November 15, 2004
Taking Photos of Light Is Strictly Verboten
Even though one of Dan Flavin's light sculptures is clearly in view to those outside on Pennsylvania Avenue, the National Gallery will scold you if you attempt to take photos of Flavin's light from inside ... even if it is with a crappy 1.5 megapixel cameraphone. That's what a DCist reader informed us over the weekend, sending the clandestine photo to us.
It is art, but it's not the Sistine Chapel either, with camera flash sensitivities. But perhaps we missed this lesson in science class. Can camera flashes damage other light sources?
|
Advertisement: DCist Continues Below!
Post a comment (Comment Policy)
No, flash shouldn't in any way harm that art. That said, several museums and popular indoor photo destinations in DC do not allow flash photography because it's a nuissance to other visitors. Almost none allow tripods (which is how you can get around needing a flash).
If you're dying to do indoor photography of art displays with flash, the National Museum of the American Indian is the friendlist I know of for flash photoraphy.
Ok, now aside from flash stuff, there's the issue that creators of art works are increasingly policing their copyrights by including the demand of "no photography" to museums displaying their work. Actually, a great deal of art--and now even modern buildings--are granted copyright protection. The fact that they're clearly visible doesn't change that. For some more informaiton: http://www.photosecrets.com/p14.html
Yeah, thanks to this move toward "ownership society", we're increasingly getting less and less rights to record and make representations of our everyday reality and experiences.
We've forgotten that copyright privlidges were put in place, ultimately, to benefit THE PUBLIC, not the maker of a piece of art or an idea. Lately copyright protection has been asking the question "how can we best protect the rights of creators" instead of what it should be "what temporary rights do we need to extend--and no more--in order to provide enough incentive for innovation while getting those innovations into the public domain as quickly as possible"
It has absolutely nothing to do with the flash, but probably the fact that most of these works of art are not in the NGA's collection, but loaned from other collectors and institutions. The exhibition was co-curated by DIA and if memory serves me correctly, DIA Beacon does not allow you to photograph their works. There have been exhibitions of paintings at the National Gallery that haven't allowed you to take photographs. It's a matter of where the works came from and what their owners allow.
Screw MoMA and their $20 admission fee!
I think I see the inspiration for a terrific anti-copyright art project in the making.
How about an online exhibition of anonymous cell phone camera images surreptiously taken inside D.C. art museums featuring works of art that are not supposed to be photographed?
At MoMA in New York, with its socially conscious and poverty sensitive new admission fee of $20, such stolen images way soon be the only way most Americans can afford, or would even be willing to see, contemporary works of major art and international art superstars.
Sincerely,
James W. Bailey
Flash photography should not be permitted because the exhibition is made of light (generally speaking), and light from external sources would interrupt the exhibition. I imagine a flash might not be the most pleasant thing for the eyes in the midst of a fluorescent light exhibition, but I'm not sure about that.
The non-flash photography prohibition seems a little more heinous, but if you consider how many people would like to take pictures, the ban serves the public. It wouldn't make for good art-seeing if everyone was mugging in front of their favorite Flavin.
Sorry to be the school ma'arm—I'd've taken a picture, too, but the NGA is here to protect us from ourselves.