possibly the last word on photographing others' art

not without its replicas - and its history

I think the most sensible (and succinct) take on the question of visually recording visual art is contained in the second paragraph of a short comment submitted on my original post by the artist-blogger Hungry Hyena:

"As you suggest in the last paragraph, I think most artists would want the image to be passed along to the institution requesting it.

Furthermore, once the work leaves the studio, it has its own life, and random photos of the piece are just one more piece of that history."

By the way, many thanks to Ed Winkleman for his post taking up the subject raised here this past week about restrictions on the public's use of cameras in museums and galleries.

I couldn't help noticing however that Ed's entry manged to attract five or six times the number of comments mine did. Now I'm pressing tongue firmly in cheek here: If jealousy were not enough reason to be concerned about my colleague's readers' healthy response, perhaps, borrowing the spirit of the restrictive photo policies adopted by some of the most respectable cultural institutions in America, I should regret not having posted a preemptive do-not-record notice, or (reflecting the opinion of some of our more gentle readers on the subject of photographic captures) at least not having insisted that bloggers entering my site ask permission of the person sitting behind the screen before running away with copies of my proprietary posts.

[image from Georgetown University]

About this Entry

Published on March 25, 2007 11:48 PM.

previous entry: House votes on the war: do we say "whoopie"?

next entry: kohlrabi land mines