Cyclists: Let the Backlash Begin (or Not)
Muni Ticket Agent Arrested After Assaulting Juvenile
So Much For That Plastic Bag Ban
Verizon Droid: Big Deal? Or Just Another Late Arrival Rival?
Feinstein : Will She Or Won't She?
God, this story needs to die.
If you recall, local blogger Thomas Hawk threw a temper tantrum after being tossed out of SF MOMA for taking shots of some girl's tit, or a daring piece of wire hangers, or whatever. Now Hawk is doing everything to get Simon Blint, the SF MOMA employee who had Hawk remove, fired because of a bruised ego.
Incorrectly using "OMG, CENSORSHIP!" as his battle cry, many on the webs agree with Hawk, demanding Blint's head on a platter. ("I will not be frequenting your museum again until I find out Mr Simon Blint has been fired," whines one fool. Which? Good. More room for the rest of us.)
Point being? We would hate to see SF MOMA kowtow to such demands. (Blint isn't speaking to any press and pretty upset, we're told.) Do NOT fire the guy, SF MOMA. Just let it go. At least that's what we think. What say you?
For SF MOMA's response to the nonsense, follow the jump.
SFMOMA Responds to August 8 IncidentLast Friday an incident occurred in our museum in which a visitor was asked to leave the building. We stand firmly behind the actions of our director of visitor services, who acted appropriately to ensure the safety of the museum's admissions staff. He took measures to protect another staff member who according to witnesses on our staff and among the general public was being photographed in an inappropriate and harassing manner. SFMOMA welcomes over 600,000 visitors annually; disputes and disagreements between our guests and our staff very rarely occur.
This was not an issue relating to the museum's official photography policy. In fact, SFMOMA recently made a policy change to allow photographers to take pictures of the permanent collection, the architecture of the building, and the museum's public spaces.
We have heard the concerns that have been expressed, and we hope that online discussion concerning SFMOMA can now return to focus on the terrific exhibitions we currently have on view and the many exciting public programs that we are offering to support them. We thank you for your comments.
Department of Communications
San Francisco Museum of Modern Art
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Why would you hate to see SFMOMA cave to such demands? If they had a legitimate reason for tossing Hawk, let's hear it. Otherwise Blint was clearly in the wrong.
You can't take a close-up of much of anything with a 14mm lens. Sheesh.
First off, SFMOMA should not, nor should any organization, be making blog commentaries about their employees. EOS.
Other than that it seems that Mr. Thomas Hawk (a safe pseudonym, I must add) has some answering to do for himself and his habit of trolling organizations about their photography policies in an effort to provide more accessibility to photographers in light of recent public policies around the world restricting photographers and giving folks license to harrass them.
HOWEVER, bad faith efforts like this to smear organizations in an attempt to extort policy or staffing changes is counterproductive to the aforementioned goals. Instead these efforts are making it more difficult for photographers/artists and that's rather shitty. Sort of like the Critical Mass of the Art world - douchie behavior all around.
Make it stop. Please. Making a living as an artist is difficult enough. Please stop this madness.
I think this is a situation where there's two sides of the story and then there's the truth, but yeah, I have to agree that firing Blint is not the way to go. Everyone makes mistakes and any sympathy I had for Hawk just went out the window - he's better off using his passion for injustice or whatever you want to call it for something more meaningful and less petty.
If you really want this story to die, please delete this blog entry. Thanks!
(traffic, darling. traffic.)
we'll stop (maybe), but we haven't read a pro-blint item yet, so...here we are.
This headline should read, "Local blogger flexes Internet muscles; world at large fails to care."
Gosh this sort of thing seems to happen to Thomas Hawk an awful lot. What are the odds?
100%
You seem to be confusing "being a douchebag" with "being wrong."
Also, that press release is just mendacious.
Here's a simple, easy to understand museum photography policy from the Asian Art Museum:
"Photography Policy
"Still photography of objects in the permanent collection, taken in existing light with a hand-held camera, is permitted for personal, non-commercial use only. The use of tripods, flashes, and video cameras is prohibited. Photography is not permitted in galleries containing special exhibitions. Photographs taken in the museum may not be sold, reproduced or distributed without written permission from the Museum."
Here's another from the NY MoMa:
"Cameras
"Still photography for personal use is permitted in collection galleries only. No flash or tripods allowed. Videotaping is permitted in the lobby only. No photographs or videotapes may be reproduced, distributed, or sold without permission from the Museum."
On the other hand, we have the ambiguous policy of SFMOMA (which capitalizes "of" in its name in some attempt at aggrandizement):
"Cameras
"Photography is allowed for personal, noncommercial use, except where noted. Flash photography and videography are not allowed in the galleries. Tripods are not allowed."
"[E]xcept where noted" apparently means wherever Mr. Blint thinks it shouldn't be allowed. I'm inclined to agree with Mr. Hawk on this one.
I tried really, really hard to get it up to post about this "controversy," but I remain flaccid. Just doesn't do it for me.
"If they had a legitimate reason for tossing Hawk, let's hear it."
Apparently, they do and did. Read the SFMOMA statement. Harassment seems pretty legitimate, even if Hawk wants to deny existence of such a photo.
Maybe Hawk can start a Yelp-y site for photographers going to museums, call it Elph, and become even more irrelevant and annoying.
I'm with you Brittney. Now lets get back to discussing the art at SFMOMA: The Art of Lee Miller is coming in September. Thoughts anyone?
Those of you that think this was about upskirt/downblouse photos are seriously mistaken. The photos being taken were with a 14mm lens on a full frame (35mm) sized digital sensor camera. This sort of lens/sensor combination yields something approaching a 120 degree field of view. Precisely the opposite of what one would use for "inappropriate and harassing" photography.
Yeah, some crying children just need to be put in a dark room and allowed to cry their eyes out until they realize that no one gives a shit that they had a bad day .... we all have bad days, sonny boy ... as rock god Bob Seger sings, Turn the Page.
Mr. Hawk may be a bit of a shit disturber, but he's almost always in the right, including this one. He made two posts about this incident, the second toned down greatly. He blogged the incident, and clearly people have listened.
And Thomas is a pretty web-savvy dude. I don't think he needs to spend his time sneakily taking downblouse shots at the fuckin' museum. As he even points out the boobs he was supposedly photographing were covered in a sweater.
Having seen clueless security people bother photographers for no reason, I'm solidly on TH's side on this. travin, not to sound all soapbox-y, but TH is the one fighting to make photography more accessible. Should he roll over when he's shoved out the door despite following perfectly clear, published rules from the entity's own updated website?
What does "staff member who ... was being photographed in an inappropriate and harassing manner." mean? If the looking down her blouse thing is true, I question SFMOMA's dress code for their employees. I think they should allow employees to wear blouses that don't allow for such photographs to be taken.
no comment.
brock: just because Blint is an ass doesn't make him right, just because Hawk is an ass doesn't make him wrong.
If you've seen the SFMOMA response, you'd see that their version is pretty well removed from the truth.
http://www.sfmoma.org/press/pressroom.asp?id=371&do=recent
Also, Aventinus, photography does not equal harassment, no matter how tightly wadded one's panties might get when a camera is present. He followed the gorram rules and got booted anyway. Not his (or mine, or any other photographer's) fault that some idiot still thinks cameras steal souls.
(Not to say that photography can't be harassment, but 99% of it is not.)
Aventinus: bullshit. Look at the equipment he was using, look at the pictures he's posted. The female employee in question wasn't in a blouse, and that lens won't provide a close-up of anything. Unless he was wielding it as a deadly weapon from the balcony (something I doubt anyone'd do with an expensive full-frame DSLR)... you'd be hard pressed to use it in a harassing manner in this situation.
the Truth, as it were, is that someone's fragile ego was bruised. at best this is the lowest and most benign form of oppression. hawk should be so lucky.
perspective, people.
That he was just photographing from the balcony and not closer to the "harassed" employee is something we only know from Hawk's side of the story, correct?
Yes, but why would someone who wants to photograph in the museum not only get himself kicked out, but then lie about it right after the museum began allowing cameras?
@troymccluresf but TH is the one fighting to make photography more accessible. Should he roll over when he's shoved out the door despite following perfectly clear, published rules from the entity's own updated website?
No, actually he's not. His methods clearly cause businesses to increase their security as a result of a shit-disturber and connecting the "ideal" and greater dialogue of more open policies to people that behave like jackasses. They publish non-responsibility blow-offs like this, they aren't moved to care because this isn't how it's done.
There's a right way and a wrong way to go about these things. And deliberately antagonizing people may make good headlines, boost one's ego and develop a following, but it's entirely a very ineffective effort to produce change.
And it doesn't matter if we're talking about photographers, bicyclists, equal rights or free tibet - assholes always make it more difficult to discuss and resolve these matters. And as an artist that will be affected by these efforts, I want to see it curtailed and the egos put in check. It makes it more difficult for others to make a living. Like that's not difficult enough already for artists in this town.
Brock, calling for "perspective" on this topic is totally hypocritical. It's clearly newsworthy and relevant to people interested in pursuing documentary photography. Otherwise you wouldn't be posting and scooping up easy page hits.
The museum is currently seeking patronage at least in part based on their policy to allow photography. Further, the museum is accusing Thomas Hawk of engaging in inappropriate and harassing behavior. Nothing I've seen in eyewitness accounts supports that position. But based on that accusation he was thrown out of the museum.
People, this is a museum. It's entire purpose is to celebrate and encourage artistic expression. SFMOMA should be going well beyond an apology to Thomas Hawk and clearly expressing how they intend to avoid this sort of incident in the future. The reputation of the organization as a custodian of the arts has been damaged by the incident, but more so by the lack of an appropriate response.
An interesting irony to all this is that Thomas Hawk has no qualms calling people out and posting their name all over the Internet while he himself hides behind a pen name. Ridiculous.
Regarding the use of a 14mm lens: I think that's pretty much a non issue. For people who aren't familiar with DSLR's, they don't know the difference between lenses just by looking at them. Saying, "but it's a 14mm lens" means nothing.
Yes, there is the issue that Mr. Blint refused to even look at his photos afterwards, but I think by doing that, he opens himself up to some sort of liability if (hypothetically) Mr. Hawk somehow pulled one over on him and quickly skipped over any offending photos if he was in fact shooting down women's dresses.
Anyway, ho hum.
Here is an excellent post about the whole incident from someone else's perspective: http://tinyurl.com/6qvff9
Perspective? That's odd. I thought "Truth" was made up of these things called "facts" and these taken in total, constitute "reality." But Brock, like Blint, seems somewhat indifferent to the reality of whatever he was shooting.
"girl's tit ... wire hangers ... whatever"
Well, actually it does matter. Hawk's bad attitude seems to be justification enough for some. Unfortunately, his attitude is not at issue.
Hawk has offered many "facts" or versions thereof; accounts, witnesses, photos, a history of serious photography, and yes, of provocation.
SFMoma ... not so much.
"Yes, but why would someone who wants to photograph in the museum not only get himself kicked out, but then lie about it right after the museum began allowing cameras?"
I don't know, why would someone go so viciously overboard as to call for someone's resignation while hatefully smearing him all over the internet because of what might be a misunderstanding?
No DaveRocks, the fact that it was a 14mm lens does mean something. You see, the lens attached to the camera defines what the sensor can capture. Do you think the process is based in magic? So when the lens attached to the camera can only capture a very wide perspective, it's completely ridiculous to insinuate that he is taking down the blouse, harassing, inappropriate shots.
"Documentary photographer" and blogger gets boot from SFMOMA by "Director of Visitor Services" for what appears to be a silly/ugly misunderstanding, proceeds to engage in an online war/dogpile with fellow bloggers while cloaking the situation in larger liberty-related issues.
They call these First World Problems.
Thank you, Joel. Exactly.
Didn't we all do this last week? De Ja Vous Dous!
I want more stories about busty, leather-clad tranny's or I'm not renewing my subscription to SFist!
For a moment, just forget what type of lens Thomas Hawk was using. That's not the point . . . the point is what he appeared to be doing when museum staff saw him leaning over a balcony and aiming his camera straight down towards where a female staff member was sitting.
This whole thing has become so f-ing stupid. Read Hawk's blog . . . he goes around antagonizing people. He's referred to multiple individuals as "asshole." Everyone loves it, until people actually start calling Hawk out on his own behavior.
Read this transcript on his blog. He does not treat people with respect. He immediately leaps down their throat:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/thomashawk/452038447/
He worked this guy up into a rage on purpose so he'd have something to write about on his blog. If he wants to advocate photographers' rights, perhaps he should do it in a diplomatic manner instead of coming across like a schoolyard bully.
Here's the best quote from DaveRocks' link on the subject - couldn't have said it better:
If I recall from some employer's training thing awhile ago, an activity is typically considered harassing when someone tells asks you to stop doing something because you're making them feel uncomfortable. I don't give a shit what the picture shows.
Two dicks have a pissing match, and all you guys can talk about is the length of the lens.
Okay, I'm feeling like Brock's post make me uncomfortable. I trust RinconHillSF that you'll support my call for his blogging to cease. I mean, it doesn't matter what is actually written in his posts. Right?
That's right, MHTH, DaveRocks thinks cameras use magic to capture images/steal souls. He is a simpleton and truly deserving of your scorn.
Get over yourself for a moment and realize that the average, non-camera-dweeb doesn't know that certain lenses "only capture a very wide perspective". (Most people just don't care. Really.)
And do you think that this might have been at the crux of this misunderstanding in the first place? Maybe?
Leave the camera out of it. They asked a difficult customer to leave and he wouldn't.
No, I don't. Hawk offered to show Blintz the pictures he had taken. If there was a genuine concern about what Hawk was doing with his camera, why not look at the photographs?
I'm wishing Thomas Hawk/whatever his real name is HAD been taking pictures of boobies now. It would make all this a hell of a lot more interesting.
Yes MisterPlow I do think the sort of photo taken by Thomas Hawk was the basis of a misunderstanding with Simon Blint. The best way I can imagine to clear up the misunderstanding would have been for Mr. Blint to agree to review Mr. Hawk's photos. Which Mr. Hawk has reported he offered and Mr. Blint refused. So who is responsible for perpetuating the misunderstanding?
this camera talk makes no sense. if you want to do gonzo photoging, then do with your phone. it's that simple and easy. using a dinky camera phone, jameth accomplishes in a day what hawk can only dream of doing in his lifetime.
No, MHTH, I do not believe cameras work on magic. My point, that seems to have gone over your head, is that the average person cannot tell the difference between a lens that is 14mm or a lens that is 200mm.
Coupled with an employee feeling uncomfortable and a belligerent patron holding a large Canon 5D with an equally large 14mm lens, I think SF-MOMA acted within reason.
The SFMOM photo policy is a little wonky because they only recently opened the museum up to photography, which is the reason it has exceptions. Certain exhibits like the seasonal ones and the entire photography floor are off limits to photography. I imagine the former is because of a rights issue.
This seems to be a clear cut case of misunderstanding of intent. I think there was a simple confusion of the difference between a zoom lens and an ultrawide (believe me, from the business end, they look the same). Also good photographers, which Thomas is, tend to look for enterprising angles which again can be misinterpreted.
Given what I know of him, I'm not surprised the situation deteriorated rapidly. I'd be quite put out if someone implied I was trying to shoot up a ladies dress and I can only imagine how Thomas might have reacted.
The fact that their initial incident occurred two floors away in an area where sound doesn't carry well probably made it such that Mr. Blint was not thinking straight, nor realizing neither side had been communicating well. He probably lost his cool before he even started talking and that's how the incident spun out of control. He thought he was protecting his employee and the shouting across two floors when I know nobody can hear you, probably didn’t help either side. I can imagine that happening to the best of us. *sigh*
zippy_monster, in regards to Mr. Blint not wanting to look at Mr. Hawk's photos, read my comment in #27:
@DaveRocks, my point which seems to have gone over your head is that the Mr. Hawk, in point of fact, had photos on his camera taken with a wide angle lens that Mr. Blint would not review. But despite not being willing to review them insisted on not only ejecting him, but further compounded the problem by prompting an org response by SFMOMA that implies Mr. Hawk's photos were harassing and inappropriate.
Now the burden of proof is clearly on SFMOMA. And I would not be surprised if their press release constitutes slander.
what
I'd be quite put out if someone implied I was trying to shoot up a ladies dress and I can only imagine how Thomas might have reacted.
Well, that and judging by the links posted from his Flickr and blog about similar confrontations seem to indicate that Mr. Hawk has a chip on his shoulder about this issue and seems to welcome such scenes. I'm not saying he doesn't have the letter of the law on his side here; I'm not saying he's right or wrong.
MHTH, err I already addressed that in the third paragraph of comment #27. Which you also didn't apparently read.
sounds like Hawk needs to stop being all butt hurt over getting tossed. he could have just left when asked and then let it go at that. returning even the next day with out issue more than likely.
just cause you have a camera and a blog doesn't mean everyone is out to get you. get over yourself and find something legitimate to get your panties in a wad over.
grow up blogosphere.
DR: A fast one? You mean like switching the lens and hiding the old one in the blink of an eye? Sheesh. It's not as if he had a telephoto lens and aimed it down someone's blouse, then deleted the old photos, and took more innocent looking ones. The lens that Hawk was using was incapable of doing what Blintz was asserting.
zippy_monster - No, I mean like doing something with the image review menu using the LCD screen.
"just cause you have a camera and a blog doesn't mean everyone is out to get you."
well said, diction. next to meth addicts, bloggers have the most inflated sense of paranoia. frustrating.
@mhth
If a staff member asks you to leave, and you reply by snapping their photo without their permission and threatening to blog about them. You are using your camera in a manner which is both harassing and inappropriate.
If you further go on to mount an Internet campaign to try and get them fired, or lynched by an anonymous mob. Then you're not only using your camera in a harassing and inappropriate manner, you're bullying as well.
Pointing a camera at someone without their permission is inappropriate. It really doesn't matter what kind of camera it is or what kind of lens is attached.
Images are powerful, Mr. Andrew Peterson has a penchant for abusing their power for personal gains and/or grudge settlements. It's not countercultural, it's not cool. It's selfish bullying.
SF MOMA does not have a history of harassing photographers. This guy has a history of harassing others. I really don't understand why some of you somehow still see this as a David v. Goliath type story with the SF MOMA of all places taking the role of Goliath.
Just look at his Flickr stream. He enjoys goading people and snapping photos in their moments of rage.
Not unlike taking lollipops from kids, I might add. His beef with the people in LA and the crying kid photos starts to really make sense in context. He didn't dislike them for what they were doing, he disliked them because they reminded him of his own abhorrent behaviors.
@zippy monster
it's not blint's job to know what lens does what and he shouldn't have to answer so harshly for making a decision that he felt was in the best interest of his staff. maybe he wasn't as collected as he could have been in handling the situation but it sounds like hawk is throwning a good ol' fashioned fit that is way to blown out of proportion for what really happened.
there are tons of creeps out there. and maybe the flickr/photog/blogger folks out there should start self policing rather than getting all paranoid that everyone is out to get them..
cause really. no one cares that much about Thomas Hawk getting tossed from the MOMA. there are much bigger fish to fry right now.
"He enjoys goading people and snapping photos in their moments of rage."
ok, that is kinda of fun, though. you know?
Lord, slander has been dropped where censorship already lies? Can a Nazi analogy be far behind?
Let's get there fast so we can Godwin's Law this whole thing.
Looks like the correct term is libel...
An untruthful statement about a person, published in writing or through broadcast media, that injures the person's reputation or standing in the community. Because libel is a tort (a civil wrong), the injured person can bring a lawsuit against the person who made the false statement. Libel is a form of defamation , as is slander (an untruthful statement that is spoken, but not published in writing or broadcast through the media).
Parse this statement within the context of Thomas Hawk photographing the entire lobby area with a 14mm lens.
Please provide justification for defining the photography as inappropriate and harassing when their own stated policy allows photography in that area.
If Blintzy baby is protecting his employees from something, he should have some idea what he's protecting them from.
Or, you know, if it was just a misunderstanding (Bilntzy baby thought he really was protecting his damsel in distress from something), Blintzy baby has an absolute obligation to clear up the misunderstanding. He's the director of visitor relations.
Blintzy baby is the paid professional, he's paid to be collected and calm. He failed.
Quantify that. Unreasonable hysteria doesn't justify Blintzy baby ejecting a paid member of SFMOMA.
Many of these Hawk supporters are like ardent Republicans who, despite all arguments to the contrary, still believe Bush is the greatest thing to step foot in the White House.
we're mere moments away from a nazi reference, folks!
@Aventinus: Hitler!
There ya go. Thread over. Please.
The hell with it . . . I'll make the Nazi reference.
The simple sheep-minded mentality of those who believe everything they read on Hawk's blog is probably the same mindset that put Hitler in power.
The comments here are the absolute greatest. One comment perfectly captures my feelings:
"Thomas Hawk is a rigorously fair person, as I've experienced him via his pictures and his blog."
Do you understand this? One internet figure (Hawk) is lauded as a hero and another through the same medium (Blint) is an asshole, when said observers have probably never met either individual!
Do you understand this? One internet figure (Hawk) is lauded as a hero and another through the same medium (Blint) is an asshole, when said observers have probably never met either individual!
Don't you mean "Blintzy baby"?
What children.
Herr Blint ist ein Nazi?
Wie das Fuher?
Nein! Sy ist es nicht so!
/Godwin
Leni Riefenstahl wouldn't have put up with this behaviour, why should Thomas Hawk?
...
"using a dinky camera phone, jameth accomplishes in a day what hawk can only dream of doing in his lifetime"
(Cough). Um, sorry to break the news, but Hawk can at least focus his camera, which appears to be a capability Jameth can only dream of in his lifetime.
@Brock
sure... i suppose so. surrounding said images with lies and half-truths, posting them on the internet for personal gain, and getting those who are less powerful than you fired while comfortably hiding behind internet psuedoanonymity and a cushy finance job...
sounds like a ball... for the right kind of person i guess.
So, uh the proof that he wasn't taking boobie shots are the pictures he CHOSE to show everyone days after the event?
Dude, I totally didn't steal your wallet. Come check out my jacket pocket next week and you'll see.
Not that that's relevant of course. harassing = get the hell away from my employees. That's why Blint didn't care about seeing the photos, because the damn photos didn't matter, the behavior did.
Now, can we PLEASE get back to more hobo pics plz k thx.
I'm no expert with cameras, but is it possible to take both the wide-angle lobby shot and the close-up of Simon Blint with the same 14mm lens?
Aw, thank you for all my Nazi references.
Sadly, it didn't seem to work. Rotterdammit!
Did you see the pictures he took? You ain't gonna get much cleavage with that setup.
My thumb is bigger than Blintzy baby's whole head.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/thomashawk/2751554048/
That lens is most likely a prime lens. I don't think Canon makes a zoom lens that wide. You can't zoom in with a prime lens.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EF_14mm_lens
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_lens
The photos are the crux of the bogus claim of harassment. Assuming that someone actually felt harassed, why would they feel such emotions? Maybe because the harassed felt like Hawk was trying to look down her closed(!) shirt?
If that's the case, simply looking at the pictures being taken would rectify the situation. Look ma, no tits, no intent to harass.
If Blintzy baby's first reaction is to toss someone on the street... he's a piss poor person to head up visitor relations.
Besides if there's a legit claim to harassment, why would SFMOMA engage in astroturfing? You did see the even more bogus claim that Hawk was throwing food off of the balcony, right?
If you see the business end of a 14mm on a Canon 5D looking directly down on you from two stories above, an average person is going to ASSUME it's a telephoto. Heck, I put a 24-70mm on my D3 and people think I can pick out the spot on Jupiter.
I've shot from EXACTLY that same place in SFMOMA with a 14mm lens (14-24 f/2.8D). I never shot directly down because I know how that would be interpreted. Add to that the typical attitude of the people who work the entrance stairs at SFMOMA (those of you who go their regularly know what I mean—“Place your bag in front of you!"), and Thomas Hawk’s well known temper and 'tude and you have a recipe that causes most of us to be only surprised that others think that this wasn't inevitable. ;-)
If there's a policy, you can't just decide to revoke the policy because you want to be a douche. You have to respect the posted word, even if it's not really what you had in mind.
If you're saying photography is allowed, you can't just have a blanket "except when it isn't. HA HA FOOLED YOU" clause.
It's all a lot of bullshit and they need to either fully revoke any photography clause, educate their staff on what cameras are and what they can actually do, or suck it up and don't harass photographers.
If someone with a camera really wanted to take pictures of people's boobs, there's a sidewalk just outside where you can do it freely and legally all day and all night. There's absolutely no logic to the idea that someone would pick that place (of all places!) if they wanted to take any sort of inappropriate pictures. It makes no sense, but most people don't want to bring logic in the discussion when it makes them look like they made a foolish snap decision when some ignorant staff member made an outrageous claim. It's a piss poor job of public relations, guest relations and it's really sad to see that sort of behavior in this city.
But yes, he totally went into a place where you have to pay for a membership in order to take some boob shots. Good call sir.
Zippy: Sorry, I may have confused you by saying "close-up." I'm wondering if the two photos were taken with the same lens. You definitely know a lot more than I do, any elucidation you could give me would be greatly appreciated.
So if you're the trained professional, what do you do? Jump to conclusions? Or look at the photos, assess the situation calmly, and explain to the supposedly frightened employee what the real situation is.
And that's the problem in a nutshell.
I'm not a huge photo geek so I don't know every single lens available for the Canon 5D... but from what I can tell the only lens(es) out there that have a 14mm focal point (what Hawk was using for the wide-angle shots) are not zoom lenses. If you look at the extra info on that close-up you'll see it was shot with a 50mm focal point.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/thomashawk/2745611886/meta/
My guess is that Hawk changed lenses before confronting Blintzy baby. Before anyone claims that Hawk was being deceptive, consider that a 50mm focal point means that he's "zoomed in" quite a bit... not a lens you'd use to prove you're innocent of shooting someone's fully covered tits.
@OrangeDrink...Dude, I totally didn't steal your wallet. Come check out my jacket pocket next week and you'll see.
Per the usual you're right on the mark.
And likely the very reason Blint, in the middle of a confrontation, didn't review the photos is that it is beside the point and an attempt by the patron to try to play 'top' and turn the situation into a negotiation. For right or wrong, a decision was made by a representative of a private establishment on their property. Whether or not you're within stated policies, innocent of an accusation or what have you - in a grocery store, bar, dance club, coffee shop or gym - dude says go you shut up and go.
It would be a very different and legitimate story if this happened out of doors in a public place. Those are the harassing circumstances under which photographers are facing around the world, not within the confines of private property.
Blint, in the middle of a confrontation, didn't review the photos is that it is beside the point
How is that beside the point?
The photos themselves are proof of the act in question. The photos are the thing, the supposed reason for the ejection, the blog post, the controversy.
Why is that so difficult to grasp?
I hope Blint and the museum are holding on to all the hate mail they're receiving. That would make a truly fantastic exhibit.
I do love me a proper San Francisco pissing match.
Nobody ever wins and everyone gets urine on their pants and shoes.
Especially when you get the artistes who quote in MM's into the fray.
And you people wonder why I insist on having my own washer and dryer.
@GenericWhy is that so difficult to grasp?
Perhaps for the same reason you're not grasping that whatever is in the camera at the point he was asked to leave is irrelevant because as I mentioned at that point in this 'situation' a decision has already been made and the patron is leaving. All other considerations are irrelevant.
I'm definitely not saying I condone that type of security but sometimes, especially when you have a 'fighter', that's just the way it needs to be handled. I could be wrong but it seems pretty clear that's how this thing progressed.
@Generic...Why is that so difficult to grasp?
I ask the same question as you're not grasping that whatever is in the camera at the point he was asked to leave is irrelevant because as I mentioned at that point in this 'situation' a decision has already been made and the patron is leaving. All other considerations are irrelevant.
I'm definitely not saying I condone that type of security but sometimes, especially when you have a 'fighter', that's just the way it needs to be handled. I could be wrong but it seems pretty clear that's how this thing progressed.
Right. But that's what you're saying. That's not what SFMOMA is saying.
SFMOMA is still sticking to the notion that what he was doing with the camera, and by extension, what is IN the camera is important. (It's bullshit, but at least follow your bullshit to it's own logical conclusion.)
What is in the camera absolutely is relevant. The "situation" is dependent on the contents of the camera.
"the general public was being photographed in an inappropriate and harassing manner. "
What part of that is unclear? That the actual "act" of his photography was disturbing? Please.
If SFMOMA makes a udgment call to just eject the guy, fine. Then say that. (It has merit. Private property and all that.) But don't offer some some half-assed post hoc ergo propter hoc justification like the kind that you're offering.
Either he did a bad thing, or he didn't. That makes your life more difficult? Truly beside the point.
Nah. They're communicating the very same message - the decision for removal that was made at the scene. And you're still trying to negotiate. The two are incompatible.
In a related story, Swedish wrestler Ara Abrahamian throws away medal in Olympic hissy fit.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/olympics/2557320/Swedish-wrestler-Ara-Abrahamian-throws-away-medal-in-Olympic-hissy-fit.html
Jesus. How far do I have to walk you back? The decision for removal was based on something. The photos.
If there's no need for negotiation, there's no need for a press release. There was, and there is.
I think you're missing the real point. I do not care if Blint doesn't know a lense from his own rectum. I care about this:
He refuse to view the photographs that Hawk was taking after Hawk offered to display them for Blint. Blint showed willful ignorance at that point.
It is much like the police saying you were voyeuristic spying into a someone's window, when you were snapping a shot of birds. You offer to show them the birds and the pictures, but they decide to just take you in.
This should be a black mark in Blint's employee file and affect his employment. This is a PR nightmare for SF MOMA. It'd be like a the maître'de tossing out a food critic.
@Generic...Jesus. How far do I have to walk you back?
You can walk me back as far as your little condescending heart desires. I thinkin' at this point you just wanna hold my hand.
This is a PR nightmare for SF MOMA. It'd be like a the maître'de tossing out a food critic.
Let's not get carried away here.
Wait--too late.
If two people get into a scuffle in a restaurant. The manager does not hold a mini judiciary where they critically examine all the evidence in order to determine who is at fault so that they can righteously serve justice.
They kick them both out.
I suspect the same dynamics were at work here.
@ weissadam
Stick to your own logic. These are not two customers getting into a scuffle.
To use your analogy, this is a diner being ejected mid-meal because a waiter didn't like the way he was eating his food.
Whether or not you're within stated policies, innocent of an accusation or what have you - in a grocery store, bar, dance club, coffee shop or gym - dude says go you shut up and go.
And if dude is saying "go" for no reason then you tell your friends about how fucked up he is.
Imagine you happened to be looking at lipsticks at Walgreens and a new manager comes up and tells you that boys don't use lipstick, please leave, certainly you wouldn't tell any of your friends about it. No way.
I do think it's funny that so many here are apologizing for authoritarian behavior on the part of Blint, regardless of who was right or wrong. "Play 'top'?" Your imagination is ON FIRE, GIRL.
But we get it, it's OK for Blint to be an asshole because he's getting paid by the museum. Even if I don't think he was being an ass, we don't even have to mention his attitude because he's the one with the power. Nevermind that he's the Director of "Visitor Relations," because it's not a position that involves dealing with the public and maintaining the reputation of the museum.
No, it's only Hawk's state of mind that matters here. Of course, it's the only one we have access to since nobody has come forward with anything else. But it doesn't matter if Blint was a jerk first because Hawk deserved it. Nice case of 'post hoc ergo propter hoc' you got there.