Area Soldier Killed In Fort Hood Rampage
Stroger Makes Hollywood Play
Put Down Your Nanowrimo And Leave The House
Sox Shuffle Continues
Officials for the Indiana State Fair win today's WTF award. The pulled this wedding photo (click to embiggen), which was the state contest's highest-scoring picture, because, according to fair officials, people complained about its content. You know, because it's a...married couple sitting? The hell?
Photographer Randy Baughn says he's as lost as we are. "I went to the fair last Thursday with my wife, and we went to the exhibit, and the print wasn't there," he tells us. Baughn says he asked a fair representative what happened to the picture, but only after pressing the guy—and saying that he took the photo in question—did Baughn get an answer. "He finally told me they were getting four to six complaints a day, people saying stuff like 'it's smut' or that they wouldn't bring their daughter to see it," Baughn says. That was the first he'd heard that anyone objected to the picture. "I see more leg square dancing," Baughn says. "I saw more muffin tops and cleavage walking around at the fair." Baughn identifies himself as a conservative Christian, which is why, he says, the uproar—especially in the comments on the Indy Star's website—is even more baffling.
"This has turned into a liberal vs. conservative issue, and I didn't expect it to go there," he says. "I've received dozens of e-mails and phone calls from people saying they support me, they support the photograph—but no one from the conservative right, which I think I am, felt compelled to [contact me]....People are saying there's no way I could love God, or no way a Christian could support this....it makes my chest ache," he says. "I want to say, 'drop the bat! I'm on your team!'"
"It's a married couple that has affection for each other, showing how in love they are—I see things at wedding receptions every single weekend I find a lot more offensive," Baughn sighs. "If my daughter wants a photo like that on her wedding day, I'll take it," he says. "It's her husband!"
State fair rules allow complained-about photos to be removed at the organizers' discretion, and the picture was apparently rehung since the story ran in the Indy Star. [In the interest of disclosure, I know the reporter who wrote the Indy Star story.]
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
So, what ended up winning the competition? The picture of Jesus with kittens or the picture of Jesus with puppies?
'drop the bat! I'm on your team!'
But it's easier to hit someone on your team, they aren't expecting it.
So, hetero married couple's showing affection (er, you can see they're not fucking) woulf offend Jesus? Not war or rape or murder or child abuse, but two married people holding each other?
I don't think these people have read, or perhaps even SEEN a bible.
I don't really have any objection to it, but as a photographer, I probably would not have had my subject pose in that stature for the photos, as the legs spread isn't really flattering, but again, can't really see anything.
I mean, its well shot, but I'm surprised this photo is top dog to be honest. Is there a good prize for the Indiana State Fair b/c I'm totally entering next year
That could explain the sign I always see as I cross over the Skyway into Indiana: "Indiana - An Easy Target Since 1816."
I mean, its well shot, but I'm surprised this photo is top dog to be honest. Is there a good prize for the Indiana State Fair b/c I'm totally entering next year
I will see you there! Those were my thoughts exactly.
Maybe I'm just being dense, but what would the criticisms of the photo even BE? What's there to "support" or not support? It's a nicely-framed, decently-composed picture of a bride and groom. I've looked at it for a good couple of minutes and I can't even figure out what a complaint would based upon.
Was the picture taken before the wedding, and traditonalists are objecting to the groom seeing the bride before the wedding? Is the dress's train seen as forming a question mark, leading people to infer that the photographer was questioning the value of marriage in contemporary society? Did the above scan omit the Satan-worshiping nudists just off to the right?
I understand people feeling they have to speak out in opposition to theoretically objectional material, but really, what the hell is even remotely objectionable about this picture?
What women do with their bodies in public is everybody's business.
Look carefully: You'll only see three hands. Disgusting.
Oph--Read the comments on the Indy Star's webpage. They'll "explain" it all.
You can't see the groom's other hand, so obvi, he's got it up her skirt...um..no he's using it to not fall over.
Her legs are spread, brazen hussy.
Her hair is messy...they must have just had crazy sex.
It's inappropriate for children.
etc. etc. etc.
Truly, they made me laugh AND cry.
To me, the photo is not offensive, too revealing or in bad taste.
It's just not a very good photo. Did she fall on her ass? Is she taking a dump?
Is this really the number one photo in the state?
Just goes to show, the Puritans among us have the filthiest minds.
I actualy read the article after I posted. And all I can say is if THAT'S what passes as "racy" or "edgy" in the mind of an average person, I'm either living in the wrong country, or Indiana's living in the wrong frickin' century.
Why does Jesus hate marriage?
The prize for winning the contest is a VIP pass to the Blubird, and a $50 gift certificate to Don's Guns.
If his other hand were up her skirt, we would see it as we are seeing the back part of her dress between her legs.
It only takes one idiot prude in Indiana to get a picture pulled from an exhibit.
But I do agree, it's not a flattering picture towards her.
that photo is almost as tasteless as the front page of the sun-times today. look it up.
Seriously people... I am down for 49 states in this Country. Lets make people from Indiana get passports and build a wall around its boarders.
It's not *that* hard to see what people were complaining about; there's a dark spot up her dress and his hand is on her leg. Duh. But on the racy scale, it would probably get a 2. Her pose is really unflattering in several ways though. The photographer would have done better to have her skirt down and the groom's hand on her knee *over* the skirt imo.
Oh well.
I'm offended by that veil! Look how phallic it is!
I'm sure perverts everywhere are considering committing heinous sex crimes because of how erotic this photo is.
It alway fascinates me that those who call dibs on piety are the ones who have the dirtiest take on any given image.
I see a young couple canoodling.
They see finger-banging.
The problem is that his other hand ISN'T up her dress; it's down his rented pants. Onanism is abhorrent in the eyes of a vengeful God.
Sorry, I don't mean to be a prude, but it's a little on the vulgar side.
@By Yeah...poor Onan...struck dead by a vengeful God for spilling his seed.
We women are so fortunate however....nothing in the bible regarding us being struck dead for masturbating.
@Albany now I can't get the Finger Bang song from South Park out of my head.
There are a lot of holes in this story that don't make sense.
The artist is a self proclaimed "conservative Christian", and with all of the outrageous B/S conservative christians have done, THIS surprises him?
Has this guy lived underneath a rock for the last few centuries?
I certainly do not think this picture is offensive to me. But when I was married, I don't ever remember the photographer uttering the phrase to my wife, "Okay, now can you spread your legs apart? Wider please".
mss2400, I hate to be this way but what exactly is vulgar about it? To me, yes its unflattering. I would never want a picture of me like that but its hardly vulgar. Have you been to wriggleyville lately? You can see more T&A and PDA from random girls/couples outside the Cubby Bear any given day.
I think it is suggestive, not vulgar.
What is the Supreme Court standard? "I'll know it when I see it"?
So apparently, will EVERYONE in Indiana.
@Poptart...not to chime in, but is Wrigleyville really the litmus test for what is "vulgar" and what is not?
Can't we agree that some people find this offensive and some people haven't? I'm sure the people who think this picture is offensive will think the T&A at a Cubs game is offensive as well.
We live in the 21st century in a day in age of communication.
If anyone is "surprised" that people find this offensive, then wake the fuck up!
Like I said in my first post, this is not offensive to me.
Can I "understand" how someone would think it is offensive? Of course! I read!
yeah, I'm in the non-offensive to me as far as content, but the photo just is disgusting to me as it is so poorly posed, but won an award. . .that's all. Maybe people through a fit b/c there were obviously better photos that should have won there, so they made up complaints about it?
Unless, of course, it was a Britney Spears pose wedding photo PG version themed contest. . then DEAD ON.
I actualy read the article after I posted. And all I can say is if THAT'S what passes as "racy" or "edgy" in the mind of an average person, I'm either living in the wrong country, or Indiana's living in the wrong frickin' century.
I'll take "OPHMarketing is dead-on for $1000 Alex"
Indiana is as ass-backwards as ass-backwards could possibly be. No need to travel to places like Georgia and Alabama to see the deep south...it's only a 45min drive east.
Also, please take a look at the Indiana State Fair Nudity Photo that won this year:
http://kimandjason.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/autographed-randy_snowsuit.jpg
How does everyone feel about that one?
indiana is far and away my least favorite state. i dislike pretty much everything about that state
p.s. photoshop Fabio's head to replace the groom's head and you have a cover for a dime store paperback romance novel.
I don't see why anyone would bother making such a stink over this. It's really a stupid photo...doesn't deserve all the hoopla.
The Art Director - photographer - or whoever, was going for provocative and came up short with just cheesy. I don't know if it was a real wedding photograph or just styled. If it was a real couple for a real wedding...Y.U.C.K. At the very least, it's more like a boudoir photo and should have been kept between the loving couple.
the spread legs makes her look like a prostitute being paid to wear a wedding dress by her john
the spread legs makes her look like a prostitute being paid to wear a wedding dress by her john
Again, the prudes show themselves to be the real perverts.
Anyone offended by this photo is an imbecile and should be driven from the species. Back down the evolutionary ladder with you, go play with the chimps until you grow a forebrain capable of discernment.
I don't accept the notion that there are two sides to every argument or many valid points of view on every issue. Sometimes people are just plain dumb.
If you look closely at her right hand (left hand of the screen) you will see that he has his right hand around her and is holding her right hand, so anyone who thinks he is doing something else with that hand simply needs to get their mind out of the gutter. Having said that, the only possibly offensive thing about this picture is the position of her legs... and I'm reaching here.. I honestly don't see how anyone in their right mind could be offended about that.
Oh, geez. I'm from Indiana, and I write for the Indianapolis Star, and this picture is not objectionable in the least. What, are people imagining that his invisible hand is doing something untoward?
And I believe 90% of Hoosiers would agree there are more important things to get wound up about.
I once got frisky at the Indiana State Fair. Two words. Sexy Llamas.
It took me a while to process it, but when I think about it, I realize my initial reaction was laced with undertones of "biological process" much more so than anything sexy-time. Shrug-worthy still, but if anything, it looks more like she's giving birth or pooping than getting it on. Either way, Indiana state fair-goers need to chill. A horse will do it right in front of you on the farm. And their dresses don't hide anything.
i'm not offended by the photo in the least bit, it just looks stupid
haha no I'm by no means holding wrigleyville up as a standard for what's offensive and what's not. If anything that place is Sodom and Gamora when compared to Indiana. All I'm saying is we certainly see far more skin on a daily basis which I think was one of the photographer points. Its more to imply that I think being offended by this is more than a little rediculous considering what else we see all the time. Certinaly those people would probably be offended by what they see in Wriggleyville. Hell, I'm more than a little grossed sometimes by how short the skirts are and how low the tops are, and I don't think I'm practicularly a prude. But that's another rant for another day. Everyone's entitled to their opinon, but if most people didn't find people's reactions to this picture abusrd it wouldn't be news. Besides they said they got 4-6 complaints a day out of how many hundreds of people who probably looked at this picture. And seriously, that's enough to remove it?
Poe-Nog-Ra-fee!!!
@Albany: count me among the "just plain dumb," i guess. i fall on the side of unnecessarily suggestive. one, to have that among your wedding photos? and two, to show it in public? save it for the honeymoon suite.
Hey Shaaynone, yea, sure wouldn't want to sulley your "wedding photos" with a "naughty one" like the above! Oh how boringly suburban,pu-lease! Make sure that weeding book is just right for the coffee table
Oh and when you do wed, you will be divorced in five years like every other American who falls into that "institution"
But don't mind lil old Spook, cause in Indiana you just won The All American Values,Modesty,and Chastity award.
So enjoy your all expenses paid ( including white hummer strecth limo) Honeymoon at the Sybaris with Bob
@ Spook...your angles sometimes...worth their weight in gold! You forget to tell her she reads the Red Eye. where are you from again? Out east, right? I forget when you don't remind us all every other day. :-)
@ Albanyparkour:
"I don't accept the notion that there are two sides to every argument or many valid points of view on every issue."
I see you resorted to stealing Bush's lines.
Doesn't Georgie use that line to justify:
*Iraq
*Violating the Constitution
*Violating Civil Liberties
*No Child Left Behind
"The only point of view is MY point of view!".
Say hi to Stalin for me, Albany.
God, Irish, you nailed it. I love how some people--just because they may have advanced degrees, or live between Harlem and the lake, or drink expensive beer, or tend not to vote for the GOP, or whatever they do that makes someone in Chicago feel smart and sophisticated--think they are somehow different in their snobbery and simpleminded thinking than the evil rednecks, rubes and hillbillies these urbane studs make fun of. Truth be told, they are all from the same stinking pot--the love-it-or-leave-it-types, the my-way-or-the-highway warriors--though they apparently took slightly different paths upon exiting.
At least a true redneck, presumably, did not have to spend a small fortune on a education to get this way.
Irishmen,
To except the two sides view leads( as in there are no truths) to the slippery slide of moral relativism used to justify alot of very bad bad bad sh*t
and honestly I don't think Shannon reads the Red Eye, but come on the protection of a stupid wedding book!
Oh and instead of my weight in Gold, I'll take my weight in Jameson's Gold Special Reserve or maybe I should take Matilda's weight as it will amount to another four crates of Ireland's Best!
Spook:
To think that you, and you alone, grasp THE TRUTH seems rather overconfident and reckless, and is nearly always a sign of a hyped intellect--though, I supposed, you can be one of those rare people, seen perhaps once a generation, that does indeed understand some significant part of THE TRUTH.
That is the issue, not moral relativism--which you seem to barely understand in this context--but thanks for playing.
Spook and Matilda just need to meet face to face and hash this whole thing out.
I'm thinking a chicagoist sponsored co-ed boxing event would be fun.
I bet you I can get my whole fist in there.
Yikes, I feel for you people who have to live out there.