No Photography Allowed - 5 Reasons Why Museums Should Have An Open Photo Policy
"If it doesn't spread, it's dead." Don't worry, not another 'send your flu-buddy to get your medicines' warning, but the title of a paper by Henry Jenkins on social media. "What has this to do with taking photographs in museums?", you'll ask. Well, quite a bit. Museums benefit of their collection being popular and 'hot': more visitors, more book sales, more research, more funding and more prestige. Most advertisement companies would be delighted at the idea of thousands of people wanting to take photographs of their products to show them to their friends. Even more delighted if people would post them on the internet with the bylines "Look how marvellous!" and "I had a great time!" Yet many museums are taking the opposite path, saying 'Njet!' to photography in their galleries and sending visitors home with at most a postcard to show to their closest friends. How could this policy of shunning free publicity mean any gain for these museums long-term, and even more important: in which way do their visitors benefit from this 'NO PHOTOGRAHY ALLOWED!' policy?
How can visitors be 'co-owners' of museums if they can't own an image from their experience?
Nina Simon, the blogger behind Museum 2.0, is currently working on the book 'The Participatory Museum: A Practical Guide' and for this took a thorough look at why at the moment a large number of collection-based art and history museums continue to maintain highly restrictive photo policies, and how this does not really make sense.
She asks why museums 1.0 tend to stick to the 'no photography' policy, finding 5 main arguments - Intellectual Property, Conservation, Revenue Streams, Aesthetics of Experience and Security - for this approach to (no) photography by visitors:
- Intellectual Property: Museums must respect diverse intellectual property agreements with donors and lenders, and in institutions where some objects are photographable and others not, it's often easier to use the most restrictive agreements as the basis for institutional policies.
- Conservation: Objects may be damaged by flash photography. Some conservators argue that if non-flash photography is permitted, light levels in the galleries may be increased to accommodate visitors' cameras, which indirectly damage artifacts.
- Revenue Streams: Museums want to maintain control of sales of "officially sanctioned" images of objects via catalogues and postcards. If people can take their own photos, they won't buy them in the gift shop.
- Aesthetics of Experience: Photo-taking is distracting for other visitors. Looking at artwork through a lens means you are having a less rich experience. Visitors may make inappropriate gestures in photos with museum content, thus distorting institutional values and intent.
- Security: Photographers might take photos with intent to do harm; for example, with plans to rob the museum or stalk another visitor.
Nina Simon does not quite agree with these arguments: "I respect the first and second arguments. I understand the third, though I think it is misguided. And I think the fourth and fifth are bizarre and ungenerous to visitors." Ungenerous to visitors? Yes, as frequently those visitors pay a quite substantial fee to access the museum and see part of their, we assume hard-earned, tax money flow to the museum's operating costs. Simon continues: "To me, an open photo policy is a cornerstone of any institution that sees itself as a visitor-centered platform for participatory engagement." She in her turn lists five good reasons why museums should have totally open photo policies:
1. As long as it does not promote unsafe conditions for artifacts or people or illegal behavior, museums should prioritize providing opportunities for visitors to engage in ways that are familiar and comfortable to them.
Yes, some people hate the sight of people taking photos in museums. But what about visitors? If your argument is based on visitor comfort and distraction, it should be backed up by visitor research, not personal impressions. Would staff members who hate photography be comparably disturbed by visitors sketching in the galleries? Sketching takes up more space and is more distracting than photo-taking, and yet many museum professionals look benevolently upon that activity as a positive meaning-making visitor experience. This is prejudicial treatment. I know that many people are uncomfortable with the growing culture of self-documentation, but no one should let their own aesthetic preferences dictate others' behavior without good reason.
2. Restrictive policies erode staff/visitor relations and overall museum mission statements around inclusion.
The majority of cellphones now have cameras embedded in them, which means that many visitors are walking through your doors with camera in hand. Visitors get upset when they are told to put their cameras away, and it is becoming increasingly hard for guards to control the taking of photographs and their spread on the Web. Telling visitors that they can't take photos in museums reinforces the sense that the museum is an external authority that owns and controls its objects rather than a shared public resource. How can visitors be "co-owners" of museums if they can't own an image from their experience?
3. Photo-taking allows visitors to memorialize and make meaning from museum experiences.
There have been several studies that show that creating a personal record of an experience and reviewing it later increases learning and retention of content. When visitors flip through photos from their trip, they are more likely to recall their interest in a given artifact or exhibit than without visual aids. And it's not just about recall. There are thriving groups of Flickr users who share photos of themselves imitating art. When my mom, sister and I visited the de Young sculpture garden, we spent about an hour posing alongside the sculptures, which forced us to spend a lot of time carefully observing the art and directing each other into position. We spent significantly more time with the art to create these photos than we would have had we just been strolling through.
4. Visitors use personal photos differently from store-bought ones.
The majority of visitors use their cameras to casually record their personal and social experiences, not to take authoritative images of artifacts. A visitor who wants a picture of "mom with the giant penis statue" wants something that the museum is not selling. Visitors who want "the best shot ever of the penis statue" are still likely to buy in the store. And even if visitors do take authoritative (noncommercial) shots, they are unlikely to reduce sales. A great shot of your institution, shared on Flickr, serves as a free piece of marketing that may generate ticket sales. How do you measure the potential lost income from a photographer not buying a postcard against the online impressions his photo makes on others? In the related world of online image licensing, some museums have done studies of the affect of open digital photo distribution on their revenue from image licensing and have seen flat or positive effects from the actions, not negative ones.
5. When people share their photos of your museum, they promote and spread your content to new audiences in authentic ways.
In 2008, a team led by MIT media researcher Henry Jenkins published a white paper entitled, "If it Doesn't Spread, It's Dead," which argues that media artifacts have greatest impact when consumers are able to pass on, reuse, adapt, and remix them. There are two parts to this. First, every time a photo is shared, it extends the reach of your objects and exhibit stories. But perhaps more importantly, Jenkins argues that the creative adaptation of cultural objects through photos and other spreading tools supports communities' "processes of meaning making, as people use tools at their disposal to explain the world around them."
Nina Simon does point out that the intellectual property arguments in particular are very complex and should be taken seriously, and goes as far as to suggest the value of allowing visitors to take photograph is that high, that museums should think twice about taking on temporary exhibitions or loans that would endanger the ability to allow visitors to take photos across the institution. Her blogpost has sparked quite a bit of discussion, with one comment from Shelly - tech whiz at 'revolutionary' Brooklyn Museum of course - that's definitely worth quoting here:
Changing our policy three years ago to allow for non-commercial visitor photography was one of the best things we've done at Brooklyn. We do continue to have some restrictions in temporary installations depending on the lender agreements or artist wishes, but on the whole photography is allowed here and it is central to a visitor-freindly philosophy.
It wasn't easy - we've had to actively think about it and work language into lender and artist agreements. Sometimes there are no objections to these clauses and we can allow it or other times we have to restrict, but *trying* to allow it is one of the many processes we now go through any time we are bringing work into the building or working with artists. The theory is there's no harm in asking the question...if lenders/artists say no we respect that and communicate the restriction to visitors in those instances. On the whole, we find visitors have been fairly respectful of the policies even when we can allow it in one part of the building, but perhaps not another.
It's funny, of all the "technology" that I see going wrong in galleries these days, I most often see visitors really engaging with work more with their cameras than anything else. It's one of the only things I see working.
With museums such as the Brooklyn Museum embracing 'web 2.0', more and more institutions joining the Flickr commons (and being nothing but positive about that), the Smithsonian Institution drafting up a complete 'Smithsonian Web and New Media Strategy' (and making that public on the web), what's still holding back the museum 1.0's from allowing visitors to - at least - take a photograph of their experience? As Nina Simon has put it so well: "How can visitors be 'co-owners' of museums if they can't own an image from their experience?"
Read 2 comments, or leave your own
videos
Comments
There are some interesting issues raised here; some with which I agree and others I don't. For starters I don't think people sketching is as distracting as people taking photographs. It's not that I think sketching is necessarily a nobler art than photography, but do you really see hundreds of panting tourists using their flash to sketch the Rosetta Stone, for example? The bottom line, however, is that if taxpayers pay to get the items in, then they should be able to take pics of whatever they want. Maybe the mayor should hand out special tax badges to Londoners so they can take photos for free, while tourists could pay a nominal fee, a la Russian state museums?
The intellectual property argument doesn't hold for museums where objects are hundreds of years old.
The conservation argument can be avoided simply by asking that people don't use flash, as in the Louvre. If they can erect ugly signs re: no photography, then can do the same for flashes. They have can put ushers in every room to enforce no photography, they can do the same for flashes.
The revenue argument - simply charge a small fee, say 2-3 pounds for a permit. It would generate more income, especially for the free galleries such as the National Gallery and Tates.
The UK is particularly draconian. The same art objects in Europe (that allows photography) will be forbidden in Britain.
What about churches? Westminster Abbey & St Pauls Cathedral don't allow photography. Just about every church in Europe does. And they already charge a hefty entrance fee. The staff have to say 'No Photography Please' to tourists all day long - that must be annoying for them. No consistent reason is given.
Australia, the USA, and most of continental Europe allow photography in most of their museums. Only the UK is obsessed with preventing photography for most indoor institutions.
Post new comment