Comic Discussion > QUESTIONABLE CONTENT

Censoring an old strip?

<< < (11/19) > >>

Masterpiece:
e. All of the above?

Is it cold in here?:
Momo also listed "eel handling" on her resume.

Marigold is at 14 Elm Grove Lane and Marten is at 144 Dwight Street.

mustang6172:
I didn't write the full word because I have neither the luxury of living within the 19th century's definition of morality, nor do I have Quentin Tarantino's disregard for racial sensitivity.  It's also possible that would violate the civility clause of the forum rules.


--- Quote from: Loki on 28 Apr 2013, 14:46 ---I find myself confused about the topic of this thread. Is it about

* whether Jeph really changed the strip (he did)
* what triggered the change (we will probably never know)
* whether he had the moral obligation to change it or
* whether he had the moral obligation to leave it like it was?

 :?

--- End quote ---

I'm arguing that both artists and the public have a moral obligation to leave art as it is.

henri bemis:

--- Quote from: DSL on 27 Apr 2013, 05:28 ---Jeph became uncomfortable with that particular joke being in there, he had the power to change it, and so he did. Works for me.

--- End quote ---

This.  I'm not sure where 'moral obligations' came into anything.  We don't know why he changed it, but I assume there isn't one, singular reason, and really, it doesn't matter to me.  And I know I'm not the only one glad that he did - not because I'd stop reading QC if he hadn't, but because it demonstrates that he gives a shit, to put it not-so-eloquently.

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't get why it's such a problem for some that an author edits his work (without trying to hide anything - it's not like Jeph is trying to pretend the original dialogue didn't exist.  As I see it, he's owning an early fuck-up.  Everyone fucks up, but owning it is rare, so, if anything, his editing the comic just increased my respect).

Storel:
Yeah, I don't buy "moral obligations" on the artist's side. Historically, artists have frequently edited their own works. Some even erased them so they could reuse the canvas for something else, and some didn't even bother erasing the old painting before painting a new one on top of it.

As I see it, an artist's work (painting, sculpture, etc.) belongs to them unless and until they sell it to someone else. Before that happens, they can do anything they want to it, even down to editing it years after originally creating it. It's their creative work, and they get to change it if they come up with something that improves it according to their artistic vision.

Once it's been sold to someone else, it belong to the buyer and the artist has no further right to change it. Whether the buyer has any right to edit it is another story. I would tend to say no, unless they get permission from the artist to do so, because the changed work would still have the original artist's signature on it, but would no longer be entirely their work, so it would be misrepresenting that artist's work.

However, how strongly people would feel about changing an artist's work tends to depend somewhat on how valuable the work is perceived to be. Someone painting a mustache on the Mona Lisa would send shockwaves of outrage around the world, but someone completely altering a hack painting they got from a Motel 6 would probably not upset anyone but the original artist...

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page