…but I’ll only take a few of them.
The National Gallery now allows people to take photographs of its exhibits, the last of the big London art galleries to do so. The Telegraph ran some thoroughly disapproving coverage of this change in policy, and I posted this on my Facebook feed along with a comment disapproving of the Telegraph’s disapproval (and agreeing with the gallery). The post created quite a debate amongst some of my friends: I sat back, harvesting the best bits and using them as inspiration for this post.
So photography bans, then, and the lifting thereof.
In my view, rules expressly banning an activity should be avoided where possible, if the activity in question doesn’t harm people or property.
So why might an art gallery want to stop people taking photos? Here are the best reasons I can think of:
- It damages the art somehow (eg. flash photography)
- It would erode earnings from the gift shop, as people would be able to create their own copies of works rather than buying reproductions.
- Photography is used by the average casual tourist photographer as a way of not engaging with the art. Many – dare I say most – people using cameras in art galleries are doing so to record or collect their experiences, Pokémon-style, rather than to actually experience them in real life. (I accept that there are many ways that photography of art can itself be a way of engaging – however, I don’t think a lot of visitors who photograph exhibits are thinking like that. If you disagree with me, go and see the Mona Lisa.) Therefore, a ban on photography encourages would-be photographers to be more present in the moment.
- Photographers distract the non-photographers: they get in the way, and the noise and brightness of the screen detracts from an atmosphere of liberal contemplation and/or curiosity. People should be allowed to engage with the works without interference from others.
Like I said, I’m personally against coercion (banning photography) as I think it’s an inelegant solution. The desire to take photographs is still there, but it’s being suppressed by the museum staff. Instead of this, what kind of relevant nudges could a gallery give its visitors to help them engage there and then, and be in the moment? Isn’t this really a challenge of curation and design, to be solved through lateral thinking and better communication with today’s audiences?
As one person commented, the paintings in the National Gallery belong to the nation – so if the nation wants to just go into the gallery to take pictures, should the gallery let it? (Let’s leave aside for a second the fact that a huge proportion of the Nat Gall’s visitors are from outside the UK.)
The gallery has a basic responsibility to make itself and its contents relevant in the modern world – for the sake of self-preservation if nothing else – so this is an important debate. I hope it leads to more outreach and authentic human engagement with art, rather than mediocrity, numbness, conservatism and a general retreat into comfort zones.