But museums normally don’t prohibit photography of the work they own (the permanent collections), and that is what you find on the postcard stand in the shop, so your arguments don’t hold water.

Both Paddy and Fred suggest that the use of flash might justify photography prohibitions in museums, Paddy for the nuisance it causes, Fred for the threat to the art.

But at MoMA in the galleries where photography isn’t prohibited, I see guards totally indifferent to flash use, so once again the museum’s policy can’t be defended on the basis of an argument being made in this post.

In my own practice, for one thing, I try very hard not to be intrusive, and not to cause people to feel they must go around me, when I’m using a camera anywhere. For another, I totally abhor flash photography, both the operation and the effect, in almost every application. I never use a flash myself, and it annoys the hell out of me in both museums and galleries.

I absolutely cannot believe Museums don’t post advisories about flash photography. There really are reasons to be less concerned about damage to most new work only temporarily on display, and my very public statements have made it obvious that I don’t like the idea of visitors being policed, but I would not have a problem if galleries also posted such messages.

Thanks for your thoughts. Fred provided a pertinent link in the thread that didn’t make it to reposting from the AGO, a museum that is camera friendly, but doesn’t allow flash photography.

As for MoMA, I assume the photo taking climate is different than at PS1, whose guards hound you if you look like you might have a camera, because they don’t own the works. I’m not sure I think it’s that retrograde for the MoMA to institute a no flash photography rule - though I don’t know if that’s what you are suggesting.

The reason for such a sign should be consideration for the comfort of others. I didn’t mention it in my first comment, but there now doesn’t seem to be any science to support the argument that flash photography damages the art, and that includes photographs. This could explain the current indifference on the part of the MoMA guards in the museum’s permanent galleries, but it doesn’t help the visiting experience of those not flashing.

Actually, not so friendly. Did I miss something?

I attended MoMA a couple of weeks ago. A woman took a flash photograph of a Matisse, and a guard approached her and made her delete the shot. I would have felt okay if he had hit her with a baton. That shit makes me crazy. (The assault on my viewing pleasure, not the proprietary issues.)

Yes I’m sure I’ve read that but I couldn’t find a reference during the discussion.

Does anyone have a reference to current research on this?

Fred and Jimmy are both cool but the conversation turned into one of economic detail for property owners (sic) rather than one of artistic principle. People shouldn’t be prevented from recording artworks (this includes drawing), but they also shouldn’t disrupt other people’s appreciation and recording of artworks so flashes are bad for that reason. Unless the gallery is empty. ;-)

It might be interesting to examine how experience is being mitigated by cameras and cellphone cameras for many people to a greater degree. Watch people walk through a museum and you’ll find at least a few who take a picture, move to the next work, take a picture, continue.

On a side note, my biggest gripe is when I respect a museum’s policy to not have photography and then go to the gift shop and can’t find a reproduction of the works I wanted to photograph.

http://www.boingboing.net/2007/11/13/photobans-at-pop-art.html

Note the comment from Isara, who works at a museum. She basically says that it’s the owners of the art that are uptight about photography, not the museums. Thus, why most museums are mainly okay with photos of their permanent collections.

So, perhaps the problem is with copyright law.

I too enjoy taking photos in museums and galleries too, and abhor flash.

One idea for a solution: You have to sign up for a pass by (1) signing something that says you’re only using the images for non-commercial purposes and (2) demonstrating that you know how to disable the flash on your camera. The pass would cost $5 and you’d wear it around your neck.

I was recently at Museum of Contemporary Art San Diego where I was stopped from taking pictures with my flashless cellphone camera. I wasn’t even trying to take a picture of any work - just my girlfriend. When I asked about this, I was eventually told I couldn’t use anything that could possible take pictures at all… even a low res cellphone camera.

How is this a good policy? I can understand the issue of gift shop income or artist’s wishes over documentation, but this seems like an out of touch, institutional sickness.

It makes me sad for the museum.

Consensus: flash photography hurts work.

As a former employee at MoMA and former security officer, I must say that for all the complaining that guards are completely indifferent I must stand in their defense and say that it is not only their fault for the constant photographic intrusion on the museum. The museum is a business, not a place of culture anymore, sad for me to admit so. Tourists are encouraged to arrive for the high admittance fee, and their experience is to be made more inclusive in that “art belongs to us all”, which is a false pretense to abuse paintings and other works through bland photography.

The guards try their best, but YOU try standing on post for 8 hours at a time (10 on Fridays), and you try to keep people well behaved without any real powers while at the same time attempting to keep the photographers from flashing back and forth. YOU try to prevent people from touching pieces, and then eating, and using the cell phone, I could go on just as you do when you complain.

Start appreciating the people who work there instead of constantly criticizing; it is their jobs but they have more on their minds than your comfort, my friend.

I’ve been in a dozen or so trips to Western Europe, and there’s always some moron who won’t bother to shut off their flash (either doesn’t care or doesn’t know how).