Wednesday 13 August 2014

Trivialising the National Gallery

Image of Photography to be allowed at the National Gallery? (ctd.)
Picture: Bendor Grosvenor
National Gallery director Nicholas Penny has ardently promoted the value of looking at art. He's lamented the obvious and regrettable fact that many who visit the gallery don't look at the art very much, and he's done what he can to encourage engagement with pictures. He has promoted exhibitions of single pictures, to encourage slow looking. He has objected to the mass spectacles of blockbuster exhibitions, and spoken of the need to cater to single visitors as well as families, children and the socially excluded. It was striking that the NG's latest press release, immediately following the end of its photo ban, didn't include a quote from Penny.

The new press release tells us that the National Gallery is introducing free WiFi, which is useful mainly for foreign tourists who don't have UK data on the mobile contract. I don't begrudge it, but we may wonder why that's the top priority from a cultural budget we keep being told is impossibly tight. More inexplicable is the hyperbolic claim that this trivial change will 'enhance the experience of visitors and engage new audiences'. We could already access the internet in the gallery, and making the NG's own excellent online images freely available would allow people to share on social media.

The only thing that's truly original here is that we can now take selfies in the gallery. It's not just a picture of a painting, which is already available online, but a picture of a painting with you in the frame. That's not engagement. It's turning the focus inward on the visitor rather than outward to the artwork. The excitement about 'fresh and exciting' ways of 'exploring the collection' is technological determinism on steroids. The exciting thing should be looking at pictures, not sharing your own on Facebook.

There's a lot of hyperbole about how social media has utterly transformed the way young people look and think, and how allowing museum selfies will engage vast new audiences. But it's all a world away from what we actually see in a museum like the Louvre. We've all seen some tourists who takes a snap of each picture in turn, without looking at a single one. Does anyone really believe that these people are really keen art lovers who will go back and study their grainy snaps at home, when they haven't been able to sustain enough interest in the gallery to spare even the meanest glance directly at a picture? Who can honestly look at the scrum of photographers in front of the Mona Lisa and find themselves swelling with joy at the level of public engagement? Will the crowds of Mona Lisa snappers and selfie-makers will really want to download the NG's app so they can check out the iconography of Titian's Allegory of Prudence? I don't think it's snobbish or elitist to say that snapping without looking is an impoverished experience of art. In fact it's quite the contrary. Recognising the limitations of that experience is the first step towards promoting a more egalitarian spirit of inviting everyone to engage with art rather than patronising people by validating their disengaged snapping.

In another context Tim Parks recently wrote about the myth of popular fiction as a gateway to literary fiction. He quite rightly points out that reading Fifty Shades of Grey won't lead people to Tolstoy. A similar point can be made about art galleries. Encouraging visitors who aren't much interested in art on the basis that they can update their Facebook status and take a selfie isn't going to encourage engagement with art. I suspect it will have exactly the opposite effect. It will discourage people from sustained engagement, and encourage the idea that visiting an art gallery is all about tweeting selfies. AHN's claim that 334,000 'likes' for a crass celebrity selfie in a museum will translate to new visits to said museum is likely to prove sadly deluded.

The irony is that the information that the NG is actually providing - the content - is getting worse. They've just sacked their brilliant information department. Their website is woeful, and they've announced no grand plans to enhance it. Information on provenance and condition is sadly lacking. Sponsoring a free online version of Hall's Dictionary of Subjects and Symbols in Art would be a better use of resources. I've often wanted to consult that in art galleries. But instead museums are devoting vast resources to trivial online 'engagement', like re-tweeting the most gushing enthusiasm and promoting tawdry interactive games. The Met has 70 (yes, seventy) people in its 'digital team'. And the same source reports that 52% of users of a game created by the Brooklyn Museum were museum professionals, mainly from Brooklyn Museum itself. We have a vast choice of online entertainment. Games that happen to have a museum theme are more enthusiastically received by museum professionals rather than visitors. 

The most persuasive argument presented in favour of permitting photography is that people have the right to enjoy galleries as they please. Indeed, why not have a gym in the Sixteenth Century Italian room, and a bar in the English Gallery? But given the large minority voting against photography in the Daily Telegraph poll, and the strong feelings that many of us have against photography, it is clear that at least a minority of people snapping pictures in galleries are experienced as intrusive. You simply cannot avoid the debate about the kind of galleries we want. I'm often struck by the difference between the rather fanatical demand that people must be allowed to behave as boorishly as they like in art galleries, in case they seem elitist and people are offended, and the ordinary acceptance of standards of behaviour in similar spheres like theatres and concert halls. Even football stadiums are governed by more rules than art galleries. Recently Manchester United banned iPads from home games! 

This debate pits me against many people I usually agree with. But I think the proponents are debating in bad faith by refusing to acknowledge the legitimacy of any concern about photography in galleries. Bendor Grosvenor even claimed on Twitter that the debate is over, implying that there's no legitimate objection and nothing further to be said. But the inescapable reality is that many people's visits to museums have been ruined by intrusive photography. A Daily Telegraph poll currently has a remarkably high 43% opposed to photography in the National Gallery. Celebrated critic Michael Kimmelman has lamented that 'At the Louvre, many stop to snap but few stay to focus'. And I thought AHN's illustration, which I've pinched for this post, unintentionally telling. This is indeed the view we'll have of Titian in future; a great painting with a bloody big iPad in front of it. A colleague recently complained to me that his view of an exhibition at Tate Britain was interrupted by a visitor who held his iPad right up against details of each picture in turn to take pictures. That really is more intrusive than a crowd of people looking at a picture.

There is a reasonable case to be made saying that's tough, and the benefits of allowing photography outweigh the costs. But that debate cannot be closed down by diktat, and people's very real concerns cannot be rejected as false consciousness. I can recognise the benefit of being able to take pictures of frames and displays and details that aren't otherwise available. But the Panglossian claims about people going to the gallery for the first time because they want the change to get a selfie with a Van Gogh and becoming ardent art fans is, to put it mildly, unproven. And the costs of photography are clear to see in places like the British Museum and the Louvre. 

12 comments:

  1. I hope people won't come to the National Gallery just for the free WiFi in order to do Facebook or Twitter. :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I know! Although these days it's so widespread it's probably not even necessary. Which makes you wonder why it was so important for them to provide it. Much prefer them to spend the money enhancing their website...

      Delete
  2. Fortunately, taking pictures is not allowed at the Prado (at least yet). I fear the day they change their mind about it...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, agreed, That's one reason why I'm hoping the Prado director will replace Penny. They've also had some of the best exhibitions in Europe. All good reasons why they'll chose some one worse to run the NG!

      Delete
    2. Who knows... I just read about some rumours that say that the recently-apponited director of the future Museum of Royal Collections (and ex-curator of the Prado) has demanded the Prado to give back several masterpieces that have been on deposit since the Civil War (including, among others, The Lavatory, The Descent From The Cross and The Garden of Earthly Delights !!). Some suggest this is just a pretext (among pthers that have been issued recently) to try and get rid of Zugaza.

      Delete
  3. I can understand that there are people who want to take pictures in a museum (the public, building, installation, etc), although the paintings are in high resolution on the web, but I can not understand that taking pictures is based on able to share in social networks, and I find to make selfies unacceptable. Years ago in the National Archaeological Museum of Athens was allowed to take pictures but not posing with the works. Photographing statues or decorative objects can be more right because the pictures on the website do not include the 3d but do selfies is a risk to the works in any museum, more at a time that visits to museums and exhibitions are an object of mass consumption
    Do you know if there are rumors that Zugaza opts to the direction the NG?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In the Louvre I saw people lining up to take pictures holding hands with a Roman statue. So much worse than just taking a selfie in front of the Mona Lisa!

      I have heard the rumour about Zugaza. He would get my vote, although obviously they would never give me a vote! But given recent changes at the NG, I think they will be looking for someone more 'populist', sadly. I think the Prado has put on some of the very best exhibitions recently.

      Delete
  4. I'm torn about this. As a keen photographer and art writer/student, I have occasionally felt frustrated by over zealous NG guards. On one occasion I wanted to write something about the location and colour of the room in which my particular picture of interest was hanging. I wanted pictorial proof to back up my argument. No gallery image would have helped in this instance. After explaining this to the guard, he obviously said 'no I couldn't take a non flash pic'. He then followed me around watching me like a hawk. I'm not precisely a thug who was going to pull pics to the ground - I'm 41 and had even shown him my student ID card. To no avail.

    I disagree with some of the comment above as I believe any engagement in the arts is good. How dare you tell people how they should appreciate art! It's currently undergoing a massive revival due to free entry into the general collections, as well as some excellent TV programmes. No longer the dusty preserve of the miserable white men of old, it is now cool to have your picture taken with a picture. This potentially opens up some interesting creative dialogues, as well as some youth engagement. How do you know what is being discussed in schools and homes after visits to galleries?

    But yes, I get as frustrated as any one when the picture I want to see is surrounded by people with fecking ipads. So what? This is why it was so brilliant that the Arnolfini portrait was exhibited downstairs and you had to pay to see it in the Strange Beauty show. I had it to myself one evening and it enhanced my experience of my favourite picture. This is the way of the modern world...

    I agree that free wifi shouldn't be paid for by our museums. Yes the website could definitely be improved - as indeed could the V&A's - but their high def images are so useful and better then the V&A. The BM website is also good, in comparison.

    I don't think you can compare UK museums with US counterparts. Is the Met funded differently? More private sponsorship? I've no idea.

    It's good that art is still causing passion and arguments!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree completely with your last point! And I have a lot of sympathy with your other points too. I can certainly see why it's desirable to be able to take pictures, particularly of frames and displays. I'm especially interested in how pictures are displayed, and I'd often like to have images to take away. On balance I think the negative points outweigh the positive, but I can see both sides.

      On the other hand, I have no problem saying that snapping a few famous pictures without looking at all is an impoverished way of experiencing art. Of course there are different ways of enjoying art, and I'm all for diversity. But that's not to say that you can't make any value judgments about ways of engaging.

      Delete
  5. Michael, let us go one day in the Louvre together, and show me what painting you cannot look at without to be bothered by photographers !

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Didier, I would love to visit the Louvre with you sometime, despite the photography!

      Delete
  6. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete