Cyclists: Let the Backlash Begin (or Not)
'Citywide Operation Safe Muni' Results in 900 400 Citations, 9 Arrests
Grilled Cheese Coming to South Park
Lincecum Busted for Pot
Ocean Avenue Books Owner, Not So Nutso After All?
"Simon Blint, Director of Visitor Relations at the SFMOMA is a first rate asshole."
And so begins Bay Area photographer and blogger Thomas Hawk's most recent entry about being physically thrown out of SF MOMA (San Francisco Museum of Modern Art) for having the unmitigated gall to snap this image within the touristy downtown museum. It seems SF MOMA has, or had, a strict no-photography policy. Hawk goes on to say that said ban was recently lifted.
Hawks says :
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 SF MOMA's atrium (an area where the SF MOMA's own website explicitly says photography is allowed).
Hawk talked to Blint who (allegedly) told him ""he did not care" and that he needed to "protect" his employees -- employees that might appear in my photographs." Hawk goes on to say, "I was not shooting with a tripod. I was not shooting with a flash." (An aside: Oh, and be sure to send SFist your many, many, many photos taken from inside SFMOMA. Tag them in your Flickr account with "sfist," or simply send them here.)
Was Blint, in fact, being an asshole? Was Hawk putting up a pissy fight, which led to his ejection? We don't know yet. But we think banning of any type of photography is inane, especially if you work in the arts.
But what say you? Should photographers be subject to this kind of harassment? Or does Blint deserve a serious tongue lashing?
Image: thomashawk.com
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Hawk should go back to the SFMOMA with witnesses and take the photo again, but this time, have everyone carry with them the printout saying that taking photos of the stairs is OK.
If Blint read this SFist article, he just soiled his pants and will be out of a job by Monday.
This story also reached the front page and top ten at Digg. Blint's gonna have a bad week, deservedly so.
After reading his blog for a couple years now, I have learned that one does not piss off Thomas Hawk.
agreed. not the smartest move. not at all.
This man was hired to be Director of Visitor Relations?
I've been a member, off and on, for years now. The $75 is usually well spent. (The lectures are awesome.) But I don't think I'll be renewing after reading about this incident.
To whom do I express my displeasure? Normally I would register a complaint with Visitor Relations. But they seem to have some, um, staffing problems.
love this story. but, i have to wonder, does this incident, which is fucked up, warrant the massive amount of shit that is going to rain on mr. blint this week, and then follow him for years to come (google searches, an inevitable job hunt...)? did mr. hawk cross the line? i tend to think he gave back what he got.
at the end of the day, i don't care. it's good reading, as as t-hawk says "photography is not a crime."
"Director of visitor relations" is a poor match for his behavior. He should apologize, resign, or try to otherwise repair the situation.
Since it's a PR-related job, he seems uniquely unfit and uneducated about the causes and effects of negative PR.
He'll probably have a "rich learning experience" though.
Thanks for posting this, Brock!
As a photographer, I readily admit to understanding the need to curtail photography in a museum environment. As it takes two to tango, it's also up to the photographer to be courteous and avoid putting themself in a situation to be harassed - it just makes good sense.
Keep in mind the info we don't have is whether or not these two have any previous incidents.
However, having said all that, baited or not this Blint (what an unfortunate name) behaved very poorly, especially since the policies explicitly direct otherwise. That's what leads me to consider that there's much more to the story than what's being offered.
Adding to what Travin's said, remember that there may be valid reasons why the museum doesn't allow photography in galleries--there are issues of security to think of. (Off topic--did they ever recover Munch's The Scream?)
With that said, given that the museum had previously said that photography was acceptable in the disputed area, and the seeming strong-armed tactics of the PR person, it sounds like a bad scene.
rant/
Can anyone in SF actually read? Let's all don our smart glasses for a moment, scroll down and read up.
http://www.sfmoma.org/visit/visitinfo_hours.asp
And I quote:
"Cameras
Photography is not permitted in the galleries. Flash photography is permitted only with a handheld camera in the Atrium."
What part of that does Thomas Hawk not comprehend?
Allow me to repeat it for the Thomas Hawks of the world.
"Cameras:
Photography is NOT PERMITTED IN THE GALLERIES YOU BLIND DUMBASS WHO THINKS THE RULES DO NOT APPLY TO HIM. Flash photography is permitted ONLY with a handheld camera in the ATRIUM." Again: DUMBASS.
I just got back from the Uffizi and Louvre. You know - Italy and France where they keep all the really good shit away from mental dorkbags like Tommy Hawk.
Let's just say that they take security of original da Vinci's and Botticelli's (etc etc and more etc...) a bit seriously. You pull out a camera and start snapping photos and you will get a serious lesson in what it means to be bitch slapped by an Italian or French security guard.
Not that it happened to me personally but let's just say that there is no guided walk to the curb or sissy ass blogging for such an offender in Florence or Paris. I watched a young girl nearly get her arm twisted off for trying to touch the Mona Lisa.
Let's remove our collective heads from our asses and understand that this guy Simon Blint - who by the way I do not know, nor have ever met - has a job to do. To prevent idiots like the not so cultured and un-rightfully defiant self absorbed blogger asshole Thomas Hawk from screwing with the collections of priceless treasures, art and historical relics. Come to think of it, I am going to seek out Mr. Blint and buy him lunch for doing his job and looking out for the collections of great art at SFMOMA. I hope his boss gives him a raise too.
http://www.culturekiosque.com/art/news/louvre_photos_pictures.html
/rant
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.
Seriously, that museum is photgraphed by visitors constantly; do you really think that Thomas Hawk was randomly, forcibly ejected for no reason at all? I feel bad for Simon, as no one has really heard his side of the story.
dianachen, thank you for breathing some sanity, and honesty, into this thread. I knew I smelled a rat.
Robin: so you can't hold a DSLR in your hands or is the atrium not the atrium any more? Hmm.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/thomashawk/2744778055/
Yep. That's a gallery alright.
dianachen: aiming at someone's cleavage with a wide angle lens? Uhhuh. I could probably point my camera in the general direction of your tits right now and come up with a shot where you aren't in it. Yes, there were people below but if you look at the photos he's posted... they weren't the subjects. Indeed he supposedly offered to show Blint the pictures on his camera to demonstrate what he was shooting in the first place. But... you know... life is a jump to conclusions mat.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/thomashawk/2744778055/
Yeah, I just read a follow up post of Hawk's about the lens. Seems a bunch of anonymous folks posted on his blog about this same thing about photos down the blouse and the one here is a first time poster on SFist. On the other hand, hawk is being strangely defensive, publicly calling people foul names, and seems he's had a history with other security guards. I believe he knows better than this and he's just playing it all up for the crowd.
Self-important photographer raises huge stink about taking completely pointless MOMA photo. Hooray.
Check out Thomas Hawk's profile on his blog. He writes about himself in the third person, then switches to the first person with regards to his contact information. That's weird.
Writing and referring to one's self in the third person also indicates some pretty serious inflated ego issues. This is not surprising, considering how Mr. Hawk carried on in some of the discussion threads on Flickr. This guy is a piece of work. A real diva.
Brock agrees.
Travin "As a photographer, I readily admit to understanding the need to curtail photography in a museum environment" and RobinSF "Let's just say that they take security of original da Vinci [in Italy or France]"...
Before my trip to the art museums of Paris, I'd been conditioned as an American that you don't take pictures of the art. I was thus surprised when I tried to put my camera in my bag to check it at the Musee d'Orsay and the attendant said, "No don't check your camera. Don't you want to take pictures of the art?" At the Louvre, the security is really high around the Mona Lisa, but there are multiple cameras pointed at it nonstop from open to close. It's probably the most photographed object on Earth.
"Security" and "copyright" aren't adequate excuses for banning photography.
RobinSF, that is the funniest, dumbest rant I've read here in a while and that's saying something. Do you not know what a "gallery" is? Do you know what an atrium is?
@craigiest ... "Security" and "copyright" aren't adequate excuses for banning photography.
I completely agree. I said I understand the need to curtail photography in a museum setting, not that I agree it's always reasonably justified.
When I was at the Moma in New York a couple of years ago, I was allowed to take a ton of photos.
tackle her!
In the spirit of full disclosure, I've known Simon Blint for years and know what a great guy he is, as opposed to many other folks who feel compelled to insult someone they've never met.
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 start a though-provoking discussion on artists' rights (I'm an author and interested in such subjects), there are better and more mature ways of doing it than calling someone an "***hole" online.
dianachen and ScribeGuy, I'm glad you signed up to SFist just to comment about the incident.
It's too bad Blint or other SF MoMA person hasn't spoken up. So, thanks for giving your opinions. Someone else who has worked with Blint did not have kind things to say.
I find the less agreeable sites engage in character assassination on both sides. Perhaps you aren't finding the best conversations.
RobinSF, you are a piece of work. Photography w/o flash is allowed in the permanent collection , atrium is OK always, if you use a flash in the atrium it must be a handheld point-and-shoot. While the policy is imprecise and ambiguous, you manage to completely miss the intent. Can YOU read? Do YOU know flash photography can damage the pieces? Do you seriously think they are mandating the use of a flash in the atrium? Does the point-and-shoot restriction refer to the Atrium, or the use of flash?
Go ahead, rant some more, it's entertaining.
Reechard, thanks for the response.
From what I hear, SF MOMA is working on its response. The tragedy of this whole situation is that a man who wields such a massive online following resorts to such lowly insults to try and get his point across. Civil discourse, it seems, is a dying art . . . even among artists.
Oh, and one more thing to all of you that are trying to make this an issue of Hawk's or Blint's character, I think the real issue stems from trumped up "security" meant to keep us "safe."
All sorts of power-tripping security guards and police have become accustomed to people immediately accepting restricted rights with the magic words "post 9/11."
The reason it is such a hot-button issue is that most people have not pushed back against the Patriot act and all it (theoretically) allows law enforcement to restrict.
But sure, go right ahead and make this a "Diva" vs. "Employee" issue.
And may thee forever lack moisturizer on thine inglorious vacations.
Whereas Peterson/Hawk can skewer Blint for doing his job,
So Blint's job is to contravene SFMOMA's stated policy?
Blint has a chain of command he must work through before he can defend himself.
And Hawk went through that chain of command BEFORE going to the museum!
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
If Blint was aware of the policy that TH verified prior to his visit, how many jerks would we be talking about right now?
But let's not quibble about who punched who in the nuts or who crapped on who's desk. The important thing to note is that it wasn't Blint who crossed "the line."
If anybody it's SFMOMA being the most unreasonable by allowing this incident to build pressure over the weekend. In this day and age their slow response is tantamount to hanging this guy out to dry.
And yes, write a letter. It's pretty much the same thing as standing up for yourself.
bla bla bla
Civil discourse, it seems, is a dying art . . . even among artists.
Because artists are well-known for their social skills?
Thank you ScribeGuy, and I agree. Do not however expect me to defend whatever you may come across in the commentary on Digg or BoingBoing even. The bigger the blog, the more vitriol, undoubtedly.
So, let's try to keep this to the issues, away from personalities, and focus on actions, ethics, policies and the larger picture.
I try to leave the internets a little better than I found them, and I hope others do too!
Best,
Richard
Scribeguy, your frustration about internet discourse is telling. Broadly speaking, the internet is a place where everyone can post anything at any time, and is taken as such. This "online reputation" of which you speak ... is that different from the offline one? In which ways? Hmm. Interesting. You may want to go a little further with that train of thought. And consider that others have been down that road before you. You may also find it helpful to consider how "cyber-bullying" can be an avoidable consequence of actual bullying ―in a museum, for instance.
deadbrother, I'm so glad to hear there's an afterlife. Such a shame that speech and thought don't survive.
It's really hard to be the judge when I wasn't there to witness what went down- even so, I think Hawk went a little bit too far with his vengefulness. I believe he totally has the right to raise hell with museum personnel if what he says happened is the truth, but is the Internet lynching really necessary? Why name names? Maybe I'm a softie, but if something like that happened to me, I wouldn't have taken it as far as Mr. Hawk did. Even if Mr. Blint is really the biggest asshole in SF, he's still a human being who has a job to make a living and/or give his life meaning and is part of somebody's family. The mob mentality on the Internet can be devastatingly lethal, and is quite capable of destroying someone and their family. Is it really worth ruining another individuals prospects forever to satisfy your own thirst for revenge?
Thirst for revenge? I didn't know blogging an event in your own life made you Skeletor.
It's pretty clear that people who work in the arts have outsized personalities. Said personalities often complicate things for for large organizations, institutions, etc. So they often hire reasonable people who are adept at mitigating situations as they arise: PR-experts, smoother-overs, professional adults.
But is it even clear who the photographer is in this equation? He went through the proper channels, was informed and informing of the museum's policy. It seems his worst crime was having a large, fancy camera, and a working knowledge where it was appropriate to use it. No one aggressively disputes that he was thrown out for violation of a policy that he was not, in fact, violating.
But that's not what's interesting.
What's interesting is the psychological bent of some of Mr. Blint's advocates. It's kind of revealing. Even the red herrings on this thread ("He was taking pictures of ladies' boobies!") betray a sort of warped authoritarian attitude toward picture-taking. (i.e. It's not the job of a museum to protect ladies' boobies from heights.) It's as though all of these one-time commenters on SFist, Boing-Boing & Digg are unfamiliar with the conventions of blogs, the internet, media, etc. They seem to share the mindset that thinks he was "out of line." Or that a Director of Visitor Relations needs to 'protect employees that may appear in photographs'. It's as though they're all unaware of the boundaries of the digital age. That's odd comment behavior for what I'd consider some pretty internet-y sites. Almost sock-puppetish, no?
When Mr. Hawk informed Mr. Blint that he was going to be posting this on his blog, I wonder, was he dismissive? Because I'll bet he isn't now.
"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. "
Why didn't the staff member just button his or her shirt up? Maybe one is supposed to tip SF MOMA staff members by tucking dollar bills into their cleavage?
He's crossed a line, he's crossed a line, oh lordy, won't someone think of the children? The danger! The DANGER!
Just had this argument with someone about snapping pics in a retail store. Can't help but think of how this sort of knee-jerk massa-knows-best masturbation would have been received back before 2001.
blah blah blah indeed
If you don't like the rules, don't go to SFMOMA ....
Besides, the more entertaining blog catfight can be viewed over at http://www.chrisdaly.org/ right now...
I've posted additional thoughts and some specific comments on some of these allegations here: http://thomashawk.com/2008/08/more-on-whole-simon-blint-fiasco.html
i definitely think mr. hawk should have sat on his blog post for a day before posting. a little time may have softened his vengeance.
Thomas, you're showing yourself to be on par with Blint, at this point. Please display some good sense, and some class, and cease the merry-go-round of defense and attack. Over a very minor incident, you're making yourself and Blint look horrible for many years to come.
Please step away from the keyboard, have a drink, take a valium, rent a car and drive to Monterrey for a couple of days; whatever you can do to stay away for internet access for at least 3 days. Thank me later.
Any bloggers have some good reading on libel, slander, and such?
Or he just save himself the 3 days and conclude that you're being hopelessly patronizing right now.
But I hear Monterrey is nice.
Make Blint the "special guest" at the House of Shields Mixer........... I'll buy him a drink....
How sad, for Thomas.Is there any justice at all to a one-sided rant? This to me is where blogging loses it's credibility, by the second. I see that Thomas tried to make a statement about the rights of photographers, but his method for doing so was selfish, immature, and actually rather cruel. Does he know Simon Blint? Does he have any idea of what it means to be able to safely and securely bring art to the masses? I do, on both accounts. I have worked at SFMOMA. Thoma used this incident to construct a rather flimsy soap box. It would have been nice if he thought twice about trying to trash the name of someone who works tirelessly to make SFMOMA a place where people can enjoy art. I don't profess to know anything about photography, outside of enjoying it. So, I would never make blanket statements about tha profession. He felt he had the credibility to do so about running the customer service of a Museum or protecting the viewing rights of it. Perhaps if Thomas stood taking tickets and answering the same question hundreds of times with a smile for 8 hours, or patiently dealt with people trying to damage priceless art, or took care of a guest who has fallen ill or been injured while visiting and needed medical help, or tried keeping employees safe from hostile and inappropriate guests, or sat in hours of meetings discussing how to make visiting the Museum a pleasant and enjoyable experience especially during shows like Kahlo where the lines are lengthy, ALL of which Simon Blint has done, then he would be able to better understand why this entire mess that he started is beyond silly. He has done a disservice for a wonderful institution and a hard working guy trying to do his job.
Or, Simon Blint could have, as Thomas Hawk proposed, looked at the shots that were taken.
kainoa nailed it perfectly. Travin is a close second with his insights.
Thank you both.
I do stand by the idea that while I am trying to view an original ancient work or art in a museum that anyone should not be subjected to some dorkbag with a Nikon flipping away at the shutter.
Not cool.
And quite frankly, I don't care whether you are amateur or professional - because I ran into a professional in Orvieto taking photos of the magnificent Duomo from the 3rd floor of the Etruscan museum across the piazza - and he gladly moved his tripod aside so I could view the Duomo. He even had a permit and knew to get out of the way.
Everything has its place and time and documenting anything is ALWAYS second to live experience.
ALWAYS.
It would be nice if more Americans understood this.
Dear SFist commentators: there have been several constructive conversations on this topic elsewhere.
I've summarized them here if you care to follow up.
Ouch. It's nice to see the SFMOMA droids copying and pasting their "arguments".
Robin... he was in the... wait... wait... wait... wait... wait... wait... wait... wait... wait... wait...
ATRIUM.
Which was, last I checked, not a gallery. Nor was he in anyone's way.
Sigh.
Missing from this conversation is Hawk's remarkable ability to innocently get kicked out of places ALL THE TIME! It's almost like he does something himself that makes that happen. But that's just nonsense, it's clear that THE MAN is destroying our liberties!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/thomashawk/161990986/in/set-72157594567688537/
Everyone else who has photos of atrium? Didn't get kicked out! Why would he get targeted?
It's amazingly how cowardly Hawk is. He looses absolutely NOTHING by posting this absurdly one-sided account, and threatens someone else's job. This is in no way a dialogue.
Absolute. D-Bag.
(yes yes, of course, this is one sided, but I'm trying to supply a side of the conversation that I think is laregely missing here)
addendum:
No one would say to Hawk: "For the 11th time I'm asking you to leave." (http://thomashawk.com/2008/08/more-on-whole-simon-blint-fiasco.html) If he wasn't being a dick.
What I'm saying is this was never about the photos. Blint screwed up by saying it was, but quotes from Hawk's blog are more revealing: "I don't want to look at your photographs."
Sure, I've never met him, but I've read him. And I know an asshole when I read him. Which is why I like SFist.
I don't know what happened at SFMOMA and won't pretend to (I do think Reechard makes good points about how this raises issues about what true "security"), but this kerfuffle that in an age where quality digital cameras are affordable and everyone fancies themselves a blogger, I'm getting bored and kind of annoyed of everything constantly being snapped and documented. Can we ban digital cameras from the Ferry Building Farmer's Market, for instance? Half the time I'm waiting to get at some kale or tomatoes or whatever it turns out I'm just waiting for some 20-something to take a photograph.
Seems like this dude (Hawk) is a first rate troll who likes conflict. Of course what do I know, I'm just reading blogs.
The ban on taking photos in a retail establishments have nothing to do with 911 or homeland security. I was told in the 80's not to take pictures of manikins in the JC Penny at the Maine Mall. I have no idea what they were protecting, but I asked around and found it to be standard policy for every medium sized or large retail store that I asked.
I've been an SFMOMA member since they opened, and a few years ago I had a really unpleasant run-in with a ticket-taker at a members-only preview of a show there. I don't want to bore you with all my half-remembered details, but the upshot of the thing was this. The ticket-taker was just obnoxious, abusive, going so far as to physically push myself and other patrons. For the first time in my entire life I pulled the, "I'd like to speak to your supervisor," card, to which she replied that she was the supervisor.
I'm a pretty laid-back person who does not take offense easily, but I was furious. I saw it was pointless to stand there and argue with her though, so I walked outside, called the musuem and spoke with a manager, who was just mortified by what I told her, although not totally surprised. She asked me to describe the employee and she knew immediately who I meant and indicated that they had had complaints about this person before. The manager I spoke to apologized profusely, then asked if I would document the thing via email, which I did. I got a response from a higher-up that was an incredibly thoughtful and sincere apology, in which I was assured that this kind of behavior on the part of employees would not be tolerated, etc.
My membership was about to expire and I renewed it immediately because I was so impressed with how SFMOMA responded to my complaint, both sincerely and immediately.
I guess my point is that sometimes you have to give the system a chance to work before trashing it. Stepping away from a confrontational situation and reporting it through proper channels probably makes more sense and is more productive that the route this guy took.
Although I guess my approach lacks all the drama, and maybe that's the point.
I took a photo in a Paris department store about seven years ago, because a shopper had her dog with her, which for me at the time, was an alien concept. A sales clerk came over and bitched at me for it, so I agree with mushmouth on that point.
I wasn't at SFMOMA on the day of this incident, so I can't speak to what went on. I do know, however, that the government (and by extension rent-a-cops, store clerks who demand to rifle through your bag, etc.) is just pushing us further and further to see what we will be willing to put up with in the name of "security", and anyone who fights against this in any manner gets my full support.
"Thomas Hawk," who writes under a pseudonym but has no problem smearing someone else's name all over the goddamned place, has a habit of villifying slash smearing folks and companies on the web in the name of self-promotion.
http://modernartobsession.blogs.com/modern_art_obsession/2006/06/photographer_ji.html
http://www.epuk.org/Blogs/584/zooomr
He's a douche.
He's a douche.
Takes one to know one.
Reechard: Thanks for the informative page but your colors are awful and borderline unreadable for me.
He's a douche.
Takes one to know one.
as someone who has never accused someone else of being a "child abuser" or smeared anyone's online reputation, i wouldn't know. glad you can explain, though.
if it were anyone BUT someone who has already done those things, I'd be inclined to accept his account. But "Hawk" has left a trail of this kind of behavior that is tediously unattractive.
yesyes: I was just taking your word for the "douche" thing. If you'd like to take it back that's certainly up for you to attempt.
And yes, let's get hung up on the appearance and not the effect of behavior ("tediously unattractive?" My gaydar is beeping). Looks matter, right? Apparently more than civil disobedience to some.
Obliquely, maybe now that Halloween in the Castro has been killed now we can move on to the Pride March (Folsom is under attack as well, afaik). I mean really, parts of that take "unattractive behavior" to new heights, but it's not my scene to criticize and I'm fine with my opinion on this not to matter.
Thanks for the feedback, manys, If you are referring to the text colors, I don't know if you refer to the blue for links or the red...
Either way, the choice of black background is problematic and there are all sorts of bugs in the compose widget... vox is not the most flexible platform, and I still use it out of laziness.
manys, I don't think this is civil disobedience. I think it's attention-seeking behavior from someone who wields power irresponsibly and is out to ruin someone else's career so his can benefit. He has done things like this before. (Your gaydar is beeping? What? Oh, takes one to know one. Right.)
SF MOMA has just released its response to the incident in question. Read it here:
http://www.sfmoma.org/press/pressroom.asp?id=371&do=recent
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 upon 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 taker'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 wants to be in his pictures, regardless of the content. and as a photographer, he should respect that.
0anonymous1 said: "but people have the right to not be in your photos if they do not want to be."
Um, sorry to break it to you but if the photography is in a public place/space and/or allowed in a public venue like the museum then people DO NOT have a right to "not be in your photos..."
Any person can photograph any one else in public and only need their permission if that photo is to be used for commercial purposes. I can take photos of your entire family at the museum, park, city street etc. and post them to the internet, on my blog or public photo site. I do not need your permission.