Sunday, August 17, 2008
Oh Indiana...
Do you like this story?
It's so hard sometimes to be a Hoosier. In the latest installment of "What's wrong with you people?" the below photograph was pulled from the Indiana State Fair for being too risqué. I really have no idea what else to say...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 Responses to “Oh Indiana...”
August 17, 2008 at 10:49 AM
The bridal crotch shot was showing (so to speak) yesturday. Turn back to the facing wall and there is another one. I just assumed a new trend in pretend innovation has hit the wedding photographer demographic.
That's the "are we Hoosiers yet?" story IMO.
August 17, 2008 at 12:43 PM
Have you ever noticed that when a speaker uses the words "folks" or "Hoosiers" in a statement that censorship or repression is soon to follow.
This photo looks to me like it is about two people who are passionate about each other. Is "passion" now forbidden at the State Fair?
August 17, 2008 at 5:53 PM
Is "passion" now forbidden at the State Fair?
From what I've heard "passion" is only allowed at the Indiana State Fair in the animal husbandry areas...
August 17, 2008 at 6:52 PM
At least these two are married- can't say that about the pigs and the cows- there's plenty of fornication going on at the Fair.
August 17, 2008 at 7:18 PM
I know how hard it is to be a Hoosier.
I had an exhibition taken down
because my colors offended someone.
I was very upset.
You can never please everyone.
That's when censorship rears its ugly head.
What worries me more is that a few can dictate for the many.
Censorship is so one-sided.
Good or bad, censorship is never the answer.
August 19, 2008 at 10:26 AM
"There are a lot of conservative folks that live around here and come to the fair," he said. "We try and please everyone."
That from spokesman Andy Klotz. Obviously he's trying to please someone. Conservative, reactionary, conformist, non-progressive... I don't get why we let that mind-set run our lives. Klotz and company should be dismissed.
August 19, 2008 at 10:44 AM
Censorship of this sort, while I feel is ridiculous, it is also not unexpected from such a venue as the State Fair. I would not be shocked to find out they refused to exhibit a prize winning zucchini for being to phalic.
As far as censorship goes in the local art community, I am most disappointed with the Art Bank. Let's just say that I feel they have bankrupted any thread of hope I may have held for them, as they flat out refused to exhibit two works by a local artist as part of their participation in the Visual Fringe Festival. To flat out tell the artist they, absoletly would not exhibit their work when they showed up to drop it off just days before the opening. What was so shocking? A collage with a small cut outs of a nude couple, with the make having an erection... I would expect this sort of censorship, in association with the Fringe Fest if these were to be exhibited in a traditional "business", but when it comes to an art gallery/venue censoring art, WTF. The Fringe Festival, in theory is supposed to be about art that is on the "Fringe".
August 20, 2008 at 11:13 AM
It is a beautiful photo, great job!
It bis very disapointing that the fair took it down. I'm a Hoosier and the Fairs action does not represent my taste/wishes.
Hopefully the Fair Board will grow from this bad experence.
Tim Harmon
August 20, 2008 at 2:19 PM
I am probably alone in this sentiment but I love it when is something is censored. Not only does it give me hope that someone is still attempting to hold on to a moral compass (some a little too tightly) but speaking up against art gives that art a whole new dimension, energy and power. Art that toys with the viewer's personal comfort or expectations loses effect when we don't have limits and boundaries. As long as there are both people who want to see and show ALL forms of art and people who want to criticize and censor said art I am happy. Is that weird?
August 21, 2008 at 3:31 AM
n.,
I think I understand where you are coming from and that sense of making a stand on principle. The sad problem we see too often in censorship is the complete cliched yawns that people decide to censor (nudity, religious imagery, curse words). I kind of snicker at the idea, as James (above) mentioned where he was once censored because someone was offended by his use of color. While weird, I think I would almost prefer that as a reason than the lame, cliched, eroticia/religious, censorship. It is just tired.
I read that a georgia newspaper last year ran an article in the paper about the Sisten Chapel and censored the naked adam. You would think, if its safe enough for the Catholic Church, it should be safe enough for Georgians.
Or what about the Star (or was it Indy.com, same thing really) who recently commissioned local artist Casey Roberts to produce a nude portrait for an article they were publishing only to censor it. Why bother to commission a nude if you are going to censor it.
August 21, 2008 at 8:37 AM
This picture is BEAUTIFUL. Hopefully the artist isn't too disheartened.
August 21, 2008 at 10:19 AM
This photo is intended to titilate a certain group, who will find it both slightly subversive and endearing. "OMG! Did you see Jackie's wedding photos? I love the seated shot." It's a chance to show that you get it, and are not offended. It's a highly staged "candid" moment, like most wedding photography.
Another group will find it truly subversive and want it censored.
Others won't care at all.
This seemingly fleeting, magically caught moment of true intimacy, where the bride is (surprise!) spread eagle to the camera, with her gown bunched up and her veil pictorially spread out, is repeated by other brides and other photographers shooting other weddings.
Like most wedding photography tropes, it's obscenely goofy.
August 21, 2008 at 11:14 AM
Get real people! Her legs are spread in a sexually suggestive manner in a dress. It is a little obscene, which is the point, and should be a private moment for the couple, not every little elephant ear eating 8yr old that walks by. Her crotch is nearly showing. It was a show open to all ages with no warning of content.
As a photographer and a parent I love this photo but would not want my kids of a certain age looking at it without even a warning that it was there.
How many of you would hang this photo in your homes for others to see? For children to see? How many of you would take your kids to play in a home where this hung over the fireplace?
I am so so sick of people claiming the "conservative censorship, Hoosiers have no clue" crap whenever someone has the decency to think about others. About kids and how over sexualized our society has become. What ever happened to teaching our daughters modesty in public places?
I really usually respect your opinions Scott but maybe you should not be so selfish as to think that your sexual taste should be imposed on the children of others.
August 21, 2008 at 1:12 PM
August 21, 2008 at 3:16 PM
I think most brides would love to have such a photo from their big day. Personally I find it gorgeous even though I am an editor of a blog with the name "Hoosiers" in it.
August 21, 2008 at 4:06 PM
It is about context.
Kids look at sports and see something different than they do this photo. I have yet to see volley ball players spreading their legs and leaning into each other suggestively with a promise of sex in any public place or broadcast.
A pre-pubescent boy would look at this and their eyes would jump instantly to her crotch because the interaction between the two is about physical/sexual intimacy. The only thing the kid would get out of this photo is a chance to stare, trust me, I know from experience.
Kids do not have the mental capacity to pick up the nuance of everything emotional in this image. For them it is all about the crotch shot and the inviting way in which she is spreading her legs. That is the point of this picture, otherwise, why are her legs spread?
Don't get me wrong I like this photo a lot, a whole lot, but I do not think that it is fair to show something that is this blatantly about the promise of sex at a family event. And I do not think that it is fair to criticize people for taking action against it.
Why do we not have billboards of female underwear models spreading their legs out in the general public? You can choose to take your kid into Victoria's Secret with the expectation that those types of images are in the store but not on the windows facing out.
It is not about “liberal” or “conservative” and it is not about being a Hoosier. You can be what you want in the privacy of your own spaces but in state sponsored public spaces you should have enough respect for other people’s values to at least give them the option to choose. That is the same reason you can not have sexually suggestive photography at work. How would you feel if this was sitting on the desk of your child’s teacher?
If you disagree with me, I volunteer to shoot this same photo of you and your significant other. Put it on your desk at work and see how well that goes.
And why do you feel the need to write my whole name twice? I know who you are talking to....GEEZ!
August 21, 2008 at 4:35 PM
I like nut sacks... heh eh heh.
FIRE! FIRE! heh eh heh.
August 22, 2008 at 5:55 PM
I think next year the Art exhibits should have a peep show for art people don't like just like the old time fairs did with midgets, dwarfs, and freaks. Charge extra admission! I liked one posting on the Star website that seeing some fair goers in their short short daisy dukes and belly hanging guts causes more visual discomfort than this photo.
August 26, 2008 at 6:47 PM
Scott,
You are going to love this... I wanted to host the Naptown Roller Girls' Calendar Release party in our office gallery space and was told I couldn't because the owner's fiance doesn't like the roller girls. HA! Good thing I love censorship or else I would be pretty salty! ;-)
Post a Comment