Fifteen years ago the National Gallery of London ran a 3-year trial and found that 400,000 photoflashes caused no more damage to paintings than the normal gallery lighting did. For a summary see:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg14519701.500-old-masters-will-not-fade-in-a-flash.html

See also the same conclusions published in Museum Management and Curatorship, 1994, Vol 13 (1) p.104.

Internet postings are full of assertions and occasional anecdotal stories of damage caused by flash, but I have failed to find a single piece of evidence backed by science or experiment.

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).

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.

Consensus: flash photography hurts work.

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.

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.