Wednesday, January 19, 2011

No Photography Allowed: This Nonsense Is Really Going Too Far.

No Photography Allowed: This Nonsense Is Really Going Too Far.

Americans are under constant surveillance everyday and everywhere and yet let us try to have some fun or exercise some creative artistry, and holy hell here come the photo police!

Submitted by Ann on Sun, 09/06/2009 - 13:33

"If it doesn't spread, it's dead." Don't worry, not another 'send your flu-buddy to get your medicines' warning, but the title of a paper by Henry Jenkins on social media.

"What has this to do with taking photographs in museums?", you'll ask. Well, quite a bit. Museums benefit of their collection being popular and 'hot': more visitors, more book sales, more research, more funding and more prestige. Most advertisement companies would be delighted at the idea of thousands of people wanting to take photographs of their products to show them to their friends.

Even more delighted if people would post them on the internet with the bylines "Look how marvelous!" and "I had a great time!" Yet many museums are taking the opposite path, saying 'Njet!' to photography in their galleries and sending visitors home with at most a postcard to show to their closest friends. How could this policy of shunning free publicity mean any gain for these museums long-term, and even more important: in which way do their visitors benefit from this 'NO PHOTOGRAHY ALLOWED!' policy?

How can visitors be 'co-owners' of museums if they can't own an image from their experience?

Nina Simon, the blogger behind Museum 2.0, is currently working on the book 'The Participatory Museum: A Practical Guide' and for this took a thorough look at why at the moment a large number of collection-based art and history museums continue to maintain highly restrictive photo policies, and how this does not really make sense.

"No Photography Allowed" - A History of Photo Taking Bans

 A Photographer's Worst Nightmare

We have all seen the signs. We have all heard the phrase. "No Photography or Videotaping Allowed." These signs and warnings are to be expected at theaters, private  landmarks, and  even art exhibits. However, a recent trip to an establishment with locations around the globe resulted in surprise and a verbal lashing from the establishment's owner. No, it was not a movie theater or an art gallery. It was a Burger King fast-food restaurant.

Photographers around the world have been faced with increased security as a result of terrorism and suspicious activity. For example, New York City established a "No Photography" rule inside subway stations after September 11, 2001. A flash in the subway tunnel would land photographers a $25 fine. In 2005, however, the photography ban was dropped after opposition from several photography organizations and free speech advocates. The summer of 2007 brought a renewed concern for photographers as New York City tossed the idea of requiring permits and insurance for many photographers who plan to use city-owned property -- including sidewalks.

The first "photograph" was taken on August 19, 1839, by Louis Daugerre. Little did he know, his groundbreaking daguerreotype paved the way for a future of capturing birthdays, births, vacations, celestial events... basically everything. Just three decades ago, photography was limited to professionals and those who could afford personal hand-held cameras and film. Then came the revolution in photography - the migration from film to digital. As prices for digital equipment continue to fall, more households are able to afford quality camera equipment to capture memories for a lifetime. With digital cameras in the hands of more people, "No Photography" signs have been popping-up in more places each year. Is it a security issue, or is it simply a matter of privacy, or is it caused by something else? …
1  2 3

In June, a Washington, D.C., television crew investigated several claims by photographers about security at Union Station preventing people from taking pictures, even though there were no "No Photography" notices anywhere. In fact, as the television crew interviewed an Amtrak spokesman about how photography is allowed, a security guard confronts the cameraman and tells him to stop filming. Here, the security guard is asked why and responds by stating there is a policy on photography, yet refuses to state the policy. This incident raises more questions about "No Photography" policies -- how can the policies be successfully enforced, and in cases like the Union Station incident, how can photographers challenge the policies without causing a commotion?”

If You open my Photo site you will see why I am getting fed up with the Paranoia and stupidity

And open this as large as you can for a view of “State of The Art Digital Photography

No comments: