Monday 14 May 2012

Why banning photography in museums is stupid

Last week I wrote about a recent visit to an excellent Military Museum in Maldon. Unfortunately the museum operates a 'no photography' policy and while I respect their right as a private enterprise to impose a ban I strenuously disagree with the logic of it. I believe its a policy that is contrary to the very purpose of a museum, is out of touch with modern technology, discourages visitors and is ultimately pointless. Several reasons are usually given for photography bans so lets look at these one by one in this slightly off-topic rant.



Conservation: One of the oldest arguments against photography in museums, galleries and country houses is that flash photography can damage exhibits. I'm not an expert but its easy to understand that exposure to light can be damaging to delicate paper, textiles, pigments and inks. While I understand the arguments for protecting such items from the harmful impact of UV in sunlight I don't understand how flash photography can be treated as equally dangerous. Of course most modern cameras are now more than capable of capturing good images in extremely low light so a simple ban on the use of flash would both protect delicate objects and satisfy the needs of photographers.

Perhaps the biggest argument in favour of allowing photography is that pictures are used on a regular basis by conservators restoring old buildings to original condition. Any reputable museum will have a good photographic record of its exhibits but pictures of the context and setting of objects in a country house for example can be vital in successful conservation and restoration projects.

Copyright: Copyright is a sticky issue, particularly for museums that primarily show copyrighted pictures or paintings. But for those museums that are exhibiting historical artifacts copyright just isn't an issue. Besides it's an easy policy to ask that photography is permitted so long as the pictures taken are not used in a way that will infringe copyright (ie for commercial purposes).

Having said that the problem of trying to enforce and police copyright in the 21st century has grown exponentially with the widespread use of digital camera and the Internet. My view is that the only people effected by a ban on photography are those people who play by the rules and would respect issues of copyright. For the less scrupulous (or those with criminal intent) a ban isn't going to stop them without vigorous and intrusive policing by security staff.


Crime: One reason for banning photography that is given time and again are security issues. Mostly this means the risk that criminals will take pictures to aid thefts, but in recent years has been expanded to include the threat from terrorists. One suggestion I have read is that insurance for museums that ban photography is cheaper. I don't know if this is true but sounds like the sort of thing and insurance company would do.

Criminals might photograph exhibits so they can be stolen to order or plan elaborate thefts involving laser guided zip-wires and Catherine Zeta Jones in a skin tight bodysuit. And of course a ban on public photography will thwart these master criminals before that have even begun to plan their nefarious crime. Or not. I'm pretty sure that the dedicated museum thief can find ways around a photography ban and once again the only losers are innocent visitors. Similarly I'm guessing that your typical al-Qaeda suicide bomber can probably gain all the information they need for their less than subtle operations from pictures taken in public places not from a closeup of a medieval vase.

Commercial: Museums may fear that pictures taken by visitors will mean they sell fewer reproductions and books in the obligatory shop by the exit. But my experience has been that the sort of museums that operate a ban often don't sell these items so the visitor goes home with nothing anyway. I've been in lots of the big museums in London that have no restrictions in photography but clearly do a big trade in picture postcards, books and reproductions. My personal interest in military museums - in which I have shot tens of thousands of pictures over the years - hasn't stopped me from buying tons of books featuring pictures of the very same objects.

Visitor Numbers: Another popular excuse for imposing a photo ban is that pictures posted online mean fewer visitors through the door. This is one of the sillier arguments against photography in museums. Photographs posted online, on blogs and websites are free advertising not a threat to visitor numbers. I've discovered dozens of little museums this way and later gone on to visit them. I'm sure I'm not alone in this.

One thing I have noticed is that museums that operate a ban often don't advertise the fact on their leaflets or websites. I suspect they don't advertise the ban is because they know that it will discourage some visitors from coming. In other words they acknowledge its an unpopular policy but they are going to impose it non-the-less without even affording the courtesy of explaining their reasons!

The primary purpose of a museum is to exhibit and educate the public about artifacts associated with their given theme or subject. But engagement and education cannot happen if the museum remains a secret known to just a handful of hard core enthusiasts. Either a museum opens its doors fully and welcomes the public or it keeps its doors closed and stays a private collection. If a museum imposes a photography ban "because they don't want to advertise their collection" then one has to ask what is the point of being open at all.

Antisocial Behaviour: Lastly is the often quoted wish to ensure that all visitors can enjoy exhibits equally without photographers getting in the way or disturbing the peace in galleries with beeping cameras. I fully understand why an art gallery for instance might want to ban the use of mobile phones as strident ring-tones can be very intrusive. Similarly flash photography could be disruptive but as I have already said most modern cameras can take pictures without flash. But my objection to this policy stems from the fact that anyone is capable of being an antisocial a**hole irrespective of whether that have a camera on them or not. Banning photography merely targets one group unfairly while letting all the other rude people off the hook.



So what are the options for Museums? One option I am personally in favour of is operating a Permit System. I've encountered this in several museums and public places and it seems to work just fine. The Venue gets to make their photography policies crystal clear and in return for agreeing to them the visitor gets permission to take pictures. A nominal fee could be charged for operating this scheme and so long as it isn't exorbitant I think most enthusiasts would be happy to pay for the 'privilege' of taking pictures. This would help offset any perceived 'losses' in the shop or in higher insurance costs.

For me one of the best arguments for not imposing a Photography Ban is the fact that so few institutions feel the need to impose one. I have visited literally hundreds of museums over the years, from tiny collections run by one person right up to huge national collections. Most that I have been to do not impose a ban on photography and do not seem any worse off for the decision. If they can do it then surely all museums can.

21 comments:

  1. Great post. Here in the Northern Territory of Australia you can come across photography bans on Aboriginal Art in Museums. In some cases this is because of cultural law or custom but the art has also been subject to being ripped off. A rug maker used an Aboriginal Art Work to make some domestic rugs. (Some lizards in ochre style colours). They did not ask permission to do so. It endded in a court case in favour of the artists rights to protect his art (and get paid for the re-production). I can understand that in the case of original art to a degree but artefacts that are preserved for the worlds history like WW2 items...nope. Geeze when I saw Peter Jacksons private collection of WW1 planes in NZ the old blokes there said take as many pics as you like.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I understand the need to protect copyright, and agree with it totally. I'm glad the artist you mentioned won his case and its a great example of copyright law working the way it should. But often there are already photo's available on the internet (usually the museums own publicity material!) from which the unscrupulous can steal or reproduce without permission. Banning other pictures by visitors is just locking the stable door after the horse has bolted.

      Delete
  2. Excellent post, I work in a historic house and we allow photography without the flash as per your first post

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good policy (I would say that wouldn't I!). Its a compromise solution and one that make complete sense given the capabilities of modern digital cameras. When I think back to my first 35mm film camera and how bad pictures were in low light I am amazed at the results I get on my digital cameras now.

      Delete
  3. Very interesting Lee - my opinion is that photography should be encouraged within certain (flash) restrictions as if nothing else, it promotes the exhibits in question, widens their coverage and generates a greater desire for others to visit them as a result of viewing them via the photographer's blogs, photo albums etc.

    ReplyDelete
  4. It is a pain in the ass, but you have to acknowledge that there are still those photographers out there, who do still use film and powerful conventional flashes, which will bleach colours etc.

    The technology gap is a problem too, many of the staff of smaller or private museums are simply not aware of the changes in technology... some them think that computers have to be laid flat so the memory won't run out.

    Others are just rigid rules followers... the sort that won't question orders, just obey... I suspect Hitler scoured German museums for potential concentration camp guards because of this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Of course if flash photography is permitted I'll use it, because you do get better pictures. But I respect the need to preserve the exhibits from light damage and am happy to work around a flash ban if necessary. I went to the Jorvik Viking museum in York last year and they allow photo's but not flash. I still managed to get some great pictures, its just a matter of being creative within the limitations of the environment you are working in.

      Delete
  5. Great post Lee and a good argument!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Great post Lee. I totally agree that a blanket ban on photography is stupid and unnecessary. I can see that for some exhibits/collections a ban on flash photography my be sensible, but for the majority of items it isn't required.

    It is a while since I last went to a museum or similar, but I do remember taking photos but also buying postcards, books etc from the museum shop.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's rare that I'll leave a museum shop without having bought at least one book. Can't see the point of postcards myself - not in the age of Smart Phones, Social Networks and Text messaging - but each to their own.

      (Another Rant...) I do think museum shops need to smarten up their act. Often they seem to be filled with overpriced rubbish. IMHO the ideal museum shop will have a good selection of 'pocket money toys' for the kids, a range of books & DVD's for the adults and a range of practical novelty items such as mugs, tins, key rings, t-shirts etc. One of the best examples is the shop in the Tank Museum at Bovington. I've been through it a dozen times and I always come out with something new.

      Delete
  7. I totally agree Lee, well said....

    ReplyDelete
  8. Excellent post... typically I won't go to a museum with a no-photos policy. The BoB one at Hawkinge in Kent cheerfully told me how it was to stop robberies without having a clue of the implication.
    Military shows like War & Peace are much more our thing nowadays with their acres of display, hands-on welcomed and with folk who really know their subject unlike the IWM nowadays.
    Bovington is my fave museum, their staff actually interested and engaging, there's also a neat REME museum in Chatham near the Dockyards, and the two museum at Manston. Sadly not all museums are this good anymore.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've been to the B.of.B. museum as well and was disappointed in their Photo ban, especially as it isn't clearly advertised before hand. I found their staff a little over-zealous in enforcing the ban though. When we left the museum I shot a couple of pictures of the planes that could be seen from the car park only to have a staff member rush out of the shop to tell me I couldn't even do that! I wasn't impressed.

      During the same holiday I went to another private collection - the Lashendean Air Warfare Museum - which also has a photo ban. However they advertised the ban on their website and I was able to arrange access with my camera by speaking to the owner before I arrived. I supplied 'proof of identity' and in return he was able to grant permission for me to take pictures because he knew I wasn't a criminal planning a burglary. A simple solution and everybody wins.

      Delete
  9. I had a similar experience earlier this year;

    I was visiting Cardiff Museum with some family and we enjoyed most of the interactive dinosaur exhibit - we were able to take photos.

    Later when the children were eating I wandered into the main art gallery where there is a NO PHOTOGRAPHY policy. I sat for some time with my sketch book and made copious notes on a number of paintings, as the subject matter or in the case of two in particular, the background structures.

    I also took detailed notes of the painters and the dates they were painted.

    Later, back at home a simple google search found all of the images.

    So, no photography, but images available for free download. This does not make sense.

    Moan over.

    Tony

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not much of an artist (stick figures are my limit) which is probably why I enjoy Photography so much. Its become an integral part of my enjoyment of all sorts of activities. When I'm not allowed to take pictures it really bugs me because I'm still mentally reaching for my camera then cursing silently because I can't get the shot.

      Pictures we take ourselves connect us to places and people in a way that someone else's photo's cannot. That why we value out of focus and poorly lit family snap shots more than studio portraits. Yes I can download pictures from the museum website but its not the same as taking the exact same picture myself.

      Delete
  10. Lisbon Military Museum has a similar policy for no discernable reason (it didn't offer books or postcards of some really interesting stuff). I must confess that I decided to break policy and took a number of photos using my Blackberry whilst pretending to email people (I felt that publicising the efforts of the Portuguese Expeditionary Force in WW1 was more important than some inane bureaucratic ruling!)

    ReplyDelete
  11. I suggest you write to the museum and ask the reasons for the ban and the fact that it is not advertised on their website. Even refer them to your blog so they can see responces to their policy. You never know.

    Ian

    ReplyDelete
  12. I can only heartily agree with you in all respects Lee. I have been known to sneak a non flash pic or two in my time

    ReplyDelete
  13. I'd forgotten to share this excellent article touching on the same subject. It was this article that inspired me to write my own Soapbox rant on the issue.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I've been to far too many art museums where I've been glared at by people for daring to walk in front of their cameras so that I could get a closer look at the art. And there are the people who'll strike cheesy poses by the art and have their friends take what seems like hundreds of photos. And I've seen so many people who barely pause to look at the art; they just wander around snapping away aimlessly. But OK, people have the right to be unappreciative if they want. You can't ban *that*. But photography in museums violates the harm principle ["the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."]

    It ruins one's experience to have to constantly be wary of blocking someone's photo and being surrounded by clicking and flashing and having a painting blocked by a grinning idiot making a silly gesture. Maybe I'm just awfully crotchety [well, I know I am] but photography doesn't just often stand in the way of the photographers' enjoyment of art [that's really their own business], it stands in the way of other people's enjoyment of art and *that* is an issue. Even at the uffizi, where photography is banned, there were people secretly taking pictures of david. It would have been so nice to have had an unimpeded view and to just be able to stand and stare without constantly having people jumping in front of me to take a forbidden photo.

    ReplyDelete

  15. The purpose of this brief guide is to indicate to researchers the main sources of information. Because the records of 'Officers' are generally accessible from sources other than those of the 'Other Ranks', that is to say the Warrant Officers, Non-Commissioned Officers and Soldiers, they are dealt with separately. It is recommended that once an individual's regiment or corps has been identified a researcher's initial approach should be to the appropriate regimental or corps museum, details of which may be obtained from the museum pages. The familiar title Public Record Office has changed to The National Archives, for which the abbreviation TNA is used throughout this Guide. Check This Out for more details.

    ReplyDelete

Thank you for leaving a comment. I always try to reply as soon as I can, so why not pop back later and continue the conversation. In the meantime, keep rolling high!