See last updates for SF MoMA response and others' reactions.
See very last updates for:
More proof that this is not a fluke, not a "Hawk" or "Blint" issue, but a disturbing national trend that should transcend partisan politics in my opinion.
Mr. Hawk recounted the events of Friday, August 8, 2008 on his blog. 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
Thomas 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.
3. Cyndy's FriendFeed discussion
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.
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: Corvida Hutch Carpenter expands on Cyndy's "mob mentality" theme
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:
SFMOMA Responds to August 8 Incident
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
...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: Candace Holly also has this: 4 Ways to Better Handle the Public
...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...
UPDATE: Destiny from 10 Zen Monkeys: Thomas Hawk Versus Rent-a-cops
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?...
UPDATE: Carlos Miller, Amtrak contest: Amtrak photo contestant arrested by Amtrak police in NYC’s Penn Station - OUCH! Carlos' link died. See below.
Armed with his Canon 5D and his new Lensbaby lens, photographer Duane Kerzic
set out to win Amtrak’s annual photo contest this week, hoping to win
$1,000 in travel vouchers and have his photo published in Amtrak’s
annual calendar. He ended up getting arrested by Amtrak police; handcuffed to a wall
in a holding cell inside New York City’s Penn Station, accused of
criminal trespass.
UPDATE: Duane's post on his situation, and plea for action:
Related Post: Illegal Proposition: Abuse and Damage the Source (Letter to Lessig)
Related Post: Unbridgeable Chasm: Lane Hartwell & The Richter Scales
@walter
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.