See last updates for SF MoMA response and others' reactions.
Recently I blogged about my excitement regarding the San Francisco MOMA's decision to begin allowing photography in their permanent collection after years of maintaining a closed no photography policy. Directly because of this change in policy, I decided to purchase a family membership in order to support the museum, both with my artistic energy and financially. I was excited to begin spending regular time exploring and documenting the museum.
...
After purchasing my family membership and visiting the museum today I was forcibly thrown out of the museum by two museum security guards at the direction of the Director of Visitor Relations Simon Blint...
FriendFeed had three very impassioned conversations:
1. Thomas Hawk's FriendFeed discussion
2. Jeremiah Owyang's FriendFeed discussion
3. Cyndy's FriendFeed discussionThomas Hawk's skewering of Simon Blint: Thomas is a community leader (and photo site CEO) he needs to wield his power with responsibility. Tagging Simon Blint and "*sshole" has damaged his online reputation for years on end, and will likely impact job screenings.
When FriendFeed Creates a Mob
SFist covered the incident (thanks, Brock!)
...Hawk talked to Blint who (allegedly) told him "he did not care" and that he needed to "protect" his employees -- employees that might appear in my photographs." Hawk goes on to say, "I was not shooting with a tripod. I was not shooting with a flash."
Was Blint, in fact, being an *sshole? Was Hawk putting up a pissy fight, which led to his ejection? We don't know yet. But we think banning of any type of photography is inane, especially if you work in the arts.
But what say you? Should photographers be subject to this kind of harassment? Or does Blint deserve a serious tongue lashing?
BoingBoing didn't miss the story.
Robbo sez, "Thomas Hawk was forcibly removed from the San Francisco MOMA by two security guards at the direction of the over-zealous Simon Blint, Director of Visitor Relations. How ironic is that? Why? Taking photos in the atrium. SF MOMA policy on this? Their own web site specifically allows photography in the atrium. Hawk had also previously confirmed this personally with Thea Stein in the Marketing and Communications Department of the museum...
Consumerist covered it as well.
Despite What Their Website Says, Taking Pictures In San Francisco's Museum Of Modern Art Is Cause For Ejection
The Guardian covered it. Oh dear, it crossed the pond. Unexpected, to say the least.
The power of the Hawk is a problem for SF-MoMA
Throwing the esteemed Thomas Hawk out on his ear is not the way to win friends and influence people
It was the top story on Digg.com on Saturday.
Takeaways (not done yet, in progress, subject to change)
- SF MoMA is apparently clarifying its policies, not re-banning photography (add links)
- Mistakes were made: Hawk & Blint (links)
- Blog & "web2.0" commentators are opinionated (links)
- Blog commentators are lazy (links)
- You can't win: online activism is ineffectual, or a mob (links)
- Character assassins often don't disclose personal motivations (profit motives)
- Allegations of pseudonyms being a cowardly shield, easily falsifiable here (links)
- Allegations of perversity, child abuse and privacy violations still pervade
- Even the least noisy conversations have a very wide difference of opinon (friendfeed links)
- Pervasive tendency is subjectivity, not objectivity; big picture reduced to a thousand tiny icons
- Definitions of public v. private space, rights and violations, still an issue
- If Photography is a privacy violation, why is there wide acceptance of surveillance cameras?
Some of my comments are gathered here:
Disclaimer:
I've concluded that I was confused as to whether "galleries" includes the permanent collection, or refers to the "special exhibits." My initial impression was that the change in policy would allow for photography of the stuff that's owned outright by the SF MoMA. Apologies for any confusion, and perhaps this would be a point of clarification, i.e. if photography of any "exhibited" piece is disallowed, say so. Perhaps discuss stairs, hallways, elevated walkways, etc., as these are not "galleries," may not be part of the "atrium" and yet provide unique vantage points from which to take photos (of the architecture.)
FYI, even though I understand it's not a Thomas v. Simon issue: an anonymous commenter claims to have worked with Simon before: "I worked with this douche at ZEUM one block down from SF MoMA. I can attest to his short temper and general lack of people skills. He found no trouble in bullying the teens who worked there."
"Director of visitor relations" is a poor match for his behavior. He should apologize, resign, or try to otherwise repair the situation. Since it's a PR-related job, he seems uniquely unfit and uneducated about the causes and effects of negative PR. He'll probably have a "rich learning experience" though.
Oh, and one more thing to all of you
thatwho are trying to make this an issue of Hawk's or Blint's character, I think the real issue stems from trumped up "security" meant to keep us "safe."All sorts of power-tripping security guards and police have become accustomed to people immediately accepting restricted rights with the magic words "post 9/11."The reason it is such a hot-button issue is that most people have not pushed back against the Patriot act and all it (theoretically) allows law enforcement to restrict.
But sure, go right ahead and make this a "Diva" vs. "Employee" issue. And may thee forever lack moisturizer on thine inglorious vacations.
Thank you ScribeGuy, and I agree. Do not however expect me to defend whatever you may come across in the commentary on Digg or BoingBoing even. The bigger the blog, the more vitriol, undoubtedly. So, let's try to keep this to the issues, away from personalities, and focus on actions, ethics, policies and the larger picture. I try to leave the internets a little better than I found them, and I hope others do too!
Indeed, I missed your July post. However, "late to the party" I feel is inaccurate. Thomas Hawk wrote in the first person, and that of course is the best way to justify attention-grabbing rhetoric. In the end, many things conspired to make this story "pop." Don't feel bad, Steve! P.S. I like your moxie!
But wait, that's not all! Flickr had a discussion underneath the above photo and this one too.
Bert P. Krages II, Attorney at Law, on legal issues around photography: The Photographer’s Right
UPDATE: Mr. Hawk added another post and photo with additional commentary on this matter...
More on the Whole Simon Blint Fiasco
Mr. Hawk's second FriendFeed discussion is here.
UPDATE: Steve Hodson of WinExtra chimes in...
No Offence Thomas Hawk But You’re Coming Late To The Party
Steve's FriendFeed discussion is here.
UPDATE: Duncan Riley says...
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
Duncan's FriendFeed discussion is here.
UPDATE: Carlos Miller, a Miami photographer, has a personal interest in this topic.
Hawk, in fact, was one of the bloggers who not only wrote about my arrest last year, but also contacted the Miami Police Department seeking more information, including obtaining and posting the arrest report which was filled with contradictions.
UPDATE: Simon Reed defends Simon Blint (peppered with ad hominem attacks on Mr. Hawk).
Imagine going in to work one day, putting in your time, and coming home to find yourself the target of a massive internet slime campaign. This is the current situation faced by Simon Blint, head of visitor services at the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art.
UPDATE:
Applying Circuit Breakers to a Social Media Mob Mentality
Cyndy Aleo-Carreira has a good post out today, When FriendFeed Creates a Mob
UPDATE: Mona N. couldn't stand the suspense and actually picked up a phone.
Meanwhile, in other Non-Gmail Related News.. I Called SF MOMA
Mona's FriendFeed discussion is here.
UPDATE: SF MoMA Responds:
UPDATE: Justin Korn reported on the SF MoMA response
As Justin said, there's a lively FriendFeed discussion on the response here.
UPDATE: Duncan Riley of the Inquisitr has more to say: State of Fear
UPDATE: Candace Holly also has this: 4 Ways to Better Handle the Public...I don’t want to dwell on the points of the case, but the whole thing raises something far more concerning for society as a whole: that today we live in a state of fear. A fear that a person taking pictures is a pervert, a pedophile or even a terrorist...
UPDATE: Destiny from 10 Zen Monkeys: Thomas Hawk Versus Rent-a-cops...there are ways to handle a situation like that without making a public spectacle of it. Whether they were in the wrong or not doesn’t matter at this point. Four key things were not handled well at all...
Related FriendFeed discussion is here.
...Is there a new controversy over photography itself — and the blogger at the center of the issue? And has Friday's incident snowballed into a larger debate about technology, privacy, and the conduct of security guards?...
Related Post: Illegal Proposition: Abuse and Damage the Source (Letter to Lessig)
Related Post: Unbridgeable Chasm: Lane Hartwell & The Richter Scales
dianachen and ScribeGuy, I'm glad you signed up to SFist just to comment about the incident. It's too bad Blint or other SF MoMA person hasn't spoken up. So, thanks for giving your opinions. Someone else who has worked with Blint did not have kind things to say. I find the less agreeable sites engage in character assassination on both sides. Perhaps you aren't finding the best conversations.
RobinSF, you are a piece of work. Photography w/o flash is allowed in the permanent collection, atrium is OK always, if you use a flash in the atrium it must be a hand held point-and-shoot. While the policy is imprecise and ambiguous, you manage to completely miss the intent. Can YOU read? Do YOU know flash photography can damage the pieces? Do you seriously think they are mandating the use of a flash in the atrium? Does the point-and-shoot restriction refer to the Atrium, or the use of flash? Go ahead, rant some more, it's entertaining.