16.7.09
i want to be able to take pictures, fairly, as i please and with respect, wherever i go - especially in inspirational/educational environments such as art galleries and museums. i've been reading up on this mission impossible and have been entangled in a whole web of arguments why this could be too hard to come true.
there's the bad-bad-artists against the good-good museums stance, aka copyright issues: firstly, museums do not generally hold any copyrights for the artworks they physically own or exhibit. secondly, museums ~might~ be held responsible by the copyright holders ie artists to protect the holder's copyright within their four museal walls. thirdly, museums will just switch off any threat of copyright infringement by default as a consequence as anything else will be too hard to manage. (i haven't found any signs of a shared directive across museums on this copyright/protection issue so do believe that interpretations and actions are mostly down to individual and institutional contracts and policies. omg, just imagine the operational mess that comes with every major exhibition...)
then there's the museums-as-moneymakers conspiracy: museums would have a vital interest in not allowing photography of public domain artwork* from their collection as that would immediately affect postcard sales from their museum shop. really?? this seems a pretty stupid argument, i don't think so. someone who'd like to have a sketchy mona lisa snapshot on their iPhone wouldn't be in the market for a high-end mona lisa postcard reproduction in the first place. i would love to hear some museum employees' voices on this one, i don't think we'd be having much of a fight here...
picking up on the word reproduction, there's a slightly more esoteric conversation around reproduction and aura on flickr initiated by an actual museum containing rather interesting thoughts of actual people entitled "Why do people take pictures of works of art?"? so why are people doing such crazy things? some just want to capture the moment. some just want to capture themselves. some do create unique photographs, portraing the whole gallery space rather than any individual pieces of art (i just love the example of the photo series exploring reflections of art on gallery surfaces). some want to document a detail of an artwork that won't be covered in any kind of professional reproduction (a repro, i'm pretty sure, will always aim to produce an 'average' visitor's view on any artwork - which is the same as saying its product will be a compromise on personal seeing, more apt to please someone who _has not actually visited_ the artwork rather than a person who has experienced it with their own eyes).
so... where does that leave me with my quest?
there's no point in trying to convince museums and art galleries to change their policies long-term... camera phones will win. there's some short-term gains to be made though by making today's visitor experience less miserable. don't make people feel bad about carrying a camera, don't make them hide their tech like they had just gone shoplifting. be transparent and actively inform you visitors about your photo/copy policy and the reasons behind it. make sure people know which artist is ok with visual takeaways and which isn't (as soon as artists get individually and visibly marked... they might change their attitude). allow your visitors to photograph without flash as much as they like and as long as they don't go in full repro mode. if the artist/copyright holder doesn't mind, do allow them to go into full repro mode. have museum guides offering to take pictures of visitors in front of artworks. sell better digital photos in your shop and allow people to send and share them. (where's all your other digital products, in the first place?). last but not least, make sure your guides know whom and what they are supposed to protect.
ps i read in a quote the other day where a school girl was told to cease and desist sketching in front of a classic painting... much to learn from that mal-behaviour.
there's the bad-bad-artists against the good-good museums stance, aka copyright issues: firstly, museums do not generally hold any copyrights for the artworks they physically own or exhibit. secondly, museums ~might~ be held responsible by the copyright holders ie artists to protect the holder's copyright within their four museal walls. thirdly, museums will just switch off any threat of copyright infringement by default as a consequence as anything else will be too hard to manage. (i haven't found any signs of a shared directive across museums on this copyright/protection issue so do believe that interpretations and actions are mostly down to individual and institutional contracts and policies. omg, just imagine the operational mess that comes with every major exhibition...)
then there's the museums-as-moneymakers conspiracy: museums would have a vital interest in not allowing photography of public domain artwork* from their collection as that would immediately affect postcard sales from their museum shop. really?? this seems a pretty stupid argument, i don't think so. someone who'd like to have a sketchy mona lisa snapshot on their iPhone wouldn't be in the market for a high-end mona lisa postcard reproduction in the first place. i would love to hear some museum employees' voices on this one, i don't think we'd be having much of a fight here...
picking up on the word reproduction, there's a slightly more esoteric conversation around reproduction and aura on flickr initiated by an actual museum containing rather interesting thoughts of actual people entitled "Why do people take pictures of works of art?"? so why are people doing such crazy things? some just want to capture the moment. some just want to capture themselves. some do create unique photographs, portraing the whole gallery space rather than any individual pieces of art (i just love the example of the photo series exploring reflections of art on gallery surfaces). some want to document a detail of an artwork that won't be covered in any kind of professional reproduction (a repro, i'm pretty sure, will always aim to produce an 'average' visitor's view on any artwork - which is the same as saying its product will be a compromise on personal seeing, more apt to please someone who _has not actually visited_ the artwork rather than a person who has experienced it with their own eyes).
so... where does that leave me with my quest?
there's no point in trying to convince museums and art galleries to change their policies long-term... camera phones will win. there's some short-term gains to be made though by making today's visitor experience less miserable. don't make people feel bad about carrying a camera, don't make them hide their tech like they had just gone shoplifting. be transparent and actively inform you visitors about your photo/copy policy and the reasons behind it. make sure people know which artist is ok with visual takeaways and which isn't (as soon as artists get individually and visibly marked... they might change their attitude). allow your visitors to photograph without flash as much as they like and as long as they don't go in full repro mode. if the artist/copyright holder doesn't mind, do allow them to go into full repro mode. have museum guides offering to take pictures of visitors in front of artworks. sell better digital photos in your shop and allow people to send and share them. (where's all your other digital products, in the first place?). last but not least, make sure your guides know whom and what they are supposed to protect.
ps i read in a quote the other day where a school girl was told to cease and desist sketching in front of a classic painting... much to learn from that mal-behaviour.
0 comments 
