On Renegade Photography
This is a photograph of a sculpture by artist Olafur Eliasson currently on display at the SF Museum of Modern Art. The SF Moma does not allow photography in their museum. I took this photograph anyways. I’ve actually got a bunch more of what I’m calling renegade photography from my visit to the SF Moma on Friday.
This was the first time that I’d been to the SF Moma since 2004 when I went to see photographer Larry Sultan’s show “The Valley.” As much as I love contemporary art, since visting the SF Moma in 2004 I found it just too difficult to support an institution that did not allow photography. The de Young Museum, the Legion of Honor, and the Oakland Museum of California (by contrast to the SF Moma) all do allow photography in their permanent collections. In the past I’d looked at the SF Moma’s right to not allow photography as their right and as my right the right not to go and support them.
Last week though I decided that I was going to go back to the SF Moma after a three year hiatus to see Jeff Wall’s brilliant photography. I’ve admired Wall’s work and wanted to see in real life the large sized lightboxed photographs that he has on display. (These photos are very much worth seeing by the way if you can make it to the SF Moma).
Rather than simply miss Jeff Wall’s work due to my dogmatic protest against the SF Moma’s anti-photography policy, I decided that I would go, but that I’d shoot anyways. Several times I was asked not to photograph and I’d comply when asked only to whip out the camera and begin shooting again in the next gallery. It did make for more difficult and challenging shooting (often times shooting blind as the camera hung around my neck to avoid detection), but I definitely got some interesting shots. The photo above is just one of many more that you’ll see uploaded and published by me in the days ahead.
This recent trip to the SF Moma has made me rethink my aversion to places where photography is not allowed. I think I’ll be going to a lot more of them in the future, I’ll just be collecting my own style of renegade photographs in the process. At some point I’ll probably use these photographs to construct a renegade photography collage of sorts.
I’m sure this rubs some people the wrong way, that I’d purposely disrespect an institution’s right to restrict photography in a private place. But I believe that art should be more open. That it should be more public. I believe that as a non-profit for the general public’s artistic enlightenment, that the SF Moma should have a more tolerant photography policy and I believe that renegade photography is a good thing and will create a more vibrant and beautiful world for us all to share in.
In Seattle they tried to get me to check my camera bag since photography was not permitted. When I told them that I’d rather give away my $13 admittance and not see their art over handing over my camera gear they let me in as long as I promised not to shoot. I was a good boy and kept the gear in my bag.
Where was this sculpture located? According to the museum’s site, they DO allow photography in their collection galleries.
Cameras
Still photography for personal use is permitted in collection galleries only. No flash or tripods allowed. Videotaping is permitted in the lobby only. No photographs or videotapes may be reproduced, distributed, or sold without permission from the Museum.
Wrong MoMA, rob.
By the way, TH, we’re making fun of you over in DMU.
Oops, sorry about that. I thought I followed the link from Thomas’ post. Here’s the SF MoMA’s policy on cameras:
Cameras
Photography is not permitted in the galleries. Flash photography is permitted only with a handheld camera in the Atrium.
Interestingly, under UK law, if you did this on private property such as a gallery that has requested that you not shoot – your presence on the property actually converts to trespass and they can have you arrested!
M
ha- i loved this exhibit and was admonished for shooting too!
the jeff wall stuff was awesome.
No wonder establishments are getting tired of people with their cameras and feeling it is their god given right to shoot anything and everything. It is people like you that give the rest of us that abide by the rules a bad name.
I have a approached many faciliteis that have similar rules and been allowed to shoot at some while others have stuck to their guns. I will always respect their rights as I would hope they would respect mine.
I certainly don’t see this as a “win” by breaking the rules. The long term affect of this sort of actions is going to result in even more stringent rules but then I guess they wouldn’t apply to you either.
I think that this approach guts your principled stand against people harassing photographers who shoot in public places where they are allowed by law to shoot. By doing this, you are saying “although I have unlimited rights to photograph in public and will protest vehemently if you violate those rights, I also think that I have unlimited rights to photograph on your private property as well. Therefore, there should be no difference between public and private property because you can’t make rules against me doing what I want.”
Given your lack of interest in laws protecting people’s property rights, I may have to come on a photowalk and dip in your bag (if that is somehow different, please explain)
a55hat! meh.
the picture doesnt come up
Sometimes it distracts from other visitors’ enjoyment of the artwork when people are taking photos.
I’ve got to go with dibss and the anonymous commenter here. How exactly is this any different from someone who decides they feel that their concerns over privacy and security trump your right to shoot in a public place?
By deciding that the rules only apply when they are to your benefit you will give people greater ammunition to curb photographers’ rights.
Wow, that’s pretty pathetic. I think you’ve hit a new low with this one. Have you ever heard of ethics? You might want to work on that one a bit more. And if doing it wasn’t bad even, bragging about it like a little child and boasting about how you’re going to do it more often is even worse. And you’re the CEO of a photography company? LOL.
At some point this kind of thing is eventually going to catch up with you in one way or another, it certainly says something about your character and your complete disrespect for and abuse of the rights of others. And I agree with the other posters that this totally undermines your position on public photography, since that is entirely based on “the law says I can, so I will despite the fact you may not want me to” because obviously you don’t respect the law either — which, as I’m sure you’re more than aware, makes it perfectly reasonable to not permit photography on private property. You making photographs where you are not permitted (by pretty much the same laws you regularly cite for street photography I might add) is no different than those building managers who come out and try prevent you from taking photographs where you are actually permitted to. You are no different than them, its so obviously hypocritical I’m surprised more people haven’t called you on it.
And I totally agree with another commenter who mentioned that its also about the experience of other museum goers, but I guess you’re too self-absorbed and self-righteous to even grasp that concept.
Bottom line is it’s the museums decision to permit photography or not, not yours. You can choose to not go, but this post is frankly kind of sad IMHO, and is really just a poor reflection on you and ends up giving all of us photographers a bad name. So, thanks for that.
If we only photograph where we’re allowed, large parts of modern life will go unrecorded. I find that entirely unacceptable.
Yeah, yeah, having everybody do it might get ugly. But having nobody do it would be uglier.
Hey Thomas/Andy/Whatever your name is: Why are you such a rabble rouser? It seems like you have a chip on your shoulder about anything you don’t personally agree with. Why do you have to be such a bully? You’re not really proving any point, nor are you really making things any better for anyone else in this instance. While I applaud your insistence in standing up for yourself and others’ rights when it comes to photographing in public, I think you’re totally wrong in this instance, and you’re being a bit of an asshole about it.
Even though you say I can’t, I think I might start posting your pictures everywhere, as a renegade. I too believe that art should be more open. That it should be more public.
Lets start the revolution bro!
p.s. are you related to Tony Hawk? That’s rad.
Would it be possible to get your address, Thomas? I’m working on some art right now involving spray paint and large chunks of text, and I keep getting chased away from buildings and railyards by the cops. Seeing as how you are so sympathetic to artists and think we should be able to behave however we want wherever we want, I’d like to use your home and car as my canvas. I’m sure you won’t mind.
Normally my response would be much like those who have already commented here, but my level of disgust to this post is even greater as 10 days prior to this post I sent you the following email:
“Just in case you didn’t see this on Twitter or Pownce…
I think you and your blog readers would a great deal of value out of this:
“The Legal Landscape of Street Shooting” Podcast Released
The lecture was given by 3 prominent members of the “The First Amendment Project”
A must listen for anyone doing or interested in street photography and the legality of it.
http://www.jmg-galleries.com/blog/2007/11/15/the-legal-landscape-of-street-shooting-podcast-released/“
As someone who has made such a huge fuss in the past about people infringing on your rights as a street photographer I find your irreverence for the law protecting private property shameful. Not only do you disrespect the artists and the museum, but the photography community you claim to be fighting the good fight for. This type of blatant disregard for the law is what creates the difficulties photographers face.
Frankly I think you owe the museum, the artists whose work you photographed, your readers, Zooomr subscribers and the local photographer community an apology. The degree to which this hurts the photography community is immeasurable and it is the worst example that can be set for new photographers.
You’re absolutely right, Thomas.
Last week I was at a neighbor’s house taking photographs and I got totally lambasted for my invasion of her privacy. It is ridiculous, as all she was doing was getting undressed….
Power to the people!
This is very dangerous ground, particularly for you as a photographer.
The art on display at SFMOMA is copyrighted and photographing such art and publishing it on the web is an infringement of such copyright.
If you are saying that this is acceptable ask yourself this: how would you react if someone used on of your images in a global marketing campaign without your permission or any recognition?
posted this at DMU, but doubt you’ll ever see it, so here you go:
Where does one start?
There isn’t much I can say that hasn’t already been said in the comments on your blog. About how you expect others to adhere to the law when it protects your rights to be a street photographer and “document the world”, but then you break the law by violating rules someone else sets for their private property. Your ego and sense of entitlement is a little overwhelming, but I got news for you buddy, not everyone wants you shooting their shit.
I’ve also noticed over the years that you like to shoot art, but rarely take the time to credit the artist. Then you give it some title based on a song title or lyric (and once again, failing to credit that writer, too). Very simply, it’s disrespectful.
Yet, oddly enough, you went to bat for Rebekka when her images were stolen and her copyright violated. But perhaps I’m confused about what you were going to bat for…was it just another opportunity to lambaste Flickr for censorship and draw attention to that buggy photosharing site you run? But by the standards you are spouting off now, you should have told Rebekka to shut the fuck up and stop her whining. She should have wanted her work to be shared by everyone! Because YOU believe that, it must be true, for all of us.
I saw your “Renegade Photography” at Zooomr of the San Francisco Opera, where you brag about knowing that photography is prohibited, but because you think it’s okay, you went ahead anyhow. And then your shots of the SF MOMA. You sound like a petulant spoiled little brat, that has to have his way, no matter what. It’s okay for YOU to break the law, because you’re a freedom fighting artiste! But the guy who owns the cigar shop or museum or Opera, he’s just some dick that is trying to crush your rights.
I agree with Jim Goldstein and some other posters that say you are doing a huge disservice to other photographers by bragging about this and insisting that it’s okay because you think their rules are stupid. I think most people at one time or another have shot where they weren’t supposed to, myself included. But I certainly don’t brag about it and feel I’m entitled to keep doing it, especially when I hold others to higher standards than I’m incapable of meeting myself. As Goldstein says, you should apologize to the Museum, to the artists and start showing some respect for the rules that others make for their private property, or stop whining about it when others disrespect yours. And as a CEO of a photosharing site, one that is opening a Marketplace to sell stock photography, you sure are setting a bad example, and very clearly look as though you don’t have a clue of the legalities involving such transactions. The fact you don’t even use your real name, Andrew Peterson, at this point makes it all even sleazier, imo.
The fact that you have advertising on this page while publishing the photograph probably opens you up actual legal liabilities, and I’m guessing since this site is a personal one, those liabilities may expose your personal assets to such a suite. What’s more interesting is that this isn’t just about legal rights, it’s about ethics, and you sir, have none. Also, I didn’t see the opera image, but as someone who has done classical concert photography, I can say that that is just completely ridiculous. There’s no way you didn’t distract someone in the process of slapping your shutter. You might be interested to find out that most classical performance photography is taken at dress rehearsals or concerts designated for such purposes. But again, from your selfish perspective, all that matters is that you can pull it off. L-A-M-E. You’re giving all of us a bad name and hurting all of our causes. I’ve said this before, and I’ll say it again, it’s BS like this that is going to cause NEW LAWS to go on the books that TAKE AWAY some of our rights, and we’ll all have dumbasses like you to thank for it.
Thomas, I like being able to see what I normally wouldn’t go out to see for myself, but you shouldn’t just blatantly disrespect such conditions. It’s not a big deal. You went and took some pictures of some interesting pieces. Nobody got hurt. The Moma is still standing. Blah blah. Sometimes it’s the littlest decisions that show our character. You could’ve taken pictures of the entrance and described the place. That would be supportive. You could have even taken pictures of people LOOKING at the pieces and still respected the institution’s wishes. To do your own thing this way is petty spite.
You could’ve taken pictures of the entrance and described the place. That would be supportive.
What is the value of being “supportive?”
The fact that you have advertising on this page while publishing the photograph probably opens you up actual legal liabilities, and I’m guessing since this site is a personal one, those liabilities may expose your personal assets to such a suite.
But shouldn’t that be my risk to take?
Also, I didn’t see the opera image, but as someone who has done classical concert photography, I can say that that is just completely ridiculous. There’s no way you didn’t distract someone in the process of slapping your shutter.
The photograph that I took was taken during applause and was not heard by anyone. If you’d like to see the photograph of the Opera you can see it here.
The art on display at SFMOMA is copyrighted and photographing such art and publishing it on the web is an infringement of such copyright.
True. And downloading a song from a P2P network and listening to it is also an infringement of such copyright and yet a great many people in the world feel comfortable doing this.
Answer this question, have I damaged the artist and if so how?
The degree to which this hurts the photography community is immeasurable
I seriously doubt it.
Even though you say I can’t, I think I might start posting your pictures everywhere, as a renegade. I too believe that art should be more open. That it should be more public.
Go for it!
downloading a song from a P2P network and listening to it is also an infringement of such copyright and yet a great many people in the world feel comfortable doing this.
Some people are “comfortable” with murder, rape and incest – doesn’t make it right, pal! Where do you want to draw the line? Rules are rules and laws are laws, we can’t pick and choose which we will respect, otherwise the whole framework of society becomes subjective and irrelevant. Unless you are some kind on Anarchist.
Some people are “comfortable” with murder, rape and incest – doesn’t make it right, pal! Where do you want to draw the line? Rules are rules and laws are laws, we can’t pick and choose which we will respect, otherwise the whole framework of society becomes subjective and irrelevant. Unless you are some kind on Anarchist.
Anonymous, have you ever jaywalked? When you are driving a car and you hit a stop sign do you always physically stop the car 100% of the time. Have you ever driven over 55 miles per hour on a freeway?
Your point that all rules must be followed or anarchy results is laughable. I’m sorry, I’m not buying it.
You still haven’t addressed the real issue, the real question for you to reconcile. The question is how is this any different than the person on the street who tries to deny your legal right to take pictures? At the end of the day, that relies on this same premise, the premise that there are rules we all agree to abide by. When you disrepect the artist and the museum like that, it’s really no different than someone disrespecting you on that another photography rule you love to rally for so frequently — the one that let’s you take pictures in public.
Your view is extremely short-sited from the perspective of the collective of all photographers and the access that we have (or may not have as this type of thing proliferates). Your self-absorbed behavior reflects poorly on us all in my honest opinion, not to mention its negative affects on your character. Funniest thing too is when you say, “Your point that all rules must be followed… is laughable.” What’s truly laughable is how you so easily cherry-pick the rules you choose to respect and those you think others should respect. It’s a double-standard that can’t be denied, yet you still haven’t addressed it, and you just arrogantly continue to post even more images from the exhibit much like how a child might act.
I’m amazed why more folks haven’t called you out on this. I love your photography, but this is just lame.
Hi Thomas,
I you’re receiving a lot of flak from those who disagree with your attitude about your renegade and street photography and could not help but share my thinking on this issue.
I am an amateur photographer for some time now and have really appreciated shooting photos of buildings,because I am an architect by profession. But after the 911 incident, it has been difficult to shoot public and commercial buildings from the street.
I had this one incident where I was stopped by the building security guard while shooting a building that my team has designed. The guard told me that it is prohibited to shoot a photo of the building. I said that is okay, I have permission to shoot this building because I am one of the architects for this building and the owners know and has hired us to design this building. In other words, we own the copyright for building! Why can’t I shoot our own design?
But, this is not what ires me most. It is the new attitude some building owners not allowing photography of their building. In my opinion, the public should be allowed to photograph commercial and public buildings to let others know of their existence specially when the building possesses good architectural or engineering design. It is just like old paintings of the historical buildings in the old days. How else would the world know of how the Parthenon or the Coliseum had looked like if those paintings were not publicized or published in books? The general public has a right to know.
Art should be public. It should be appreciated. How else would a great artwork or a painting get to be priceless if nobody has seen it, appreciated it, to be able to put a price tag on it, etc. etc.. I see that in Architecture too. If a building is built, then the public should be allowed photograph it, otherwise keep it under wraps for it’s entire life or build it underground.
I have reposted this on your “Guidelines… blog.
Eric
http://www.blog.ericgozar.com
(building photos shown on my blog are those of my fellow members in flickr.com)
Wow….and then a few months later you get kicked out of the MOMA and publicly slay one of their employees for doing so! You my friend are an asshole, an ego-maniac, and a lousy photographer to boot.