He remortgaged his house

Gizmo

Rabble Rouser
<snip>​
And I'm sure Playboy tapped into the sublime by using beauty of the women in most fantastic poses without any "porn". And so does the swimsuit competition everywhere such as Sports Illustrated.

Yes, and Playboy had a view of women as beautiful.

Again, compare the cult POLICY towards SEX with these illustrations they had made to portray scenes from books. Consistent?


If somebody wants hard core porn or soft porn that is their choice & none of my business; however, when the cult had it's form POLICY towards sex, sexual behavior as pretty much bad things to then peddle illustrations with bare chested women ?

Or describe various sexual encounters in the books ? Why not at least call it what it is, soft porn ( at best ) !

Karen had it right, period.
 

Leland

Crusader
Another aspect....for me....is: What is an "Art Print?"

A true "lithograph" that an artist would do .....is a drawing done on a block of smooth limestone....with oily crayons....and printed on a special press. The quantity of prints that one could "pull" from one stone...and one original drawing, is very limited.

What today is loosely called a "lithograph" is in actual fact "photolithography".....which is basically a metal plate...that is light sensitive...and is "etched" by a form of photographic printing/developing....and many plates could be made from the same photograph.....so unlimited plates/prints could be produced. It is all done on machines....and doesn't require an artist to make the prints...

This mass production of prints....really takes the works produced out of the catagory of "fine art" ....or "collectable art." IMO.

One could basically cut a picture out of a magazine....and frame it....and it would be the same thing. ( which is fine....but it is not an "art print.")

Edited:

One easy way to tell....if one is looking at a "photolithography" print.....is to look at it with a magnifying glass. If the print is made up of little tiny dots of red/green/blue ink.....it is like a magazine print.

A true Lithography art print is not made up of dots.

Andy Warhol....in part, became famous....by making fun of the difference in these two things...and making fun of and use of "Commercial art techniques" in his fine art....in an exaggerated manner.
 
Last edited:

Leland

Crusader
Yes, and Playboy had a view of women as beautiful.

Again, compare the cult POLICY towards SEX with these illustrations they had made to portray scenes from books. Consistent?


If somebody wants hard core porn or soft porn that is their choice & none of my business; however, when the cult had it's form POLICY towards sex, sexual behavior as pretty much bad things to then peddle illustrations with bare chested women ?

Or describe various sexual encounters in the books ? Why not at least call it what it is, soft porn ( at best ) !

Karen had it right, period.

The prints we are talking about....were a hired ( by the cult ) artist's visualization/take on some books written by the Cult Founder.

I don't recall much sex in "Battlefield Earth".....?

But, "Mission Earth"....wow....that is a whole other story! There were many incredibly lurid, sick, perverted sexual passages and drug induced actions..... in "Mission Earth".....to many to even list.

The picture above....comes from "Mission Earth?"

Isn't that "Countess Krack?" LOL.....i certainly didn't envision her that way!

Even though there was a "Corporate" structure separation between Hubbard's "Cult" writings and his "Science Fiction" writings......Both are run by the Sea Org.....and the entire sales force and structure of the Cult were used to sell any of Hubbard's works to Cult members.....

Cult members were expected to buy and read....and financially support both.
 

Bost_Bobby

Patron with Honors
Yes, and Playboy had a view of women as beautiful.

Again, compare the cult POLICY towards SEX with these illustrations they had made to portray scenes from books. Consistent?


If somebody wants hard core porn or soft porn that is their choice & none of my business; however, when the cult had it's form POLICY towards sex, sexual behavior as pretty much bad things to then peddle illustrations with bare chested women ?

Or describe various sexual encounters in the books ? Why not at least call it what it is, soft porn ( at best ) !

Karen had it right, period.

Off and on at work today I was contemplating how I might respond to the post that you are replying to. Should I tread lightly to keep the peace or speak my mind? Reading your post I know that I could not have not said it better.

I believe those prints can easily be considered soft porn. It's all in the eye of the beholder. Some soft porn prints can and are considered by some to be art. Who am I to argue? Again, all in the eye of the beholder.

Although the prints in themselves don't really bother me and I would not give them a second thought if I came across them in a shop or saw them hanging on somebody's wall but in this case and under these circumstances I have to agree with you. Karen is right.

We all have the right to our own thoughts and opinions. Isn't that one of the benefits of being outside the church?
 

Little David

Gold Meritorious Patron
Speaking of sci-fi soft porn, does anyone know anything about the "art" on the wall between David and Shelly in this 30 year old photo?:

33BD378B00000578-3569393-image-m-7_1462196153736.jpg


33BD378B00000578-3569393-image-m-13_1462196509244.jpg
 

BunnySkull

Silver Meritorious Patron
These paintings (or lithos, cannot tell which are what that we're talking about) but I do have to take exception regarding what appears to be Frazetta's.
While you may not like his work, it is not pornography. While a zillion folks have now copied him, he was the true blue artist that started the whole thing (that style, fantasy based: hot chicks, over the top muscle men and dragons, lions, tigers and bears. So if they were originals, then there's some serious bucks here (there?!?).

I think it's a huge stretch to call them porn...I mean EVERY museum on planet earth has nudes in it. Is this all porn?

Some folks just don't like it and that's fine...but he was a biggy (like founding forefather) in that whole genre.

It's funny how even critics can stretch the truth. Kinda bums me out sometimes here on ESMB...

I don't think it's a stretch at all, it fits the actual definitions of the time. Today it might be a stretch to call it "soft porn" but only because the society has changed so much and his art is far less risque to today's audience who is now used to graphic porn online. However, soft core porn used to mean "showing naked breasts, but not genitals" - which is why Playboy was considered "soft core porn" while Hustler was "hard core" or real porn. (The definitions for film soft/hard core is a bit more complex)

Frazetta was a commercial artist, though I'm sure he did produce some fine art. But most of his career was spent producing commercial art of book publishers and there is a big difference between commercial and fine art. (Commercial art is produced to "sell" things, whether it's books or toothpaste. Most of Frazetta's most famous works were commissioned for pulp sci-fi book covers or to sell the work of sci-fi creators. Publishers knew big titty queens with very little clothing sold lots more books than covers without them, so that's what Frazetta produced - cover art that would sell books. What Scientology commissioned/sold were lithographs of his commercial art. (I believe some were commissioned for LRH's sci-fi crap)

To sell them as a "fine art investment" is laughable and a lie. Soft porn commercial art is an accurate description of what the CoS was selling.

(I still can't get over the irony of selling a home in 1980's San Fransisco to "invest" in a sci-fi lithograph scam. If you asked a savvy investor today what they would go back in time an invest in if given the chance, property in 1980's San Fransisco would be near the top of the list. He sold the ultimate investment for a pot of piss.)
 

BunnySkull

Silver Meritorious Patron
Speaking of sci-fi soft porn, does anyone know anything about the "art" on the wall between David and Shelly in this 30 year old photo?:

33BD378B00000578-3569393-image-m-7_1462196153736.jpg


33BD378B00000578-3569393-image-m-13_1462196509244.jpg

I can almost guarantee you it's one of the "investment lithos." DM probably gave them to his family as gifts and never shut up about the "valuable artwork" he had bestowed upon him. LOL.
 

Hypatia

Pagan
Slight derail here-DM looks almost normal in this pic. Healthy, relaxed, no monkey suit or stick up his butt.
 

WildKat

Gold Meritorious Patron
Speaking of sci-fi soft porn, does anyone know anything about the "art" on the wall between David and Shelly in this 30 year old photo?:

it looks familiar...I saw something similar on the wall of a Scn I knew 30 years ago. It had a planet and spaceship in it. I know that's not much help, sorry.
 

Gizmo

Rabble Rouser
I don't think it's a stretch at all, it fits the actual definitions of the time. Today it might be a stretch to call it "soft porn" but only because the society has changed so much and his art is far less risque to today's audience who is now used to graphic porn online. However, soft core porn used to mean "showing naked breasts, but not genitals" - which is why Playboy was considered "soft core porn" while Hustler was "hard core" or real porn. (The definitions for film soft/hard core is a bit more complex)

Frazetta was a commercial artist, though I'm sure he did produce some fine art. But most of his career was spent producing commercial art of book publishers and there is a big difference between commercial and fine art. (Commercial art is produced to "sell" things, whether it's books or toothpaste. Most of Frazetta's most famous works were commissioned for pulp sci-fi book covers or to sell the work of sci-fi creators. Publishers knew big titty queens with very little clothing sold lots more books than covers without them, so that's what Frazetta produced - cover art that would sell books. What Scientology commissioned/sold were lithographs of his commercial art. (I believe some were commissioned for LRH's sci-fi crap)

To sell them as a "fine art investment" is laughable and a lie. Soft porn commercial art is an accurate description of what the CoS was selling.

(I still can't get over the irony of selling a home in 1980's San Fransisco to "invest" in a sci-fi lithograph scam. If you asked a savvy investor today what they would go back in time an invest in if given the chance, property in 1980's San Fransisco would be near the top of the list. He sold the ultimate investment for a pot of piss.)

Everybody is entitled to their opinion. That said, I really really damn sure 100% agree with your opinion !
 

Gizmo

Rabble Rouser
Slight derail here-DM looks almost normal in this pic. Healthy, relaxed, no monkey suit or stick up his butt.

Something about absolute power absolutely corrupts ?

Most of us have been in a situation where someone we thought was more or less "normal" ( WTF ever that is ! ) that got in a position of power & became unbearable.

Here is a sort little short dude ( already with a Napoleon Complex of magnitude ! ) at the top of the heap, over a billion at his disposal, no checks & balances & - to top it off - slaves willing to dedicate their lives to him !

Now throw in a bad temper with a flair for violence & ya have a monster. Da Monster !
 

Bost_Bobby

Patron with Honors
(I still can't get over the irony of selling a home in 1980's San Fransisco to "invest" in a sci-fi lithograph scam. If you asked a savvy investor today what they would go back in time an invest in if given the chance, property in 1980's San Fransisco would be near the top of the list. He sold the ultimate investment for a pot of piss.)

The house was not in San Francisco proper but was in an area I feel is much more desirable. It was in Marin County at the Northeast base of Mount Tam among the Redwoods and elms. Approximately 1/3 acre, three bedroom home on the second floor, two small apartments on the first floor. It makes me feel God awful sick inside. This was the very same home I myself lived in after he took me in as a teen when my parents died. It's very personal to me.
 

BunnySkull

Silver Meritorious Patron
The house was not in San Francisco proper but was in an area I feel is much more desirable. It was in Marin County at the Northeast base of Mount Tam among the Redwoods and elms. Approximately 1/3 acre, three bedroom home on the second floor, two small apartments on the first floor. It makes me feel God awful sick inside. This was the very same home I myself lived in after he took me in as a teen when my parents died. It's very personal to me.

You're right, it might be even more desirable. From just a purely investment/financial perspective I can't imagine a much better property investment, the possible one million you mentioned is a very modest price for that area. Most homes near Mt. Tamalpais are in the five million dollar range.

(Checking Ebay for the CoS/Author Services Frazetta lithos, while you may see hopeful listings asking for a few thousand, if you actually check "sold" listings you will find the lithos when they actually sell go for about $250 - $300 tops. Small original sketches by Franzetta sell for far more than the glossy lithos.)
 

Gizmo

Rabble Rouser
Perhaps the saddest of all in hearing of a particular person being trashed by the cult is the realization how many people were dealt with that way by the cult.

And, one of the harsh lessons I've hard to learn along the way is this :
" No one can fuck you harder than you stand still for. "

Harsh ? Nasty language ? All that, yep. Yet it is true. A lesson it took me too long to learn. but, my children learned it early on.

While I'm putting in my unasked for 2 cents, I constantly work on this one;
" Mind your own business "!


I'd like to think I could have avoided the cult altogether, but, I didn't . . . . . . . . damn it.
 

BunnySkull

Silver Meritorious Patron

Enthetan

Master of Disaster
Frazetta was a commercial artist, though I'm sure he did produce some fine art. But most of his career was spent producing commercial art of book publishers and there is a big difference between commercial and fine art. (Commercial art is produced to "sell" things, whether it's books or toothpaste. Most of Frazetta's most famous works were commissioned for pulp sci-fi book covers or to sell the work of sci-fi creators. Publishers knew big titty queens with very little clothing sold lots more books than covers without them, so that's what Frazetta produced - cover art that would sell books. What Scientology commissioned/sold were lithographs of his commercial art. (I believe some were commissioned for LRH's sci-fi crap)

To sell them as a "fine art investment" is laughable and a lie. Soft porn commercial art is an accurate description of what the CoS was selling.

(I still can't get over the irony of selling a home in 1980's San Fransisco to "invest" in a sci-fi lithograph scam. If you asked a savvy investor today what they would go back in time an invest in if given the chance, property in 1980's San Fransisco would be near the top of the list. He sold the ultimate investment for a pot of piss.)

I think a lot of "commercial" art (produced by Frazetta, Norman Rockwell, Boris Vallejo, and many others) is much better than, and more closely approaches my idea of "art", than most of what passes as today's "modern art" (especially "abstract" art).

I also agree with you about SF-area real estate. My god, I would have loved to have bought a house in the Silicon Valley area in the 1970's-80's...
 

Little David

Gold Meritorious Patron
Thanks to all the answers to my question about the art on the wall behind the Miscavige family. Sorry for the derail from the main theme of the thread. Here's a small photo of Frazetta with the painting and obituary:

"Artist Frank Frazetta, 82, died May 10, 2010 of a stroke in a hospital near Boca Grande FL. Frazetta is best known for his iconic illustrations for the works of Robert E. Howard — especially Conan the Barbarian — and Edgar Rice Burroughs, and was a towering figure in the SF/fantasy art field.

Born February 9, 1928 in Brooklyn, Frazetta studied at the Brooklyn Academy of Fine Arts from ages eight to 16, and began working as a professional pulp and comic illustrator as a teenager. His early work included funny animal comics, Flash Gordon, Johnny Comet, Thun’da, Buck Rogers,EC horror comics, and even a long stint ghost-drawing the Li’l Abner comic strip.
In the ’60s he began painting book covers, and soon became hugely popular among fans.

He was nominated for his first Hugo Award in 1963, winning a Hugo in 1966. Other honors include a World Fantasy Award in 1976 and a World Fantasy life achievement award in 2001; Chesley Awards in 1988, 1995, and 1997; a Spectrum Grandmaster Award in 1995; and a Hubbard lifetime achievement award in 1997.

In 2008, one of his Burroughs illustrations sold for over a quarter of a million dollars at auction, and in 2009, his “Conan the Conqueror” painting sold to a private collector for $1 million. In addition to cover art, he did work for magazines, animated movies, calendars, and album covers, along with numerous fine art exhibitions.Frazetta suffered a series of strokes in the 2000s, hampering his ability to paint. He was predeceased by his wife Ellie (married 1956, died 2009), and is survived by four children and several grandchildren."


Frank Frazetta 1987. Photo by Fr

- See more at: http://www.locusmag.com/News/2010/05/frank-frazetta-1928-2010/#sthash.ZCOzrY5u.dpuf
 
Top