SFMOMA's Director of Visitor Relations forcibly removes photographer, even though photography is allowed in SFMOMA
Robbo sez, "Thomas Hawk was forcibly removed from the San Francisco MOMA by two security guards at the direction of the over-zealous Simon Blint, Director of Visitor Relations. How ironic is that?
Why? Taking photos in the atrium.
SF MOMA policy on this? Their own web site specifically allows photography in the atrium. Hawk had also previously confirmed this personally with Thea Stein in the Marketing and Communications Department of the museum.
Didn't matter to Simon Blint who, according to Hawk, went all aggressive and power-trip happy, even trying to eject his companion."
If the museum has a photography allowed policy in their atrium as explicitly expressed on their website and someone identifies themselves as a photographer, artist and paying and supporting member of museum I would expect less hostility, aggression and harassment. Photography is an art and those of us who choose to practice the great art of street photography ought not be targeted by bullies like Blint. Many of the great artists, artists being shown in the SF MOMA itself were practitioners of street photography. It is ironic that the great Cartier-Bresson, who took thousands of photographs of unsuspecting people in his work, hangs in the museum while a photographer practicing the same type of work gets ejected by a power-trippy asshole. It's hypocritical and disappointing.Simon Blint, Director of Visitor Relations at the SF MOMA, Yeah You Asshole, Photography is Not a Crime (Thanks, Robbo!)
the latest
latest episodes
Stick to the Yerba Buena Center
From what I've read about/from Mr. Hawk, it's hard for me not to assume there wasn't some power-trippy assholishness working on both sides. And I write this as an occasional power-trippy a-hole. ;)
Besides being wrong and assholish -- it's also stupid. Some folks -- so inclined -- would now own the museum. Assault and false imprisonment lawsuits bring quite the damages. I'm not advocating a lawsuit at all, but Blint screwed up big time.
Shame on you, SFMOMA. I had a similar experience at LACMA (Los Angeles County Museum) when I tried to photograph their new BCAM building designed by Renzo Piano. More than not being allowed to photograph the building (this in a "country" museum), what upset me the most was the deliberately aggressive, we-own-you-and-can-do-everything-with you attitiude of the security guards.
when blowhards collide
I'd say it depends on how much gear he had and how disruptive Mr. Hawk was being to start off with.
NM, he says he had no tripod or flash.
Yeah, he's definitely not telling the whole tale. I've snapped lots of pix in the atrium of the SFMOMA with no issue whatsoever.
Plus, Hawk is indeed a not-very-level-headed blowhard. Exhibit A: http://tinyurl.com/58udmo
if Blint's smart the apology has already been made. How much insurance does this place carry? I sense an opportunity.
I am coming to realize that most security "professionals" are no better than hall monitors at my elementary school.
It's not enough for them to be incompotent, they have to go on a little power trip too...
#7- I agree that there is another side to this. I actually feel sorry that the MOMA guys pic is plastered all over the web right now. He may have been wrong in a big way, but Hawk has a history with this kinda thing, and may enjoy baiting people.
That being said, I'm for Hawks fight for photographers rights. Lots of ignorant security guards out there.
Its settled then, Photographs and Cameras should be banned period, not just at SFMOMA but anywhere within the United States, Videocamera's as well web cams, everything that can potentially show how a terrorist can assault the freedoms of ordinary red blooded americans (Nimoy you don't count green blooded vulcan you!) and lets face it, even beyond the use by potential terrorists it can be used to copy works without the permission of the author. This unfortunately means anyone in the camera business will probably have to get a job outside the us or find something else to work in, and TV will have to be replaced by radio again. However there has been this recent development where people are using radio to communicate with potential terrorist forces called black forest operators or something lke that. So we are drafting new legislation banning that as well... you can never be too safe!
"I am coming to realize that most security "professionals" are no better than hall monitors at my elementary school."
...You're not far off. Studies have shown that some 70% of the hall monitors and "School Patrol" volunteers also had a reputation of being school bullies, and 2/3 of them wound up becoming hire-a-cops because they were addicted to the power trip.
@ # 7 - Yeah, he's definitely not telling the whole tale. I've snapped lots of pix in the atrium of the SFMOMA with no issue whatsoever.
Correlation is not causation. Unless you've got proof that there's a "whole tale" not being told, you've just coyly insinuated someone was being dishonest without proof of his dishonesy.
Why not go beyond being coy and just claim the guy was lying? Show some guts.
Most important pull quote from his blog post:
"There were plenty of people taking photographs of the atrium using point and shoots that Simon did not target,"
Did you get that part?? Lots of other people were taking photos in the atrium and there was no problem.
From clicking around to other posts about this guy, he seems to fit a certain archetype of "OUTRAGED AND OFFENDED!" jerks who complain they are being "silenced" or "censored" when actually they were the ones being assholes.
I'm remembering all those stickers I used to see saying 'Skateboarding is not a Crime'... only now I want to make 'Photography is not a Crime' stickers.
@#13
I have proof that he's a jerk, see the link in my comment. He called for a photographer to BE ARRESTED. As in, shackled and taken away by the police. All with no proof of any crime whatsoever. For him to start waving the artists-rights flag now seems extremely dubious to me.
But, you're right, I have no idea what happened in the SFMOMA atrium. However, Hawk's proven himself a hysteric in the past, why trust his word now?
"Most important pull quote from his blog post:
"There were plenty of people taking photographs of the atrium using point and shoots that Simon did not target,"
Did you get that part?? Lots of other people were taking photos in the atrium and there was no problem."
Did YOU get the part where Hawk said he was using a Digital Single Lens Reflex camera?
The DSLR cameras look significantly different from the little point and shoot cameras.
Is this action a commentary on the state of Art?
Or on the state of Modernity?
I say the latter.
Why the distinction? It's a commentary on Modern Art!
I visit the MOMA often and there are always many people taking photos in the atrium. They usually have some sort of visually dynamic installation in the atrium and they practically invite you to take pictures there, as opposed to in the rest of the museum.
Chris Tucker wrote, "Did YOU get the part where Hawk said he was using a Digital Single Lens Reflex camera? The DSLR cameras look significantly different from the little point and shoot cameras."
This makes no sense. People use all kinds of cameras all the time there. Just a few months ago I took pictures of a kinetic sculpture in the atrium with my DSLR. Nobody thought it was some crazy weapon from the future or anything. Everybody knows what a camera looks like.
TWID: That Greenberg story has nothing to do with this one, that Hawk was not complaining to SFMOMA about the content of the art displayed.
I think the simplest explanation is that TH knows his rights, knows where he can photograph, and even goes the extra step of confirming the museum's OWN POLICY with museum officials themselves. If he's a jerk for standing up to the Director of Visitor Relations who contravenes this policy then you are likely a passive citizen for sure, or at least seem to require passivity in your fellow citizens.
@17: I don't know anything about cameras. But I guess his was fancier than the many other people who were taking photos in the atrium with no problem. It still undermines his whole "omfg they are stifling photography!" stance when he was the only one stopped in a room full of people taking photos. I guess there is a chance that the SFMOMA is prejudiced against fancy cameras. Or maybe, just maybe, this guy was being a jerk.
Seeing that he called for another art photographer to be arrested because he was upset by the content of her art, and called her a child abuser (with no evidence), in my mind puts him in the "I enjoy being outraged and hysterical" camp, rather than the "I believe in unfettered free expression" camp.
"Did YOU get the part where Hawk said he was using a Digital Single Lens Reflex camera?"
...Big fracking deal. It the quality of the camera meant anything with regards to copyright, then the MafRIAA wouldn't bat an eye at MP3s sampled below 128.
"The DSLR cameras look significantly different from the little point and shoot cameras."
and very MUCH like film containing SLR camera's that were still best-technology until 10 years ago. So I don't see your point.
Unfortunately, an entirely warranted lawsuit here would most likely result in institutions hastening their bans on photography.
@ Keratacon - sadly you're probably right, though we can hope it would hasten their ban on appointing authoritarian museum directors. But hey, Modern is Modern.
What I find interesting about this story is how many of us (myself included) seem to be prefigured to respond.
We only have one side of the story and it was clearly reported with a lot of subjectivity and the reporter's prior antics suggest he might be a bit of an escalating ahole. At the same time, the story, if true, is legitimately infuriating and we'e heard many stories like it so it seems plausible.
I seem to be among those who are more likely enraged by aholes whilst others appear more hostile toward photographic injustice. Lacking the full story, we've all nothing to do but guess at what really happened and it seems logical that our prior sensibilities predict what we believe. If I were a sociology professor, I'd find a way to sort people like myself (ahole haters) from the other types (camera freedom fighters) in advance and then subject them all to this same story and record their potential BB posts to prove the correlation.
As for those of you well balanced and rational people that refuse to take a side because you don't yet know the whole story, I would throw you out of the study because you're of no use to me.
So, to sum up- people are regularly using cameras in the atrium, including dslr's, and this guy Hawk is the only guy to be kicked out like this. Hawk also has a blog where he likes to rant.
I look forward to hearing more from the museum fairly soon.
I'm just curious if Hawk took that photo of Blint before or after he was told to leave.
"the reporter's prior antics suggest he might be a bit of an escalating ahole."
True that. That should not go without notice.
But something about the story reminds me of Cartman's refrain "Respect mai authoritai!"
If you look at the picture that Hawk was ejected for taking, you can see a man with a digital camera in the lower right hand corner.
This seems a bit over the top.
From Thomas Hawk's Flickr stream:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/thomashawk/2745611886/in/photostream/
I'm in complete support of photographers rights, but poking fun at some guy's goatee isn't fighting the good fight.
oh now I see, Hawk posts here as Estenwise
You know, the responses here have been interesting, particularly #27, who has made me feel (a little) ashamed for reflexively siding against institutional power.
The truth is that few conflicts are ever unambiguously one-sided (how few exactly? beats me). My reason (rationalization?) for tending to side with "the little guy" is that it's usually the powerful who get to air their side of their story almost exclusively. In this case, however, we have only thus far heard things from the other side.
What I think would be helpful would be not so much the museum's side of things, but that of some of the third parties, i.e., other museum visitors, perhaps even some of the other photographers in the area. Having a few of these people weigh in might give us the best hope for an objective account of things.
Until then, I'm just going to assume that there are important complicating details left out of the account (perhaps not even intentionally; our memories are often selective in our own favor) but that the authority figure guy was still going off on a power trip, which is annoying even if the authorities are sometimes (probably almost never) in the right. (Since I can't use tone of voice to convey this, suffice to say that I would say this in a coy manner, indicating awareness of my anti-authority prejudices, which I of course believe are totally justified.)
It has never ceased to amaze me that you can take pictures in the Louvre (and in most museums in France) but not in the SFMoMA.
Not only that, but even as a person who once received permission to photograph a specific work of art there, I was nonetheless immediately tackled by at least five short older Chinese docents when I attempted the picture-taking.
In the Louvre, in the salle with the Marie de Medici cycle, if you are observant, you might see one disinterested French student/guard with their nose buried in a book completely ignoring the loud obnoxious tourists as they literally poke at the paintings with their grimy fingers.
The Marie de Medici cycle is worth inestimably more than anything you will find in the SFMoMA.
I am not advocating poking at paintings with grimy fingers; I just want to point to a situation in which the SFMoMA has a faulty sense of superiority in relations to their public/bread and butter.
I love France.
SFMoMa is the TSA of Museums.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/thomashawk/161990986/in/set-72157594567688537/
hes pretty good at getting hassled for taking photos....
@secret life of plants:
I interned at a Chicago museum in grad school and the guards there were told that they will be the ones held liable if the "illegal photography" of an exhibition ends up out there, especially (*Gasp*) on the internet.
It's FEAR inducing nonsense of course. What museum has the resources to hunt down photo-criminals online, make them confess the day and date of their "offense" and match that up with guard schedules from weeks, months or even years back?
You make the security guards scare for their jobs, you give them a justification for over-reaction. You add nebulous policies at many places (or just plain old ignorance) and overlay a societal paranoia because "Terrorists" and "pedophiles" are out there en masse with their cameras and you get oodles of nonsense.
Blint told me that "he did not care" and that he needed to "protect" his employees -- employees that might appear in my photographs
As no other independent party present during the incident have posted their story, let me just make wild unsubstantiated guesses ...
1) another employee, noticing his exceptionally large digital camera, mistakes him for a private investigator taking photos of *him*. This employee got Blint to intervene. The employee was hiding out from the police, criminals, or an abandoned spouse; and does not want to be found.
2) Hawk was actually targeting a specific employee who may have some exceptional features. After taking one too many photos, this person became uneasy and complained to Blint.
3) Unknown to Hawk, he had just cut off Blint while driving to the museum. Blint, arriving later, recognized him and decided to exact revenge by having him thrown out.
Jokes aside, I agree with #7 twhid. There must have been something Hawk did that set off Blint. Not necessarily something he did that was "wrong". But most bullies are "triggered" by something, especially when they don't know you. If carrying dslr was really the only thing, then perhaps Blint's employment merits some reconsideration. Perhaps he needs a vacation to "destress".
twhid,
I'm not sure that being busted for exploiting children in photographs is really in the same ballpark as being busted for taking a photograph in a place where photography is allowed. He might be a dick, but that's poor proof of it.
Also, obnoxious people change the world. Polite, complacent ones don't, except by passively allowing things to get worse. If you met many of the people who created revolutionary social changes, you wouldn't like them at all. They're frequently loud, egocentric and irritating. But they still change the world.
Also, obnoxious people change the world. Polite, complacent ones don't, except by passively allowing things to get worse.
I don't think it's such a binary world. You can change the world and make a wonderful impact and still be a fine, polite person.
Having a strong point of view, expressing it with passion and tenacity doesn't require you to be a jerk.
what about the ones that seem polite - until the moment to strike?
hes pretty good at getting hassled for taking photos....
He's a photographer.
Antinous #40:
Mohandas Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., Nelson Mandella, Albert Einstein to name a few, but I only have to name one.
"Obnoxious" to some perhaps, but "loud, egocentric and irritating"? Not so much.
I will grant you that none of these peaceful men were complacent. Lucky us.
Sadly only one of them is alive today, but I suspect I would like him if I met him.
I have been asked to not take pictures several times both with a "point and shoot" and DSLR cameras. I always make it a point to ask why, and follow-up with emails and phone calls to higher-ups. If I ever receive any answer other than none or "we don't want you to". I will let you know.
Those people are the chosen figureheads for those movements because they were peaceful. For every saint, there were ten complete assholes fucking things up for the authorities at every turn.
Antinous, you're high on chocolate aren't you?
To Darth, MDHatter, Bookyloo, etc.:
People with fancy cameras do indeed get hassled more than people with point-and-shoot cameras. My Nikon 8800 isn't even an SLR, but it does have a long lens barrel (oo baby), and I've been told to shove off in the temple room of the Met (among other places) while tourists were happily snapping shots on all sides.
Why should this be so? I'm not sure, but I have a theory: people with fancy cameras look like professionals, and professionals want to make money from their photos. Many museums have a "no commercial use" clause in their photography guidelines, and even those that don't would rather they be the ones selling postcards and prints. Tourists with disposables aren't going to sell their snapshots, and their snapshots probably aren't going to be professional-quality anyway; someone lugging around a two-pound black titanium camera and a camera bag might be putting together their own coffee-table book. At that point, security guards (perhaps) class them as someone likely to disrupt, someone who's trying to make a buck when everyone around them is there to appreciate the art. Or they may remember people with the same kinds of cameras who've set up tripods or high-powered flashes and caused actual disruptions that they had to deal with, and start out with chips on their shoulders whenever they see an SLR.
People who don't know about photography might also assume that a big camera has more capabilities than a small one. My camera's been mistaken for a camcorder by one guard, in a place where still photos were permitted but video was not. (Never mind that my cell phone also takes video.) And, of course, big cameras sometimes do have more capabilities — better low-light exposures, better image stabilization — which "sneakily" gets around the photo-degradation that is part of the justification for the "no tripods" rule most museums have — where you used to need a tripod (or inhumanly steady hands) for a professional shot, now the camera might make it possible without one.
Obviously there's no hard-and-fast rule; most of the time, there's no problem. (Once both I and the guards were so ignorant that I took a couple hundred photos — with flash — in the high-security Lucasfilm "Magic of Myth" exhibit, and nobody said boo.) But I do draw more appraising glances and semi-friendly questions when I've got my big camera with me.
The fact that he was bothered when others weren't should not be used as evidence that he was doing something wrong. In particular, he had an unusual wide-angle lens on his camera, which probably made him look even more like he was either taking advantage of the photo policy or taking intrusive candids of employees.
Also, terrorists.
Someone should just announce the unwritten rule.
2 Megapixels or less only. Resolution must be limited to 800x600 or less. Higher resolution photography is a violation of copyright and of the EULA you implicitly agree to on entering the **.
(** = the SFMOMA, some other Modern institution here, and soon 'outdoors').
Who needs good photo's anyhow?
FYI folks.
The reason you can take photos in all kinds of European museums (inculding the Louvre) is because there are no copyright issues with the work. Modern and contemporary art museums have to deal with copyright laws, often including multiple overlapping international laws, that are complex and often unclear. Many museums can't even use images of objects in their permanent collection without first getting the approval of a copyright holder, even for works where the artist has been dead for decades. Major museums have staff members whose whole job consists of navigating these issues so that they can function.
SF MOMA has a crappy no photo policy, but it's their choice, and given the nature of their exhibits, it's an understandable one. It has nothing to do with Americans being security Nazis or any kind of cultural difference - in contemporary spaces around the world, you are likely to encounter similar policies.
I don't see how this is a civil liberties issue. SFMOMA is a private institution and they can set whatever policies they want and enforce them however they want. If people don't like it, they should show their disapproval by spending their hard earned money elsewhere.
And Hawk sounds like a twit.
can you fight a duel by private consent? Can your private company refuse to hire by race? Private institution or not, there is a law of the land.
Antinous, you're high on chocolate aren't you?
If I stopped, it would take me a month to come down.
Jerk or not, the guy was ejected, ostensibly for taking photographs. There are limitless possibilities as to the real reason(s) he was removed, but the fact remains: snapping photos at the SFMOMA is legal and even encouraged.
All three of the guesses in #39 are just as likely as "Hawk was being a jerk, therefore he's solely to blame." Frankly, I'm appalled at the number of apologists who wriggle their way out of the woodwork every time something like this occurs. Yes, Hawk may be an asshat, but unless his being a jerk was directly responsible for his removal, it's a completely separate issue.
http://img260.imageshack.us/img260/4470/funlok9ri8.jpg
#33 posted by mgfarrelly , August 9, 2008 11:59 AM
I'm in complete support of photographers rights, but poking fun at some guy's goatee isn't fighting the good fight.
Pretty sure that is another commenter of flickr, not the guy in the story.
/Have been called a "pederast" for having a DSLR at a place where other people were taking pictures.
//Sigh...
///Too many fucking stupid people alive.
Well posted icky2000
Snapping photos in the ATRIUM is allowed. Subby knew it.
"The reason you can take photos in all kinds of European museums (inculding the Louvre) is because there are no copyright issues with the work."
If you want to take any kind of serious photographic equipment into the Louvre, the Prado, the British Museum, etc. you have a commercial or artistic purpose in mind, or you wouldn't bother.
If so, and even more so if you want to set up in front of an exhibit, you need a permit, which you either have to pay for, or have a very good reason and good negotiating skills to get permission for free.
The exhibits themselves may not be subject to copyright but images of them are. Images of them are controllable by the institutions who hold them to enough of an extent to make restricting access worth doing.
Incidentally although they are totally ignored, practically every gallery in the Louvre is cluttered with 'no video, no mobiles, no photography' signs.
I don't trust anything I read with the name "Thomas Hawk" associated with it.
He's the guy who got an immigrant security guard at 45 Fremont fired, after badgering the guy to his breaking point, photographing it and getting it graced on these very pages.
I used to work in the building, and I knew the guard well. I had an opportunity to talk to him about the incident on his last day. He was a nice guy, and was working his way through school.
Hopefully he was able to continue after "Mr. Hawk's" little stunt.
Moral of the story: This guy has a penchant for acting like an ass, then making up a story where he frames himself a victim. Do not trust him.
A commenter on Flickr points out that the museum's policy states:
Cameras
Photography is not permitted in the galleries. Flash photography is permitted only with a handheld camera in the Atrium.
If you ask me, "handheld camera" is a bit vague - probably not the best choice of words to use in an official policy. I'm not sure I'd consider my DSLR a "handheld" camera, and if someone called it that, I might be a wee bit insulted. I think of a handheld camera as a small one with a wrist strap rather than a full neck strap, and one that can be held and used in one hand.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but if "handheld" meant "without a tripod," it would have been easier to say "no tripods." I think they probably meant "if your camera is crap, go ahead and take pictures of the atrium for aunt Dolly."
So Mr. Simon Blint had a relatively good reason to ask Mr. Hawk to cease and desist. Given Hawk's track record of blowing up about things like this, I don't think his characterization of Mr. Blint is at all fair, and while I fully support photographers' rights, something tells me Hawk had it coming.
Might I suggest that Thomas Hawk is as much a performance artist and activist as a photographer?
@Geektronica
Making up stories purely for the sake of Internet fame without regard for whos lives get completely fucked up in the process? I think sociopath is a more apt term.
@#60, I think the meaning of the term "handheld camera" is self-evident and not really open to interpretation. It's a camera you can hold in your hand without support from a tripod. The photographer wasn't using a tripod or a flash.
Secret Life of Plants @ 36, yeah, my favorite was the Mona Lisa where huge crowds are TOTALLY ignoring all the signs forbidding flash photography. I was meanly gratified to know that when they got their shots printed, all they'd see was a piece of glass with glare on it (since that painting is behind bulletproof glass).
Geek, I disagree.
The phrase "handheld camera" is clearly differentiating from "tripod-mounted" cameras.
"Handheld" does not imply value or quality at all ..well *cough* unless you are talking about certain 'massage parlours' ;)
@51 Ignoratio elenchi. Can you please tell me the law of the land that says one can always take pictures inside a private institution?
@60 Excellent point. If you look at Hawk's flickr there are plenty of photos taken inside SFMOMA galleries. I am sure they are familiar with his routine violations of their policies.
Tensegrity - That's not the question at hand, is it? I think that a straw-man proposition you posed to Ign ele as a rhetorical device, so you could knock it down easier.
I believe the point is that the photographer was pressing the museums limits as to where he could take photographs per the institutions own stated limits, which he clearly disagrees with, as a member of the institution. No public law required to get through that part of the equation.
Now, why was he arrested? That's a real question.
I'm just saying, "hand-held camera" is not a terribly precise term.
@Adam #61 - I agree. Hawk (not even his real name) has no business publicly maligning someone by name for the way he does his job. Complain about the institution, sure, but geez, the guy's at work doing his job, not on a personal mission to destroy the love of photography.
Yes, people who work for public institutions must be held accountable, but that's done through their boss and their organization, not by smearing them viciously and personally all over the internet.
Oh, and does anyone else see the irony? Blint was concerned that Hawk was taking photos of his staff, and now Hawk smears Blint's photo on his website and dubs him an asshole.
I guess his instincts were right.
Mr. Hawk acted belligerently in someone's backyard (so to speak). The SFMOMA is a private institution. They told him to stop, yet he did not. Someone acting like that in my tea party would receive a pot full of boiling tea in his face.
I find it appalling that people here are cheering him on as he violates another party's private property rights.
How can you demand one and not the other? When the other (private property rights) is the basis from which all other liberties and rights arise?
from some new postings on the site above, it seems hes seen taking "down blouse" pics of a moma employee - that got him rejected.
Jayel, I find it amazing that you would think of throwing boiling hot tea in someones face for being rude. I find it appalling that you bring up protecting liberties and rights in the next breath.
Yeah, let's really stick it to those SFMOMA security guards... Really?! The blog comments labeling the museum guards "ignorant" "hall monitors" are such simple-minded clichés. Those security guards at SFMOMA, LACMA, MOCA, and MOMANY are paid very little for being 100% liable for artworks that have enormous insurance value. Guards are outsourced museum employees (as opposed to all the other museum employees: curators, visitor services, etc), working for a private company that an institution like SFMOMA contracts out--what this means is that the private company signs a contract to protect the artwork and be liable for any damages to the artworks, often complicated by the amended demands of private collectors who donate the artwork to the institution. So, these "ignorant" "hall-monitor" guards are constantly pressured by some private company that has nothing to do with SFMOMA to not let visitors damage the artworks, which by the way, happens a great deal.
It wasn't a security guard who kicked him out. Not taking sides...just saying.
In the lobby? Where you can take photo's?
Takuan @ 51 said:
can you fight a duel by private consent? Can your private company refuse to hire by race? Private institution or not, there is a law of the land.
But there is a crucial difference. You are asking if being in a private institution allows you to avoid laws that say 'you cannot do X', and you are perfectly right to say that it doesn't.
This is not the same as saying that a private institution cannot make its own local rules. There is no law to stop you from sitting on a park bench humming Yankee Doodle Dandy but if you do it at my table after I've invited you into my home for dinner I am quite entitled to ask you to stop or leave. (Unless you're really good.) The same applies for the management of a restaurant if we've gone to eat there and you start your rendition.
Arguably, the key definition of a 'private place' is somewhere the owner can make rules like this. Now, they might be arbitrarily or unfairly enforced, unclear, or just plain stupid, and those are all reasons to complain about them. But they are not automatically invalid just because they prevent behaviour that isn't against the law in public.
if the public are invitees,it's a public place
No...it isn't...shopping malls invite the public but can limit protests within...or other political activity.
Something that I think needs to be looked at is what exactly SFMOMA defines as the "atrium". I'm going to assume that when they say that photography is allowed in the atrium that they're referring to people standing within the atrium on the first floor. From Mr. Hawk's own account, he says he was on the second floor taking shots down into the atrium. Depending on how you define it, both sides can easily be argued. I think SFMOMA needs to be a little more clear, especially if they mean that shots can only be taken from the first floor of the atrium.
I thought I'd stop by a clear up a couple of misconceptions. Here and at several other blogs the allegation has been raised that I was shooting down an employees "low cut blouse". A couple of points to consider.
First, the employee in question was not wearing a low cut blouse. She was in fact wearing some sort of yellowish/orangish sweater jacket sort of thing. An outfit which covered her neck and shoulders. I have a photo of her actually wearing it. I took the photo, which also includes Blint with his arms folded yelling up at me from the ground floor of the museum. I may publish that photo if need be to share with people the fact that this woman was not wearing a low cut blouse as has been purported.
Second. Have you ever seen what a photograph of someone taken with a 14mm ultra wide angle lens looks like when they are 15 to 30 feet away? They look like ants. I explained this fact to Blint but he said he "did not care," and that he "would not look at" my photographs. I would invite anyone from the photography department at the SF MOMA, someone who would actually understand what a 14mm lens produces to chime in and offer an opinion as to the likelihood that the lens could be used in any way to shoot "down blouse" shots.
Despite the fact that an unprofessional Blint was yelling at me in a crowded atrium from the floor below accusing me of spying on his employees with a telephoto lens, I was perfectly willing to give him every benefit of the doubt that he simply misunderstood what my shot was about. This is why I *offered* repeatedly to show him my photographs which he refused to examine. Instead he simply threw me out because he thought he could get away with it.
Even after I identified myself as a paying member of the museum he refused to examine my photographs or sit down and talk rationally about the situation. The open staircase from the second floor by the way is the most natural and perfect place to shoot the atrium from.
If you want an actual second opinion produced not by a troll, torbakhopper was there and witnessed the whole situation firsthand as well. In fact Blint threatened to throw him out of the museum as well and he wasn't even shooting! Here's his take: http://www.flickr.com/photos/thomashawk/2744778055/#comment72157606625060939
I was and am willing to give Blint every benefit of the doubt that he misunderstood what I was doing and that he obviously doesn't know anything about different lenses (a 14mm ultra wide is as far a polar opposite from a telephoto that you can get), but the way that he handled the situation. Yelling up at me from a crowded public atrium, arriving on the stairs with two security guards, refusing to examine my photographs or discuss the matter, trying to throw my friend out who wasn't even shooting. All of this was unacceptable and should not have happened to a paying member who financially supports the museum and pays his salary.
To Adam Weiss who says that I got his security guard friend fired at 45 Fremont St. I'm assuming you mean this guy: http://www.flickr.com/photos/thomashawk/130601011/in/set-72157606500847680/ Yeah, you know what, when some powertrippy asshole comes out of his station inside a building to flip me the bird and start challenging my right to take a photographs of the exterior of a building in public, something that I'm clearly legally entitled to do then yep, his photo just might end up on the internet. I'm sorry your friend got fired. Maybe next time he'll think twice about flipping off a photographer and trying to challenge their right to shoot in public. I suppose the better thing in your opinion to have done would have simply been to allow him to dictate where public photography can take place and where it can't because security guards deserve that power in our society. By the way, I later ended up with an apology from building management over that issue.
Anyone who knows anything about my photography at all knows that I am serious about producing a very large body of work -- I also have a very large collection of wide angle interior shots. I've published almost 15,000 photographs to Flickr at this point and shoot every single day of my life typically between 100 and 300 photographs a day. I've been published many times professionally and in print as well. If you'd like to see a sample of the type of work I produce to get an idea what I and my photography are about you can check this set here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/thomashawk/sets/72157600097882463/
I gave Simon Blint *every opportunity* to handle this situation and he refused. I warned him that if he simply ejected me without just cause that I would be blogging this. I am certainly within my rights to express my displeasure over such an incident. I was perfectly willing to give him the benefit of the doubt over his understanding of my photography but he simply refused. Simon Blint does not own the SF MOMA. He is a hired hand chosen to help manage a hugely important cultural resource of our time. A public a resource, for the public good. A public resource for viewing, inspiring and yes, sometimes even making art. SF MOMA owes the public a better experience than this. They owe their paying and supporting members a better experience than this.
My issue with Blint has nothing to do with what he "thought" I might or might not have been doing. It's how he handled the situation. The situation handled differently could have most certainly been amicable and not generated the turmoil that thus has ensued. It is unfortunate.
Thomas,
Whenever BB posts about something like this, our resident herd of victim blamers shows up to announce that we don't know the whole story, s/he was probably being a jackass and deserved it. It's a bit depressing, but many people prefer to side with the bully, even when it requires creating imaginary scenarios to justify their prejudices.
Pugnax: "Something that I think needs to be looked at is what exactly SFMOMA defines as the "atrium". I'm going to assume that when they say that photography is allowed in the atrium that they're referring to people standing within the atrium on the first floor. From Mr. Hawk's own account, he says he was on the second floor taking shots down into the atrium. Depending on how you define it, both sides can easily be argued."
It can only be easily argued if you've never been to the MOMA. Hawk was clearly still in the atrium. People take pictures unperturbed from even the level above where he says he was standing.
don't hear Blint, inclined to believe Thomas
Agree with Darth Grabass,
The winding black marble stairwells exposed to the atrium are a part of the atrium in the SFMOMA. There is a very clear change in environment, both in light and space, intentionally created by Mario Botta when one enters the galleries (via large double doorways).
Photography is clearly permitted from the catwalk far above the atrium floor as well, accessible by those stairs. If the museum wants to prohibit photography everywhere beyond the atrium main floor they need to make that clear. A sign reading "No photography beyond this point" at the turnstiles would work.
FYI, someone claims to have worked with Blint:
"I worked with this douche at ZEUM one block down from SFMOMA. I can attest to his short temper and general lack of people skills. He found no trouble in bullying the teens who worked there."
Antinous, some of us actually like to decide based on facts rather than conjecture.
http://www.fortunecity.com/lavender/monkeys/273/Akira/Filmography/Rashomon/rashomon1.JPG
Takuan you're a link n00b! But I won't judge you too harshly for that.
perhaps some things are over your head, Tim.
And yes, we are all selfish and looking out for ourselves in the end.
Well gee then educate me - but not with dead links.
link works for me, anyone else?
But, holtt, what's the mindset that always, inevitably and forever insists that there must be some secret information that makes the victim guilty? Moreover, what's the political basis of suggesting that someone should not get to enjoy the rights that others enjoy because we don't like them personally? It's a horrible pack mentality, always looking for a scapegoat and always making the victim the scapegoat rather than the bully.
neener neener neener!
http://www.toyvault.com/montypython/Tim%20Enchanter%20Hat%20-%20Large.jpg
It's just a link to the Fortune City logo. Presumably they don't want you to link directly to their images.
http://www.filmreference.com/images/sjff_01_img0406.jpg
Antinious I get your point, but I think it's a bit of, "What comes around goes around" rather than bullies and victims. Pack mentality here goes both ways, and sometimes it's not even a pack mentality - more like a herd mentality. Someone yells, "Jump!" and everyone just jumps.
Sometimes it's good if someone asks, "Why are we jumping?"
PS
Takuan, clicking the link gives me a generic Fortune City icon of the "Hey don't link to our images directly mkay?" type.
if you find yourself surrounded by primates and suddenly one starts screeching and flailing, it's a very good idea to screech and flail too. Otherwise they might decide you're the initial cause. Heard a good story from an ape film impersonator who was working a shot with live chimps in the mix (2001?). He found out quickly. At one point he got his hand extension bitten off - two aluminum wrist "bones", clean through.
To this story; from the evidence presented so far,my own judgment supports the photographer. Now let's see some capering before I bite you.
After some thought, no matter which of these two ends up being an "Asshole", using that word (in the title of the post!) to describe a specific person seems questionable. If what happened to Hawk happened to me, would I have done something similar? Very easily, as anyone could given the circumstances. Though, I will think of this episode in the future if I'm ever tempted to do so.
I've had bad days when I've been a jerk, or at least done something stupid, and thank god I wasn't posted on the internet to be publicly crucified for it.
Same idea probably keeps you safe in a cow stampede.
Of course you should ask yourself how you ever got into the situation (surrounded by primates) or in a herd of cows) in the first place.
they breed a lot
Holtt (and anyone else who can't see Takuan's image),
Some link-n00b advice: (hoho)
When you get to a no-hotlinking logo, like the one above, just reload the page, by clicking in the address bar and hitting enter.
The no hot-linking logo only appears when the referrer-page is from a non-fortune-city site (like in this case). So if you directly-request the page (by hitting enter on the specific address), the image willl load fine.
Hot-linked images for everyone! (except, not hot)
That didn't work for me, but hitting the reload button did.
Meh, same principle.. different browsers perhaps?
New advice. Just hit reload, however you normally do :)
As I see it Rashomon would be a great band name.
that or Jamaican itch cream
@ Andrew Peterson
--
To Adam Weiss who says that I got his security guard friend fired at 45 Fremont St. I'm assuming you mean this guy: http://www.flickr.com/photos/thomashawk/130601011/in/set-72157606500847680/
--
Yep, that's the one.
--
Yeah, you know what, when some powertrippy asshole comes out of his station inside a building to flip me the bird and start challenging my right to take a photographs of the exterior of a building in public, something that I'm clearly legally entitled to do then yep, his photo just might end up on the internet.
--
He told me he asked you to leave the premises several times over the course of close to an hour, and the you not only refused to do so, but that you also spoke down to him. Furthermore, he told me that he pointed out to you that you were indeed on clearly marked private property.
The exit signs which appear in the photograph appear on the rear doors only (hence, "Exit Only") which corroborates his story.
--
I'm sorry your friend got fired. Maybe next time he'll think twice about flipping off a photographer and trying to challenge their right to shoot in public.
--
Bullshit! You aren't sorry about any of it. You were selfishly abusing others to promote your own work and your company. If you had a problem with the building policies, then you should have taken it up with building management. Disrespecting rent-a-cops is not going to change policy. If you have half a brain, which it appears you do, you would know that. But lets be honest, you weren't just "minding your own business." When you were approached by the rent-a-cop, you saw an opportunity to exploit him for your own personal gain.
--
I suppose the better thing in your opinion to have done would have simply been to allow him to dictate where public photography can take place and where it can't because security guards deserve that power in our society.
--
I suppose the better thing in my opinion would have been to take it up with someone who controls the policy, rather than someone who is merely doing their job. Y knw, bhvng lk rl fckng dlt.
--
By the way, I later ended up with an apology from building management over that issue.
--
Certainly, because your lies painted the guy as a psycho who will act offensively at the slightest invitation. You riled up the Internet with your completely distorted story, they received complaints and saw that you had the power to generate bad press for them. They did what they had to in order to make the situation go away as quietly and quickly as possible.
Do not think for one minute that the apology from building management vindicates your selfish and spiteful behavior.
You ain't no hero for photographers rights. Y'r slfsh prck wh's t t xpit nyn y cn fr th sk f bltntly prmtng yr rt nd zmtb.cm r whtvr th hll yr lm strtp s. t's dshnst, t's sptfl nd t's jst pln wrng.
Your selfish behavior has already cost one person their job. When is it going to stop?
The irony is, your dayjob appears to be based on earning the trust of others. I sincerely hope that your dishonesty doesn't extend into that realm as well.
Adam Weiss,
Your argument is predicated on the notion that you can read Mr. Hawk's mind and intentions. Are you prepared to back that up with proof?
An interesting opportunity. Many of the original parties all heard, with the exception of the other principal of the main item.
Conventionally, the legal system would determine and resolve all this - but only to the ultimate satisfaction of the various law-trade workers involved and at the total caprice of some judge.
Wouldn't it be remarkable if all the parties actually were heard here, the facts reflected on and reconsidered, apologies made and reconciliations effected?
@Antinous
Fair enough. I see you've disemvoweled a few select portions of my comment. However, you have left the meat in, which makes the point I intended to make: (distortion)
However I would like to try again and posit this, perhaps in a less inflammatory manner:
Hs nyn cnsdrd tht prhps Mr. Ptrsn's lvly nd nqly nwswrthy ncntrs wth vrs thrty typs hs nthng t d wth phtgrphrs rghts nd vrythng t d wth prmtng hmslf nd hs strtp? nd tht prhps Mr. Ptrsn cld b ntntnlly sttng ths ppl ff bcs h my ndrstnd tht gd strs mk fr hgh htcnts?
I'm sorry for crapping all over your comments section with my personal grudge. But ever since that incident at 45 Fremont, I've been very angry. There's something about the upper class crapping on the working class that really gets to me. Throw in a mixture of distortion and wrap it up neatly under the banner of pushing a progressive cause and I get livid.
I wonder if Simon Blint is reading this?
He told me he asked you to leave the premises several times over the course of close to an hour, and the you not only refused to do so, but that you also spoke down to him. Furthermore, he told me that he pointed out to you that you were indeed on clearly marked private property.
An absolute lie. I hadn't been shooting the building more than 5 minutes before the bumbling idiot came barreling out with his middle finger at me. Even so though, had I been shooting the exterior of a public building for an hour I'd still be within my rights to do so. I was *outside* not inside.
The exit signs which appear in the photograph appear on the rear doors only (hence, "Exit Only") which corroborates his story.
Are you high? All this proves is that I was *outside* the building not *inside* the building. There is a public square behind the building on it's backside. That's where I shot the clown. Are you saying his middle finger gesture to me was somehow justified. The photo clearly shows me, and him actually, *outside* the building.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/thomashawk/130601011/sizes/l/in/set-72157606500847680/
tor,
Please don't do that again.
truth can be served with temperate words as well or better. In fact, whoever speaks the plainest and calmest is more likely to be heard. I enjoy being angry too, especially if I can revel in righteous anger - but what is the real object here?
Well said Takuan - good words for all parties.
@ Adam Weiss
Do you stop to consider that, as you re-aquaint people with old news, your old freind's current or prospective employers may now become aquainted with his past behaviour (yeah, even giving him the benefit of the doubt, and assuming he was, as your account suggests, coming out after several provoking meetings, that "bird-flipping" was putting it mildly, dumb as some particularly unintelligent rocks.) due to your raising the issue? If it causes him to suffer a lessening of their respect, I'm sure he thanks you.
As to the article, well, as there are two corroborating accounts, with photographic proof against the main accusation... wall So Far, the Photographers are winning.
In both cases, when such a story has enough ammo to become a Story, the guard has Failed in basic politeness and courtesy. A security officer should aim to CALM a potential confrontation. Anyone in a related job who comes out guns blazing, so to speak, has failed one of the three basic rules of being a Guard.
(posted by an Ex-security guard, who GTFO when this behaviour started becoming not just commonplace, but almost expected.)
And I should add:
I'm aware this guy has "director" in his job title. In this case he was acting as a security guard, and as a boss of security guards... he didn't hand it over to them to handle, he took it upon himself to be their spokesperson.
Which just makes this worse as far as his PR savvy goes. A boss making a mistake is a much worse PR disaster than a plain regular guard.
I was also asked to stop taking pictures in the SFMOMA yesterday. Actually screeched at by one of the power hungry gallery guardians. I then went to ask the information desk if pictures were allowed and was told yes.
i think they all need some staff training in manners as well as company policy.
Adam Weiss @109:
Adam Weiss, you have a personal animus against Thomas Hawke. So far, your supposedly factual assertions about him haven't been holding up very well. This additional theory looks to me like a shabby and spiteful piece of speculation.But not sorry enough to stop doing it? Get sorrier. I don't want to see you pursuing this personal feud on Boing Boing again.IMO, this is the point at which it's appropriate to say, "There's more here than meets the eye." I don't know what your issues are, but your response is out of proportion.Thomas Hawke is hardly a member of the ruling class.Newsflash: Rulers and oppressors don't personally hang out in lobbies, protecting them from being photographed. What photographers are up against are building security personnel. That doesn't mean that photographers, or travellers who object to being mistreated by airport security personnel, or people who complain about getting harassed by mall security for wearing insufficiently patriotic t-shirts, are "crapping on the working class." Power relationships are not simply a matter of relative income.I'm seeing more distortions in your presentation of events than in Thomas Hawke's.In this case, I don't think the personal qualifies as the political.I don't care. Get over it. Don't get over it. Whichever. Just don't pursue your quarrel here.Excellent points, dear Moderator! I've run into several oddities myself; trolls and apparent would-be professional competitors...
Anyway, I've summarized the posts and discussions on this topic here, should anyone wish to follow up.
My response would be to organize a photography mob for a day when I knew Blint was working and hope it makes his head explode.
If you even try to take photos at the Yerba Buena Gardens security guards come after you and sometimes take your camera. You have to register with the security office before you are allowed to take photos. What the heck kind of terrorist is going to blow up a garden when Union Square is just a few blocks away?
SFMOMOA needs to inform their staff of their photo policies. I have seen a lot of people taking photos as long as they do not use a flash. It's the same at most of the other museums in San Francisco.
is there some ambiguity here in the posted regulations? How about if a few people wander in with flash units and no cameras?
Reechard, that's an admirably thorough roundup of reactions to this story. Thank you for putting it together.
There is a very intelligent discussion of this issue on Flickr at: http://www.flickr.com/photos/harpy/2613771426/
It provides a balance to much of the pro Hawk comments here. Worth reading.
Two reasons why the Flickr discussion of this issue (see link above) is worth reading:
Mr Hawk (not his real name) was apparently well-known to SFMOMA staff for, on other occasions, repeatedly violating their policy of not taking pictures of art in the gallery (outside the Atrium). He boasts of it on his site.
He posts photos of these copyrighted works under a CC license -- a misleading practice, at best.
I started this debate on Hawk's side. Now, not so sure.
@Adam Weiss
How can you defend the security guard in the 45 Fremont incident? Security guards have no right or justification of any kind to stop a photographer from taking pictures from public property. His actions were inexcusable and "following orders" is not a defense to violate the law.
@NYCPHOTORIGHTS
Because it wasn't taken from public property. It was taken from private property.
The seemingly public square in the rear of 45 Fremont is actually one of those lame psuedo-public squares that can be found in most, if not all major office complexes in downtown San Francisco. You can learn more about them at these two links:
http://avantgame.blogspot.com/2005/07/revoking-your-right-to-pass.html
http://thomashawk.com/2005/07/one-bush.html
You may also want to take note of the dates of these postings, some of the comments, and the date of the incident at 45 Fremont.
And don't get me wrong, I'm not defending the idea of the psuedo-public square. I think it's lame. However, they are what they are and if you are into photographing architecture in downtown San Francisco, it's pretty hard to not know of them and how they work. (Believe it or not, I used to like to play with cameras. San Francisco has that sort of effect on you when you first arrive.)
And with respect to having a personal grudge, I have to be honest, I don't even know the guy. I knew someone who was harmed by his actions and it's these behaviors I have a problem with. To me, it's like taking a page out of the dirty side of the Scientology playbook. Posting full names and images on the Internet is no different from flyering someone's neighborhood. Except now it's somehow arbitrarily okay, and people are buying it.
Take for example, the copyfight post about Wal-Mart. There is no photograph of the Wal-Mart employee, no first and last name. I think that's the right way to handle these sorts of things. Launching Internet lynching mobbs at the messenger is not a reasonable behavior and this isn't a game. The Internet is no longer a fantasy world, it is fully entwined in our daily lives. (*ron paul blimp passes overhead*)
Moderator: I've tried to be as fair as I can in this post and you can rest assured that at this point I've spoken my peace on the matter. If you feel that this post is inappropriate, I apologize in advance.
SF MOMA Official response.
http://www.sfmoma.org/press/pressroom.asp?id=371&do=recent
That was...uninformative.