i have a question about museums

[rosabella]

I hate these paternalistic rants that assume the author is the only that can truly appreciate these works and in the "proper" way. If people get a kick out of have a photo with one of these paintings, let them have their fun. How does the author know they don't enjoy the work?

Lets call out the myth of flash photography being able to destroy an artwork. That is absolutely false. You can try it at home. The output from a flash is too insignificant to cause fading, even with a million visitors.

[Mark D Segal]

You seem to be ignoring the possibility that it creates a disturbance to other visitors who would like to appreciate the works without the view being obstructed by people taking selfies in front of the works or forcing them to endure the sometimes blinding distraction of flash photography. Such rules are often developed for the common good of all visitors.

[Tony Jay]

You seem to be ignoring the possibility that it creates a disturbance to other visitors who would like to appreciate the works without the view being obstructed by people taking selfies in front of the works or forcing them to endure the sometimes blinding distraction of flash photography. Such rules are often developed for the common good of all visitors.

I would second this...

[Wayne Fox]

Yeah, it would be difficult to enjoy a famous piece if it's lit up like a disco.

[Schewe]

Lets call out the myth of flash photography being able to destroy an artwork. That is absolutely false. You can try it at home. The output from a flash is too insignificant to cause fading, even with a million visitors.

Prove it...

Museum conservators are responsible for the long term (as in a really, really long time) preservation and conservation of the artwork under their care. It's a well known fact that light (particularly UV) has an adverse impact on papers, pigments and materials. That has been scientifically established...

So, how much light is too much light? That's a moving target depending on the materials involved but there are standards listed here:
Limiting Light Damage From Display/Exhibition

One statement is pretty specific: "Light damage is cumulative and irreversible"...any light exposure causes potential damage which is why a lot of artwork such as certain kinds of photographs: salted paper prints, calotypes/talbotypes and dyes (found in colored drawing media, inks, textiles, photographs, many early chemical reproductive processes such as blueprints, dittos) are kept in dark storage and not displayed–the museum is encouraged to do a high quality reproduction and store the originals in dark storage and often in dark cold storage...

So, aside from the clear and present danger to expose artwork to excess light, exactly what sort of electronic flash would possibly be a proper light to use in a museum? On camera flash? That's clearly an inferior lighting...

I actually know a guy who works for the Chicago Art Institute and is involved in digitally archiving their collection of artwork with high resolution digital captures. The proper lighting is a challenging endeavor for sure...trying to get both color and texture and evening lighting both large and small artwork is an art in itself...and these days, much of that lightings is high CRI LED lighting since it's bright and cool (not radiant heat buildup on the artwork).

Sorry, I appreciate artwork way too much to try to get museums to do anything that might damage the artwork for generations to come. Besides, these days high ISO is pretty friggin' good!

[Robert Roaldi]

I wonder if many people ever look at the selfies they take? How many pictures of oneself can people stand to look at. I never look at pictures of me.

I might be missing something, though, maybe the taking is the entire point. That could be a performance art piece, hang up a photo, then take a selfie of oneself with the photo, and the subject matter of the photo could be of a person taking a selfie...    Sorry.

However, I think there is a legitimate use for mobile cameras at art exhibits, and that's photographing the curator's blurb next to the works. A lot of exhibits I go to are very dark and I have trouble reading those essays, some of which can be long, so photographing them for later reading could be useful.

[Mark D Segal]

A lot of exhibits I go to are very dark and I have trouble reading those essays, some of which can be long, so photographing them for later reading could be useful.

That's a completely different story, and typically one would not use flash for this. Many museums do allow non-flash photography.

[Robert Roaldi]

That's a completely different story, and typically one would not use flash for this. Many museums do allow non-flash photography.

Yes, sure, those high ISOs come in handy.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Wondering what prompted our member's first post? The 2012 article by Mark Dubovoy, "Are Museums Destroying Art"?

If so, here is a link to the original article: https://luminous-landscape.com/are-museums-destroying-art/

[KenTanaka]

I hate these paternalistic rants that assume the author is the only that can truly appreciate these works and in the "proper" way. If people get a kick out of have a photo with one of these paintings, let them have their fun. How does the author know they don't enjoy the work?

Lets call out the myth of flash photography being able to destroy an artwork. That is absolutely false. You can try it at home. The output from a flash is too insignificant to cause fading, even with a million visitors.

I am not confident I have accurately decoded the original poster’s statement, above.  But I can say with some authority that museums’ prohibition of flash photography is most generally motivated by the desire to preserve the general experience for all visitors, free of flashes.

I can also say that there are, indeed, photographic (and other) works so fugitive that just a few days of camera flashes would most certainly measurably degrade them.  There are some 19th century photographic works that cannot be publicly exhibited at all, even under the lowest of permissible footcandle illumination levels.  They can only be viewed privately for a few minutes in very dim light.  There are many others that can be exhibited only for a month or so every 10-15 years, to ensure that they last as long as is possible.

As Jeff Schewe noted, above, museum conservators are responsible for ensuring that works under their care are preserved for the “long term”.  They can never be replaced.  And conservators, not curators, have the last word at museums.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

I remember seeing Henri Cartier-Bresson's exhibition in Barcelona and wondering why the hell is the display room so dimly lit? Now I know. Well, I kinda knew it then as well. But it wasn't pleasant.

[KenTanaka]

I remember seeing Henri Cartier-Bresson's exhibition in Barcelona and wondering why the hell is the display room so dimly lit? Now I know. Well, I kinda knew it then as well. But it wasn't pleasant.

Not knowing the specific exhibition prints in that show I’m speculating that some rather extreme insurance and loan agreements may have been involved.  Most of HCB’s prints are not especially fugitive, although some of the papers may be susceptible to discoloration when exposed to bright light for long periods.  Some years back an HCB show by MoMA’s then-photo chair/curator Peter Galassi (which traveled to several venues) featured a great many prints made largely for press repro rather than exhibition.  The papers were not at all archival and already showed signs of yellowing.

It has become common for loan agreements for rare and valuable photo works to specify maximum illumination levels and durations.  Slow but gradual advancements in lighting technologies and glazing are gradually helping to relax these standards slightly.  But the advancements are very expensive and most lenders, whether public or private, would rather be safe than sorry.  So you’re likely to need to wear your bat cave eyes when visiting most shows of major 20th century photography in the foreseeable future. 

[adias]

Prove it...

Museum conservators are responsible for the long term (as in a really, really long time) preservation and conservation of the artwork under their care. It's a well known fact that light (particularly UV) has an adverse impact on papers, pigments and materials. That has been scientifically established...

So, how much light is too much light? That's a moving target depending on the materials involved but there are standards listed here:
Limiting Light Damage From Display/Exhibition

One statement is pretty specific: "Light damage is cumulative and irreversible"...any light exposure causes potential damage which is why a lot of artwork such as certain kinds of photographs: salted paper prints, calotypes/talbotypes and dyes (found in colored drawing media, inks, textiles, photographs, many early chemical reproductive processes such as blueprints, dittos) are kept in dark storage and not displayed–the museum is encouraged to do a high quality reproduction and store the originals in dark storage and often in dark cold storage...

So, aside from the clear and present danger to expose artwork to excess light, exactly what sort of electronic flash would possibly be a proper light to use in a museum? On camera flash? That's clearly an inferior lighting...

I actually know a guy who works for the Chicago Art Institute and is involved in digitally archiving their collection of artwork with high resolution digital captures. The proper lighting is a challenging endeavor for sure...trying to get both color and texture and evening lighting both large and small artwork is an art in itself...and these days, much of that lightings is high CRI LED lighting since it's bright and cool (not radiant heat buildup on the artwork).

Sorry, I appreciate artwork way too much to try to get museums to do anything that might damage the artwork for generations to come. Besides, these days high ISO is pretty friggin' good!

This!

[bassman51]

I’m completely sympathetic to both preserving art and preserving the museum experience for all guests by banning flash photography.  The same for shows, concerts, etc.  I don’t mind watching people use flashes from the stands at baseball games, as it makes me feel superior. 

However, isn’t a 1/50,000s flash from 1,000,000 images really just 20 seconds of bright light? Can it really do much damage?

[Jeremy Roussak]

Wondering what prompted our member's first post?

His email address, his first post coming almost immediately after registration and the nature of the post strongly suggest spam, Slobodan. If there hadn't been a couple of interesting replies by the time I saw the first post, he'd have been banned and I'd have deleted the thread. As it is, I'll let it run for now.

Jeremy

[Telecaster]

My local museum allows photography, though not the use of flash. Not a problem…higher ISOs are really useful and usable these days. IMO having flashes popping off while contemplating artworks would be annoying as hell.

Whenever I go into a dimly-lit display room I give my eyes a couple minutes to adjust before any serious looking. This works fine.

-Dave-

[fdisilvestro]

His email address, his first post coming almost immediately after registration and the nature of the post strongly suggest spam, Slobodan. If there hadn't been a couple of interesting replies by the time I saw the first post, he'd have been banned and I'd have deleted the thread. As it is, I'll let it run for now.

Jeremy

I second this, it looks like spam and it appears to have been happening a few times recently, first time poster with a weird claim or question that never follows up (such as I can't open an .ai file).

One suggestion to consider is to send to a moderation queue the fisrt couple of posts of new members, as many other online forums do. I understand that this may not be practical with the resources available.


BTW, I would really hate being dazzled by people taking pictures with flash inside a museum.