I agree, it is ridiculous to sanitize history.  I thought things went
overboard when I heard they airbrushed out the cigarette from Paul
McCartney's hand in the "Abbey Road" album cover photo.  But the difference
in this case is that this is *not* a period photo.  It's a modern work, and
as such, it's bound to modern sensibilities, conventions, and laws.

Tek wrote:
>I have to disagree with you about the cigarette advertising. It's appropriate in
>this historical context, and I hardly feel an image displayed on the irtc is
>going to start people smoking. I have a particular gripe about this because a
>colleague of mine recently had to search through video footage of historical
>motor races looking for one shot of a man smoking a pipe, because he'd been told
>to remove it under cigarette advertising laws in some countries! Fair enough,
>cigarettes are a terrible thing and should be removed from our culture as soon
>as possible, but I think we should stop short of sanitising history.

Post a reply to this message

So a modern work can't depict things as they actually were? That's a
dangerous interpretation, and clearly wrong.

Copper Pin wrote:
>I agree, it is ridiculous to sanitize history.  I thought things went
>overboard when I heard they airbrushed out the cigarette from Paul
>McCartney's hand in the "Abbey Road" album cover photo.  But the difference
>in this case is that this is *not* a period photo.  It's a modern work, and
>as such, it's bound to modern sensibilities, conventions, and laws.

Post a reply to this message

We'll just have to agree to disagree.  You can make a scene depicting
anything you want, but that doesn't mean it's always right to do so.  In
some situations the artist should exercise some discretion.  It's one thing
if the artist wants to show this work on his own web gallery, but some good
judgment should be taken into account before entering it into a public
forum like the IRTC where it's presence could negatively impact others.

My last words on the subject are a) Morally, promoting tobacco products is
wrong and b) Legally, it could cause trouble for the IRTC.

Renderdog wrote:
>So a modern work can't depict things as they actually were? That's a
>dangerous interpretation, and clearly wrong.

Post a reply to this message

Copper Pin wrote:
>My last words on the subject are a) Morally, promoting tobacco products is
>wrong and

I'm having a difficult time with this use of the word "promoting". I
don't see this as in any way promoting a tobacco product, it's simply
acknowledging the existence of such promotions historically.  You appear to
be saying that morally we should all pretend tobacco doesn't, and has never
existed.

However, your own moral standards are just that, your own, and not only do I
firmly support your right to believe as you want to believe, but I commend
you
for having the conviction to publicly say so. That in itself seems to often
be
considered morally wrong nowadays. :-{


b) Legally, it could cause trouble for the IRTC.
(Insert usual "I'm not an attorney" disclaimer here.) I seriously doubt that
anyone could make a legal case out of a barely legible image_map of a 70
year old advertisement for a brand that's been out of business for 50
years.

RG

Post a reply to this message

gonzo wrote:

> Copper Pin wrote:
>>My last words on the subject are a) Morally, promoting tobacco products is
>>wrong and
> 
> I'm having a difficult time with this use of the word "promoting". I
> don't see this as in any way promoting a tobacco product, it's simply
> acknowledging the existence of such promotions historically.  You appear
> to be saying that morally we should all pretend tobacco doesn't, and has
> never existed.
> 
> However, your own moral standards are just that, your own, and not only do
> I firmly support your right to believe as you want to believe, but I
> commend you
> for having the conviction to publicly say so. That in itself seems to
> often be
> considered morally wrong nowadays. :-{
> 
> 
> b) Legally, it could cause trouble for the IRTC.
> (Insert usual "I'm not an attorney" disclaimer here.) I seriously doubt
> that anyone could make a legal case out of a barely legible image_map of a
> 70 year old advertisement for a brand that's been out of business for 50
> years.
> 
> RG

Plus the IRTC is in the US, and it's such a clear freedom of speech issue...

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 05 May 2003 10:37:43 -0400, Copper Pin wrote:

> I agree, it is ridiculous to sanitize history.  I thought things went
> overboard when I heard they airbrushed out the cigarette from Paul
> McCartney's hand in the "Abbey Road" album cover photo.  But the
> difference in this case is that this is *not* a period photo.  It's a
> modern work, and as such, it's bound to modern sensibilities,
> conventions, and laws.

	There are no laws which apply. As I noted, the laws only apply to those
offering cigarettes for sale. It is encouragement of purchase for use via
advertising which is covered. 

	Are you suggesting no artist in Europe can portray anyone smoking? 

	Whatever the opinion of art critics, or anyone else for that matter,
what is being produced for the competitions qualifies as artistic
expression, period. They are concepts upon a theme requiring not on
technical skill with the software but creativity and visual expression of
a concept. Entries may be considered the worst art in the world by they
are art.

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 05 May 2003 16:24:11 -0400, Copper Pin wrote:

> We'll just have to agree to disagree.  You can make a scene depicting
> anything you want, but that doesn't mean it's always right to do so. 

	You did not raise right or wrong. You raised illegal. The law has no
necessary connection to right and wrong and rarely has a connection. Once
you get passed murder and theft and such, the law is more or less on its own. 

> In some situations the artist should exercise some discretion. 

	It is often in the perview of art to shock sensibilities in order to
provoke thought. 

	If art were to be governed by prevailed law and majority enforced
morality it could achieve nothing beyond Nazi sponsored art. Or communist
sponsored or any government for that matter. 

> It's one
> thing if the artist wants to show this work on his own web gallery, but
> some good judgment should be taken into account before entering it into
> a public forum like the IRTC where it's presence could negatively impact
> others.

	Good judgement? Who is to decide what is good? Who is the arbiter?
Certainly not politicians and their laws passed to garner contributions
to their political campaigns and private fortunes.

> My last words on the subject are a) Morally, promoting tobacco products
> is wrong and b) Legally, it could cause trouble for the IRTC.

	In order of response

	a) is nonsense. There is no morality reltated to offering tobacco
products for sale, period. Offering for sale is not the same as promoting
consumption regardless of current nonsense feelings. Feelings are not
reason nor are feelings morality.

	The reasoning behind my opinion on a) is that promoting anything which
causes earlier than average death is in the same category as tobacco.
Merely advertising fattening foods is only stating their availability.
Promoting obesity via fattening foods is not criminal nor immoral. 

	If you say advertising equals promoting and that everything which causes
an earlier death is immoral then automobile advertising is immoral. So is
advertising the very existance of bathrooms as the greatest number of
household deaths and injuries are in the bathroom. 

	Even mentioning the existance of racing events of any type would be
immoral. Encouraging involvement is sports of any sort due to the deaths
and injuries would be immoral. 

	Tobacco is nothing special in the pantheon of things which cause early
death and not even in the running in most cases. 

	b) the IRTC is not advertising tobacco products but does sell works of
art regardless of the quality of those works.

Post a reply to this message

On Mon,  5 May 2003 16:24:11 EDT, "Copper Pin"
<Cop### [at] hotmailcom> said:

>We'll just have to agree to disagree.

I can't agree to that.  :-)

My final words are if you want to vote 1,1,1 for moral reasons, you
are free to do so.  I however see nothing wrong here and stand behind
my work.

---
Jet Jaguar
Visit my crappy home page at http://home.att.net/~chmilnir/
MSTie #54297

Post a reply to this message

I suggest we say things like "Billboard WIP [tobacco product]" to warn
others in this newsgroup so that our image won't offend or get them fired or
expelled from school or...  arrested.

(The preceding comment was facetious) ;-)
-- 
Slash

Post a reply to this message

Jet Jaguar wrote:
>

Congratulations!  You've now joined the ranks of "controversial" artists!
That should make you eligible for endowments and grants, which can then be
absorbed by widely smiling attorneys for numerous overly public spirited
save-the-world groups.

RG :-\

Post a reply to this message