harpy    says:

Or should I say, the non-controversy. Because it is a completely fake empty brouhaha where no serious rights are at issue.

I am hesitant to do it. I know I'm going to regret it. You offer up a reasoned opinion on the internet and before you know it, you're in the spotlight and mobs of feral bloggers are dragging you through the mud and posting your home address for anyone who wants it.

Which is why a lot of people keep their mouths shut during situations like this. They just wait for the matter to blow over and hope people come to their senses eventually or someone who is bulletproof takes up the mantle of defense. It's a bit like standing up to the bully on the playground in grade school. It's not fun and you're almost always sorry you got involved.

But the more I've read about this in the 24 hours since I heard about this story, the more concerned I am about how this is unfolding.

For those of you just hearing about this, here is a link to ThomasHawk's version of events. flickr.com/photos/thomashawk/2751554048

First of all let me say, I dont know ThomasHawk from Adam. I've run into him around Flickr, commented on his stream now and then. I've watched as he lobbed grenade after grenade at unwitting people who crossed his path. Like photographer Jill Greenberg. She was doing something controversial and his crusade against her just garnered her more publicity so I guess that was a case of two manipulative publicity hounds mutually feeding off one another. I have also seen him chastise various museum staffs, Flickr honchos, and Yahoo management. I think his little jihad's are funny for the most part. Yahoo and Flickr can defend themselves. In fact they have legal teams to do just that for them.

But this case is a little different. Hawk has called out the employee of the SF Museum of Modern Art by name, threatened that he was going to blog about him in a lightly veiled attempt to strong arm the guy, and now Mr Hawk sits idly protesting that he has been victimized while an internet lynch mob starts taunting a perfect stranger.

Dude. That's not cool. That's got nothing to do with photographer's rights. That's called being a bully and pushing people around.

And let's talk for a minute about photographer's rights. Hawk maintains that "Increasingly we are living in a world where photographers are routinely harassed again and again by authority figures over stepping their authority -- and it makes you feel like crap when that happens."

Sorry but I'm calling bullshit. There are more photographers out on the streets than ever before. The Abu Ghraib scandal came to light because ordinary soldiers were taking photos of chained men in prison. You would be hard pressed to find a person walking the streets of San Francisco today that didnt have a cell phone with a camera somewhere on their person. Cameras are everywhere.

And people are not being harassed and jailed in America because they are taking pictures. That is happening in other places. But Mr Hawk seems EXTREMELY unconcerned about that. In fact when it comes to real issues that do affect photographers worldwide, Mr Hawk seems clueless.

But if a museum employee dares to stop him from taking a photo? Time for a public tantrum. How dare anyone say no to him, or make him feel like crap! I have news for you Mr Hawk. There is no Constitutional right to feeling good all the time.

If people are reacting negatively to having their picture taken these days in public - did it ever occur to anyone that might be because there is NO PRIVACY anywhere in the public sphere any longer because people are being photographed all the time, twenty four hours a day, at stop lights, in buildings, at banks, at the Seven-11 when they go to get a quart of milk. The San Francisco Museum of Modern Art has every right to say no to photography in their building. The art held inside that building was created by other people who have a right to try and determine how their objects are distributed and viewed.

I'm a photographer. I want to be able to take pictures when I am out and about. I want people to be happy to see me. I dont want them to worry that I'm going to invade their privacy and make them look like an asshole by posting something unflattering on Flickr or Youtube. So I do my best to respect people's privacy and give them space. Why make a fuss about something this petty. This is nothing. This is not important. This is a spoiled kid who didn't get his way. You want to do some good with your camera, you can find a way to do it. Bitching at SFMoma aint the way.

Everytime Mr Hawk posts a screed like this - and he has done it a number of times - he generates more publicity for himself, he reaps ad revenue as people visit his personal website, and his internet quotability factor gets a little bigger. It's irrelevant that he may be wrong, that he is at best a haranguer of less powerful people. Because he claims to do it all under the guise of photographer's rights.

Mr Hawk, there is no Constitutional right to a camera. There is no right to go and do anything anywhere you want just because you are rich enough to own a digital camera and you have a blog. You ought to be expected to respect private property rights just like any other ordinary person.

You dont have a RIGHT to photograph inside a museum. You dont have the right to attack someone on the internet, just for doing their job. You are trying to carve out special rights for yourself, because you feel entitled to do whatever you want whenever you want to do it. That is arrogance of the worst kind. You hide behind the skirt of freedom to get your own way.

And frankly every time you do it, you're demeaning the rest of us. Because whatever privileges we have as photographers, those have been handed down to us by working photojournalists, who have actually sacrificed their lives and their freedom to get stories out in to the world. Your rage at being thwarted in your efforts to photograph in a museum of all places! is an insult to them, not an offering.

The camera is a powerful thing. People fear it because they know it is powerful. An image can change a person's life. As a photographer you know this. Yet you carelessly use it to your own advantage. Dozens of journalists and photojournalists have died in the past few years, covering wars and genocides, trying to bring news into the world. And all you can do is complain that you werent allowed to take a picture in an art museum? Your priorities are completely whack.
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

sheryl stephen / WaveOfModulation    says:

I call bullshit too. I support you, Kari.
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

KristinHayes    says:

I hadn't heard of this up until now and all I can say, in my best editorial voice, is that he sounds like a real tool.
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

sheryl stephen / WaveOfModulation    says:

P.S. I would support privacy in any endeavor I am involved in.

If above and beyond supporting privacy in the museum, the museum employee was being grouchy, who cares?
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

davidteter    says:

yeah. i went and spent an hour reading his blog after we talked.. like all things, i'm sure there are many facets to the story.. but this was handled in a way to create media hype.. not to resolve a problem.
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

Maximum Mitch    says:

Amen, Harpy. Great response and well written. I couldn't have said it better myself. Photography isn't how he makes a living and until he does, I have no respect for his complaining over and over about these type of issues. I wish someone would have videotaped it so we can see what really happened.
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

platinumblondelife    says:

i second/third/?th the bullshit call
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

harpy    says:

That is what he does. Hype the hell out of a situation, gather all the like-minded sheep around him, and bleet til he is blue in the face.
He is a bully. He doesn't speak for me as a photographer and I dont want people thinking he does.

Thanks you guys. I appreciate the support. I may be wrong. I'm okay hearing other opinions. I just cant stand seeing people who think they have special rights treating other people like crap.
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

harpy    says:

Plus Thomas Hawk is not even his real name but he has no problem dragging someone else's real name all over the internet? That is not cool.
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

shadowbox says:

Rights come with responsibilities and to be given respect demands that you first afford all same courtesies to others. These ideas are all lost to a small man who calls himself Thomas. The world owes him nothing and cares about as much for his grievances, both petty and inconsequential.
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

JWas    says:

Very well said, Kari. Very well said indeed.

Had the photograph in question been taken from the public sidewalk I would most definitely have a greater level of sympathy for Mr. Hawk, assuming that his version of the situation is an accurate representation of the incident. And yes... I understand that he had implicit "permission" and that the atrium is apparently okay for photos per museum policy.

As it were, all I have for him is "Man up, Nancy. Move along." If this guy really is on a power trip and being an asshole to you (which he may very well be), then fine. Take it up with his superiors, tell them you're a member and about how you were embarrassed, etc. But in reality, private property is private property no matter what their posted (or implied) policy on said property might be. Sorry for your inconvenience, but I think the whole "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." rule applies and has merit and your "public tantrum" (as Kari put so very well) just makes all of us as photographers look bad.

My $.02. : )
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

fetching    says:

i am so glad that you wrote this. I am in complete agreement with you of course, and am happy to see something so well written addressing what's going on.

Thank you Kari for cutting to the heart of the matter.
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

harpy    says:

what is that famous internet law? be tolerant in your actions with others and be conservative in your own actions. if only everyone heeded it there would be no need for a rebuttal like this.
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

heyrenees    says:

The fact that he used the person's real name just shows that he lacks any semblence of class and while I actually think dragging someone's real name out into cyberspace is a pretty serious matter...I can't help but wonder how the security guard kept a straight face when this guy threatened to BLOG ABOUT HIM. Just the word alone. BLOG. I mean, no tough guy can threaten to blog and sound scary. Sorry. Not possible. Even Dirty Harry would sound stupid.

"Do you want be the subject of my blog tomorrow? Do ya, punk?"

Ridiculous!
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

jimgoldstein    says:

Good to see someone else with a clear perspective on the issue. Even more ironic that TH call someone out by their name online without hesitation, but hides behind a pen name. Imagine if someone turned the tables on him and did the same thing with his true name. I'm sure he might then have a real problem.

Anyhow to your post. Dead on.
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

former.ly [deleted] says:

he pretty much gives himself away here: "My work is less about individual images and instead more about the power of a massive amount of excessive and disjointed images where stories, characters and places sometimes stay and other times reappear or disappear entirely for no good reason at all." oh and also in his describing the fact that "...it is the absurdity of life that i find most beautiful of all". that's just the profile. sounds like the typical delusional cocktail of histrionic mixed with narcissistic personalities in their one-of-many pseudo identities on Flickr.

really glad to see you say somethin' here Kari.
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

KristinHayes    says:

"I'm going to blog about you" is the new "I'm going to tell my mommy".
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

harpy    says:

I think I would have ignored it if I had seen one single person on his thread voice another opinion and speak truth to power. Instead it seemed like everyone was backslapping Thomas Hawk for sticking up for photographers. Give me a break! Photographers are not under attack in any way shape or form. And they are certainly not under attack from museums of all places. Total absurdity.
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

Ivan Osadchiy    says:

scary
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

harpy    says:

LOL Renee and Kristen. Funny.
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

heyrenees    says:

I just reread his little summary of the events and how they unfolded. He's absolutely in the wrong and I don't just say that because I like harpy.

If the security guard felt his camera lens was intrusive, he has every right to say so. And if Thomas Hawk's blog is any indication of how he behaves in real life, he's lucky that security guard didn't punch his fucking lights out.

And I can't believe all those people who responded to him who were agreeing with him.

See? This is another reason I don't really like to read blogs. It's like investigative reporting without the investigating.
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

harpy    says:

Thanks Renee. Thanks everybody for reading it and supporting me.

I am sure plenty of people disagree and I hope they speak up too.

But if anyone feels like saying I'm an idiot for getting involved, dont bother.

I already know that. ;)
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

sheryl stephen / WaveOfModulation    says:

I don't believe we are entitled to take pictures in museums or to take pictures of other people and post them online without their permission. I'm probably not the average person in this respect but I stand by this principle.

Unlike "Thomas Hawk", I don't believe "... all of our public cultural treasures owe us more than Simon Blint. They owe us passionate employees who get excited to see the public interacting and engaging with and in the arts. No one should ever be thrown out of a museum for taking photos, in fact it should be encouraged. And if someone suspects any sort of wrong doing, every patron, not only supporting members, should be provided a recourse and a review. .."
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

harpy    says:

Also just to clarify.

It would be great if SFMoma allowed unfettered photography. That is not the issue. The issue is, they dont have to, and no one should confuse that decision with their "rights" being violated. It is just delusional to confuse "photographing art in a museum" with "freedom."

I have been prevented from taking photos of various buildings. Like the federal building in Sacramento. I have posted about it here, although I took that photo down a long time ago. I think it's stupid to prevent photographers from trying to photograph buildings. It's just dumb. It doesn't increase security. If a bad guy wants to photograph that building, they are going to find a way to do it, and they probably arent going to stand on the corner and be obvious about it.

But still. I wasn't arrested for taking the photo, I wasn't harassed. I dont have the government following me and as far as I know I'm not listed in any government database as a threat to national security because I stood on the sidewalk and took a photo.

For me this is a matter of perspective. I got back in my car, drove home and wrote about my experience on the internet. You can hardly say that my freedom was taken away from me. I was discouraged from taking a photo and I lived to tell the tale. There are plenty of people around the world whose rights are routinely disreguarded and violated, but you would be very hard pressed to say that about photographers in the United States.
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

michaelbiven says:

A great break down of a person with a history of inflammatory remarks. I sincerely hope that SF MOMA will stand by their employee both publicly by making a statement and by taking legal action against Andrew Peterson (Thomas Hawk).

Comparing Peterson (Thomas Hawk) to George D. Prentice is not too far off the mark, except in this case no one has been physically harmed or killed. Prentice was an editor whose writings sparked the anti-Catholic and anti-immigrant riots (Bloody Monday Riots) in Louisville during the 1855 elections.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Monday


Michael B.
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

sheryl stephen / WaveOfModulation    says:

Kari, yes, exactly.

AND
TH wasn't just photographing the art in the museum. He wasn't just photographing museum employees, either. He seems to think he can photograph *anyone* and post their picture publicly, and that if he was only allowed to review his photos with museum employees that he wasn't being a "pervert" that he should be allowed to do what he wants. I disagree. It's not just about sexualization of strangers, it is about PRIVACY.

His words: "I've seen people branded as pedophiles for shooting at public parks or their neighborhood swimming pool. I've seen people claiming 9/11 makes checking photography necessary. I've seen train stations and malls and shopping centers and museums and parks and public buildings and architecture increasingly turn against the photographer."

Frankly, I don't believe we are entitled to take photographs of others without their permission. Period. And I don't believe that anything makes us entitled to post photos of others on the internet without their permission.
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

heyrenees    says:

And I agree, it's a non-controversy.

At least his wife sounds fun. "We say jerk, not asshole." LOL.
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

harpy    says:

Haha Renee. I thought that was really sweet too. Kudos to MsTh for her good manners.
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

leather donut [deleted] says:

Here's another data point. Thomas Hawk aka Andrew Peterson has previously flagrantly violated the no-photography policy of SF MOMA as evidenced in this post which he tries to justify it by calling it "renegade photography".

thomashawk.com/2007/11/on-renegade-photograph y.html

I would not be surprised if he was already black flagged by the museum for previous actions and this is his way of whining about things. It is precisely behavior like Andrew's that cause organizations to be leery and I would be mightily upset if the SF MOMA decides to revert to non-photography because it is easier.

Andrew Peterson, stop being an asshole!
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

heyrenees    says:

As an aside, I must say, the accompanying photo on here really freaks me out. It's so silence of the lamby.
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

harpy    says:

Sheryl I understand what you're saying. I dont necessarily agree but I wholeheartedly understand where you are coming from and what you mean.

I wouldn't want the law to be different. For instance, if someone is hurting someone else, a photographer should be allowed to document it. One of my favorite photographers is Gary Winogrand, who was a renowned street photographer, and I think he helped illuminate the human condition with his photos. But at the same time, I wish there was a little more respect from some photographers towards strangers and in public spaces. Some people seem to feel it is their right to encroach upon other people's psychic and physical space in a forceful way. It makes me uncomfortable. I think the backlash that has resulted from it is that now everyone has their own camera and they can make someone else look like an asshole if they want to. It's like nuclear deterrence but we haven't quite reached a balance yet.

I take the position that photographers should be allowed their freedom and privacy and extend the same to others.
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

harpy    says:

Michael that is a fascinating link! Thanks. Great historical perspective on this too.

Donut, all I know is Mr Hawk is a fervent supporter of what he calls photographer's rights and he's been at this publicity game a long time and it's served him well. He has a big following on the internet because of it. I just wish some of them were a little more thoughtful in this particular case.

Renee this photo is of Barbie stuck in a bleach bottle. :-
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

Friendly Evil Twin says:

You can shoot down blouses?
:D
*heads for camera*
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

harpy    says:

LMAO Joe!!!!
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

heyrenees    says:

I hope Barbie signed a waiver or else she might be siding with youknowwho!
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

fetching    says:

I've been posting about this on some other blogs, and thought I would paste this over for everyone to gain a little perspective, as leather donut did:

Until I hear both sides I am reserving my judgment about whether or not his rights were violated. The SF MOMA photography policy is not an unlimited free-for-all, and as some stories have it, Peterson/Hawk was taking photos that might have made staff or patrons feel uncomfortable.

What I do know, and can show, is that he's been violating the SF MOMA's rights for quite some time now. A quick tag search of his stream for SF MOMA and "renegade photography" will show a number of photos he has taken when he knows he is not welcome to. So what about this? What about the rights of the artists who might have specified that they didn't want their work photographed? And how is that further complicated by the Creative Commons licenses he places on his work?

For example, here's links to both tag searches:

www.flickr.com/photos/thomashawk/tags/renegad ephotography/

www.flickr.com/photos/thomashawk/tags/sfmoma/

Here's some work by an artist:
www.flickr.com/photos/thomashawk/2439444895/

We have no clue who the artist is, because he didn't bother to credit them. Under his CC license I am free

" * to Share — to copy, distribute and transmit the work

* to Remix — to adapt the work


Under the following conditions:

* Attribution. You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work).

* Noncommercial. You may not use this work for commercial purposes.

So I can grab that photo and "remix" it for something, but I am required to credit Thomas Hawk/Andrew Peterson with it. If I link to his blog, he makes ad revenue on every hit. But the original uncredited artist gets nothing.

Peterson has done a fabulous job of documenting his activities. Here he blogs and calls for a boycott of Hyatt Hotels because he was asked to stop shooting, which he refused to do:

thomashawk.com/2008/07/boycott-hyatt-hotels.h tml

Here he went ahead and photographed Kerouac's "On the Road" manuscript, although it was clearly prohibited:

www.flickr.com/photos/thomashawk/88696710/

And here he blogs about violating the rules of the SF MOMA:

thomashawk.com/2007/11/on-renegade-photograph y.html

Some memorable quotes:

"The SF Moma does not allow photography in their museum. I took this photograph anyways."

"Rather than simply miss Jeff Wall's work due to my dogmatic protest against the SF Moma's anti-photography policy, I decided that I would go, but that I'd shoot anyways. Several times I was asked not to photograph and I'd comply when asked only to whip out the camera and begin shooting again in the next gallery."

"This recent trip to the SF Moma has made me rethink my aversion to places where photography is not allowed. I think I'll be going to a lot more of them in the future, I'll just be collecting my own style of renegade photographs in the process. At some point I'll probably use these photographs to construct a renegade photography collage of sorts.

I'm sure this rubs some people the wrong way, that I'd purposely disrespect an institution's right to restrict photography in a private place. But I believe that art should be more open. That it should be more public. I believe that as a non-profit for the general public's artistic enlightenment, that the SF Moma should have a more tolerant photography policy and I believe that renegade photography is a good thing and will create a more vibrant and beautiful world for us all to share in."

I think it's fairly clear that it's Peterson/Hawk who has violated the rights of others. The jury is still out on the SF MOMA employee.

heyrenees    says:

I believe this issue will have legs!
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

sheryl stephen / WaveOfModulation    says:

Thanks, Kari.
Didn't mean to take over your thread. I know my opinion is likely more conservative than many flickr peeps on the subject.

The topic of taking photographs in public spaces and posting them online...

it always reminds me of that Andy Warhol piece where he secretly shot a closeup picture of a man on in front of a building his way to work without the man's knowing and then the same day before evening commute, he reproduced the photograph in massive proportions on the side of the same building.

The guy saw his image covering the side of the building (with no explanation) on his way home from work.

Wonder how he felt. 15 minutes of Fame can be involuntary that way.
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

harpy    says:

Sheryl I love your comments! You always contribute to any discussion and I welcome anything you have to say. Of any length. On any topic.

Fetching that is really annoying. Why do his "beliefs" about art trump everyone else's beliefs and wishes? He isn't opening up the world for photographers, he is subjecting us to needless suspicion and anger.
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

fetching    says:

I don't have any way of substantiating this, but I read this earlier over on boing boing:

He's the guy who got an immigrant security guard at 45 Fremont fired, after badgering the guy to his breaking point, photographing it and getting it graced on these very pages.

I used to work in the building, and I knew the guard well. I had an opportunity to talk to him about the incident on his last day. He was a nice guy, and was working his way through school.

-Adam Weiss

harpy    says:

Call me old fashioned but I just dont think photographer's have special rights. People have rights. Citizens have rights guaranteed to them by the Constitution. Patrons of museums have certain rights and obligations conferred on them when they purchase a ticket. And of course, photojournalists have certain rights. But an ordinary photographer like me is just a person with a camera and I dont have any more rights than anyone else. I have to abide by the rules or protest them in a legal manner if I disagree with those rules. Otherwise I am subject to the guidelines set forth by the institution in question. (*Edited to add* Unless there is really a question of import, such as someone's actual liberty being at stake, which is a very different situation.)
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

harpy    says:

Like having my camera confiscated at the Fillmore.
And having to put it in coat check.
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

harpy    says:

www.boingboing.net/2008/08/09/sfmomas-directo r-of.html

Well I just read that link. And he compared himself to Cartier Bresson. And frankly that's just going too far.

Haha.
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

fetching    says:

harpy hahaha, i knew that would get your back up.

If you keep reading down after that comment, he and Andrew exchange posts, and yes, it's apparently true that the guard was fired because of the incident.

all so he can practice his "art". *barf*
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

harpy    says:

It's kind of discouraging to me that a lot of people are going to read the BoingBoing link discussion and come away thinking ThomasHawk is God's gift to digital photographers. That if it wasn't for tough guys like him none of us would even be able to have a camera in public at all and we should all be thankful he fights the good fight for the rest of us.

And that is completely not true.

The other thing that's kind of disheartening is anyone who doesn't agree with him or his hostile methods and publicity grubbing is kind of derided as anti-freedom. That's not true either.

If anything good comes out of his hostile interactions it is that some of these places will MAYBE end up reviewing their photo policies. But just as often, they will say no to photography hassles and be done with it. They dont need us, and they are well within their rights if it's a private building or organization. And meanwhile we all become a little more suspect because of his antics.

And at the end of the day, there is this. Everyone thinks SFMoma is the heavy and poor TH is the little guy. But ThomasHawk is not the little guy. He is a very famous blogger and internet writer. He's been doing this for some time, leveraging confrontational situations for his own purposes. He thinks he has special rights and because he is a well known blogger he can intimidate people. The reality is, in a private building he can be asked to leave for any reason.

Sometimes you do have to raise a ruckus to get a fair shake. But sometimes people raise a ruckus because they're spoiled and have no sense of perspective.
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

fetching    says:

you gotta love this, from his blog:

"After the incident I still spent several hours deeply considering the impact of my blog post on Mr. Blint and his personal name and reputation as well as that of the SF MOMA. The fact is that I feel very very strongly about public treasures and public arts. I currently have over 20,000 photographs mostly documenting San Francisco online. I shoot every single day. I shoot hundreds of photos every single day. I believe art to be one of the highest callings one can pursue. I'm trying to publish one million photographs before I die. To learn more of what I and my photography are about I'd point you to this set on Flickr. It certainly is *not* shooting down unsuspecting females blouses."

charles villyard    says:

Thank you Harpy. There is a god and as a plus there are some real thinkers posting here. Not a bunch of "backslapers" as you would say praising or defending Andrew Peterson's incredibly childish rant. This guy is such an asshole. Please from now on lets refer to him as Andrew too as I would hate to think only Simons name be dragged through the mud. Good job!
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

myguerrilla    says:

damn
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

harpy    says:

Fetching the way I read that is "I spent a lot of time debating whether to harrangue this man publically and then I decided MY goal of publishing a million photos before I die trumps any other consequences. Because I am more imporant than this other person. Because I feel really strongly that I'm right! I make the sacrifice of taking hundreds of photos every day and what does this guy do!? Nothing that's what.

PS This is photo #358,962."
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

harpy    says:

Bird, I like your name.

To me he is and always will be ThomasHawk. And since I dont think he was very nice when he outed the employee in such a public way, I'm not going to do the same to Mr Hawk. He has his privacy which he obviously wants and I'm not going to be the one who takes that away from him.
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

Gavin A. says:

I really think he was just unlucky.
What happened to him was unfair, but the whole thing has been blown way out of proportion. I mean, even I'm adding to the hype by posting my opinion.

Anyway, I'm not "routinely harassed again and again by authority figures over stepping their authority". At least in the world of photography.

I mean, really. You get thrown out of a museum. Life goes on.
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

escapo    says:

i think most of these comments miss the point of Hawk's anger entirely. while his behavior after-the-fact certainly demonstrates dubious integrity, and shows a distinct lack of respect for the accused, the point is not that he wasn't allowed to take photographs, or even that he was physically ejected from the museum. the point is that (if his account is accurate) he was publicly accused of being a pervert, and was ejected for that.

this is no small thing; it's like calling someone a slut or a whore, in front of a bunch of complete strangers. the argument about photographer's rights is misplaced. this is only about being (falsely?) insulted, and wanting an apology.

of course, he ceded the high ground the minute he made his grievance a public issue.
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

harpy    says:

Gavin I know what you mean. I hesitated to post this for the same reasons. But I just wasnt seeing anyone talking about another side of this, and frankly that kind of internet lynch mobbing really worries me. Because that is a real issue that people do have to deal with more and more often these days. Someone tells their side of the story and before you know it there are crazies posting addresses and phone numbers and calling their bosses saying so and so should be fired. People dont go around and read everything that's being written on different sites, it all just catches fire too quickly and there's no stopping the flames. I'm a photographer and I want to be able to take pictures. And 99.9% of the time, I am allowed to do that. And so is everyone else but in situations like this, that fact seems to go straight out the window.

Escapo that is interesting. I hadn't actually considered the fact that Hawk might actually be worried that someone would think he is a pervert. For lack of a better word. Although if you take his "Photography is not a crime!" statement as far as it can go, I guess perverted intrusions of privacy could also be okay in his book. I can't say because I've never read anything he has to say about that.
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

harpy    says:

That is awesome Ten. Maybe I will be able to join you.
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

JWas    says:

To add to the discussion:

www.inquisitr.com/2281/all-that-is-necessary- for-the-triu...


Aside: I was just thinking... I wonder if that online camera store hadn't tried to bogart his money back in '05 when he tried to buy a 5D and the subsequent media circus that came after it hit digg, etc., that we would have never heard of ThomasHawk?

I mean is it as sad as it feels to think something like that after all of this great dialogue or what? *shakes head*



EDIT: To add another link that seems to be of like mind to the discussion here, perhaps?

www.fourlittlebees.net/shakespeareiaint/?p=47
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

harpy    says:

Jeff those links are interesting. I dont know if they are just the same couple of dozen people banging the drum in a different venue or what. Only a few of them even seem to grasp the bigger picture.

In the world I'm living in, I dont feel like my "rights" are being taken away from me every day. I am freer to photograph now than I have ever been. People may not be thrilled to see me because they're sick of having a camera in their face, but my camera and I are not under assault. So some people get uptight now and then about being photographed. It goes with the territory of being a photographer. Small price to pay if you ask me.

Yes I try to be considerate, yes I try to be conscientious, but that is merely manners on my part, because nowhere is it written that you must be nice to take photos. Rude people do it all the time and all you need to do is look around the internet for confirmation of that.

The larger picture is people here have more freedom with their cameras than ever before, but somehow they have come to believe they are victims of some great conspiracy to curtail their freedoms. EVERYONE HAS A CAMERA PHONE. MILLIONS OF PEOPLE BLOG THEIR PHOTOS PUBLICALLY every day. Something no one did five or 10 years ago. Yet here is someone crying that photographers must make a stand on this or Evil Will Triumph!

Gee. Do you think some of the cows have lost sight of the barn?

This reminds me of the efforts of Fox News Channel to convince people Christmas is under seige. So now people go around saying things like "Keep Christ in Christmas!" As if any minute a liberal is going to change the name of the holiday. Last time I checked Christmas was doing fine on it's own.

I believe that Inquisitr quote may even qualify as breaking Godwin's law. Which as everyone knows is an automatic FAIL. (LOL.)

The bigger issue here is people conflating the inane with the serious. On the internet a lot of people dont seem to know the difference. Perhaps it is all the navel gazing and the sense of Yuppie entitlement. I cant say. But it's aggravating in the extreme.

Has the US Supreme Court has ever assigned private photographers any kinds of rights? Not that I am aware of. But I'm not an expert. I do know that the SFMoma is a private institution and they can do as they like. Thomas Hawk's membership doesn't entitle him to an enjoyable visit, a perfect day, or anything beyond looking with his eyes at whatever art is displayed for the rest of the public to see as well.

You want recompense, I suggest asking for a refund. When did we suddenly start demanding personal apologies from perfect strangers? When did we become so self-important we can't be satisfied until we have brought our every daily snafu to the attention of a world-wide audience?

There really are important issues facing photographers. In a few weeks photographers are going to be struggling to get access to the Democratic and Republican presidential conventions. If the last election is anything to go by, a lot of people's rights REALLY may be violated by overzealous security and police. We are in the middle of watching Olympics in China, a communist country where photography really IS a crime, and people have disappeared and been imprisoned for taking the wrong photo at the wrong time. To this day the photographer who filmed the Tank Man has not come forward because of real repercussions from that event. An Al Jazeera cameraman named Sami Al-Haj was detained in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba for 7 years because the US Government accused him of working with insurgents. He was just released three months ago. But you will not find a reference to that on Thomas Hawk's blog. You will however find 46 results at google if you look at references to "Moma" on his blog. And this is the guy who is supposed to be standing up for photographers? Yah. I dont think so.

So what I'm saying - very clearly - is this. If you're a photographer who has been kicked out of a museum? Then Thomas Hawk is the advocate you've been looking for. If you're a photographer who has actually been arrested, seriously harassed, beaten or tortured, then he is NOT the go-to guy.

And one problem with the internet is that people dont seem to understand there is a difference, a very real matter of gravity and seriousness.

In short, a private group kicked out a photographer. They probably regret that right now. But they were within their rights to do it. So MOMA may have received some miniscule amount of tax dollars at some point in their history, and Thomas Hawk is a taxpaying citizen who may have contributed .00008th of a dime to them - SO WHAT. They are not required to throw out the standards by which they operate. Even if those standards are arbitrary. Not every dime of public money should come with behavioral strings that bloggers must approve.

And all these people on these sites calling for the museum to adhere to some kind of elevated standard of customer service behavior, they are just too funny. Bloggers calling for civilized treatment! Haha. Ironic in the extreme.
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

sheryl stephen / WaveOfModulation    says:

JWas, I didn't know about the camera store thing. The only time I heard of Thomas Hawk previously was when he was complaining about flickr while extolling the virtues of his photo sharing site zooomr.

I've said this before but I think it’s telling that Thomas Hawk doesn’t use his real name. However, he is ok with naming and posting a head shot of someone else.

In his latest blog post, he writes
“Along with a respect for my own art comes a deep respect for the treasures that live in museums. A museum to me is an *incredibly* important public treasure.”

TH says he has respect for his own art and the art in museums. He also says he wants to make art more publicly available. But looking at his photostream, that doesn't bear out. He photographs artwork created by others (in museums and elsewhere), posts the photos online under his pen name and doesn’t credit the original artist.

I doubt he would quietly tolerate it if someone else reproduced images of his art without crediting him. I mean, given that he has publicly blasted the people who've wronged him in smaller ways.

I wonder how he would feel if the MOMA employees had snapped a picture of his face and posted it on the internet with his real name?

Thomas Hawk’s actions and words reveal a general lack of respect for others and a general lack of respect for art, imo. He seems to have a different set of rules for the rest of the world than the rules he follows himself. It's not surprising to me that he gets into scuffles wherever he goes.

Edited to add: I guess my point is that, based on my issues with Thomas Hawk's ethics related to photography and online citizenship, it's difficult to take him seriously.
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

leather donut [deleted] says:

Well, his WIFE admits that TH is an admirer of the female form (follow link, search for "female form"), so his motives are open for debate.

friendfeed.com/e/77867a42-32a5-cacb-1210-21a7 d2c0355d/Mea...

The fact is TH (Andrew Peterson) has had a history of runins with people which he then takes to complaining about on his blog. Add to this the fact that he justifies his "renegade" photography, leaves (at least me) very suspicious that there is a large part of the story that is not being told.
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

harpy    says:

Sheryl I believe TH is well known for advocating that photographers shouldnt be copyright-happy. He licenses his photos CC even though they show other people's "uncredited" art. I doubt if he would care if anyone uses his photos. I think he encourages it. Maybe he has another income stream, maybe publicity simply benefits him in the form of ad revenue on his blog. Which for all I know he could be donating to charity. I really dont know what his story is. But I'm kind of tired of people who think everyone else has to think like they do or they're wrong.
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

sheryl stephen / WaveOfModulation    says:

harpy, ah.
I get the anti-copyright happy part, and I even agree that art should be publicly available. I'm coming from a painter/printmaker background and I will always believe that the artist should be cited. And not out of fear of being "ripped off" either.

For someone seeing only a photo in a flickr stream, that photo of the George Roualt drawing or the Robert Delaunay painting can't be a launch point for a learning experience about the artist's other works.

If the point is to share the experience of the work, frankly a photo is just not as powerful and engaging and mind altering as seeing the real work.

Anyway, I know this is off topic to your main point.

What you said up there about the fact that there are real issues photographers are facing was so dead on: the Democratic/Republican national conventions, the Al Jazeera cameraman who was detained by the US govt, China's photography laws and how they impact human rights.

We on flickr are very free and privileged, compared to many others. With freedom and privilege, the sense of citizenship can dwindle, and the sense of entitlement can grow. What we choose to get outraged about and how we express it online says a lot about that, I think.

Thank you for speaking up and starting the discussion here.
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

the.kids.are.alright says:

thanks for bringing this incident to light (for those of us who may not keep up on current events). all i can say is "th - what a dork."
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

Brynn.    says:

flickr.com/photos/thomashawk/2751554048/
there's the link to the photo, you can read my two cents there, or here:

www.flickr.com/photos/paintmesomelove/2758405 365/
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

leather donut [deleted] says:

This is more important than Andrew Peterson's drama.

www.techcrunch.com/2008/08/12/blogging-is-not -a-crime/

Oh and I found this shot of Andew Peterson in his element.



Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

candicelizbeth [deleted] says:

whoa. & then some.
i bet you've certainly had an interesting [stressful!] day after deciding to go ahead with this!

i have nothing to contribute to the topic,
but i do commend you on your decision to not sit idly by,
especially knowing what you were about to jump into.

& yes, very well written.
it's not often i bother to read through these things,
but i'm glad i did this time.
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

a_dub    says:

Hi Harpy,

Thank you for creating this thread. I'm Adam Weiss from the Boing Boing thread. I just wanted to point out that I've added a final comment to the Boing Boing thread which for the most part implicates Mr. Peterson's dishonesty. In the thread itself, you'll find his argument that he was standing in a "public square." In my reply, you'll find two separate links from over a year before the incident, one of which being a blog post he authored and the second being a comment on a blog post that discusses the psuedo-public squares which are found surrounding most every major office building in downtown SF. The area from which he took the photograph was indeed private property, and based on his blog posts, I have a very hard time believing that he would be ignorant of that fact.

I find it rather amusing that I've taken up this as a cause so much. I think it has a lot to do with two main ideas:

1) I personally knew somebody who was struggling to get ahead and was ultimately harmed by this guy's actions and dishonesty.

2) This is a pattern of behavior that is typically frowned upon, but for some reason, people seem to be arbitrarily okay with old school L. Ron Hubbard "Fair Game" style tactics in this case. These patterns of behavior are dangerous and should be frowned upon universally, regardless of whether or not we agree with the person using them.

In any event, nothing would make me happier than for Mr. Peterson to recognize why these behaviors are wrong and to perhaps use his position as a blogger to analyze why these sorts of behaviors are bad, how easy it is to fall into them and what sorts of power one wields when they become well-read.
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

Decrepit Telephone    says:

Ugh. I hate arseholes, and arsehole photographers are worse because they make good photographers look bad. This TH guy sounds like one of the arsehole photographers that should be blasted to another planet where hopefully their whining will be far out of earshot. I'm glad people have outed his real name in this thread. It should be called from the rooftops - this guy needs a taste of his own medicine VERY badly.
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

Mrsth says:

Being you are all about fairness & all, perhaps you could elaborate for the readers your underlying motivation for giving this subject the time of day. Can you say recuse?
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

fetching    says:

leather donut while that's an amusing photograph given the circumstances, i'll be fair and say that I was there that night, as were many other local photographers, and we were all shooting the same thing. I have photos of the same performers and there some photos from this same set by David Newman where I am standing right next to him, both of us shooting away.
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

Mrsth says:

Nice. Let me see what kind of pics & chat logs I can get off an old Dell that's here collecting dust from summer 2006 for Miss Hartwell's campaign.
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

harpy    says:

Just warning you MsTh - i'm not going to have this devolve into personal bullshit.
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

JWas    says:

Kari, I just thought I would post a link that illustrates your point from above.

"There really are important issues facing photographers. In a few weeks photographers are going to be struggling to get access to the Democratic and Republican presidential conventions. If the last election is anything to go by, a lot of people's rights REALLY may be violated by overzealous security and police. We are in the middle of watching Olympics in China, a communist country where photography really IS a crime, and people have disappeared and been imprisoned for taking the wrong photo at the wrong time."


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jahangir_Razmi


How about not claiming your freaking Pulitzer Prize for*26 Years* ftw? : )
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

harpy    says:

Whoa Jeff! That's a great link. I didn't know about that man.
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

harpy    says:

Hey Leather Donut will you do me a favor and small size that photo?
Thanks.
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

Cynner_SF (Cynthia Wood)    says:

i think i need to get caught up on my reading... don't have time right now, but i'll be back!
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

MzMullerz    says:

you're my hero, kari.

pish posh, Thomas whateverthefuckyournameis Hawk. much ado about nothing except one's own ginormous ego and completely misplaced sense of entitlement. get over yourself.
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

TedSher    says:

harpy, this stream leaves me optically and ethically exhausted.
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

harpy    says:

Ted for you to see this is kind of embarassing! I hope you didn't read much. It's weird to find myself arguing that a museum was justified in throwing out a photographer. Normally I would be on the other side. IN that sense it's like the Supreme Court Bush v. Gore decision - a stand alone decision that they specifically stated they didn't want to be binding as precedent on the court. Haha.

Mullerz Pishposh is right. It's a lot of nonsense at the end of the day.

Cyn dont bother, it's a lot of nothing about nothing.
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

gabbyeisenhower says:

I find it difficult to take a man seriously who, as he is being escorted out by security guards, yells "I'm going to blog about this."
Thank you for posting about this un-scandal.
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

Mrsth says:

Warning? Let me double down on Miss Hartwell's version of fair.
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

harpy    says:

Lady your husband called someone an asshole on his blog and within a few hours people were posting that man's personal address on TH's blog and now the guy is afraid to go home. Maybe you ought to consider that before you start threatening other people because they used your husband's real name. And if you continue to harass people personally in this thread I will block you so fast your head will spin. Especially when many other people have used the man's name as well but you are specifically following Lane around and threatening her.
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

jimgoldstein    says:

@ Mrsth It's not like its hard to find people's names online. In fact the whole premise of blogging (pen name or not) is transparency. In that regard a pen name is a little odd in this day and age. Things are easily found with a simple search. I've never had a problem with my name being out there. I really don't see what the big issue is especially considering Andrew Peterson or Thomas Hawk or whatever he goes by so freely tosses out the names of those he is criticizing.

Cheers
www.flickr.com/photos/25093508@N00/558016483/
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

Mrsth says:

My ONLY exception to anyone weighing in THE incident is Miss Hartwell's, who can recount as to who has been following who & her concept of fair. No threat. Blocking? Ouch- My apologies. I thought you were creating a forum here. She's lucky to have such a good friend.
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

Mrsth says:

Now that's better. Would make any parent proud:)
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

harpy    says:

I am creating a forum, and you are welcome as long as you dont attack anyone personally or hound them for doing something others are doing freely all over the internet.

You are not an uninterested, objective party. You are married to this guy. Attacking someone else for not being unbiased and fair is ludicrous when you clearly are in the same boat.

You have your own Flickr acct, if you feel the say something further about this, use it.
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

Automatt    says:

Official response from SFMOMA - nothing to do with photography policy, everything to do with Andrew's personal behavior to staff members.

www.sfmoma.org/press/pressroom.asp?id=371& do=recent
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

JWas    says:

For expedience's sake, here's the text of 's link:

SFMOMA Responds to August 8 Incident

Last Friday an incident occurred in our museum in which a visitor was asked to leave the building. We stand firmly behind the actions of our director of visitor services, who acted appropriately to ensure the safety of the museum’s admissions staff. He took measures to protect another staff member who according to witnesses on our staff and among the general public was being photographed in an inappropriate and harassing manner. SFMOMA welcomes over 600,000 visitors annually; disputes and disagreements between our guests and our staff very rarely occur.

This was not an issue relating to the museum’s official photography policy. In fact, SFMOMA recently made a policy change to allow photographers to take pictures of the permanent collection, the architecture of the building, and the museum’s public spaces.

We have heard the concerns that have been expressed, and we hope that online discussion concerning SFMOMA can now return to focus on the terrific exhibitions we currently have on view and the many exciting public programs that we are offering to support them. We thank you for your comments.

Department of Communications
San Francisco Museum of Modern Art

Mrsth says:

Agreed, which is exactly why I have not previously commented on his activities & merely suggested that she recuse & do the same. You're right. It's a great big web out there & many forums. Many thanks for your tolerance.
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

travin... says:

Harpy, from a fellow photographer, thank you for posting this. I couldn't have expressed it better myself.

Jokers like this make working artists' life more difficult - like we need that.
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

leather donut [deleted] says:

@harpy - Done!

With the aggressive behaviour displayed by Andrew Peterson and his wife, I am wondering how much of this incident resulted from their instigation.

Guess what? If you cause a disturbance, you *are* going to get a reaction.
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

harpy    says:

Now that MOMA has responded people will hopefully settle down, take a deep breath and get back to making important lists about Star Wars for Digg.
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

JWas    says:

- "making important lists about Star Wars for Digg"

Ha! Either that or something to do with the greatness of "The Dark Knight" or the Apple rumor du jour. ;-)
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

harpy    says:

I just hope people in the online photo community will think next time before throwing MOMA under the bus because one blogger had a bad experience. This is after all an organization whose main purpose is to develop, display and promote modern art, widely hailed for its support of modern photography, and whose staff has dedicated their professional lives to promoting and sustaining art.
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

jakerome    says:

Yeah, and the funny thing is that TH's photos demonstrate that he was not and could not be taking inappropriate photographs of staff members.

--
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

'SeraphimC    says:

"Well I didn't quite expect the Simon Blint fiasco that resulted in my forceful ejection from the SF MOMA on Friday to generate quite the attention that it has. That said, I've had 48 hours or so now to reflect on the incident more and I wanted to share more of my thoughts and feelings. I also want to take an opportunity to clear up some misconceptions and allegations that have been raised due to the incident's popularity on the internet.

One allegation that has been raised is that Blint threw me out because he felt that I was shooting down a low cut blouse of one of his employees sitting in the atrium below where I was shooting. The photo above is a photo that I snapped of Blint as he was publicly admonishing me from the floor, that's him with his arms crossed there. As you will see, the female employee in question also appears in the photograph (the ticket taker next to Blint). She is not wearing a low cut blouse. In fact she's wearing some sort of a yellowish/orangish sweater or jacket sort of thing -- she's sort of hard to see as a 14mm lens makes people look super far away. Her arms, shoulders, in fact every visible area of her except her hands are completely covered in clothing.

More to the point, as mentioned, I was shooting with a 14mm ultra wide angle lens. A point that I made several times to Blint when offering repeatedly to show him my photographs which he refused to examine and simply would not consider. As you can see, even with this shot taken directly a 14mm lens simply cannot produce a "down blouse" shot with any level of detail whatsoever. When people are 15-30 feet away from you and you shoot them with a 14mm lens you simply cannot get anything that in any way resembles some sort of down blouse shot. I would invite anyone from the SF MOMA's photography staff who understands what a 14mm lens is capable of to chime on the possibility that this was somehow my intention.

But I was very willing to give Simon Blint the benefit of the doubt that he may not have understood the basic mechanics of lenses or photography. It was for this reason that I offered *several* times to share my photos with him which he continuously refused. Had he simply reviewed my photos he would have seen that the photos in question were in no way intended to be indecent.

Instead Blint was arrogant, disrespectful, belligerent and quite simply would not entertain any possible conversation regarding the matter whatsoever. I gave Blint *every opportunity* to diffuse the situation, sit down, and have a rational and reasonable conversation regarding me and my photography. He simply was hellbent on throwing me out of the museum. Each objection I'd raise, each invitation to review my photography was responded to with the exact same response. "I'm asking you to leave." "I don't care." "I don't want to look at your photographs." "For the 11th time I'm asking you to leave." Armed with two security guards, Blint was exerting his physical authority unjustly.

It was at this point that I thought it only fair to warn Blint that should he throw me out of a public museum after such a horrible display of public humiliation and embarrassment on his part that I would be blogging about the incident. He said he did not care. When I asked Blint for his last name his response to me was "why, so you can blog it?" to which I answered "yes." He knew this was coming and still took no effort whatsoever to have a rational, reasonable conversation about it.

Robert Scoble made a point that had this happened to a reporter for the New York Times that Blint would be out of a job. The point is, this sort of treatment should not happen to anybody. Not a reporter for the New York Times, not me, and not even some random person without any power at all to fight back.

Now I was mad at being publicly admonished and branded a pervert for spying on his employees in an atrium when I was certainly not doing that and so I used the word asshole to describe Mr. Blint. I'm going to change that word in my blog headline and in my post to read simply "jerk," instead of asshole. Several people have admonished me, most significantly my wife, for resorting to that kind of language and jerk is just as accurate a description.

My problem with Mr. Blint was not a result of his misunderstanding of my photography. It was in his insistence *not to review* the situation more carefully after an incredible poor display of customer service on his part. Had he offered me the simple courtesy of a review of my photos as I offered I believe none of this unfortunate experience ever would have made it into a blog post.

After the incident I still spent several hours deeply considering the impact of my blog post on Mr. Blint and his personal name and reputation as well as that of the SF MOMA. The fact is that I feel very very strongly about public treasures and public arts. I currently have over 20,000 photographs mostly documenting San Francisco online. I shoot every single day. I shoot hundreds of photos every single day. I believe art to be one of the highest callings one can pursue. I'm trying to publish one million photographs before I die. To learn more of what I and my photography are about I'd point you to this set on Flickr. It certainly is *not* shooting down unsuspecting females blouses.

Along with a respect for my own art comes a deep respect for the treasures that live in museums. A museum to me is an *incredibly* important public treasure. The SF MOMA one of our finest. The point is though that the SF MOMA does not belong to Blint. He is simply one of many employees presently entrusted to help manage it. He is a steward of a national and public treasure. And the more I thought about the fact that such a person could be in charge of thousands of experiences by thousands of visitors to such an important public treasure, the more I felt it necessary to ensure that his sort of behavior not take place in the SF MOMA again. I have by the way personally contacted several members of the SFMOMA staff, none of which have responded to me as of yet.

So why did this post resonate so strongly with everyone?

What made this story the number one story on digg yesterday, all over friendfeed, SFist, Boing Boing and dozens of other blogs? To me the answer is simple. Increasingly we are living in a world where photographers are routinely harassed again and again by authority figures over stepping their authority -- and it makes you feel like crap when that happens.

Over the course of the past year I've heard hundreds of stories where photographers were unjustly targeted for taking pictures. While the "photography steals your soul," superstition seems to be long gone, a whole litany of replacements have taken it's place. I've seen people branded as pedophiles for shooting at public parks or their neighborhood swimming pool. I've seen people claiming 9/11 makes checking photography necessary. I've seen train stations and malls and shopping centers and museums and parks and public buildings and architecture increasingly turn against the photographer. And when this happens and when people see something that has happened to them at one point or another happening to someone else it resonates.

Over the course of the last 48 hours I've also had more time to think about the impact that my blog post will have on Simon and my anger has softened a bit. I am at this point sorry over any negative personal impact that this incident will have on Simon Blint's online identity for years to come. But the point is that the SF MOMA and all of our public cultural treasures owe us more than Simon Blint. They owe us passionate employees who get excited to see the public interacting and engaging with and in the arts. No one should ever be thrown out of a museum for taking photos, in fact it should be encouraged. And if someone suspects any sort of wrong doing, every patron, not only supporting members, should be provided a recourse and a review. And *that* was Simon Blint's biggest mistake and too important a mistake to make to simply let him get away with it. Especially when he is directly responsible for thousands of others who will visit this cultural treasure in the days and months ahead.

Finally for another second opinion on this incident I'd invite you to read torbakhopper's account. He was an actual eye witness to the event. He was also threatened to be thrown out by Blint as well and he wasn't even shooting."
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

'SeraphimC    says:

14mm lens on a 5d? No way he could be shooting inappropriately unless he was a foot from the subject.

Other people there shooting the same stuff he was with their own cameras? Smells like ignorant, fearful hypocrisy to me.
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

jakerome    says:

A great break down of a person with a history of inflammatory remarks. I sincerely hope that SF MOMA will stand by their employee both publicly by making a statement and by taking legal action against Andrew Peterson (Thomas Hawk).

What legal action will they be taking against TH? Are they going to sue him for blogging? For trespassing? I'm kinda not seeing it.
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

harpy    says:

Um. Seraphim. I read that and linked to Thomas' post in my first post. There is no need to repeat it. I am a good reader and dont need to have it repeated.

I'm quite aware of a what a wide angle lens is. That is irrelevant to my argument. It doesn't matter what he was doing. It doesn't matter why they asked him to leave as far as my argument goes.

Which you would know if you like, read it. But it's easier to quote stuff at someone and wag your little finger.

Okey doke. Moving on now.
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

'SeraphimC    says:

I read your argument. It's a red herring.
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

'SeraphimC    says:

ciao bella.
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

harpy    says:

Jake, there have been a number of people calling for lawsuits on all sides. I guess those people are in dire need of material to blog about. Or maybe they just like drama. Or they are so full of misplaced outrage that they dont know where to direct it. Lame. Our legal system has serious stuff to deal with. Maybe ThomasHawk should just ask for a good old fashioned refund and patronize another museum.
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )