(lstjudge.jpg)

And if more people exercised self-control, there would be less abortions and HIV as well.

Well.... yes, but that's not so much the point, is it?

When I was growing up, we lived near a pond. My parents didn't want me to go in it, but they made sure I could swim anyway. Dig? People's actions rarely follow best case scenerio; doesn't make the safety measures (knowing how to swim, condoms) bad things.

word.

I was so overwealmed by the whole place that by the time I climbed up to the cupula, and gazed out over Rome, I absent mindedly dropped my guide book over the side......    It slid down until it caught on a (insert proper archetectural term here) little window on the dome.  Funny how many other books were there.

I don't disagree. I am just not a fan of the agenda of Planned Parenthood. And while I hope that my sons enjoy sex for the first time with their wives, we'll be having discussions about condoms, etc. with them. I just hate it when people talk about a woman's "right to choose", but never seem to include the fact that she had the choice not to have sex in the first place. (I'm only talking about so-called nuisance pregnancies here!!) I'm not trying to get flamed, I just wish they'd pump abstinence as much as they pump condoms.

I know my son may never be an A student, but shouldn't I encourage him to study anyway?

First off:

Heh. You said "pump".

(sorry. Couldn't help myself)

Oh, no, I'm not trying to flame you at all .... obviously we are coming at this from very different angles; I think a safe and healthy sex life is an integral part of an adult's life, married or no, so it it is logical to me to teach and promote how to have safe sex. I think Planned Parenthood has a good mission and the work they do is necessary. But, I see your point: abstinence is a choice, and shouldn't be ignored ... I just don't think it's the only choice, and the ignoring the other ones? Leads to badness quickly.

Anyway, I'm viturally shaking your hand on this one, and reminding myself that ideals are good things.