I just wonder if the Rembrandts in the 3D Castle were photographed before or after the big sweep a number of years ago, when they vacuumed the whole world (almost) for Rembrandt pictures to decide once and for all if they really were painted by himself. Those who were determined real were cleaned and exhibited at National Gallery in London (I think), owner permitting.
I have worked in a few smaller museums that did not allow any photography, and although the the light being damaging to the artifacts was the standard explanation, privately the curator and senior staff told us the real problem: it was a small museum (both were Victorian homes) that were only accessible on a guided tour. The problem with photography was that it really disrupted the tour because some people don’t know when to quit…a half hour tour could be stretched up to an hour or more because of one or two people who felt the need to photograph everything and anything multiple times. We did allow non-flash photography until this became such a problem that our scheduled tours were running late, into the next tour and generating complaints from the next group waiting to get in.
Some of these people fancied themselves professional photographers and would take forever and a day to set up just the right shot, and would frequently try to slink away from the group to go back and photograph something else. If I hadn’t worked there myself and seen these problems, I would probably think someone was blowing things out of proportion…but I witnessed these events myself often enough to know that it was causing a problem. Obviously not every photographer behaved this way, but it was often enough to be a problem and made my job a great deal easier (I was the tour guide.)
Additionally, we had some issues regarding pieces in the museum whose correct ownership was somewhat in dispute, and there were a few occassions when individuals from the camp that disagreed with the museum over who had owned/donated/ etc. a few particular pieces would come in, act very belligerent and asking all kinds of questions about these pieces, and they would make a big show (in front of the rest of the tour group) about how we were “stealing” or at least “misusing” pieces that were not ours, or not intended to be displayed in a particular way or something like that. These individuals not only made a big stink over making sure they got photographic evidence of our nefarious deeds, but they actually tried on more than one occassion to tape record the tour guide. Without getting into details, there were a lot of behind-the-scenes politics at that particular site.
I guess I just wanted to note that there are sometimes policies put in place for reasons that are only apparent to the staff, and sometimes the ‘official’ explanation is not the real reason, or at least the only reason, but the other reasons are not always something that can be shared with the public. Obviously my experiences do not apply to every museum, but I thought it was worth sharing.
Because I find flash photos annoying, I wish all museums would ban the practice. I’m always annoyed by people who take flash pictures; sometimes because it disrupts my concentration, sometimes just because I realize these tourists will end up with a terrible photograph of a great work of art, where the colors and contrast are an insult to the original.
OK, then there’s Lissa’s museum with the ban on non-flash photography: I agree with this ban, but for a different reason: a lot of amateur photographers (esp with digital cameras) THINK that they are taking a picture with no flash, and the flash goes off anyway! (It’s even happened to me!)
This makes sense to me in the situation I was asking about (Newgrange) as the tomb was really small. Only 26 people were allowed in at a time, and I can see how it would become clogged if everyone wanted to take a picture. It makes more sense than the UV thing anyway, as no photography was allowed, even non-flash photos. And they did allow photographs to be taken of the (mondo important) entrance stone, but then again that stone is outside 24/7/365. I’ll bet it was the size of the interior tomb that made them have the no photos rule.
I’ve encountered lots of different restrictions on photogaphy in museums, churches, etc. The problems of damage and copyright have been stated before. In the vatican, there was a strictly enforced ‘no flash, no tripod’ policy. They wouldn’t even let me set my camera on top of the camera bag for a long exposure. For many institutions it’s probably easier to ban photography outright than to bother with enforcement of specific limitations, for whatever reason.
Aren’t most museum pieces sufficiently old that copyright no longer applies? It would seem to me that a big chunk of most art museums’ collections would consist of classical and Rennaisance works.
If you really wanted a picture, couldn’t you just bring in a bright portable photographer’s light? I would guess they don’t have a sign banning those. But then again the guards probably wouldn’t let you use it.
Well that and the fact that the main point of the tour is to artificially demonstate the solstice effect. As you’ll remember, this involves switching all the lights out first. While nobody’s eyes will be truely dark-adapted, I’d imagine it’d be pretty distracting to have people flashing away in the dark, taking photos of the light beam falling across the chamber floor.
More generally, my attitude is the snobbish one: dammit, you’re meant to look at the pictures/objects, not merely gather evidence that you’ve been in the same room.
I am on the curatorial staff of a museum. We do not allow photographs because light is indeed very bad for objects. There is also the copyright issue. This could also be called the “lets sell $15 books depicting all the objects that cannot be photographed” reason. In addition, photography really does slow down self-guided tours. My institution allows photography outside the museum and people often take their sweet time in posing a photograph. Meanwhile, curators who wish to cross the field of vision to get to lunch are held up until the picture is “just right.” If it creates traffic jams like this outside, imagine how slow things would be inside the museum where people are all routed in the same direction.
One of my professors is from Russia, and he once visited the Hermitage. (Adjacent to the Winter Palace in St. Petersburg, then Leningrad).
He attempted to take photos of some Faberge objects owned by the Imperial family. A security guard took his camera, opened it, and exposed the film.
I saw someone in the Louvre taking a flash photo of the Mona Lisa, which is behind glass. It was a bit of comfort to know that all he probably got was a nice bright reflection.
Not the * artists’ * copyright, but the museum’s. They don’t want you to publish photographs of their “property” without proper credit, or permission.
I’ve also heard rumors that it might be for security purposes (but can’t confirm it) much like what you experience at the White House. Taking pictures of the inside of the museum might help thieves in planning a robbery: where the windows are located, where the best artifacts are, etc. (Though it seems to me a thief with a good memory could accomplish the same.)
**
[hijack]
You know, I was much amused by the security around the Mona Lisa, especially since right down the hallway, around the corner, is an even lovlier Da Vinci just casually hung on the wall. (I don’t remember the name. It’s the one with a woman who points back over her shoulder against a dark background.)
[/hijcak]
Er, not quite. It’s not the copyright of the exhibit that matters (assuming, that is, that it is in the public domain), but the copyright of the photographs taken of it. If a visitor takes a photograph, they own the copyright on that image. By not allowing visitors to take photographs in the first place, the museum can ensure that any photographs which do exist are ones over which they have the copyright.
However, this line of argument is now even more debatable than it was before. The 1999 ruling by a New York court in the case of Bridgeman Art Library v Corel Corp found that copyright cannot be claimed for exact photographic reproductions of two-dimensional objects. Whether the same is true for photographs of other exhibits remains uncertain and, aware that any ruling might well go against them, American museums are not in any hurry to try to test this in the courts.
In any case, the copyright argument only makes sense if a museum is prepared to devote resources to enforcing it. Large museums with numerous objects publishers want to reproduce and from which they can derive extra revenue have an obvious incentive to do so. The same is not true for many smaller museums. For many, the revenue from reproductive rights will be negligible. They would have almost nothing to lose by relaxing the rules. That said, visitors taking photographs are a nuisance. It’s just that no museum is ever going to give that as the reason for the ban.
Those are behind glass too though – which sucks. That’s how you can tell the very expensive paintings apart in that long hallway.
Banning photography in museums is ok by me and I’m an avid photographer. The reasons seem clear to me.
[list=1]
[li]Flashes are really annoying to others. If I wanted to walk through a strobe lit room I’d go to a nightclub. The subtly of a work of art is rarely revealed in the harsh glare of camera flashes.[/li][li]The average point’n’shoot photographer does not know or care about switching off the automatic flash on their camera. I know from experience you can repeatedly plead with audiences or spectators not to use flash photography, but there’s always a handful that are either too inept to handle even the simplist camera or figure the rules don’t apply to them.[/li][li]9 hours a day/ 350 days a year of that kind of barrage must have some effect on old and fading surfaces.[/li][li]Most photographs taken this way are going to be rubbish anyway. Unless you want a badly exposed photo of the wife, plus five complete strangers, in front of everything you see, just to prove you were there, what’s the point?[/li][/list=1]
When I went to the Louvre a few years ago, the Mona Lisa was i possible to see - behind glass, crowded by tourists taking flash photos that won’t even work anyway and prevent anyone else from actually seeing the painting. I’m glad to hear that security there seems to be better now.
I also think that, aside from all the very good reasons for banning photography, if it helps the museums make money from their own photographs, that’s not a bad thing, is it?
This is the painting I was refering to. (After seeing the title, the subject is male-- my mistake.) I don’t remember seeing any glass covering this painting. (Last I was there was in 2000. Perhaps it’s changed since then?)
Well, in that case the patrons are just out of luck : ) You can’t have everything.
-fh
Yeah, ** hazel-rah, ** they’re sorta screwed. I’ve tried to talk my curator into even just making up a souvineer booklet. (We’ve already got publishing equipment, and digital cameras.) So far, no go.
When I was at the Vatican last year, a guard noticed I covered the bulb with my finger when I took the pic of the Mona Lisa. He pulled me aside and yelled at me, making me feel like an idiot in front of 50 tourists…then let me be on my way. I still have no clue what he was saying to me. And what’s the deal with sitting on steps over there…you know how many times a gaurd came over and said “Not possible” to me? Too many.
-M