Picture: Guardian |
Everyone knows the Louvre ritual. Follow signs to the Mona Lisa, raise camera, take picture, leave. Takes about twenty minutes, then you're done. One ticked off the bucket list. In the old days you had to see the Winged Victory of Samothrace and Venus de Milo too, but times change. Who knows where Samothrace is anyway?
Most art lovers find this depressing at some level. But Angelo Tartuferi, director of the Accademia in Florence, thinks it's so brilliant he'd like to see the same thing in front of Michelangelo's David. It's so much better seeing art through a camera, preferably illuminated by half a dozen simultaneous flashes. He justifies it by saying that it's too much hard work restraining visitors. I wonder if he feels the same way about visitors poking paintings or stroking sculptures. Tartuferi is being lazy and cynical, but his reasoning is unusual.
A more common justification is that 'nowadays' people want to take pictures and share on social media. That's not as novel as some believe. My grandmother used to show the neighbours slides from Skegness, and eighteenth century aristocrats returning from the grand tour would show off the Canaletto. But the problem with this reasoning isn't its naive presentism. It's rather the substitution of a boringly familiar activity for the transcendent pleasure of engaging with art. Some people think it's a great cultural victory that people are taking snaps in the museum rather than the forum. I don't think that's any kind of victory if people are taking selfies without looking at the pictures. Others think it might entice people to deeper engagement, though why seeing the scrum in front of the Mona Lisa would entice anyone to want more baffles me.
I'm delighted that so many people share my interest in old pictures, but I think it's fine that lots of other people don't. I also like cycling, and I know a lot of cyclists who believe everyone should ride a bike all the time. I think that's daft and boorish. If you'd prefer to drive or take the bus, go for it. I'm well aware that cycling is utterly boring if you're not interested. But when it comes to art, insistent inclusiveness is expected. Arty types think they're doing something wrong if every last person isn't engaged. People are made to feel guilty if they don't perform ritualised cultural observances like taking a selfie in front of the Mona Lisa. In cycling the equivalent would be to ask people to push a bike alongside them when they go for a walk, or to strap a bike to their roofrack when driving. Carrying a bicycle on your car isn't an introduction to cycling, and taking a selfie in front of the Mona Lisa isn't an introduction to art.
Economic growth and technological innovation have given us unprecedented opportunities to pursue whatever we're interested in, and to reach out to others who share our arcane passions. It's great that the local museum is now just one option among thousands for a Saturday afternoon out. There's certainly no shortage of people who do still want to go to the museum, but we shouldn't be too concerned that many others choose different pursuits. When museums try to be all things to all people they end up being nothing much to anyone, because there are always so many different specialist venues that do things better. Museums can be a place to step outside the frenetic immediacy of the connected world, to engage with unfamiliar and challenging products of the historic human imagination.
Some people find it inexplicable that anyone could oppose photography in museums, and my criticisms are open to misinterpretation, so let me conclude with some clarifications. There are of course good arguments for allowing photography (to capture framing and display, or obtain images not otherwise available). In this post I am focusing my criticism on the bad arguments that seem to have become more prevalent. I am not trying to exclude anyone either. I've led museum tours myself, and I'm delighted that many museums do such a good job of introducing people to art. All are rightly welcome to visit museums, but I think it reasonable that museums direct people towards engagement with art rather than away from it. And of course I'm not condemning anyone who takes pictures; clearly it's possible to engage with art and take pictures. But anyone who has been to the Louvre recently will have seen that one is often a substitute for the other. You can read my more general thoughts about museum photography here.
I do find this very depressing from the Tartuferi quotes:
ReplyDelete“In the past, members of security staff have fought a losing battle trying to prevent visitors from taking pictures. There have even been public clashes between security officials and visitors who continue to photograph David after being instructed to stop.”
Wherever one stands on this debate, it is disappointing that people don’t respect a museum’s right to set this kind of condition of entry, to the extent that people's bad behaviour and abuse of the security staff become a peverse part of the ‘Yes’ case.
Incidentally, I do think the considerations for allowing photography of a 20-foot statue on a 7-foot plinth are different than for paintings hung at eye-level.
Completely agree, and Tartuferi's capitulation is contemptible. I take your point about the David, although people increasingly hold up iPads to take pictures these days, which will obscure the view of shorter people (something that I have heard people complain about).
DeleteIn general terms I agree with your view on photography in museums, but I also don’t think that the occasional snap to take a memento, the layout of the place, a piece you can’t find online or the particularly nice gilded frame should incite the wrath of God.
ReplyDeleteOur problem is not with photography in museums but rather with, as you call it, ‘the bucket list mentality’ and the lack of appreciation for art. However, this extends beyond art in museums. People do the same things outside the Louvre too. No visit to Paris is complete without a quick tour around the tower or without standing outside the metro entrance at Blanche and looking at the Moulin Rouge. When tourists flock to St Sulpice, they go there because of the Dan Brown nonsense/crap and not for the Delacroix frescoes.
I know am going to start a riot, but the thing is.... art is not for the plebs, it’s not for the uninitiated. Before the second part of the twentieth century and its great equaliser, how many people had the opportunity and the means to travel? How many people actually saw a real Leonardo? Or owned one? Art has always been exclusive.
So next time you are in Paris don’t go to the Louvre on noon on a Saturday. Go Thursday early at 10 am and see the Grand Gallery void of people save the sleepy security personnel.
Few more things, for now, the whole photography at the Accademia is just a proposal, the Italian Department of Cultural Heritage is still to vote on it (and knowing Italians and how much they like change, I don’t think it is going to pass). Flash photography was (during the two week trial period) not allowed, so there wasn’t any nor there will be illumination by half a dozen flashes, and finally and most importantly: all bicycles are work of the devil!!
http://billwest.com/bike/wp-content/uploads/calvin-and-hobbes-bike-revenge-ch130903.gif
Thanks - I agree with almost all of your comments, and as I sometimes take pictures myself I certainly recognise the advantages of photography in museums. The challenge is balancing that against getting people actually to look. It's so disheartening to see people snap each picture in turn, never looking except through a mobile phone.
DeleteMy only disagreement is on flash - I know they say it's prohibited, but no museum has effectively been able to stop flash once photography is permitted. It's banned at the Louvre and the Rijksmuseum, but is completely normal and never challenged.
As an aside, the more I have thought about this recently, the more I have come to wonder whether there might be any scope for an arrangement in museums whereby there are certain times when photography is permitted and certain times when it isn't. Then people who felt strongly either way could plan their visits accordingly.
ReplyDeleteThat might work, but it's difficult. Many people can't easily time their visits around those rules (tourists here for the day, for example). It would certainly be better than a free-for-all, though.
Delete"When museums try to be all things to all people they end up being nothing much to anyone, because there are always so many different specialist venues that do things better. "
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately nowadays most of museums have to become art funfairs otherwise there will be fewer visitors and fewer visitors mean less money. Few museums recieve enough funding from the state to be immune to the fluctuation of ticket and trinket sale. Art and artists have always thrived best when sponsored by intelligent and rich patrons; if you are sponsored by the joint effort of common people that's what you become: common. Sometimes there is nothing wrong with the elitism.
Thank you - I agree about the funfairs. But many museums have the opposite problem - huge crowds, and constant new records for attendance. They imagine that they have to become funfairs to attract people, but actually plenty of people do want to go. I think there's a real problem of dumbing down, but I don't think it's caused by the need to engage visitors - it's driven by the agenda of many people who work in museums.
DeleteWhen I was in my early days of studying painting I would photograph works that interested me or that I perceived as somehow useful. Photography was most helpful when blowing through galleries in Europe at the ridiculous tourist's pace knowing I might never be able to return. Postcards can't match the resolution of a digital camera and they aren't even available for most of the works.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.dazeddigital.com/artsandculture/article/19304/1/student-destroys-19th-century-statue-while-taking-a-selfie
ReplyDelete