Forums


Go Back   The TrekEarth Forums >

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 09-28-2005, 09:58 PM
Homerhomer Homerhomer is offline
TE Expert
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,192
Default Re: Not on the verge...

"I understand your plight with the banning of photography, and seeing this as putting a strain on one's artistic expressoin, but I think that the ban would have benefits as well. Rather than looking through the viewfinder or LCD to frame the photo right, or spend time fumbling with one's camera, perhaps the visitor will instead spend more time viewing the paintings and art pieces giving the attention it deserves. Plus, let us not forget that a photo of a piece of art is only a lesser copy of the original. Also, if one makes a case for street photography inside the museum because it is interesting, then I would challenge that person to find beauty and unique photos at a place that does not lend it self to be photographed."
=================
with the above statement I disagree 100%.
Why the assumption that the photographer doesn't spend enough time enjoying art? I don't see the relation here and doubt that anyone will give the piece more attention just because photos of it can not be taken. And why are we suppose to be told how to enjoy our visit at the musuem (as long as we aren;t damaging or disturbing anything)?
I also don't agree that one only has to copy the art in the images, there is still plenty of ways of putting your own spin on it or simply take advantage of interesting elements available.
Why we would have to avoid beautifull places to photograph?
Mark, you have my full support and disagreement bro ;-)
Peter
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 09-28-2005, 10:13 PM
Luko Luko is offline
TE Expert
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,969
Default Re: Not on the verge...

"a place that does not lend it self to be photographed."
the Louvre museum for instance?

It happens that "museum" photography is a part of street photography like Elliott Erwitt, HCB or more recently Matt Stuart showed us for instance... and yes of course, I could still breathe without the authorisation of shooting inside a museum, as I can breathe now in Paris streets where it is impossible to photo someone without sneaking the shot, as Peter can breathe even though he's been arrested for photographying kids, as I-don't-remember-who (Peter again?) was firmly advised not to take images in NYC underground, as some french photographers who had to pay ridiculous fees to the owner of a boat for having their pic including the boat published in a magazine, as etc. etc.

The problem of so called safer civilisation is that they easily and quickly tread into the paranoid zone. When safety is globally reached it then takes a lot of effort to marginally increase it, the effort is generally taken on the account of your freedom. It often leads to breaking balls of 10% of the population who has nothing to do with it to satisfy 1% of the population, the rest of it, 89% being neutral. Just that.

Going in your way, I then think that the more challenging thing for a street photographer is to take landscapes and to cope with it. Will you please post photos with NO people in it anymore, Mark, thanks... ;) ...

Cheers
Luko
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 09-28-2005, 10:30 PM
Homerhomer Homerhomer is offline
TE Expert
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,192
Default Re: Not on the verge...

" as Peter can breathe even though he's been arrested for photographying kids, as I-don't-remember-who (Peter again?) was firmly advised not to take images in NYC underground"

All me;-) types like me (middle aged bold accountant, living in the suburbs with wife and kid) tend to pose a huge threat to the society and security of the nations!!!!!!

Peter
(I wonder if my wife is a spy!?!?!?!)
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 09-28-2005, 10:32 PM
markgong markgong is offline
TE Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 265
Default Re: Not on the verge...

"Why the assumption that the photographer doesn't spend enough time enjoying art? I don't see the relation here and doubt that anyone will give the piece more attention just because photos of it can not be taken. And why are we suppose to be told how to enjoy our visit at the musuem (as long as we aren;t damaging or disturbing anything)?"


================================================== =====

The comment was obviously not directed at art lovers or those who appreciate art, but at visitors and tourists who are simply there to say they were there. I think this is a big problem in Paris, where millions of tourists go to the Louvre simply because it is the Louvre, not for the sake of art. It becomes more sightseeing rather than fullfilling one's soul with art. I am not saying that these tourists have no place in the museum, but I would respectfully agree that their photo taking priveledges be revoked if they cannot control the flash on their cameras. Such seems to be the case now where people leave cameras on AUTO setting and snap away at the priceless paintings, damaging them with their seemingly harmless flashes. I personally do not mind not having the ability to photograph in the museum if it means the millions of other visitors who have no idea how to turn off flash gets their privledge revoked. This is still an isolated case where the main concern is not public safety, terrorist attacks, or selling more post cards, but rather the preservation of priceless artifacts so generations after us can enjoy them.

That being said, I think it's ridiculous to ban photograph in other wings of the museum where flash cannot damage the pieces.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 09-28-2005, 10:41 PM
markgong markgong is offline
TE Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 265
Default Re: Not on the verge...

Haha touche Luko.

I was playing the devil's advocate for a while there. I fully considered the paranoia factor and further limitations of a photographer's rights in public places to take photos. However, I still think that the Louvre is an isolated instance in which photography is banned because tourists can't seem to control their flash and paintings would be ruined because it. I don't think there is an invisible hand at work here, trying to limit a photographer's rights for the sake of security, national interest or anythign along those lines. While the far reaching implications of this ban is uncertain, and I fear its effects, I can however understand why the museum are taking such extreme measures.

Haha, it is far more difficult to take interesting photos in one's backyard than in a 3rd world country filled with vivid colors and unique faces. Sadly, I fall under this category of photographers. ;)
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 09-29-2005, 05:01 AM
dom_inik_m dom_inik_m is offline
Moderator
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 770
Default Sorry, you missed the whole point, Mark

The ban has not been edicted to protect paintings. If so, all painting departments should be concerned at the same time, which is not the case. And it shouldn't be extended to the whole building and collections, as planned

To quote the new regulations: with the growing success of the Grand Louvre project, marked by a sharp increase in annual attendance, the museum decided that the implemention of a partial restriction of photography and filming was needed. The restriction affects only the most crowded areas of the museum, where blocked views are most frustrating to the visiting public.

As I wrote before, people are expected to go faster from one room to another and linger less in front of the most popular pieces, bound to attract crowds. There goes your considerations for administrators willing to take care of art lovers who, as everyone knows, never watch a painting or a statue for more than 20 seconds...

By the way, what would be the best way to identify an art lover, not to be associated with a vulgar tourist eager to take pictures at anything he's been told to look at, and rush to the next masterpiece nearby? Should he:
Take an oath on a copy of Da Vinci's Treatise on painting?
Purchase a special permit?
Answer successfully some kind of test before being admitted inside ("we're so sorry, but your score doesn't qualify you to look at Gιricault's paintings... but you can go to the bookstore instead")?
Any other suggestions?

I can't help but wonder...
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 09-30-2005, 07:18 AM
tongapup tongapup is offline
TE Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 357
Default Re: tripods forbidden in Paris streets

for real? And if so, why?
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 10-03-2005, 03:34 PM
MKING MKING is offline
TE Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 376
Default Re: Sorry, you missed the whole point, Mark

Mark's reasoning is valid though that is obviously not the motivation that prompted the Louvre to act in this way (though don't tell them about Mark's understanding otherwise they might add that to their list of excuses!)

Indeed, the Louvre recognises the cultural icon status of some of their works. This action is not all that dissimilar to the action taken by the management at the Tower of London. If I recall correctly, you cannot actually stop and stand in front of the Crown Jewels anymore, you're stuck on a travelator that parades you at a reasonable 4-5kph pace around the glass displays and what few glimpses you manage to get are supported by giant LCD screens with video footage of the jewels. Caters quite happily for tourists who want to tick the "Crown Jewels" box on their London "To-Do" list but for the jewelry connoisseurs out there I'm sure most of their knowledge and appreciation for such works is based on books and other archival sources rather than the very items themselves.

Turning once again to these works as art rather than cultural icons I support the idea if its done explicitly in the interest of preserving the works better but trying to stop people from actually having the opportunity to appreciate the works in depth is kinda contradictory to the whole point of art in my opinion.

I suppose its good business ethics here-- you're catering for more people to have the chance to stand in front of the work but their subsequently sketchy recollections of what they saw can be mitigated by making then buy a postcard of Mona Lisa etc. 'Charitable', perhaps but it's still disappointing. And I don't like photography bans anyway though the people they're targeting are not specfically photographers.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 10-03-2005, 03:46 PM
dom_inik_m dom_inik_m is offline
Moderator
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 770
Default As I expressed earlier...

you're stuck on a travelator that parades you at a reasonable 4-5kph pace around the glass displays...
I wonder why they didn't also print on the admittance tickets: "What we want to you see is good for you."
Obviously, they created their own kind of electric train to carry visitors from one point to another.
But why bother to go, then? Better connect yourself on the relevant Web site and click on the virtual visit link. Photographing your computer screen will soon be the ultimate trip for art and culture...

PS I hope I don't sound too antiUS that way. *o)
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 10-03-2005, 04:23 PM
Homerhomer Homerhomer is offline
TE Expert
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,192
Default Re: As I expressed earlier...

"PS I hope I don't sound too antiUS that way. *o)"
-------------------------------------------------

You didn't until you have added this sentence, you weren't too antiUS, you weren't just enough antiUS, infact it didn't seem to be anything antiUS.
I thought that the point of this thread was that you were antiRegulations in French museum.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:44 PM.



Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.
explore TREKEARTH