BYU Censors Artwork for Being Too Conservative

[gooseguy11]

Agreed, very sad.

[linj2fly]

thanks for sharing, Jules; don't know what to think.

[InfoWarrior82]

I don't get it... isn't the painting merely depicting church DOCTRINE? That that constitution was inspired by and established by the Lord Himself? That our founding fathers were inspired by the Lord to establish this country? There has got to be infiltration by the Gadiantons at BYU to a larger degree than I already thought. Sad, just sad. I wonder what "liberal" paintings the complainer would like to see up on display... Mao's vision of a perfect country? Better yet, Satan's plan???

[gkearney]

I don't see it as political in nature either, and I'm likely what most of you would call a liberal. It would be interesting to see such a painting done for Canada or Australia. Who would be shown?

[mattctr]

Who are those people quoting below? O:-)

[lost ark]

I didn't see the Bushes in there. Can you tell me where to find them?

[John Locke]

I appreciate what the painter was trying to portray, and I agree that BYU is pretty ridiculous on handling many things. I'm also glad he shared his experience. HOWEVER, I think the painter has been duped (like most Utah "conservatives") by the neo-cons. The Bushes (Father and Son) are depicted as caring, heroic, concerned about preserving the Constitution, etc. Hopefully, the artist wakes up to the reality that Bush and many other Republicans are NOT real or true, liberty loving conservatives but neo-cons who trampled the Constitution under foot. I wish BYU had rejected his painting on the grounds that it held up war criminals as patriots... Oh wait, I forgot, this is BYU.

Maybe i'm missing it but where is bush represented in this painting?

[happy@life]

I appreciate what the painter was trying to portray, and I agree that BYU is pretty ridiculous on handling many things. I'm also glad he shared his experience. HOWEVER, I think the painter has been duped (like most Utah "conservatives") by the neo-cons. The Bushes (Father and Son) are depicted as caring, heroic, concerned about preserving the Constitution, etc. Hopefully, the artist wakes up to the reality that Bush and many other Republicans are NOT real or true, liberty loving conservatives but neo-cons who trampled the Constitution under foot. I wish BYU had rejected his painting on the grounds that it held up war criminals as patriots... Oh wait, I forgot, this is BYU.

:-\
I must have looked at a different picture than you, as I went through every person painted, and the only recent politicians I saw were Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Regan. No Bushes.

It does seem that BYU bends over backwards to not offend the liberals. All art renditions are the way the artist sees life. Perhaps the thing the artist did that caused the problem here is made it plain for all to see the source of the problems in our nation. He even explained it to make sure of how he sees it. Just thinking........

[Col. Flagg]

BYU should be ashamed of itself over this - 'uncomfortable' over a painting depicting Christ holding the U.S. Constitution while onlookers (like the Founding Fathers) hold their head over what has become of it? Nice. As was previously stated... do we not, as members of the church, believe that the document was divinely-inspired? Have not members of the church hierarchy spoke about its divine nature and importance? BYU's true colors are coming out - while I think the school is still relatively decent and sound as far as morals and ethics go, there is obviously something very wrong inside its administration when a painting like this is frowned upon while murderous war criminals, globalists and NWO types are invited to speak there to students. :-\ :ymsick:

[HeirofNumenor]

http://www.mcnaughtonart.com/

He has several controversial paintings in there...and he tends to have most GOP icons including the Bushes, in the dubious/negative grouping of presidents. Reagan is usually on the good side.

[mattctr]

Edits above. I jumped to conclusions without taking a closer look. Turns out, I was thinking of a different painting I saw in his store at Provo South Town Mall. Sorry for the mistake.

[Fiannan]

Some people objected to this art work? I suppose there are some elements at BYU that would just love some Robert Mapplethorpe pictures to be displayed instead.

[lundbaek]

I wonder if the painting of President Wilford Woodruff being confronted by the signers of the Declaration of Independence and other emminent men and women still hangs in the St. George Temple. A copy of it hangs in our living room.

[HeirofNumenor]

I wonder if the painting of President Wilford Woodruff being confronted by the signers of the Declaration of Independence and other eminent men and women still hangs in the St. George Temple. A copy of it hangs in our living room.

It does, and the other copy is in the LDS Institute as SUU in Cedar City, UT - at least it did in 1996 when I was last there.

[waking]

UNbelieveable!!! I am not a BYU fan, but this actually makes me ill. Now we know why the "cleansing" has to start with the Lord's own church!!! Of all places....BYU!!!

[waking]

@Mazal =)) Keep 'em coming...I think you're on to something...Hope Dr. Jones will chime in on this thread!!

[happy@life]

:-ss I think you are skating in thin ice when you post such photos and infer the church needs cleansing. There is such a thing as church leaders showing courtesy to government leaders when they visit us. The Lord is in charge. Just before The Prophet Joseph Smith was martyred he stated the church had been open to the world in declaring the state of things, but that we would now have to speak (or act?)in parables for our own safety. There are reasons for the relationship between out leaders and those who we don't agree with. Time will tell. Please do not fault our church leaders, the Lord's anointed. (this does not necessarily include BYU :-s )

[oneClimbs]

I wonder if the painting of President Wilford Woodruff being confronted by the signers of the Declaration of Independence and other emminent men and women still hangs in the St. George Temple. A copy of it hangs in our living room.

It does. I saw it there not too long ago.

[AussieOi]

tacky, overly american painting
if it floats his boat fine
if it has ANY US president post 1830 I' agree its not art but political
where are the indians, mexicans? african's?
or yeah, god is a white man standing around the US congress with military around
made me want to puke,
but you know me

[Silas]

Well us military people need Jesus too. But it doesn't matter whether or not anyone likes or dislikes it. If you like it you can buy it if not then don't everybody is happy. When I saw the topic I thought it was talking about this picture:
http://www.mcnaughtonart.com/artwork/vi ... ece_id=379#" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I could see BYU being uncomfortable with displaying a picture of the current president with his foot on the constitution. I like that Bush looks kind of confused, like he is not quite sure he is on the right side. Hopefully in 2012 he can paint a new one with Ron Paul pushing Obama out of the way and picking the constitution up off the ground.

Anyway I was surprised that it was the much more tame one of Jesus holding the constitution. I guess that does get a little political but its nothing compared to the forgotten man. By far my favorite of his is this one:
http://www.mcnaughtonart.com/artwork/vi ... ece_id=319" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Here is the previously mentioned Wilford Woodruff painting.
http://glenhopkinson.squarespace.com/st ... 9040249191" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That is a little troubling to me that BYU would get in such an uproar about such a silly thing. No wonder members of the church are so terrified of ever discussing anything remotely political.

[buffalo_girl]

tacky, overly american painting
if it floats his boat fine
if it has ANY US president post 1830 I' agree its not art but political
where are the indians, mexicans? african's?
or yeah, god is a white man standing around the US congress with military around
made me want to puke,
but you know me

So, AussieOi, has your opinion of BYU improved because they 'pulled it'?

[John Locke]

tacky, overly american painting
if it floats his boat fine
if it has ANY US president post 1830 I' agree its not art but political
where are the indians, mexicans? african's?
or yeah, god is a white man standing around the US congress with military around
made me want to puke,
but you know me

<insert arbitrary disagreement with Aussie>

[JayPurser]

I actually agree (wholeheartedly) with John McNaughton's view and concerns about where this country is headed. We are probably very, very close on political beliefs. Regardless, I really think his paintings are very poorly done. Both as art and as commentary. Do I think they should be "censored" on political content? Of course not, and I really wonder if they are, or if this is the primary reason behind the removal? He claims they are the best sellers. I don't know if I believe that...if so then I think that is a sad commentary on taste of those who go to the bookstore. Check out the Carl Bloch exhibit. His painting actually are MORE inspiring, when seen in person (dark subject matter or not). John's painting are (if I may be so frank) horribly overworked, and unispiring at the paint level IMO. The individuals look like they were painted individually...the lighting, size and everything is not proportionate to the whole group. The park bench in one of his paintings is so out of perspective it hurts to look at. The backgrounds in several of his paintings appear to be a bored afterthought that he quickly put in as he was so caught up in getting every last one of those characters in there. Look at the hollywood tycoon. His contrast and coloring looks like he was pasted in separately...like he shot (or collected) the reference photos and just clumsily copied each one in. I know this will tick some people off...but it is possible that BYU pulled it because it was just a bad idea executed very poorly? It seems to be little about the painting and all about the commentary. It bugs me as a conservative because I think it actually might hurt the cause and insidiously promote J. McNaughton with this big "controversy" when the reasons behind it’s removal might not be as black and white as they been made out to be. Censorship itself is a dangerous claim. You might be accused of it when you are just trying to exercise your idea of good art or good taste. I feel sorry for BYU if that was the case. I remember a similar artist with terrible pencil drawings in the BYU bookstore when I was there. They were religious, but just awfully drawn. I know they sold well, but I thought they were a disservice if that was the ONLY reason they were there. Certainly people have a right to purchase John or any artwork they want, but does the BYU bookstore (or Des book or wherever) have the right to purge crappy art from the store? Crappy is obviously my opinion. I am sure yours will differ, but the people who head up such stores do have to make such assessments, even if the art might make a buck or makes a political statement. I don't know. This may not be the case at all. Maybe it was a conspiracy of political correctness...but keep your minds open that it might have been several individuals who saw what I saw. Really bad art.

[John Locke]

I actually agree (wholeheartedly) with John McNaughton's view and concerns about where this country is headed. We are probably very, very close on political beliefs. Regardless, I really think his paintings are very poorly done. Both as art and as commentary. Do I think they should be "censored" on political content? Of course not, and I really wonder if they are, or if this is the primary reason behind the removal? He claims they are the best sellers. I don't know if I believe that...if so then I think that is a sad commentary on taste of those who go to the bookstore. Check out the Carl Bloch exhibit. His painting actually are MORE inspiring, when seen in person (dark subject matter or not). John's painting are (if I may be so frank) horribly overworked, and unispiring at the paint level IMO. The individuals look like they were painted individually...the lighting, size and everything is not proportionate to the whole group. The park bench in one of his paintings is so out of perspective it hurts to look at. The backgrounds in several of his paintings appear to be a bored afterthought that he quickly put in as he was so caught up in getting every last one of those characters in there. Look at the hollywood tycoon. His contrast and coloring looks like he was pasted in separately...like he shot (or collected) the reference photos and just clumsily copied each one in. I know this will tick some people off...but it is possible that BYU pulled it because it was just a bad idea executed very poorly? It seems to be little about the painting and all about the commentary. It bugs me as a conservative because I think it actually might hurt the cause and insidiously promote J. McNaughton with this big "controversy" when the reasons behind it’s removal might not be as black and white as they been made out to be. Censorship itself is a dangerous claim. You might be accused of it when you are just trying to exercise your idea of good art or good taste. I feel sorry for BYU if that was the case. I remember a similar artist with terrible pencil drawings in the BYU bookstore when I was there. They were religious, but just awfully drawn. I know they sold well, but I thought they were a disservice if that was the ONLY reason they were there. Certainly people have a right to purchase John or any artwork they want, but does the BYU bookstore (or Des book or wherever) have the right to purge crappy art from the store? Crappy is obviously my opinion. I am sure yours will differ, but the people who head up such stores do have to make such assessments, even if the art might make a buck or makes a political statement. I don't know. This may not be the case at all. Maybe it was a conspiracy of political correctness...but keep your minds open that it might have been several individuals who saw what I saw. Really bad art.

Welcome to the Forum Jay good insight thanks for the input.

[shadow]

At least now I know where Jules avatar is from B-)