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.
SFMOMA must fire this bastard Simon immediately! And then closely examine his bosses. Because of this I will cancel my planned visit to SFMOMA tomorrow, will not be buying a family membership and will spread the word about how the museum is mistreating patrons. I expect to be able to visit public museums with my family without harassment while following the posted rules. What has happened to this once great country that even public art museums in liberal cities completely disregard artistic freedom and human dignity?
It’s interesting that these things always seem to happen to you, and to no one else. I’ve taken DSLR photos in that same stairwell probably 10-20 times. Either you’re doing something to draw attention to yourself, or you’re doing something suspicious. The stories that you report on simply don’t add up.
How incredibly ridiculous! Sounds like some people get off on these little power trips.
What do you expect? In Blint’s last SF MOMA performance report (a one-pager), the word “sucks” appears twelve times.
Too bad that this is only half the story the truth of the matter is that he was not taking pictures of the atrium as he “CLAIMS” but he was taking pictures straight down where a female staffer was working. This staff member was wearing a low cut shirt and it appeared that he was taking pictures of her “goods”. He was repeatedly asked to stop taking pictures of her (at least 10 that I counted) and was then was walked out by my co-worker and I. We didn’t even touch him.
Blint might be an asshole for all I know, but the question remains – did you shove your camera in his face and take that photo before or after he said you had to leave? Why don’t you tell the whole story, douchebag.
fucker! Get him fired. A pity he represents SF MOMA.
11:37 AM: give up already.
Actually avoiding the museum is the absolute wrong thing to do.
You should organize a “photography” field trip to the museum. Preferably with a senior citizens photography group.
Suuureee he was taking peeks at some staffer’s cleavage. Sounds like a juvenile fantasy from an anonymous coward.
sad… hope this never happenss again…
I cant believe you are actually crying about being thrown out of a museum for taking pictures…I’ve read your side, and having been to the SFMOMA (more than a few times) and being somewhat familiar with the art world and the museums within it, I have to say I’m not surprised. This is not to say that I feel as if you SHOULD be able to take photos in museum, but this has NOTHING to do with crimes or any criminal act. Your rant sounds like a pissed off 12 yr old that got caught doing something bad and is pulling every excuse in the book to take all of the attention away from your embarrassing event and on to others. Make work instead of crying.
Yikes, you need a better camera. One with less ISO noise. That shot you took of the dude is pretty bad IQ.
No, you shouldn’t have been kicked out, but photographing people (non-public figures) without their knowledge or consent, especially if you intend to publish, is invasive and violating.
maybe they thought you were a scientologist…
Hey looks like a pedophile.
Simon Blint here,
Why don’t you tell the other side of the story, huh? He was eating McDonalds and dropped a bunch of french fries over the balcony edge. The museum has a no food or drink policy in these areas for obvious reasons. We told him to dispose of his food in the nearest receptacle, he refused, and THAT is why he was removed from the property, it had nothing to do with photography, which IS allowed, by the way.
All of you people that keep emailing my bosses and calling my bosses, it’s not going to do anything, I’m pretty much bulletproof, I have family ties that got me this job, and I have family ties that will keep this job for me.
I love it, public relations director creates a public relations nightmare! I can’t wait to see how this ends!
Problem is that, despite his title, he is probably just a schmuck taking orders in the scheme of it all. People who generally have any meaningful power in this kind of situation don’t overreact like that. The museum probably didn’t communicate or discuss the changes in policy carefully enough to those lower on the pole. Instead of getting into a pissing match with this guy and putting up his face to deride him and whatnot, I would take this to someone over his head. See, the best revenge would be walking back in to the museum and doing it all over again with both of you knowing that he can’t pull this stunt again.
Too bad that this is only half the story the truth of the matter is that he was not taking pictures of the atrium as he “CLAIMS” but he was clubbing baby seals in our atrium and we have a strict policy against hunting. THAT is why he was removed from the property, it had nothing to do with photography, which IS allowed, by the way.
You anonymous “staff members” can all GTH for smearing Thomas Hawk. The pictures on the blog speak for themselves on his intent.
Too bad that this is only half the story the truth of the matter is that he was not taking pictures of the atrium as he “CLAIMS” but he was taking pictures straight down where a female staffer was working. This staff member was wearing a low cut shirt and it appeared that he was taking pictures of her “goods”. He was repeatedly asked to stop taking pictures of her (at least 10 that I counted) and was then was walked out by my co-worker and I. We didn’t even touch him.
Anonymous, the floor below me was at least 12 feet away. Have you seen what *anything* 12 feet away looks like with a 14mm ultra wide angle lens? If you are going to try to “take pictures of someone’s goods,” using a 14mm ultra wide angle lens really is not the best way to go. I explained this to Blint when he accused me of using a “telephoto” which I clearly was not. I also told him at the time that he’d look stupid when I published what I was actually shooting, the atrium with a wide angle lens but this didn’t matter to him. I offered to show my photographs to Blint and he refused to examine them.
If I was guilty of anything I certainly would not have objected to his insistence that I not photograph in the atrium, I would have complied and left.
Also, best I could tell (and as is corroborated by my colleague who was with me and who was also asked to leave) the female employee monitoring tickets below in the atrium you reference was wearing a sweater and a scarf not a low cut top as you suggest. I recommend you pull your video tapes and examine her “low cut” outfit if you still think this the case.
Either way though, a simple review of my photographs which I offered would have easily cleared up any confusion. I was not provided this opportunity as I requested. I was simply ejected from the museum.
Here’s another idea for you. If you are concerned that people might “see your employees goods” maybe stationing her directly beneath the most logical vantage point to take a photograph of the museum atrium is not the smartest thing in the world.
By the way anonymous security guard, are you the one that made the “jerk off” gesture at me after evicting me from the museum or was that the other goon working with you. Maybe I should publish the photo of that. Not a nice gesture for a security guard to make to a paying member. I’ve largely left you two out of it because as far as I was concerned you two were just following Blint’s orders. I’d be happy to publish photographs of you both as well though if you’d like me to.
Another power tripping idiot. There is no excuse for that. Their photography policy is: “Flash photography is permitted only with a handheld camera in the Atrium.” They need to educate the morons over there. A person at “director” level should certainly be aware of the museum policy. He needs to lose his job. I assume that you will be in touch with the people above this moron. I’m looking forward to hearing what the results are.
I think I may give the museum a call on Monday (415.357.4000) and see what their comments are about this.
Just because they _permit_ photography does’nt mean they can’t stop you from taking photographs.
I can see where the guy might be coming from – he sees a photographer using some very pro looking gear. As you say he obviously knows nothing about photography – (and why should he??). He becomes suspicious about what exactly you are up to (a 14mm lens FFS!) and he has’nt been told about any pro photographers that day). A little bit of attitude on both sides and out you go.
You mention Cartier Bresson – famous for using a lightweight, unobtrusive Leica to get his shots. If Cartier Bresson had been in the Museum taking photos no one would have noticed him or his camera and he would not have been chucked out.
Publishing a photo of the guy is just plain rude. I’m guessing he did not (and would not) give you permission.
http://www.krages.com/bpkphoto.htm
This site belongs to a Portland, OR attorney who emphasizes on video and still photographer’s rights.
He provides a rights “cheat sheet” in .pdf format that explains why Blint should be lucky if all he loses is his job.
Please … don’t let this stop with a blog post. Working as a photojournalist, I refuse to shoot on anything less than my D-80, and I get harassed all the time.
You’ve got plenty of right and reason to make an example of this “Blint” fellow, and the more public, the better.
… on a lighter note, that atrium photo is a great shot even without the awesome story attached to it.
Not that what happened to you is awesome, but lets be honest … you’ll be tellin’ this one for a while
I recently attended the SF MoMA with my housemates for the Frida Kahlo exhibit. While my overall impression of the museum was favorable (I am disabled and they loaned me a wheelchair), I did notice a lot of photography going on, mostly with devices I wouldn’t normally call cameras… Perhaps proper cameras aren’t obnoxious enough for use there, as they don’t blare digitized popsong melodies at random intervals, and their owners don’t usually stand around yelling into them at social functions.
Looks like MOMA stands for the Museum of Moody Assholes! And that’s my joke.
Blint appears that he landed in the worng profession. Clearly his skill can be enjoyed and honed at the local Dept. of Motor Vehicles. Blint does not belong around art or artists this is clear.
SurfDaddy
Karma for being such an asshole about Greenberg’s End Times.
I think you should have been arrested for this incident.
yeah, its moma for ya alright. my girlfriend recently quit a job from their distribution center in south river nj (for the NYC MOMA) where among generally being a cheap, shitty place to work, they knowingly employ illegal immigrants who share valid SSN’s to be employed.
their staff at every level is ridden with assholes, not every one of them is (there’s some nice people there) but they don’t fire the people they should be firing and are generally run with poor policies.
My company is a big institutional donor to SF MOMA and I’m going to recommend they reconsider.
We can’t afford to have our company’s brand name tarnished by association with an amateurish outfit.
If they didn’t want photography, they shouldn’t have made the announcement.
If they were allowing it, then folks like Blint should have been clearly instructed prior to the new policy going live.
Clearly, SF MOMA has little understanding about the importance of the customer experience. We want no part of that kind of ‘branding’.
This sort of thing really bugs me.
These people are custodians of art which is a human resource. To me that means their responsibility is to improve access not prevent it.
The asian art museum in sf allows photography except in a few special exhibits (unfortunately this is probably forced on them or they wouldn’t get the exhibit at all).
I checked recently here in LA and the hammer museum in westwood allows no photography at all. I’m really disappointed and am now inclined not to go there.
If we’re politely doing handheld flashless photography of the art and architecture these stewards of culture should politely allow and even encourage us.
thomas is at least as big a douchebag as blint.
not a crime? were you arrested and charged with anything? or were you ejected from private property?
how many times do you need to say “my art” in this piece? even as an art student and enthusiast i find that extremely self absorbed.
do you think taking photos of him and threatening to ‘blog’ about it helped the situation? did it ever occur to you that taking a photo of someone on private property without their permission, and then posting it on the internet, is actually violating his rights? that if your account of events is not actually accurate you open yourself up to a civil suit for libel?
even with only your side of the story here you manage to make yourself out as an unbearably self-righteous douche.
While it is a shame that reactions from public photography (especially from more noticeable devices) can be so hostile, I think that your reaction not only hostile but invasive. Is plastering one guy’s name and picture across various internet communities going to end discrimination against photography? I doubt that. However, you probably have given this man much, much more stress and agony than what you experienced. Not only that, but how many of these other posters REALLY know what happened? Way to rile up the internet attack dog for your own personal glory. Sounds to me (from my uninformed, unconnected relaton to this event) that you are probably BOTH power tripping ego fiends. However, I feel sorry for Simon. I can’t say the same for you.
Good for you, Thomas Hawk, for standing up for yourself. (For those who are claiming that these things happen to Hawk more than most, it’s because Hawk knows his rights, and doesn’t back down to the authorities when the authorities are dumb or fail to give a good reason for their actions. Authority should not be *blindly* obeyed.)
I’m glad most of the comments are supportive. As always, it’s worth noting the authoritarians among us who seem to have little to no conception as to what it means to be in a free society. Like Chris:
“I cant believe you are actually crying about being thrown out of a museum for taking pictures…”
Of course, Thomas isn’t *crying,* he’s describing what happened. Strike one.
“This is not to say that I feel as if you SHOULD be able to take photos in museum, but this has NOTHING to do with crimes or any criminal act.”
Chris is clearly struggling from reading comprehension difficulties here. The San Francisco MOMA itself explicitly *allows* photography in this area. Hawk called the museum to make sure *in advance.*
The anonymous trolls aren’t even worthy of comment.
@Laz
From Thomas’ story it sounds like he tried multiple times to diffuse the situation as it happened.
Including: Referring to a posted policy, referring to conversations with Blint’s superiors, and even offering to show the innocuous photos that Blint was opposed to.
Blint took every opportunity to refuse Thomas from any sort of agreeable recourse. In effect Blint was counting on the fact that his “authority” was the final, end all word and could not be disputed because he wouldn’t allow it to be disputed. Blint’s humbling was not only begged for, it was needed.
Thomas was not looking for trouble, Blint was, and he found it. How you find compassion for the instigator is beyond me… are you a mall security guard or something?
If someone doesn’t care about you, doesn’t listen to what you have to say, is not willing to work things out, and doesn’t care about customers? Than that person is an asshole. The two body guards idem.
Here in the Netherlands body guards are educated in social behavior. It’s the best way to get people out of a certain place.
I took notice of the discussion on FF. For me its simple. You have the freedom to speak, to speak out loud. and for MOMA? They are not ready for blogs and are not ready for understanding the power, for them blogs are future art, not modern art
The internet will never forget you are a douchey asshole. For eons to come whenever anyone googles you they will find this.
Way to go Simon.
If every one who has read this send a note to MoMA and letters to editors to all local newspapers, may be something would change.
People like that probably don’t give a damn about public pressure (because they are always right), unless it affects them directly.
This makes me sick.
Demand your money back. If they don’t take the bastard to small claims court.
Just to weight in as someone who works in visitor services at a different San Francisco museum… Our photo policy is dependent on the work on display. We do not restrict photography (without flash) in our permanent collection, but if we are displaying a work on loan, as an institution we have to respect the lender’s wishes.
This guy at SFMOMA sounds like he was power-tripping for sure. In my experience, you have to choose your battles and though it’s tough, takinga “customer is always right” attitude (as long as safety and other visitors’ enjoyment of the museum aren’t at risk) is the best course of action. It sounds like this experience has definitly impacted Hawk’s impression of museums in general and I hope those reading his story don’t assume that this is the general attitude of all museum workers. Most of us are nice, helpful, and love art. Don’t let one rude jerk impact your appreciation of museums!
Sorry to hear what happened. I've sent an Email to Libby and Robyn from MOMA as well as some email addresses to their sponsor (AT&T;, Schwab and Banana Republic) to point out your experience. Good luck!
Time for a “shoot in” and everyone bring a copy of the website.
Maybe we should hereby coin the term ’simon blint’ to describe a particular type of douche bag: the douche bag who flaunts his appointed power over a public trust such as an art museum, despite his being explicitly and embarassingly ignorant of all of the relevant details of the situation at hand.
>>> Way to rile up the internet attack dog for your own personal glory.
Bingo! It's like watching a little 9 year old throw a tantrum. How could anybody believe this one-sided accounting after it was written about in this manner using language so loaded solely to stir up the pot. Very juvenile.
One of the security guards at the MET came to me once also because I found interesting a march the guards did at the end of the day. I took a picture of the backs of all of them when crossing a small gallery in front of the restroom waiting for some friends, and I received a personal visit of one of those guys threatening me for doing so. I wouldn’t wonder that taking a panoramic picture of people, can cause so much trouble in a place where they are not used to it.
Thomas,
Don’t back down. Keep writing letters, making phone calls, etc to the museum until the asshole appologizes. To you. In person. Recruit the media if you have to. Make sure the museum knows how many memberships they are losing as a direct result of your treatment. Good luck!
He was absolutely right to throw you out.
—
Blint told me that “he did not care” and that he needed to “protect” his employees — employees that might appear in my photographs.
—
I personally know of at least one case where the appearance of one of your photographs framed by a story you distorted ultimately cost someone their job.
Ummm… sorry to bust your bubble, but on the website that you like to point to actually says:
“Cameras
Photography is not permitted in the galleries. Flash photography is permitted only with a handheld camera in the Atrium.”
Scroll down. You’ll see it.
On the other hand, I’m sorry this had to happen to you and its a pity that they didn’t explain this to you.
by the way, were you trying to take pictures of the art? Or were you in the atrium?
It doesn’t surprise me that the staff at SFMOMA is second rate, the museum itself is at best a second rate. If you ever spent some time there, you’ll notice the collection isn’t the best and even the architecture of the building is a bit messy with lines not meeting and other anomalies from sloppy construction.
Not sure how the chairman of their board would feel, but here is is email:
Chairman
Charles R. Schwab
chairman@sfmoma.org
Number one result for “Simon Blint” on Google. Awesome. I hope this guy loses his job. He sounds like the kind of guy who you’d find dicking you around at Best Buy, and he has no place in an institution like the SFMOMA.
Yet another strike in the great “War against Photographers”.
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/06/the_war_on_phot.html
Congratulations SFMOMA, you’re now known around the world for your actions.
What this blog doesn’t mention is that there was a female employee in a low cut blouse who was sitting directly below where he was taking pictures and that she felt uncomfortable (especially when other VISITORS of the museum notice).
Before you harshly judge the museum off of one blog, be sure to know the other side.
dude get a life
Never had a bad incident at the MOMA when I take photographs and neither have my other friends…because we aren’t assholes and respect the employees as well as the other guests.
Act like a an asshole, expect to be treated like one.
You are full of it, and I hope they get you for slander if they even read this petty blog.
Maybe Simon Blint acted a little unfairly,
but it seems to me, that you were probably being agressive and taking pictures of the guy while he asks you to stop only makes you look childish. I support the SFMOMA and I hope that people continue to. Your supporters on this blog obviously are assuming you aren’t full of shit, bad filters on their part.
“Maybe I should publish the photo of that. Not a nice gesture for a security guard to make to a paying member. I’ve largely left you two out of it because as far as I was concerned you two were just following Blint’s orders. I’d be happy to publish photographs of you both as well though if you’d like me to.”
Do it. I’m dying to see what he looks like.
-fireinthesky
“Maybe I should publish the photo of that. Not a nice gesture for a security guard to make to a paying member. I’ve largely left you two out of it because as far as I was concerned you two were just following Blint’s orders. I’d be happy to publish photographs of you both as well though if you’d like me to.”
This shows me this blog isn’t about justice but about revenge. So you had a disagreement with this guy, of which we have heard one (highly loaded)side of the story. The quote above is just thinly veiled blackmail in my opinion, shut up or I’ll publish my pics of you and get you fired, just like I’ll get this guy fired.
By the way if I saw a guy photographing down an employees cleavage I wouldn’t care what kind of lense he had.
Simon Blint is my HERO! If I saw you taking photos down one of my employees shirts I would have kicked your ass!
Good idea, but why is this so Dugg? Its not that big a deal.
Honestly, I’m flabbergasted as to why the various “Anonymous” individuals posting counter-arguments and/or alternate versions of what happened think anyone would take their comments seriously when they won’t even take responsibility for their words by at least using a screenname of some sort. How hard is it to sign up for an extra Google account and thereby strengthen their argument by not being the typical “Anonymous” troll. Amateurs. To say the least.
Thomas Hawk is a complete sociopath and his words are not to be trusted. About three years ago, he got an immigrant security guard fired from 45 Fremont after badgering the guy to his breaking point, snapping a photo of him and then posting it on the Internet where he framed himself as a victim.
The poor guy was a friend of mine and was working his way through school. Hopefully Mr. Hawk didn’t ***** that up with his attention seeking *****.
This is pretty f*cking ridiculous… I’m not referring to anything Blint did, but to the response of so many of the posters here.
Blint himself posted his rebuttal in these comments and nobody seems to have noticed it. He says that Hawk was eating McDonald’s and spilling it over the balcony and wouldn’t discard his food when asked. This makes perfect sense, because you see people taking pictures of that atrium ALL THE TIME without museum staff making an issue of it!
Maybe you don’t believe that Hawk was doing that, and maybe you don’t believe the allegations that Hawk was taking downblouse pictures, but it’s downright scary that so many of the posters who have left comments since then (including the author of this blog himself) haven’t discussed it at all. That instead, people are far too busy posting more contact info for the museum and saying “HAY GUYS look I found his facebook lolz!” and making this guy feel the wrath of the mob mentality of an anonymous horde that’s chosen some random guy as the target of their two-minute-hate. I’m dismayed that many of you will be voting in November.
You know what? I used to work for Simon (Years ago, at the Zeum). He was kinda slimy at times, and he ultimately fired me for bullshit reasons, but he was a regular guy. He was kinda funny, and always let the teenagers leave early with pay, which I can appreciate now that I’ve been a member of the workforce for a bit longer.
And to “jeanne”– this post, like the rest of the ones you’re refering to in your own post, is “anonymous” only because I don’t have a blogger account. Many of the people who are reading this found it via digg, and certainly any voices of dissent in this case aren’t going to come from regular readers of his blog.
TH, you really are a piece of work…
You are fully allowed to take photos in the atrium and other areas of the museum including the Permanent collection. I have been visiting for years and have never had a problem, even w/ tripod, etc.
You know there is more to your story and leave it out to make yourself look better in your mud-slinging campaign. I am really amazed at how many folks eat what this ‘TH’ feeds you. Will you believe anything?
So many folks jump to outlandish conclusions… do your research, museum is a private non-profit.
Also, Thomas Hawk, humble up… your atrium photo that every tourist takes is hardly “ART” as you are so quick to overuse the term.
Remember seeing avant-garde art in person is a visceral experience enjoyed by those whose passion for the artwork should vastly out weigh some bloggers rant.
Think for yourself, not some guy at his keyboard
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.
I SAW THE WHOLE THING! All these blog postings are making me ill. I was at SF Moma on Friday and saw the whole altercation in the museum’s atrium. Hawk was leaning over a balcony clearly shooting straight down at a female employee. Regardless of the lens on his camera, it was OBVIOUS he was shooting down the girl’s top. Any reasonable person would reach this conclusion. Blint was ABSOLUTELY CORRECT to put an end to this invasion of privacy of one of his staff. Also, I can report that Blint was, though loud and forceful, completely professional. Hawk seemed to enjoy taunting him, and did and said everything he could to make the situation worse. Blint should be given a raise, not fired.
I’ve always like TH’s photography, but his tactics sure leave a sour taste in my mouth. I can’t believe he snapped this guy’s photo and posted it with his full name, and place of work, all without his consent. And to top it off calls him an a-hole. That’s really shocking. Hawk – if you want people to take you seriously, act like an adult, not a 7th grader. Who knows what really happened? Many of you reading this should be ashamed of yourselves for jumping on the bandwagon without hearing Blint or SFMOMA’s side of the story. I hope that will be posted soon. In the meantime, reserve your judgment. Something tells me Hawk will end up looking like the A-hole here. I really hope Blint or SFMOMA sues him for every cent he has. And bloggers wonder why they’re not taken seriously as journalists….
Keep on defending Mr. Hawk, mindless bloggers.
Accusations of him photographing down a staffers blouse are true. She and others were alarmed and uncomfortable. Any good supervisor would look out, react and ACT upon the well being of their employees. Surely, Mr. Hawk can understand this sentiment?
I have never formulated such a negative image for someone like this Mr. Hawk as I have from this page. So many negative qualities shine through in his manner of handling this situation, and I feel sorry for those close to him if this is how he deals. Hopefully no one else becomes an unsuspecting victim of slander.
Why would anyone read his petty lies?
Strange at how Blint’s most vociferous supporters (and all of the “blouse” theorists) are all anonymous and present no actual evidence for their claims. Perhaps you could be taken a bit seriously if your evidence wasn’t simply of the “he said she said” variety posted in anonymous form?
I sincerely hope this person’s superiors hears about this unfortunate incident. If photography is said to be allowed, it should be allowed fully, period. If there are to be restrictions, let them stipulate them clearly so everyone knows what the rules are. No more of this on-the-spot, ad hoc stuff.
To LwPhD:
Maybe those posting anonymously are hoping to avoid Hawk attempting to ruin their lives like he’s trying to do to Blint. I sure wouldn’t want my name and photo plastered all over the web.
It’s interesting to me to see all the “anonymous” trolls claiming that I was taking a photo down a woman’s low cut blouse. I actually do have a photo of the woman in question. She’s one of the people in one of the photos I took when Blint was publicly berating me, yelling at me and accusing me of spying on his employees from the ground floor about 15 feet below me. I very well may post the photo if it comes to that.
The female employee in question was not wearing a low cut blouse. She wasn’t wearing a blouse at all best I can tell. She was wearing some sort of yellow colored sweater or jacket thing that covered up her entire upper body, her shoulders, her neck, everything. There was nothing to be seen even if I wanted to.
I am though, and was at the time, very willing to give Blint the benefit of the doubt that he may have in fact thought this. This is why I offered to show him my photos which he refused to look at.
Had he looked at my photos and been a civil human being, he clearly would have seen that a 14mm ultra wide angle lens simply cannot produce anything that would remotely resemble looking down someone’s sweater/jacket. I offered to show him my photos and discuss the matter with him, he refused and had me ejected.
I would have been more than happy to share my photos with Blint or anyone else at the SF MOMA who clearly could have seen that a large scale wide angle photograph from a 14mm ultra wide angle lens, where people look like ants 15 to 30 feet away simply could not have produced any sort of inappropriate shot. I would invite anyone in the SF MOMA’s photography department who is familiar with 14mm ultra wide angle lenses to offer an opinon as to the level of detail that one could see with such a lens from the second floor staircase where I was standing.
Further, I was specifically talking about how the ultra wide angle lens would make such a scene look with my friend torbakhopper who was with me at the time (and who was also threatened with ejection). If you want another actual eye witnesses account check out his comment here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/thomashawk/2744778055/#comment72157606625060939
I don’t bear a grudge against Blint for jumping to some false conclusion based on his clear misunderstanding of how photographic lenses work. What bothers me though was his insistence on playing the whole thing out while yelling from the ground floor in front of numerous public patrons as well as his absolute insistence not to review my photographs or sit down and discuss the situation rationally or involve a superior.
Especially when I identified myself as a paying member and supporter of the museum I feel that common decency should have granted me at least a review of my photos rather than a forcible ejection.
The fact of the matter is that Blint is used to playing god in “his” museum and thought he could get away with bullying someone. I told him he was going to look foolish when I published the photo that I was taking and gave him every opportunity to take a more rational approach to the situation.
And to the other “anonymous” commenter who alleges that I got a security guard friend of his fired. I’m assuming that you mean this guy: http://www.flickr.com/photos/thomashawk/130601011/in/set-72157606500847680/
Yeah, I did publish a photo of that guy on the internet. When I’m shooting public buildings from outside in a public area and some asshole security guard decides that the best thing to do is to come out and flip me the bird, well, I’m going to publish that photo. That was another case of a power trippy security guard who thought he could leave his post inside the building and come out and tell me that I couldn’t shoot the exterior of the building from a public area.
The fact of the matter is that he was wrong. It is perfectly legal to shoot the exterior of the public building and I later received an apology from the building’s management over the incident.
I’m sorry your friend got fired. Maybe in his next job as a security guard he’ll think twice before flipping off a photographer and trying to exert rights over the public space and air that he simply does not have.
It’s always interesting when a drove of anonymous troll comments show up from the same IP address.
That really sucks.
Please keep us informed on whats going on with this.
Keep taking pictures
Thomas, when read your account I immediately recognized a particular constructed political tone to it. We’re not getting the whole story here. What we are getting is a carefully crafted, one-sided, deliberately skewed account of what happened. An honest accounting of events would not be so charged with defensive language with an aftertaste of arrogance.
To be very blunt, when I first saw the pic of Blint I was inclined to believe you – he just looks “the type.” Despite that your words paint your portrait to also be “the type”
It takes two to tango, looks like you found your partner.
Blint needs to kicked out – get a director of VR who understands museum policy, not one who arbitrarily changes the rules. Can you imagine this happening at the Getty? NO!
The SF MOMA has been one of my fave museums for many years. This could turn anyone against such a lovely treasure. Simon Blint needs to be fired. Scratch that – he needs to apologize to you. Then he needs to be fired.
@Thomas Hawk: Clearly, despite your 14MM wide-angle lens, and despite the fact that the woman wasn’t wearing a low-cut blouse, you WERE taking virtual, telephoto downblouse shots!
Anyone who knows anything about digital photography knows that you can reverse the effects of any lens through Fourier-transform deconvolution, not to mention the incredible power of Digital Zoom (TM). And with Photoshop and Illustrator, it should be easy to replace her scarf with fake cleavage – AND make her look underage, you pervert!
And then you compounded the matter by offering to expose Simon Blint to such filthy pre-pornography (prenography?), which was all part of your plan to get him arrested for receiving kiddie porn. No wonder he cleverly refused to view what you claimed was your “proof” of not taking pictures of her. Heck, you may have been planning to draw her in afterwards! In fact, her very ABSENCE from any of your so-called “artistic” photos only proves how dastardly you would have been in Photoshopping her into the shot later.
Oh, yes, I’m onto you, Thomas Hawk, you and your devious, deviant digital schemes.
Funny that TH whines about anonymous commenters, yet hides behind a fake name, And then deletes comments he doesn’t like. Brave indeed.
His accounting of what happened is charged with language designed to pump himself up and garner sympathy. And the name-calling (a$$hole, etc) is just childish.
If TH actually wrote in a responsible jounalistic style, the story might have some credibility. As it stands, the biases and behvior displayed, speak louder than any facts.
Funny that TH whines about anonymous commenters, yet hides behind a fake name, And then deletes comments he doesn’t like. Brave indeed.
Anonymous. I don’t delete comments. Anyone who knows anything about me knows that I abhor censorship. More recently I’ve enabled comment moderation to help stop spam comments but I don’t moderate comments over legitimate content and in fact I actually have comment moderation even turned off right now.
I did delete one comment once where a young woman asked me to because it contained her personal physical address and she was concerned that an incident by her ex-husband might generate bodily harm to her and her daughter. But other than that, that’s it. Nice try though.
And I certainly allow anonymous comments on my blog. Your comment is a testament to that. I wasn’t whining I was simply pointing out that it’s interesting when so many of the same type of comments tend to come from the same IP address — which I capture in my server logs.
It is pretty amusing that most of the comments in support of Blint and SFMOMA are from “Anonymous”. Blint clearly overstepped his authority and acted like a swine. End of story. The fool deserves a reprimand at the very least, and Hawk deserves an apology from SFMOMA – Q.E.D.
I fail to see how this could confuse anyone, but clearly it does.
bet the SFMOMA won’t even display photos from the 70’s when San Francisco tore down the neighborhood to build their elitist Yurba Buena project. http://www.ccsro.org/pages/history.htm I remember as a kid growing up in the city, all of the Black and white photos of the protest to save the international hotel.
I have given up visiting the US because of the situation at your airports, Guantanamo and the death penalty so I wouldn’t have been going to SFMOMA anytime soon. However, if Obama rectifies the aforementioned, count on it that the SFMOMA won’t be on my list of places to go should I come over.
How about asking for a refund of your membership fees if he doesnt appologize for his errors.
Once an AssHole always an AssHole?
Simon Blint has a wonderful opportunity here to answer that question with a sincere and very public apology and, most important, do something concrete and tangible to make it up to Thomas and the entire moseum going and art community at large.
Simon, a few ideas for you:
1) Apologize to Thomas and put his photo from this blog in your museum, with complete history and all
2) Have a photo contest inviting everyone to take photos on the museum and of the art above, it’s called MashUp, and then have an exhibit of it
3) Did I mention compensating monetarily Thomas for his effort? You’ve got some publicity here, and by fixing it you’ll get even more. Be a leader in the art world, go into history as the guy who had the leadership skills to turn a lemon into a lemonade, so far you are just another ass hole, and one not even worth remembering.
Regardless of who was right or wrong, Peterson/Hawk has crossed the line. A more rational human being would have simply written a letter to museum management, stating their case and asking for the situation to be put right. Peterson/Hawk has instead savaged Simon Blint’s online reputation, which is guaranteed to hurt his employment prospects for years to come.
I’m a minor blogger, but I know that a certain level of social and human responsibility is required whenever you post something online. In the case of Peterson/Hawk, whose blog is ready by many thousands of people, that responsibility increases ten-fold. The story has spread to numerous other sites, with random individuals posting comments that not only insult Blint, but demand he be fired. SF MOMA has yet to present its side of the story. 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. Those who are taking such gleeful joy in ripping the museum employee to pieces should stop and wonder how they would feel if they themselves—or a loved one—was the target of such cyber bullying.
If Peterson/Hawk wants to initiate a thought-provoking discussion on the rights of artists (I’m an author and am interested in such subjects), simply going online and calling someone an “***hole” is not the way to do it.
I’ll be canceling my membership unless the museum decides to take some action on this case.
Thomas I think this absolutely sucks, and you’ve been wronged by someone who thinks he knows his job better than he actually does. I also fear, though, that you’ve ceded the high ground by calling him an asshole. In my experience if you want results, you never, ever head to profanity-land. Instead you let the other person look like the dick that he is, and stand back while they self-destruct.
Just my opinion. I hope you do get some satisfaction though.
***** ” I’m a minor blogger, but I know that a certain level of social and human responsibility is required whenever you post something online.”
And that’s what’s missing in this piece – balance and perspective. You only see a one-sided tiny rant from a child.
I love all the posts where people say they’re going to cancel their membership. No doubt gather up their toys, go home, hold their breath and turn blue as well…
I’ve shot hundreds of pix at Moma. Never a hassle. It’s about behavior and personal responsibility. I see none taken in this story.
There’s something about calling someone an asshole (in the post title even) seems a little over the top. Seems to me that both parties have abused their powers in this case.
So, NONE of TH’s supporters or TH himself will comment on the fact that Blint said he was kicked out for dropping fries off the balcony in a no food area??
Whatever kind of lens TH had he was making a female employee uncomfortable with his photos. And he was eating where there was no food allowed. What else is there to know? He clearly escalated the issue after Blint came up to him and that doesn’t help his case – nor help Blint see why he should be allowed to stay.
Some people are attention seeking victims, and TH sounds just like one.
I apologize for all the lies I told earlier on this thread. There was no security guard at 45 Fremont, I just made that up. There was no employee in a low cut blouse, I made that up too. My boyfriend hid my Oxycontin, see, and I get real cranky when he does that, but then he went off to his lumberjack job and I finally found the Oxy buried in the cat litter, and after two tabs and some gin ‘n tonic, I’m in a much better frame of mind and I want you to know that I love you all.
OK, let’s say this guy is a jerk. Dragging this worker bees name and pic through the mud seems a bit too much. Get irate, blog all you want, mention the name of the head cheese there at the SFMOMA, but…this seems wrong to me.
There are people at your Flickr set making fun of the looks of the guy for petes’ sake.
So, NONE of TH’s supporters or TH himself will comment on the fact that Blint said he was kicked out for dropping fries off the balcony in a no food area??
Haha, Gina, that “fake” Simon Blint account is simply a troll — popular threads like this bring out the lot of them. I was not eating McDonalds in the museum. I don’t generally eat at McDonalds period, but I do have a fondness for their characters from the seventies. Grimace, Ronald McDonald, the Hamburgler, that Apple Pie tree thingy and the whole gang.
I’ve posed more thoughts about this on my blog (granted, it’s readership is miniscule in comparison to Hawk’s: http://www.simon-read.blogspot.com).
I’ve known Simon for years; he’s a good friend.
My question to Thomas Hawk would be why lower the debate by resorting to insults? Could you not have simply written a blog about the incident without posting Blint’s picture, or calling him names?
What a stupid way to treat a paying customer!!! I remember doing some photography in London where some random dude came up to me, assumed I was a tourist and told me he was an off duty police officer, and he was going to ‘nik’ me if I didnt stop taking photos with my Fuji Finepix s6500fd (looks like a DSLR)
Whether or not Hawk was being confrontational is a separate issue from whether or not he was ejected for good reason. Hawk is clearly pretty confrontational, and certainly may have been an asshole himself.
However, he obviously went to great lengths to get clarification on the museum’s photography policy in advance, and honestly it doesn’t sound to me like he violated it.
In Blint’s defense, Blint or the security guards may in fact have believed that Hawk was trying to take pictures down the one woman’s shirt. If so, Blint made a huge mistake by not taking a look at Hawk’s pictures when Hawk offered to show them. A 14 mm lens (and the picture shown was clearly taken by a wide angle lens) is pretty useless for taking pictures of people unless you’re right up next to them. The “french fries” story, on the other hand, sounds pretty clearly like it was invented after the fact.
To summarize: Hawk may have been an asshole, but he’s probably in the right here.
Every other day, I am reading a story similar to this. Photographers all over the world are being harassed, sometimes even with having prior approval.
Maybe if Thomas Hawk didn’t try to take photographs down a female employee’s top, he would not have been asked to leave? You know, because employees deserve protection against such behaviour, regardless of who commits it?
and now that Hawk’s acting like a snippy entitlement whore, and what’s worse, posting personal information about a person whom he has successfully incited interweb rage against, I hope the authorities know where to look if Mr. Blint ends up harmed.
Seriously, for fuck’s sakes, if you have a disagreement with a security official, take it up with his employer. Don’t act like a petulant child who tried to touch his mommy’s friend, got caught, and then cries that mommy’s friend’s husband is a meanie asshole poopiehead when he scolds you for it.
Grow the hell up, and stop trying to take suggestive photographs of women you don’t know, without their permission, in a space where families and people with some degree of class gather. if you wanted some DSLR boob shots, there are more appropriate venues for that.
Goddamn it.
I read a few of the comments, then jumped to the end to leave one of my own.
#1 – I would consider getting a refund for my membership with this issue being the basis. I would call the top of the authority totem to facilitate this.
#2 – I believe posting his photo on here is legal as it is being used in a journalistic fashion as opposed to a commercial fashion, though I am not 100% certain.
I have taken photos in museums before, sometimes making it 90% of the way through before someone told me otherwise. Even then, though, I was politely instructed to stop.
In your case, while I would have certainly mentioned the policy change, he should have let you continue visiting without taking further pictures pending you taking the issue up with his superiors.
One has to wonder if he’s being a douche outright or if the communication is screwed up in their facility. Even still, he should have taken the steps to clarify in the event that he was mistaken.
#3 – Go back with a camera again. In fact, the same one. Let the press know you’re going. Forward this post you wrote to your local press. Get that guy reprimanded or fired.
#4 – Take care.