no photo 303 glry

via afc
- bill 2-25-2010 1:01 pm

Who the hell needs to take a photo in a museum or gallery?! This is stupid shit.

- Justin (guest) 2-25-2010 2:06 pm [add a comment]


its a foolish attempt to protect the original art object. as though a jpeg of the monalisa some how devalued the original. this is pre-internet mindset. and a loosing game. the times they are a changing.
- bill 2-25-2010 2:23 pm [add a comment]


I know all about that. That's not the point here. I'm saying: I don't want to be in a museum or gallery, quietly contemplating a work of art, and have some idiot brandishing an iPhone next to me snapping away. Or worse, telling me to get out of the way. The last person who did that got a punch in the face.
- Justin (guest) 2-25-2010 3:11 pm [add a comment]


And I'm not joking.
- Justin (guest) 2-25-2010 3:17 pm [add a comment]


I'm cool with someone holding an inaudible or barely audible camera or phone aloft in my peripheral vision. 303's semi-spoken argument regarding the Gallace paintings is: her paintings of barns and New England houses (or whatever) lose something and seem very banal and ordinary when reproduced, especially in browned-out, badly cropped reproductions. They are attempting to control what every artist would like to control but can't--how others perceive your work and how you are remembered by history. (As annoyed as I get about Apple computers ruining my animated GIF enlargements I don't write Apple demanding they tweak the software--I just bitch.) Agreed its a losing game. Digicams make us aware of Abu Ghraibs and such and have their social uses. I'm sure Rumsfeld wishes he could have enforced a no pictures rule as well.
- tom moody 2-25-2010 5:05 pm [add a comment]


ah ha. france claims control over images of the Eiffel tower too.
- bill 2-25-2010 5:29 pm [add a comment]





add a comment to this page:

Your post will be captioned "posted by anonymous,"
or you may enter a guest username below:


Line breaks work. HTML tags will be stripped.