Simon Blint, Director of Visitor Relations at the SF MOMA, Yeah You Jerk, Photography is Not a Crime
Simon Blint, Director of Visitor Relations at the SF MOMA is a first rate jerk.
Recently I blogged about my excitement regarding the San Francisco MOMA’s decision to begin allowing photography in their permanent collection after years of maintaining a closed no photography policy. Directly because of this change in policy, I decided to purchase a family membership in order to support the museum, both with my artistic energy and financially. I was excited to begin spending regular time exploring and documenting the museum.
Unfortunately, I should have known better than to really believe that the San Francisco MOMA was serious about opening up the art and architecture entrusted to them to the general public.
After purchasing my family membership and visiting the museum today I was forcibly thrown out of the museum by two museum security guards at the direction of the Director of Visitor Relations Simon Blint.
My crime? Taking a photograph from the second floor stairs in the SFMOMA’s atrium (an area where the SF MOMA’s own website explicitly says photography is allowed).
You can see the photograph that I took when I was thrown out at the top of this post.
During the course of my interaction with Blint I told him that:
1. I was a new member of the museum and that I’d been in contact with Thea Stein in the Marketing and Communications Department of the museum who had confirmed the recent change in museum policy with me personally regarding photography in the museum.
2. That the SF MOMA’s own website explicitly allows photography in the atrium.
3. That I would be blogging my forcible eviction from the MOMA.
Blint told me that “he did not care” and that he needed to “protect” his employees — employees that might appear in my photographs. I was not shooting with a tripod. I was not shooting with a flash. I was being quiet and respectful of the area and the other patrons.
Blint on the other hand was hostile, accusatory and refused to even examine my photographs or allow me to share with him what I was doing with my art. He accused me of using a “telephoto” lens to spy on his staff from the public staircase on the second floor. Blint obviously knows nothing of photography because the 14mm ultra wide angle lens on my camera body was about the furthest thing possible from a telephoto lens. He refused to discuss this, refused to examine my photographs, refused to consider it at all and simply had me ejected with two security guards.
Ironically Blint also tried to eject my friend torbakhopper who was hanging out with me at the museum today and he wasn’t even taking photographs. He finally relented on his case and told him that he could stay if he wanted but that I was going to be forcibly ejected.
Blint refused to escalate the situation to a superior even though I told him I’d been in contact with museum personnel. He was on his own personal power trip and misused and abused the authority entrusted to him for the public benefit to harass, humiliate and embarrass a paying member of the museum. Photography is not a crime
I believe that I was very much targeted in this case because I was using a digital SLR. There were plenty of people taking photographs of the atrium using point and shoots that Simon did not target, but I think that it was the fact that I was using a larger DSLR that made me a target. Rather than try to understand what I and my art were about Simon felt the smarter way to deal with the situation was simply to kick me out of his museum.
While I might be able to understand if my ejection from the museum had been at the hand of an overzealous security guard who was simply uninformed about the SF MOMA’s change in policy regarding photography in their museum, when this ejection came directly from the Director of Visitor Relations I find this to be unacceptable.
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.
It is unfortunate that one of my first experiences as a paying member of the SF MOMA had to be full of hatred, bitterness and harassment.
If you think that photographers should not be subject to this kind of harassment digg this here. On Boing Boing here.
Update: More of my feelings and thoughts on the whole Simon Blint fiasco here.
Update: The SFMOMA responds to this incident here.
Note: for some reason that I can’t figure out, Google’s Blogger software doesn’t seem to be publishing comments posted to this post anymore. If you have something to say I’d suggest you do so on the follow up post on the incident here.
Wow, what a sophomoric tempest in a teapot.
SFMOMA is not a public institution. They can revoke their permission for you to take photographs inside of their building.
It is not at all surprising that a museum would allow you to photograph works or the building as a whole, but not employees. If you came to my place of work and acted defiantly toward somebody trying to protect my employees’ privacy (even if they misunderstood the situation), I’d kick you out myself.
“Whereas Peterson/Hawk can skewer Blint for doing his job, Blint has a chain of command he must work through before he can defend himself.”
I rather read this as alleging that Blint was quite definitvely not doing his job.
I’ve hated that museum from its inception, from the weird, cramped galleries to their awful permanent collection (can you spell “The Anderson Collection,” for instance?) Plus, their security guards are the absolute worst, both intrusive and unfriendly. Demand a refund and let them go to hell on their own.
Wow, I recently went to the MET and NYC MOMA with my SLR and had no issues taking pictures with only a few exhibits in either place being off limits to photography.
In fact the only place in NYC that I was asked not to shoot was in a restaurant where I was taking pictures of my friends when I was told by the waiter that they dont allow cameras as they are the #1 cause of altercations/fights. Mmmmkay whatever….
Now that i’m back in the Bay I would’ve never thought the SF MOMA would have such a strict policy on photography. Even if I never heard about this incident I would not be inclined to go to the SF MOMA just based on their photo policy. I can understand certain exhibits being off limits due to the owners contracts with the museum but only being able to shoot in the Atrium is just weak.
I am not going to take any sides as this is only one half of the story but I still can’t believe some people are criticising the author for acting confrontational based on the story he presented. Anyone that approaches me like that and is not interested in hearing my side of the story or working with me to resolve the situation will definitely be on the receiving end of a verbal lashing.
Want to take action? Don’t just take it out on SF MOMA–I mean, do that, too, but the power at the museum is the Board of Trustees. I’ve listed them below.
The Chairman is Charles Schwab. Got a Charles Schwab account, anyone? Send them a note about this situation, and if you haven’t heard back within a week, move it. Move it to Dean Witter or Edward Jones, whoever. There are plenty of portfolio management companies.
I’m sure you can find more information about the other Trustees online. Bear in mind that museum staff will be doing their best to keep the board from finding out about this PR disaster. Now that the story is on Boing Boing, this is getting international play, but unless one of the Trustees is web-savvy, they’ll never hear about it.
Unless Mr. Schwab’s outfit starts getting these weird messages and losing business. You know how these things work.
Here’s the entire SFMOMA Board of Trustees:
Chairman
Charles R. Schwab
Vice Chairs
M. Arthur Gensler, Jr.
Richard L. Greene
Robin M. Wright
Secretary/Treasurer
Donald G. Fisher
Elected Trustees
Bruce Atwater
Gerson Bakar
Robert Bechtle
Carolyn Butcher
Charles M. Collins
Jean Douglas
Rebecca S. Draper
Carla Emil
Robert J. Fisher
Linda W. Gruber
Evelyn D. Haas
Mimi L. Haas
Kamala D. Harris
Ira S. Hirschfield
Richard M. Kovacevich
Pamela Kramlich
Janet W. Lamkin
Gretchen C. Leach
Victoria T. Logan
David Mahoney
Marissa Mayer
Elaine McKeon
Kenneth P. McNeely
Eileen M. Michael
Lisa S. Miller
Nicola Miner
Christine Murray
Noel W. Nellis
Diana Nelson
Steven H. Oliver
Stuart L. Peterson
Becca Prowda
Helen Hilton Raiser
Courtney Roberts
Paul Sack
Albert R. Schreck
Chara Schreyer
Charlotte Mailliard Shultz
Kenneth F. Siebel
Norman C. Stone
John G. Stumpf
Roselyne Chroman Swig
Susan Swig
John Walecka
Brooks Walker, Jr.
Thomas W. Weisel
Carlie Wilmans
Michael W. Wilsey
Pat Wilson
Dennis J. Wong
Kay Harrigan Woods
There is another side to the story from what I read at consumerist.com.
“I was at the museum on Friday and saw this whole thing go down. Thomas Hawk’s account of what happened is unabashedly one-sided. What he neglects to mention is that he was standing on a balcony with his camera pointed down, aiming directly into the shirt/cleavage of one of the female employees working at the museum. Simon Blint asked Thomas Hawk to stop taking photos in order to protect his staff from a creepy perv, not because he was using a dSLR or for whatever BS reason Thomas Hawk claims.”
Source: http://consumerist.com/5035228/despite-what-their-website-says-taking-pictures-in-san-franciscos-museum-of-modern-art-is-cause-for-ejection
The Museum, and specifically Simon Blint, owes you a public apology.
Sorry to hear about all of this, mate. I hope that your blog on the matter, in conjunction with your lovely photograph, helped set Mr. Blint straight. Perhaps if you have a gallery exhibit you could have him ejected for using the a door that is obviously only to be used by people with white hair.
Cheers,
You can always visit or write Mr. Simon D. Blint at 4521 Knollpark circle, Antioch, CA 94531
Please be polite.
Anyone stupid enough to believe that an anonymous comment from someone who claims to be “one of the security guards” or Simon Blint himself or an actual eye witness to the event has obviously not been on the Internet for long. Please learn what a troll is, and how they function; the anonymous comments on this post are a great place to start!
To Thomas Hawk - I do hope you let the newspapers and local TV know about this situation. Best of luck.
If I were spying on someone, I would use a shoe-phone, not a huge DSLR! What’s worse, it’s really unfortunate that an art museum restricts the legitimate use of the tools of your trade. Sorry for your experience. Thanks for the post.
I’m sure many of you are unaware that Mr. Hawk has been violating the SF MOMA’s policy on no photography for awhile now, which he has openly bragged about on this blog.
The problem here is that Hawk expects others to protect and respect his rights to take photography in the public space (say, a shot of a building from the sidewalk), yet also expects that he should have the same rights on private property when he’s been specifically asked not to. He calls this practice “renegade” photography and has boasted about it on his blog and elsewhere.
Stop playing the victim. You aren’t doing your fellow photographer’s any favors. Enjoy your rights and respect the rights of others.
I can understand why museums might not be able to allow photography in some cases - an exhibit of new works is protected by copyright, and they may be worried about someone photographing an image and using it without permission. And then there is the issue of flash. But this is beyond the pale. Although not in the SF area too often, I’ll be sure to avoid that museum.
quite ridiculous…even if once I was brought away by a policeman in Boston.
I was taking pictures of the water of a fountains and there were some children playing with it.
Policeman thought I was taking pictures of them!
Organize a photography mob for a day when you know Blint is working. Maybe his head will explode.
you snap photos of employees and flame the guy that asked you to stop, you didn’t and he threw you out and hes the bad guy?
hey i work at the museum and yes simon is a douchebag, but he was responding to a complaint from a fellow employee who thought you were taking inapropriate pictures of her. he should have talked to you in private- and not yelled from the floor- and listened to you, but his communication skills need some work. you have also overreacted by making such a big deal out this… thus rendering yourself a douchebag. two douches don’t make a right
Hilarious (sorta) — thanks for taking the time to write about this douchebag. I’ll make it a point to visit MOMA this week and shoot from the exact same place you did to see what happens. If the web site says it’s okay — then I have no problem making sure d-bag knows it.
I’ve run into similarly laughable situations. I was on a public sidewalk, downtown, in the financial district taking a photo of the reflection of an older building in the glass facade of a newer one.
Two shots into this — a uniformed security guard crosses the street to where I’m standing and asks me, “what do you think you’re doing?”
I said, “taking a photo of reflection in that building’s glass.”
“You can’t do that.” Says he.
I say, “sure I can. I’m on a public sidewalk taking a photo of a building.”
“No — you can’t. We don’t permit photos of our building. You’re going to have to delete them.”
I’m normally a pretty civil guy. I briefly tried to explain to the security guy how the law views photography in a “public forum” — but he’d have none of it.
In the end, he demanded I turn over my camera, or he’d “…call the police and have you arrested.”
I punched 911 on my cell phone and handed to him… and told him to hit “dial” if he wanted to play that game. He just said, “fuck you” and walked away.
Nice to see photographers standing up when this sorta BS happens.
Wow… I don’t even know where to start. So are you not allowed to return?
I’m very anxious to hear the response from the Museum! Has anyone received a response from any complaints/inquiries about this issue? Is Blint still working there? Anyone know!?!?!
Seems like a lot of the “Anonymous” postings supporting that c*cksucker Simon are coming from people who have direct ties to the museum. Hmm…
get him fired!
(I want his job!)
Wow! Very poor guest relations.
If you’re ever in the twin cities, do visit the Minneapolis Institute of Arts. They allow photography of their (HUGE) permanent collection and I’ve brought my digital SLR numerous times. We’ve had Flickr photo walks there with over a dozen slr wielding folk meandering around.
I’ve never heard of Thomas Hawk before this. I think he is exploiting the sitution for delusions of fame.
SFMOMA is not a public institution, it is like an amusement park. Legally, they can throw you out for any reason at all. Failure to do so upon request can be interpreted as tresspassing.
wow.
to compare: New York MoMA has even stupider rules. They don’t allow anyone with a backpack (even with a camera bag) in. They ask to give a bag to a storage. But storage guys ask if you have any electronics; and refuse to take a bag with any electronics in it! I had to fool them deliberately, lying, to make them take my bag.
It left very bad aftertaste.
You’ve proven yet again that common sense truly isn’t. You know what their intent of “handheld camera” is. The museum is obviously attempting to open the experience more widely to families and non-professional visitors. Congratulations, you clarified that they allowed photography. As a professional (assuming you had common sense) you would have clarified that your camera would be acceptable within the definition of “handheld camera”. My assumption is you already know the answer. Regardless of whether your camera meets the letter of their policy, it clearly does not meet the spirit of it.
I don’t know about Blint’s behavior, nor do I know about yours. To me either is irrelevant. You violated their photography policy by using the kind of camera you used, and you know you did. Regardless of the policy, however, if someone from the museum comes up to you and asks you to stop using that camera, you are obligated to comply without resistance.
My suggestion to you is that if you’re going to tout yourself as a professional, you should first be one. You were successful in garnering the unquestioning adulation of the Internet masses with respect to your complete lack of respect to other people.
I hope you have a good attorney who specializes in libel/slander defense, what an awful thing to do to a person who was just doing his job. How could you ask people to starve a non-profit art organization of much needed $ while in the same breath praising it as an important institution?
funny that you seem to have deleted all of the negative comments you’ve received…
@Joel Etherton
“Spirit” of the policy is up for debate, they don’t want tripods not to kick out the professionals but to conform to fire code by not having stationary objects blocking walkways.
Handheld means handheld, there’s no debate. If the “spirit” of their policy was to say no SLR then they could have easily said, “No SLRs.” They didn’t say that, they easily could have. You’re simply wrong.
Why didn’t you leave the building and get in touch with someone with the authority to invite you back, or better still, refine the policy for assessing the conduct of photographers at the SFMOMA? You might have had a constructive impact and made life easier for other photographers like yourself.
Your account feels really combative.
Obviously blogging is giving people the ability to share their thoughts, but after reading Thomas Hawk’s most recent update to his SF Moma incident, all I could think of, was.. “Does this guy like the sound of his own voice or what !”
Well, the MOMA comment is libelous, which is surprising. They now claim, without explanation, that an employee’s “safety” was in doubt, leading to the ejection of Mr. Hawk. In addition to the dubious claim of inappropriate photography (since they refused to examine the pictures, I reject their contention out of hand), they now claim Hawk was a danger.
Nope, they’ve lost me as a museum goer, though I might go just to photograph.
I hope Mr. Hawk returns with witnesses.
What I really would like to know is how is everybody SO sure what TH wrote on his blog is true. Were you all there?
How do you know the picture he shows on his blog was actually the picture he was taking at the moment he was stopped by SB? And how come the picture he took of SB right while he was being told to leave, is a nice close-up full face shot of him? It surprises me to see that one picture, because it probably means he was taking shots of SB’s face as he was being told to stop taking pictures.
How can we know TH really offered to show his pictures endless times to SB? We can’t tell because we weren’t there.
We all agree here an attitude such as the one TH states in his blog is absurd, but there’s NO WAY to tell this is how it REALLY happened.
TH could have easily acted in a harassing manner and used his online “power” to destroy SB’s image just out of spite. (and sure enough if this is really it, it’s working, just along with his publicity, right, TH? I bet you’re enjoying the ranking you’re getting with this)
I’m not saying this is what happened either. There’s no way to tell for sure.
But what we DO know is that TH intentionally put SB’s image and name in a very provocative and negative way all over the internet in such way SB is becoming a symbol of photographer’s hatred.
There is no doubt, what TH did here is an act of cruel revenge against SB.
I stand by the cold facts and do not follow all the cows who go after the cowherd without even thinking twice about this entire story.
regarding this incident, i have this to say; if i were an employee in the position of the ticket taker captured by the photograph in question, i too would have been extremely uncomfortable. who wouldn’t be? who cares what kind of lens it was, photography people, this is about peoples rights to privacy and comfortable working environments, an important fact that has gotten lost somewhere in the all this drama. the museum staff should not be required to know the minute differences between this lens or that. the fact remains that this woman (and other employees as well as museum guests) saw someone with a mammoth lens aimed straight down at her. she did not know if this person was using the zoom function or if, as you all say, that lens was simply not capable of taking such detailed shots from afar. she saw the following: a photographer taking a picture of her WITHOUT HER PERMISSION and she excercsied her rights to a safe and comfortable working environment by contacting her superior who then did his job by asking the gentelman to cease his picture taking. “thomas hawk” behaved inappropriately from the get-go by RESISTING and DENYING his actions. insisting that mr. blint view his images. that mr. blint chose not to is irrelevant. after having read mr. hawks blog, and i have read all of the postings and comments regarding this incident, he is clearly a very confrontational, overly dramatic person. simon blint was simply doing his job, protecting his employee AND THE REST OF THE MUSEUM VISITORS from a person who was taking potentially invasive photos. what everyone seems to be forgetting is, whether the content of the photos was decent or not, his behaviour made her feel uncomfortable enough to alert her superior. and upn her supreior approaching him, mr/ hawk’s behavior was poor enough that mr. blint felt the need to ask him to leave. period. don’t you all understand that the last thing any public venue wants to do is remove someone from the premises? that if they feel the need to do so there more likely than not is a very good reason involving a broader situation? i love sfmoma, and i will continue to support it by attending the exhibitions and brining friends and family there to experience amazing art and architecture. i am comforted by the knowledge that, if i bring my children, nieces or nephews to this venue and someone is taking advantage of the photography policy (which indicates (sfmoma) “allow(s) photographers to take pictures of the permanent collection, the architecture of the building, and the museum’s public spaces”) by taking photgraphs of them without their knowledge or permission, that people on staff will do their best to prevent it if the situation is made known to them. go to sfmoma, take pictures of the art. take pictures of the building. take picutres of what you want, but people have the right to not be in your photos if they do not want to be. especially today when images taken 5 minutes ago are so easily uploaded onto public websites as the ticket take’s photo is now on mr. hawks. (interesting - i wonder if he got her permission to post that?) mr.blint was doing his job. mr. hawk was behaving inappropriately and his behavior got him removed from the museum. as a photgrapher - as with all photographers - mr. hawk should be understanding of the fact that not everyone want to be in his pictures, regardless of the content. and as a photographer, he should respect that.
ha ha you crybaby no one cares anymore and nothing will change. and o why don’t you respect the rights of those who don’t want to be photographed- or are your rights more important ?- you would have been, we all would have been much better served if you had written moma a letter instead of airing this publicly, at least then blint may have had to take a class in how to diffuse not escalate situations, but now nothing - and next time tell the whole story with facts - don’t just rant and cause the sheep that seem to worship you to go on a wicthhunt- just sayin
It’s sad that so many people are loosing respect for the MOMA just because of one blog…and they only are hearing one side - know both sides before you decide to hate something. That’s what good journalists/readers do.
Hmm… I’m going to write my own blog post about this. Very interesting post. good job
I’m glad you have a huge network online and you can use it’s power for the best. to show off this guy’s assholeness!
cheers to that!
There are more and more places where bringing out a camera will bring out the police. Besides bridges and tunnels which are security issues I had a nice run in while photographing the facade of a building, a building that was a strange blend of Corinthian, Doric and Ionian columns in different colored marble. This is one of the main admin buildings in the old Greystone Psychiatric Hospital in NJ, and it is architecturally very interesting like many of the deserted buildings on the grounds. Within 5 minutes I had two cop cars roar up to me at high speed telling me I was breaking state law. Was I shooting patients - No. No photography is allowed. Don’t come back.
I know how this feels. My partner and I were at the Hotel W in San Diego taking photos and were “removed” from the hotel. The security guard followed us out to my car and was writing down my license number. We stay at the W chain frequently and always document the hotels we like. We’d never had any issues in the past. When we returned home, I called Starwood and the woman taking the call was speechless. She asked if I’d send an email with details (I even had a shot of the security guard pointing at me, while asking me to stop). I did and got an immediate response. The upshot of the whole thing was that they gave us a lot of points to use for free hotel stays. We have also been upgraded to a suite several times. I’m pointing this out as a way of illustrate how issues like this should be resolved. We’re back to being happy W customers again and have since taken photos in the San Diego W. BTW, the entire security company was fired because of our incident. If you want that photo, email me: randy@qsfo.com
A sad thing. Just sent a letter to the SF MOMA;
Just thought I would let you know due to your recent tossing of a photographer, I will not be attending your museum (along with my friends and family) when I come to SF in the near future.
As much as you insist you were “protecting your staff”, it’s bull. If you look at the photos taken, and had any clue about the equipment being used, you might have reconsidered. And if he WAS taking the photos you suggest he was taking with the equipment he obviously was NOT using, you should have been calling the POLICE, not just releasing him to re-offend. As much as you might want to post rhetoric that you were in the right, this Blint fellow definitely screwed up, and you compound the error by defending him. It’s such a tragedy that someone taking care of the art chooses to blatantly set fire to the practice of said art.
Same damn thing happened to me and a friend … it’s quite unfortunate! Photographing in the W Hotel San Diego one afternoon. And mind you we were only using point and shoot cameras not SLR’s and rudely we were escorted and removed off of the properties of the hotel. A team of security guards actually asked us to head downstairs from the upstairs beach lounge area and to head out. We stopped at the front desk and management told us that we are not allowed to photograph inside the hotel. WOW I said I wasn’t aware of such a thing?
It was bad enough to be escorted out by the security guards but later one of the security guards followed us out and wrote down our license plate number from our car.
That there made us feel like we were some kind of criminals.
Later a phone call to the hotel chain got us a pretty nice stay in their hotel chain and a firing of the security company that was working in the San Diego location. We’ve since been back to the W in San Diego and photographed it many times and nothing since has happened.
This Blint guy certainly does not know anything about anything except for the fact that he was putting his foot down and making sure it was his word and nothing but. Shame on him hope he gets fired for his stupid actions. Keep photographing man!
I wrote a song about it. Want to hear it? Here it go: http://mattb4rd.com/eloi/?p=107
[...] Thrown Out of SF MOMA Thomas Hawk thrown out of SF MOMA. This poor guy was ejected from San Francisco’s Museum of Modern Art for taking a photograph [...]
[...] Thomas Hawk posts on getting booted from the San Francisco MOMA. [...]