Ten reasons why you shouldn’t take photos in museums
posted January 20th, 2010 by EverywhereistAre you taking a photo?
Are you taking a photo inside a museum?
THERE’S NO PHOTO-TAKING INSIDE OF MUSEUMS!!!
These words often play through my head whenever I’m inside of a gallery or a museum. Even if a museum allows photography (hopefully without a flash) it just doesn’t seem right to me. And if it doesn’t allow photography, and you still try and take a photo? Someone should slap your mother.
Of course, I’ve taken a few forbidden pictures in my time (never with flash, of course). But that was in the name of journalism. And by journalism, I mean blogging. But this isn’t about me.
Also, I might have taken a photo of this installation at the LACMA museum. But Katie put me up to it.
It’s about those bastards who keep taking flash photos of art.
Once, years ago, I was at the MOMA in New York, and all hell had broken loose. It was a particularly crowded day, and everyone was taking photos. With flash photography. One girl literally got so close to Monet’s Water Lilies that I’m pretty sure her lens was touching the canvas. I nearly had a panic attack. It was a bad, bad thing. There were flashes going off all over the place, but the staff was too busy with I-don’t-know-what (drooling on their uniforms?) to notice. Seriously, if ever there was a need to bust-out some old school New York ‘tude, that was the time.
Then, as I passed by Andrew Wyeth’s Christina’s World, some guy asked me to take a photo of him and his friend in front of it. I had a speech prepared just in case this was going to happen. Something along the lines of “How DARE you reduce priceless works of art to photo opportunities? Do you think that will somehow give you ownership over it? It won’t. It’s ART. It belongs to no one and everyone, you miserable poseur dilettante.”
Of course, what came out instead was something like, “Oh, I can’t … I’m terrible at taking photos.”
I am such a wimp. But I still stand behind my convictions. And in case you would like to as well, here’s 10 reasons why taking photos of priceless works of art makes you a d-bag:
- It’s tacky. Seeing people running around with their cameras as they stand directly in front of a painting is, frankly, annoying as all hell. There’s nothing that screams “tourist” more. Don’t be that guy. Or girl.
- It hurts the painting. No, really. We’re talking about works of art that are hundred of years old. They can’t stand that much exposure to blinding bursts of light, hundreds of times a day.
- It’s distracting. Even without a flash, the click of your camera is annoying enough. With a flash? It’s worse than having Gilbert Gottfriend soothe crack babies.
- It creates congestion. Museums are often crowded enough without you standing in front of exhibits for 20 minutes trying to adjust your aperture. Move along.
- You won’t actually see the work. Instead of reflecting and appreciating brush strokes, technique, perspective, lighting, and all that other stuff that gets art majors laid when they talk about it, you’re staring at a 2″ x 2″ display screen on the back of a camera. You might end up with a picture of the Mona Lisa, but you won’t remember having seen it for yourself.
- The photos you take will be pointless. Without a flash, it will be blurry. With a flash? You’ll get a glare, wash out the painting, and probably do permanent damage to the work.
- You’re stealing money from the museum. Arts organizations are suffering more than ever (yes, even despite the $20 you just shelled out for admission) and museum store sales help a lot. Taking a photo of a painting means you won’t buy a poster or a postcard – you’re essentially stealing from the museum, as well as leaving yourself an inferior image.
- Cameras turn museums into tourist traps, instead of places of reflection. If everyone was snapping photos all around him, do you think Cameron could have had his moment in front of Seurat’s A Sunday on La Grand Jatte?
- You’re setting a bad example for future generations. It’s hard enough to get kids to appreciate art. The fragility of a painting is easily lost on them. And if they don’t understand now that these things are delicate objects to be protected, they likely won’t when they are adults. Especially if they see you march through flashing your camera all over the place.
- You’re damaging artists’ claims to their intellectual property. Taking photos of someone else’s work creates some weird legal situations. It interferes with an artist’s (or an artist’s estate’s) claim on their intellectual property, which the museum is taking lengths to preserve (hence, no photos allowed). If it keeps up, we’ll be seeing more and more examples like these bastardizations of Edward Hopper’s Nighthawks (though The Simpsons one is pretty awesome).
Of course, I know there are a lot of folks who disagree with me – whole Flickr groups are dedicated to the topic. But frankly, I just don’t think that one grainy image is worth the risk of damage to priceless works of art. What are your thoughts? Is photo-taking in museums taboo? No big-deal? A slap-worthy offense? Do tell … in the comments section below.
January 20th, 2010 at 12:26 pm
This is great advice, advice that unfortunately I had to give to myself. I used to like taking (non-flash) photos with my iphone in museums, mainly to remember the things I liked most, but also to use them as wallpaper on my phone. But I over time I realized that I was no longer just wandering through a museum to take it all in and spend extra time with works that I was drawn to. Instead I was constantly looking for what to take a photo of, which totally changed the experience for me. I’d like to think I avoided the d-bag behavior that would have impacted the experience of other visitors, but it definitely impacted me. So now I’ve reverted to my pre-smart phone habit of stopping in the gift shop at the end to pick up post cards of things I really liked.
[Reply]
Geraldine Reply:
January 20th, 2010 at 1:12 pm
Adam – I had the exact same experience, actually – I, too, think that if your flash is off you’re probably not part of the d-bag group, but it doesn’t make museum visiting totally different – and in my opinion, less enjoyable.
[Reply]
January 25th, 2010 at 2:31 pm
Saw this story, and I thought you’d want to see it:
http://consumerist.com/2010/01/you-break-it-you-bought-it-rule-does-not-apply-to-museums.html
[Reply]
January 26th, 2010 at 1:47 pm
Great advice, especially about the museum stores…..most people take crap pictures anyway, so they would be much better off bringing home something nice from the store. My great aunt traveled all over the world, but she didn’t bring home photos, she brought home souvenirs, things she passed on when she passed on, that are now treasured by her family. I doubt we’d treasure photos of those things as much.
[Reply]
May 26th, 2011 at 1:37 pm
Thank you very much for these advices! I am a Parisien and a regular visitor to Louvre. This museum used to not allow people to take photos, but apparently they’ve changed their policy. The consequence is HORRIBLE! 80% of visitors don’t stop taking photos (of which 50% with their smart phone.) A toursit girl (I know that because she didn’t speak French) dared to ask me “Excuse-me, would you step aside for a while? I want to take a photo.” My reponse wasn’t as wimp as yours. I said “You can surely find a photo of this picture on internet, with better quality.” And I didn’t step aside!
I glanced the discussion on Flicker community and learnt that some do that with quite a strong conviction. But they don’t talk about the fact HOW THEY ARE ANNOYING TO OTHERS. In a museum like Louvre, this is the strongest point.
[Reply]
Everywhereist Reply:
May 26th, 2011 at 1:54 pm
I LOVE that you didn’t wimp out. My compliments! I am going to be in Paris in a few weeks – I sincerely hope the Louvre reconsiders their policy by the time I get there.
[Reply]
Christine Reply:
November 19th, 2011 at 7:04 am
Oh my goodness. I love the Louvre, but the picture taking there is out of control. There are large crowds and congested areas around the famous works, and it’s incredibly annoying (not to mention harmful to the pictures). You’ll cry when you see what happens in front of the Mona Lisa. No Italian woman should suffer so. When I went, my friend Jamie and I added to our fun by pretending to be oblivious girls who “accidentally” interfered with other people’s shots. I highly recommend it. Oh, and check out the Flemish paintings of dead game. There aren’t many crowds, and they’re very cool.
[Reply]
July 11th, 2011 at 5:44 pm
Gee whiz! Can we find some reasonable middle ground? The most important reason *not* to take pictures, that I agree with 100%, is that it can be distracting to others. As such, it is a matter of having (or not) good manners. Did you know that those “priceless paintings” were in galleries that allowed smoking until quite recently, especially in France? And that actually galleries do benefit in their bottom line when they allow pictures, they get millions of dollars worth of free advertising, like, “hey, I went to the Louvre”, “you lucky dog!”, compared to, “hey, I went to the Louver, lookit these pictures I took!”, “SO coool”, I wanna see that also!”.
Then, it¡s all about diversity. My pleasure is to enjoy framing a picture, holding the camera steeeeeady in those darkened galleries, get a good shot. I don’t use flash, even when permitted, because I get better pictures without, depth of field, you know? And because of good manners, I limit my picture taking to those mostly empty galleries outside of established tourist traps. Never seen the Lisa and don’t care to. But my 3-D pictures of sculptures in the Louvre are quite something, I should share them. Never seen 3D of the Louvre, though it probably was done in the days of black-and-white.
Best to you!. BTW, they tell me that the Uffizi and the Galleria in Florence do not allow picture taking. You may enjoy those, I will be in the Galileo instead.
[Reply]
November 18th, 2011 at 11:26 pm
You’re an idiot!!
Except for your second reason (which explains why flash photography is out the window), you have not really given any good reason why photography should be banned from museums.
I agree that no flash photography should be allowed!
If I wish to capture a museum’s architecture and the building materials used, then, I feel, it is my right to do so. I will not be stealing anything! I will not be copying anything! I will never, ever buy a postcard or poster from a museum in any case!
(Please understand. I do not wish to photograph every painting, nor do I wish to be a distraction or obstacle to navigate around. I wish to have a photo of a room or display for my photo library to show where I was and what I did. (Yes I tend to photograph my experiences during my outings))
Today’s cameras allow low light photography without the use of flash photography.
Some rules need to be adhered to though:
1. You should not use a tripod. (A monopod should be used for stability)
2. You should not photograph everything you see.
3. You should not take forever to take a photo.
4. Always respect the people around you. Having a camera does not give you any
special privileges.
I still wish to have proper reasons why I should not be allowed to take photographs in museums!!!!
[Reply]
Everywhereist Reply:
November 19th, 2011 at 12:05 am
Hi, Joe! Thanks for your comment! I really like exclamation points, too! They’re awesome!!!!
[Reply]
November 19th, 2011 at 12:31 am
When I take photos in museums, I usually take photos of the crowds, not the art objects. The crowd around the Mona Lisa, for example, is much more interesting than the painting itself.
[Reply]
Everywhereist Reply:
November 19th, 2011 at 12:36 am
Gary – I actually do this, too (yes, I occasionally take photos in museums. Oh, the hypocrisy!). I just love seeing people milling about, admiring things. It’s fun to watch them.
[Reply]
Stan Reply:
December 24th, 2011 at 9:04 am
Crowd more interesting than the Mona Lisa? Sounds like you belong in a mall, not a museum.
[Reply]
Gary Arndt Reply:
January 1st, 2012 at 6:23 pm
Stan, you a) clearly have never actually seen the Mona Lisa, or b) you are a pretentious douchebag.
[Reply]
Everywhereist Reply:
January 1st, 2012 at 6:36 pm
Gary, you are AWESOMESAUCE. Seriously.
November 19th, 2011 at 12:36 am
I agree you obviously should never take them if they are not allowed (and obviously never with a flash), but it if is allowed, I don’t see the harm. I was happily amazed that the Hermitage allowed photography in about 90% of the museum. In their fabulous section on impressionist paintings, I actually walked up to the two security guards to make sure I could take photos. They nodded yes and looked at me like I was an idiot for asking. I got some amazing shots of paintings that I never, ever, would have imagined would have been allowed. Was a highlight of a great museum trip.
[Reply]
Everywhereist Reply:
November 19th, 2011 at 12:40 am
And yet, there are times when I’ve seen people ask if they could take pictures, and the guards have looked at folks like they’re idiots because the answer is obviously NO.
Maybe museum guards just like looking at people like they’re idiots?
[Reply]
Michael Hodson Reply:
November 19th, 2011 at 1:16 am
LOL, they might be, but in this case I was so interested that they allowed it (frankly, I was shocked) that I actually double and triple checked later. They do, in fact, allow it. Then again, they also have about 3-4 rooms clearly marked “No Photographs.”
I would hope in museums that don’t allow photography that the guards would actually throw people out.
[Reply]
November 19th, 2011 at 1:25 am
11. People engrossed in what’s in their viewfinder have a real knack for backing into, stepping on or knocking over other patrons, or worse still, other exhibits!
Don’t cheat yourself or others out of the REAL experience that is offered in these places.
The value of this was brought home to me when I visited the magnificent Kings College Chapel in Cambridge years ago. Since all photography is banned, I went without my camera and bought postcards & prints from the gift shop before I left. Having returned home I shared them with family & friends, all of whom were totally blown away by what they saw…and all the while I sat there thinking “they really aren’t even close” to what I had experienced inside that building. Even some 13 years later, the memory of it moves me emotionally and the pictures (which I just dragged out again) seem insipid by comparison.
Thanks Geraldine for touching on this without fear!! (I too am partial to an exclamation point or three!!!)
[Reply]
November 19th, 2011 at 1:56 am
Great post, and interesting to me as I have to deal with this topic on an almost daily basis ! I work in one of the most stunning palaces in the UK ( actually make that Europe, or the world, I admit I’m biased!). One if the biggest problems that our front line face is people taking photos in the rooms. The photographic policy has been relaxed over the years to reflect that it is now such a central part of visitors experiences wherever they go. There are some rooms where we don’t allow photography, namely the chapel as it remains an active chapel and is technically the chapel of a certain individual who’s grandson had a rather high profile wedding recently, and rooms in which some very high profile paintings are on display. Some of our reasons:
- the main problem is people focusing so heavily on what they can see through the lens and trying to get a decent shot they back up into objects and paintings, it DOES happen, these objects can’t be replaced!
- flash is hugely disruptive to other visitors, especially when lots are going off at once (and you would be amazed at how many people don’t know how to turn the automatic flash off on their own cameras)
- crowd control issues develop when people gather to take photos of particularly iconic items
-we don’t allow the use of tripods because 1) they can become trip hazards and I have witnessed unsuspecting people fall over badly placed tripods 2) they can damage the floor (not all come with protective padded feet- tip
for you, stick a tennis balk on each foot of the tripod -I still won’t let you use on though !)
-lenders conditions – museums and galleries rarely own all the objects in their care, it may be that one of the conditions in which an individual/organisation has loaned an object is that photography is not allowed. We have to respect that.
- linked to the point above, for some it is an issue of copyright, we don’t worry about that, but for some it is a real problem.
Let’s face it , most photos taken in these circumstances come out as poor quality and simply for practical reasons you’d be better off buying a postcard, yes we need the money, but they will be taken from an angle that you don’t stand a chance of getting on the visitor routes and will be better as a result.
My advice to all ….. Ask, and then respect that advice. Don’t take it out on the front line staff who are often
trying to enforce unenforceable rules which they have no say in. They really are ‘just doing their job’. I agree, they shouldn’t be rude. But equally nor should the visitors (and the amount of uncalled for abuse my team gets on a daily basis is incredible).
Thanks for raising the topic Geraldine.
[Reply]
December 24th, 2011 at 9:02 am
Your mental rant against the guy who asked you to photograph him is ridiculous. It was just a “neat” idea to be photographed next to a meaningful work of art, that’s all. It’s no different than being photographed with the Statue of Liberty or the Eiffel Tower in the background. Congestion and flashes aside, a mere photograph doesn’t “cheapen” or hurt anything. Claiming that some piece of art is above being photographed, or that photographing it with someone standing next to it is offensive, is ludicrous. Speaking of ownership and meaning and all that, how about the video clip copyrighted by Paramount that you scarfed for your little blog?
[Reply]
Everywhereist Reply:
January 1st, 2012 at 6:20 pm
Stan, you clearly need a hug, because you are a cranky pants. C’mere, you. Despite the fact that you smell like beefaroni and angst, I see the beauty in you, and wish to embrace your squishy humanity.
[Reply]