Photo-sharing for pictures taken where you are not allowed to take them
Strictly No Photography is a photo-sharing site for pictures taken where you are not allowed to take them.
(Shown here: Zev's Liquidated Logos, taken at Lazarides Gallery london. Photographer: Betty.)
Link (Via Laughing Squid)
the latest
latest episodes
To be fair, while most "no photos allowed" area are ridiculous and unnecessary (Areas in Chicago come to mind.).
Others have a very valid reasons. Some ancient paintings can be slowly destroyed by constant flash photography (much like leaving the works out in the sun will destroy them.) and people are often too inconsiderate or inattentive to take pictures without their flash.
This past summer, I went to the British Houses of Parliament and they didn't allow photography at all in there.
My suspicion is that it had less to do with tradition and more to do with merchandising, considering that on our way out, we were able to buy merchandise with photos of those very places we were prevented from photographing. This after spending far too much on a ticket for admission.
Some ancient paintings can be slowly destroyed by constant flash photography (much like leaving the works out in the sun will destroy them.)
I wonder if Mythbusters has ever tried to debunk this. It's always sounded completely ridiculous to me, considering how little energy a camera flash puts out compared to the room lights.
I have a photo with me ostensively holding a Pizza Hut tray while sitting under a "McDonalds Costumers' Only" sign. Inside a no-photo mall, before you couldn't tell of someone was taking a photo or having trouble reading their mobile phone.
Man On Pink Corner:
Which is why such paintings aren't displayed or stored under room lights. Many museum exhibits, for instance, are displayed in very dim lighting, with special (blue, often) spot lights on the exhibits themselves.
Camera flashes do put out a pretty intense packet of energy (albeit for a very brief time); it wouldn't surprise me if thousands of flashes a day had a nasty effect on 400-year-old pigments. Certainly six months in direct sunlight will wreak havoc on most modern pigments; is a constant barrage of flashes over the course of decades likely to do less damage?
But there's another very good reason to forbid flash photography in museums: it's hard to appreciate art in any kind of serenity with flashes flashing every few seconds. If we're voting, I'm in favor of the no flashes/no cell phones rule in museums (other than the kid-oriented ones).
At the Harvard museums (as I learned a few weeks ago), camera passes are available for free, but you first need to sign a form stating you won't use your flash. It seemed reasonable to me, particularly since my camera has an anti-shake feature built in that allows me to get pretty good shots in low light.
Mark - great find, this site looks like fun. You should also know, there is at least one healthily active Flickr group devoted to the same pursuit:
You Can't Take Pictures Here!
I'm sure there are others; that happens to be the one I am in. Cheers...
Well, you sure as heck wouldn't want to use blue light for that purpose. Red would make more sense.
I definitely agree that flash cameras have no business being used in a museum. I just don't buy the rationale.
If you don't believe that flash photography causes damage, why does Lindsay Lohan look like she's 50 now?
This summer I took a picture of my boyfriend and I waiting in a long line of people all wanting to pay to get to the top of the Empire State Building, and was greeted with several shouts of "NO CAMERAS!!" from the security guards. Apparently, if you take pictures inside the Empire State, you are a terrorist. That, or you are trying to document your summer vacation in NYC. I'm not sure which excuse is more likely.
re the Empire State Building thing...
It's a good thing that there are no photos of the Emipre State Building in any photo, art, architecture, planning, tourist books or websites isn't it?
Stupid gits.
Photography in museums is usually forbidden because of copyright issues. One could conceivably photograph, say, Warhol's Marilyn and sell the prints.
Flying Dutchman:
For modern exhibitions, you're absolutely right. Often the work of a living artist, even in a museum that usually permits photography, will be displayed in a no-photo zone. The artist (usually) holds the copyright, and it's within his or her rights to forbid copying.
Most art, though, is not covered by copyright. Anything from 1923 or earlier is in the public domain, with some exceptions, so copyright concerns don't apply. (Certainly Greek vase-painters don't retain their copyright!) In those cases, the museums that forbid photography do so on the grounds that they're private property. And they're within their rights to do that, too — you can tell me not to make noise in your restaurant as well, or kick me out for not yodelling the Star Spangled Banner for that matter — but it seems a bit mercenary to some people. Museums, they would say, should be more interested in exposing people to art than making a buck, and should therefore welcome (non-flash) photography.