Are Museums Destroying Art?

[LesPalenik]

And what happens when everyone in that group of 200 tourists that is waiting for you says "Why can't I take a photograph and why do I have to wait for him?" When the answer is 2-5 euro, all that you've done is say to those people that the ticket price is now 2-5 euro more because all 200 people that have come here for a once in a lifetime visit want to take the photograph too and that 2-5 euro is not significant.

If the museum imposes 2-5 euro photography fee, they will reduce also 200 flashers to 50.

[marcusperkins]

Not too sure if this has been suggested, but the obvious answer is to have a quiet day each week/month where photography is not allowed, and visitors are encouraged to keep conversation to a whisper.

[Rob C]

Not too sure if this has been suggested, but the obvious answer is to have a quiet day each week/month where photography is not allowed, and visitors are encouraged to keep conversation to a whisper.

Well, at least I deduce that you accept there's a problem, which is moe than many here are willing to admit!

Oh the sacred right of the photographer to be a pain in the public ass!

Rob C

[gochugogi]

I must say this article comes off as sour grapes. Please, this is how modern life is and it ain't gonna change no matter how old and conservative you are. People break wind in elevators, scream on cellphones next to you and walk in front of you at the theater. Trying to stop a tidal wave of museum visitors from disturbing your meditation with their noisy presence and camera clicks & flashes ain't gonna happen. If the museums policed their business so a few OF are able to meditate intently without being disturbed they would soon find that old guy is their only ticket holder.

I did visit Mona LISA a few years back and it was a freakin' blast it was so crazy. An entire bus load of Chinese tourists were jumping and screaming in delight at the sight of that wee painting, making it more like happy hour than an art museum. I was elbowed and pushed and was greatly entertained by the comical event. The painting is underwhelming but the crowd made a sedate museum visit into a near rock concert.

[Rob C]

Interesting; sour grapes now means a sense of decorum. How language has changed.

Rob C

[dreed]

...
I did visit Mona LISA a few years back and it was a freakin' blast it was so crazy. An entire bus load of Chinese tourists were jumping and screaming in delight at the sight of that wee painting, making it more like happy hour than an art museum. I was elbowed and pushed and was greatly entertained by the comical event. The painting is underwhelming but the crowd made a sedate museum visit into a near rock concert.

How interesting it is that whilst one photographer bemoans the chance to take in a photograph due to the presence of others, another uses that very distraction to create an interesting photograph in its own right.

[Rob C]

How interesting it is that whilst one photographer bemoans the chance to take in a photograph due to the presence of others, another uses that very distraction to create an interesting photograph in its own right.

That is very true; however, that is a secondary and chance happening, not an intent on behalf of those with the remit to offer safe haven to the art, and a suitable/appropriate venue for viewing to the public.

Rob C

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... old and conservative... a few OF... The painting is underwhelming...

Ahhh... the arrogance (and ignorance) of youth (I presume)!

If obnoxious behavior in museums is becoming a norm, thus somehow acceptable, even hip, and those who object to it labeled "conservative OF," I wonder what's next?

Taking flash pictures in front of a symphony orchestra during a performance? And no, not an open-air, folding-chair, anything-goes public performance either. After all, the family and friends (all several thousands of your "true" friends on social media) need to see you were there and envy you on how cultural and sophisticated you've become. After all, you paid for the ticket, it's only fair you get something out of it.

[ednazarko]

I've pretty much stopped going to art museums, aquariums, and other places where rare things are displayed so that people can learn about them, other than when I know I can get in at a time when there won't be school groups, party buses, tour groups marching behind flags, and the like.  The flashing makes me blind, the bad behavior makes me feel older than I am, both of which I am sure I would tolerate better if I felt like the hordes were there engaging and learning.  That's not what I've seen in recent years.

What I see is very equivalent to geo-caching.  People go to the Louvre so that they can bounce through checking off paintings that they heard about in humanities class, or that someone told them were important.  Instead of engaging, they grab a snap with their cellphone to prove that they were in front of the painting, and then navigate off to the next station. I've seen it many museums in many parts of the world, and in aquariums.  In the 20 seconds spent in front of the Desired Object, 15 seconds are spent getting the image lined up in the phone's screen. The difference between seeing a work of art and Seeing a work of art is pretty striking.

Geo-caching is a wonderful sport but it's not about engaging with the destinations, it's about engaging with the motion.   I used to do something similar with my nieces and nephews when they came to visit and I took them to an art museum - for kids a lot of motion is necessary so that engagement of some sort can happen here and there. I used to pick a subject - St. George and the Dragon, for example - and send them off to see how many times that subject appears in the art (and not just in the title) and they had to prove they were at each by telling me something specific about what was different about St. George or the Dragon in each of the pictures. Without that part of the game it'd just be all about rapid navigation and collection without engagement. I made sure they cached something ABOUT the image, not just its presence.

As to the flashes damaging the images - for those who may doubt, take out your trusty large flash unit, set it to full manual power, hold it two inches from your skin, and flash. Feel the IR and UV? To those who now argue the inverse square law makes flash in a museum harmless, I say you don't have a good grasp of large numbers.  Yes, the flash are five feet away in the museum, but the number of flashes is in the millions if not tens of millions a year. That makes the number of energy carrying photons per square inch hitting the painting much larger than what you felt on your skin.  Similar to the issue that one car in need of a tuneup can't cause a problem... but if you get a hundred million of them, now you're talking about mega-tons of environmental impact.

[stamper]

If there are dozens or even hundreds of people enjoying themselves and someone isn't then is it not true that the one not enjoying themselves is the odd one out? Instead of wishing the majority to stop what they are doing then that person should find an environment that suits their tastes better?

[Rob C]

If there are dozens or even hundreds of people enjoying themselves and someone isn't then is it not true that the one not enjoying themselves is the odd one out? Instead of wishing the majority to stop what they are doing then that person should find an environment that suits their tastes better?

Interesting thought, stamper.

Now, think of a public execution. I'm sure you're right: the victim would love to  be somewhere else; it's obviously his fault that he's there, hanging from a tree in the public square... and those nice people howling all around him have God on their side. He's obviously in the wrong.

Rob C

[gochugogi]

Ahhh... the arrogance (and ignorance) of youth (I presume)!

I may be be old but I refuse to grow up! Nevertheless, I often get offered the senior citizen discount to which I act greatly insulted and refuse!

If obnoxious behavior in museums is becoming a norm, thus somehow acceptable, even hip, and those who object to it labeled "conservative OF," I wonder what's next?

Shaved dogs on hemp? Nekid dancing bears? Ah dunno, when you sell thousands of tickets at the Louve, pack hundreds of tourists in a wee room with Mona, you get excitement. In fact, a near riot. I'm pretty sure pheromones and pack animal consciousness were stirring things up as well. That's not rude. That's normal human behavior unless you're a corpse or old fuddy-duddy. I say let it rip. It was a good time for me and obviously for everybody else in the room save for the author of the silly article. Now if I and the old goat were the only ones in the room, meditating for an hour on Mona's boyish glaze, that would be an event worthy to fade into the mists...

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

If there are dozens or even hundreds of people enjoying themselves and someone isn't then is it not true that the one not enjoying themselves is the odd one out? Instead of wishing the majority to stop what they are doing then that person should find an environment that suits their tastes better?

You know Stamper, you are right. After all, all great civilizations were ultimately defeated by barbarians.

[daws]

If there are dozens or even hundreds of people enjoying themselves and someone isn't then is it not true that the one not enjoying themselves is the odd one out? Instead of wishing the majority to stop what they are doing then that person should find an environment that suits their tastes better?

Why stop at dozens or hundreds? If there are thousands, millions, tens of millions of people "enjoying themselves," the few "odd ones" who disagree should zip their lips, cap their pens and "love it or leave it" -- right? In matters of art, music, education, law, government or war, the "odd ones" should simply STFU and leave -- right?

Shall we count how many times in history the defenders of the status quo have trotted out that one? 

[Robert Roaldi]

I think everyone should take a deep breath and relax. It's not the end of civilization, it's just a bunch of kids and tourists in a few museums, certainly not all of them, not even most. The places are big and cost money and the number of people willing to pay $50 admission is likely pretty small, so they have to have "blockbuster art" exhibits to attract large numbers of cash-bearing visitors. I doubt very much that this will destroy Art.

As for the public behaviour of humans, half a lifetime ago I had a summer job at a food service establishment. I've know for a long time now that people are generally lazy slobs. Surely, that's not a surprise to anyone, but it's no worse now than it ever was.

[ripgriffith]

I think everyone should take a deep breath and relax. It's not the end of civilization

Certainly not the end of the world, but it just well may be the end of civilization.  If you destroy the artistic experience, as these hordes of barbarians do, you might as well have destroyed the art itself.

[petercook80]

The World Museum Community ICOM says the following of museums...

"According to the ICOM Statutes, adopted during the 21st General Conference in Vienna, Austria, in 2007: A museum is a non-profit, permanent institution in the service of society and its development, open to the public, which acquires, conserves, researches, communicates and exhibits the tangible and intangible heritage of humanity and its environment for the purposes of education, study and enjoyment.
This definition is a reference in the international community."

Now it seems that many are saying that last item 'enjoyment' is number one and hang everything else, but what about the other two  'education & study'  dont they deserve space as well, or have some really got to the stage of saying that a museums sole purpose is on a level with Disney World etc..

[Robert Roaldi]

There's plenty of education and study, but it just doesn't necessarily take place on the gallery floor during blockbuster exhibits.

[Rob C]

Thing is, all the devotees of a free-for-all form of communal wrestling/boxing/screaming/running/blinding are unwilling to permit those of a more studious nature the freedom to exist in peace, observe and digest the artworks.

Nobody has suggested that there be some kind of class system brought in, where your income tax return is a form of validation; hell, money and social class never were guarantees of civilized behaviour - often the opposite. All that's being suggested is that the excess energy and snapping be controlled in such a manner that peaceful co-occupation of the gallery space is achieved and no risks taken with the artworks themselves, either through ambient conditions, unnecessary exposure to flashes (which are still of uncertain safety), or of overcrowding and riotous behaviour.

That mutual respect strikes me as being one of the pillars of a civilized society; the question, of course, is whether that's what we have or even wish to strive to retain, return to or even achieve in the first place; reading the voices here in favour of mob rule, I sort of doubt it.

Rob C

[Ben Rubinstein]

I wonder if this kind of behaviour is transitionary? Was it like this 5 years ago? Will it be like this when the whole social network photo thing calms down somewhat? At the moment it seems like it's a frenzy but most frenzies calm down after a bit and a happy medium is reached.

In any case I think that 'tourist' times and 'quiet' times would be the easy answer. The latter, like on some train services in the UK would feature no cell phones, no photos and only quiet whispering. Could be half and half the day or specific days of the week, etc.

Perhaps it's just a matter of picking the correct times? I remember going to the Tate Modern Art museum in Liverpool with my wife. It was a quiet morning, mid winter and mid week. There were perhaps 20 other people in the entire place. Was a wonderful experience. I hate crowds and it seems that if you plan carefully, you can avoid them?