Banning photography, he continues, is a losing battle. “Then they would hide and do it anyway,” he says. “Because it’s even more fun to take a picture when it’s forbidden.”
But … Should You?
Given the nature of my job (and love of art), I go to a lot of museums in a lot of places. The experience, from Shanghai to Rio to Los Angeles to New York, is always the same. It doesn’t matter if it’s a press preview, a private reception, or a regular weekday: People stand in front of art and stick out their phone.
I used to find the practice benign. Recently, I’ve begun to find it problematic. Not just because it’s a nuisance, but because it changes the physical process of looking at art. When everyone around me is trying to take a photo of whatever it is I’m looking at, it’s impossible to ignore the fact that I’m actively blocking their shot. You can’t enjoy a painting if you know someone just wants you out of the way. Or at least, I can’t.
I agree that there’s a time and place to photograph art—I do it sometimes, too—but I’d happily trade the right to take an occasional museum photo for a total ban on them altogether.
But I’m aware that I’m in the minority, and I’m also aware that my way of engaging with the art is no better or worse than anyone else.
“One could say the same thing about a gorgeous hike in the Catskills,” says Weine. “Should you have your phone out and capture it? Or should you just enjoy walking in the woods? I would embrace different individual choices for different individuals.”
This article was provided by Bloomberg News.