Personally, I get really annoyed when museums or galleries ban photography. I think using a flash or a tripod should certainly be banned, but outright banning of snapshots is to me, just ridiculous. It's a Luddite's reaction, it's a fool's errand. I understand that there are copyright issues, but please, let's be realistic: ubiquitous snapshots are here to stay.

Everyone, meet the 21st Century. She'll be with us for the next 992 years.

The sanctity of copyright in an age of endless (and near free) digital reproducibility is ludicrous, especially in a gallery/museum setting. The frothing panic some angry gallery attendants work themselves into over shitty little digital camera or cellphone shots astounds me (by the way, what's up with that? It seems the more established the museum, the meaner the staff. One time I was literally yelled at and shadowed at Houston's CAM for DARING to question their photography ban, even though I didn't have a camera with me). Where does this come from? I have a feeling it's some modernist hangover bullshit. Get with the program, boomers (and everyone else)!

A digital snapshot means next to nothing. Look at Flickr, Picassa, Myspace or Facebook: it's filled with pedestrian compositions and blurry party shots. The Web 2.0 has (thankfully) destroyed the sanctity of image recording technologies. Look at YouTube!

If anything, allowing digital snapshots in galleries and museums might actually increase attendance. Let's face it, outside of our little bubble, nobody really cares about contemporary art. Most people in this country will probably never step inside a museum or gallery unless it's either forced, or there's a party inside. If it's not on TV or the Internet they don't care. That's another great thing about digital snapshots: it's free press, for chrissakes. Maybe someone will see a shitty cellphone picture of his/her friend's museum outing, do a little bit of googling, and decide this looks pretty interesting, maybe (s)he'll check it out. We need all the help we can get.

So let's get to the links:

"No Photo: A Discussion on Museum Photo Policies," on Art Fag City talks about how photography bans are sometimes an economic thing, because shitty cellphone snapshots will stop people from buying overpriced tchotchkes at the gift shop.

"I (...) have little patience for museums and galleries who don’t allow photography. Generally the press is excluded from this policy, but since you basically need to be wearing a hat with a flashing red light reading blogger to keep the guards from harassing you, it seems to me much easier to just let people take pictures as they please. The concerns of the museums are much more complicated than this however, and while I tend not to have too much sympathy for museum stores worried about the loss of postcard sales when they are charging Louis Vuitton rent, the issues they raise need to be discussed."

"Warhol is turning in his grave" by Cory Doctorow, on The Guardian Unlimited looks at the irony of banning photography at a Warhol show because of copyright concerns.

"So what's the message of the show? Is it a celebration of remix culture, revelling in the endless possibilities opened up by appropriating and reusing images without permission?

Or is it the epitaph on the tombstone of the sweet days before the UN set up the World Intellectual Property Organization and the ensuing mania for turning everything that can be sensed and recorded into someone's property?"

"Museums are not the Enemy " on Musematic responds to Doctorow's essay, offers a very lucid, rational and logical defence of museums, and has a fantastic discussion going on in the comments.

"With all of that said, I would like to see museums take a more proactive approach, if possible, to securing copyright releases for photography in galleries and educating their staff properly about copyright issues."

And finally, check out Strictly No Photography's Art section,  because the future cannot be stopped.

Add Comment

photographers should be waterboarded. written by fanny pack on January 29, 2008, 10:15 pm "If anything, allowing digital snapshots in galleries and museums might actually increase attendance." this post is filled with b u l l s h i t. re: photographers should be waterboarded written by Ivan L on January 30, 2008, 8:00 am oh wow! that's really constructive criticism, fanny pack! thanks a bunch for participating in the discussion and raising such fascinating and interesting points. ... written by portafoy on January 30, 2008, 2:33 pm I was in a museum recently that forbids photographs. It was the Museum of Contemporary Art in Chicago. Ironically, the show I was there to see was Thomas Struth's Museum Photographs. I was chastised for taking a photo in a museum of a photo taken in a museum. I thought it was laughably stupid. ... written by Ivan L on January 31, 2008, 7:12 am Unfortunately, it feels like the debate is mostly driven by laughable stupidity and an almost pathological deference to the status quo, portafoy. Case in point: the Lichtenstein show at AMOA. Almost every single print in the show is nicked imagery, and absolutely none of them can claim to be one of a kind. And guess what? No photography there. And their guards are some of the meanest in town. It's a sticky situation on most sides but it's also a situation where nobody who has any real power to change things seems to be stepping up. There's a place for us written by Rainey on January 31, 2008, 8:06 am The Amon Carter in Ft. Worth has always allowed photography -- you just sign a little release that says you won't use the images commercially. I've always wished other TX museums would follow suit. Even getting permission to take press pictures can be a pain. ... written by ktodora on February 1, 2008, 4:16 pm Many museums allow for photography in their permanent collection. It's when you are dealing with work that is on loan that things get tricky. Most likely it is the decision of the individual or institution that loaned the object as to whether the object can be photographed. The outlawing of photography of anything on loan has to be seen as an easier solution than to working stipulations into a contract. PLease Pst Original Blog Writing Next Time written by MsDoubleday on February 8, 2008, 8:44 am Hello, Why did you plagiarize this post from the ArtFagCity Blog? I've noticed lots of stolen material in your blog posts in the past, mainly chunks of text copied and pasted from other sources, but this whole thing was pretty much lifted from another blog. Is that really the best Glasstire has to offer? people stealing blog posts from other, better blogs? Control C, Control V: The new language of journalism. Ok, not so fast written by MsDoubleday on February 8, 2008, 9:31 am I guess 'plagiarize' wouldn't be the right word when you cite and link to his blog. But still, can't we have a NEW blog post about art in Texas? Isn't that what this site is about? The only original writing in your post was a little bitching and a personal anecdote. Wasn't it you who was just asking for more 'Professionalism'? Blog Etiquette written by Dylan on February 13, 2008, 9:00 am First of all, the idea that a glasstire blog should only concern itself with 'Texas' issues, and ignore any subject that might also have some relevance outside of Texas is pretty ridiculous. Secondly, raising the idea that art-blogs are much more complex than some links, some personal anecdotes, and even some criticism(bitching) shows a pretty poor understanding of what a web-log is to begin with. Thirdly, the purpose of the comments section is to engage in some meaningful discussion, not to immediately descend to petty quips and misinformed insults. PS Accusing a writer of plagiarism after they have clearly cited a source is at the very least lazy and at worst defamation. Not cool MsDoubleday.

Write comment

You must be logged in to post a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.