You aren't signed in     Sign In    Help

Simon Blint, Director of Visitor Relations at the SF MOMA, Yeah You Jerk, Photography is Not a Crime

slap!
even a silly beard !
nob head
My earpiece makes me feel important!
douchebag
Gangster of SF-Moma
this guy was actually pretty cool and seemed to grow progressively more embarrassed by his "boss's" overstepping of authority and protocol
Suck my balls
Green.
I'm surprised his collar isn't popped.
Why so Blint?
Blinty going Bald?
Red
plain copyright idiot
dummy
I was just about to stick my thumb in my ass when I realized you were taking pictures of me!
SFMOMA Responds To August 8 Incident
August 13, 2008
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 ... http://www.sfmoma.org/press/releases/news/371
SFMOMA Responds To August 8 Incident
August 13, 2008
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 ... http://www.sfmoma.org/press/releases/news/371
Simon Blint, Director of Visitor Relations at the SF MOMA, Yeah You Jerk, Photography is Not a Crime by Thomas Hawk.
If you think that photographers should not be subject to this kind of harassment digg this here.

Simon Blint, Director of Visitor Relations at the SF MOMA is a first rate jerk.

Recently I blogged about my excitement regarding the San Francisco MOMA's decision to begin allowing photography in their permanent collection after years of maintaining a closed no photography policy. Directly because of this change in policy, I decided to purchase a family membership in order to support the museum, both with my artistic energy and financially. I was excited to begin spending regular time exploring and documenting the museum.

Unfortunately, I should have known better than to really believe that the San Francisco MOMA was serious about opening up the art and architecture entrusted to them to the general public.

After purchasing my family membership and visiting the museum today I was forcibly thrown out of the museum by two museum security guards at the direction of the Director of Visitor Relations Simon Blint.

My crime? Taking a photograph from the second floor stairs in the SFMOMA's atrium (an area where the SF MOMA's own website explicitly says photography is allowed).

You can see the photograph that I took when I was thrown out at the top of this post.

During the course of my interaction with Blint I told him that:

1. I was a new member of the museum and that I'd been in contact with Thea Stein in the Marketing and Communications Department of the museum who had confirmed the recent change in museum policy with me personally regarding photography in the museum.

2. That the SF MOMA's own website explicitly allows photography in the atrium.

3. That I would be blogging my forcible eviction from the MOMA.

Blint told me that "he did not care" and that he needed to "protect" his employees -- employees that might appear in my photographs. I was not shooting with a tripod. I was not shooting with a flash. I was being quiet and respectful of the area and the other patrons.

Blint on the other hand was hostile, accusatory and refused to even examine my photographs or allow me to share with him what I was doing with my art. He accused me of using a "telephoto" lens to spy on his staff from the public staircase on the second floor. Blint obviously knows nothing of photography because the 14mm ultra wide angle lens on my camera body was about the furthest thing possible from a telephoto lens. He refused to discuss this, refused to examine my photographs, refused to consider it at all and simply had me ejected with two security guards.

Ironically Blint also tried to eject my friend torbakhopper who was hanging out with me at the museum today and he wasn't even taking photographs. He finally relented on his case and told him that he could stay if he wanted but that I was going to be forcibly ejected.

Blint refused to escalate the situation to a superior even though I told him I'd been in contact with museum personnel. He was on his own personal power trip and misused and abused the authority entrusted to him for the public benefit to harass, humiliate and embarrass a paying member of the museum. Photography is not a crime

I believe that I was very much targeted in this case because I was using a digital SLR. There were plenty of people taking photographs of the atrium using point and shoots that Simon did not target, but I think that it was the fact that I was using a larger DSLR that made me a target. Rather than try to understand what I and my art were about Simon felt the smarter way to deal with the situation was simply to kick me out of his museum.

While I might be able to understand if my ejection from the museum had been at the hand of an overzealous security guard who was simply uninformed about the SF MOMA's change in policy regarding photography in their museum, when this ejection came directly from the Director of Visitor Relations I find this to be unacceptable.

If the museum has a photography allowed policy in their atrium as explicitly expressed on their website and someone identifies themselves as a photographer, artist and paying and supporting member of museum I would expect less hostility, aggression and harassment. Photography is an art and those of us who choose to practice the great art of street photography ought not be targeted by bullies like Blint. Many of the great artists, artists being shown in the SF MOMA itself were practitioners of street photography. It is ironic that the great Cartier-Bresson, who took thousands of photographs of unsuspecting people in his work, hangs in the museum while a photographer practicing the same type of work gets ejected by a power-trippy asshole. It's hypocritical and disappointing.

It is unfortunate that one of my first experiences as a paying member of the SF MOMA had to be full of hatred, bitterness and harassment.

Update: The SFMOMA Responds to this incident here. 
This photo has notes. Move your mouse over the photo to see them.

Comments

view profile

ekai  Pro User  says:

wow, that sucks Thomas. I hope the museum does the right thing.
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

wbeem  Pro User  says:

It's amazing that such people exist. Did they touch you at all? Private property or not, they have no right to lay a finger on you based upon the description you've provided.
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

schweet_rice  Pro User  says:

Sorry for the awful experience, Thomas. I have been "harassed" before for taking pictures but that was last fall season. When I went there earlier this week with my camera, I purposely asked the security folks if I can take a few shots. Most of them were cordial enough but they did warn me NOT taking pictures of the special exhibits. Of course, I didn't volunteer the fact that I'd be taking pictures of the visitors as well.

Had Simon Blint seen me, he'd probably yell at me for taking this picture.



www.flickr.com/photos/schweet_rice/2745679356 /
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

olasisucsd  Pro User  says:

Wow dude. You had such an ordeal just taking a picture. I think you should get together a done of photographers and go to the museum and take pictures in the atrium if nothing is done from the museum. It is a shame that photography isn't allowed in SF MOMA because MOMA in New York you could take pictures. Hope all works out in your favor.
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

jackiefree says:

unbelievable. what a jerk. your letter above should be submitted to the Chronicle. hopefully they will run it.
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

lacadaz  Pro User  says:

The no photography rule was a major factor when I was deciding which museum to join this year. As a student of photography I knew that most of the best exhibitions were going to be at the MoMa including that fantastic Lee Friedlander show. It was the "Only in the Atrium" rule that got me to join the Fine Arts Museums (de Young and Legion of Honor) I couldn't be happier. Never a problem with my dslr at either museum. They are even allowing non-flash in the Chihuly special exhibit. The de Young itself is a joy to shoot at both for the art and for the visitors and architecture. This will almost certainly keep me from joining the MoMa as well as keep me from going to all but the most irresistible (like Friedlander, Eggleston, HBC) exhibits. It's too bad if you ask me.
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

Lisanne!  Pro User  says:

I assume this IS Simon Blint.

He looks like a Simon Blint.
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

torbakhopper  Pro User  says:

i loved it when he reduced himself to physically threatening to throw us out of the museum, or rather, "to forcibly eject us". talk about running on empty... and he was shaking with anger. someone needs to undergo anger management therapy
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

CaptainJBuilder  Pro User  says:

Man what a butt head. Ya think he'd at least treat you with more respect.
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

Farl  Pro User  says:

can't imagine how you got him. he's ignorant of photography for sure.
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

James Mowery says:

He looks like a power hungry scumbag. Hope this gets a lot of attention.
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

peet gilbert  Pro User  says:

Sending a message to galleries to say that it is not OK to treat your customers this way is important. This guy is an idiot. He sounds frustrated. He should take up photography to relax,
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

pfeyh  Pro User  says:

did you try hugging him?
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

SarahCartwright says:

lol : stechico

Rightfully so too.
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

Susan_Dennis  Pro User  says:

Unbelievable!...what a complete ass!
I'm glad that you're taking a stand and speaking out about this (of course, I wouldn't expect anything other from you)!
You're speaking up for all of us and our rights...keep up the good fight, Thomas!
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

dwrichards  Pro User  says:

The only thing the museum can do at this point is fire the ignorant little control freak. He knows nothing about the art of photography if he thought your 14mm was a "telephoto" lens. If you don't know anything about visitors, you can't be a "Director of Visitor relations" He probably would have thrown out Henri Cartier-Bresson.
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

jorr81  Pro User  says:

What a ridiculous moron. Hopefully the digging will further the cause and end stupidity like this!

--
Seen on your photo stream. (?)
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

nahl says:

We support this guy

blog.wired.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/07/2 8/thomas_haw...

Digg this to make this story of the day/week

digg.com/travel_places/Photography_is_Not_a_C rime_Blint_o...
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

memos to the future says:

well, I suppose I won't go be visiting SF MOMA anytime soon...
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

pbo31  Pro User  says:

how sick! ...if was there and went through what you did, im quite sure that i would be in a whole lot of trouble right now. lets all band together and eject people like this from the art world where they have no business being.
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

edgeplot  Pro User  says:

What an asshole. So sorry this happened to you.
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

Helga's Lobster Stew  Pro User  says:

I wish I could have a 14mm telephoto lens, too.. ha!

Found your story on digg, sorry to hear about your troubles!
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

smoothdude  Pro User  says:

when did you slap the 50mm on though? while you were talking so you could get a good shot of him?

I don't get why you were thrown out..seems weird

you sure you had pants on TH? I've shot with you before so I know how you do

heeh
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

Thomas Hawk  Pro User  says:

Smoothie, I switched lenses and put the 50mm on when he was coming up after me on the stairs. Figured that he'd look more flattering with a 50mm f/1.2 than with the 14mm f/2.8 that I was shooting with before, didn't want his nose looking all big, skewed and crazy or anything with that 14mm.
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

PaulVX  Pro User  says:

From their site:

Cameras
Photography is not permitted in the galleries. Flash photography is permitted only with a handheld camera in the Atrium.


Is it because you had it on a tripod?
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

justinbaeder  Pro User  says:

If you ask me, "handheld camera" is a bit vague - probably not the best choice of words to use in an official policy. I'm not sure I'd consider my DSLR a "handheld" camera, and if someone called it that, I might be a wee bit insulted. I think of a handheld camera as a small one with a wrist strap rather than a full neck strap, and one that can be held and used in one hand.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but if "handheld" meant "without a tripod," it would have been easier to say "no tripods." I think they probably meant "if your camera is crap, go ahead and take pictures of the atrium for aunt Dolly."

So Mr. Simon Blint had a relatively good reason to ask you to cease and desist, even if the rule is a bit silly.
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

forgetmaenot  Pro User  says:

granted carrying around a large camera is intimidating to some if they give clearance then that man is truely and asshole...however whatever became of the good habit of having your subjects sign a waiver to be published? I wouldn't put up a pic of someone if I thought they didn't want to be put up.
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

codewriter23 says:

Dude, you have to be the biggest whiner on the internet.
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

Guy Flâneur  Pro User  says:

A policy that says photography is permitted is a policy that permits photography. It's that simple. The choice of camera is up to the visitor. Blint was just being an imperious bastard.
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

omakeboi says:

What a cocky arrogant condescending bastard. I don't know about you Thomas, but me personally? I'd escalate it to every possible person I could, including the Board of Trustees (if they have one) and demand he be fired for the rude and absolutely abhorrent lack of manners he had towards a patron or at the very least given a severe reprimand.

A wanker like him as "Director of Visitor Relations"? If he stays in that position for much longer, they might not have any visitor relations to worry about.
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

außerirdische sind gesund  Pro User  says:

justinbaeder: A handheld camera is exactly that: A camera you hold in your hands, and not one on a tripod.
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

monkeytime  Pro User  says:

I concur with sooperkuh. Indeed, I'd go a bit further, and say that, since tripods are not mentioned, a "handheld camera" is any camera capable of being shot, or at least designed to be shot, handheld – whether it is on a tripod or not. Thus, Thomas's 5D is a "handheld camera," even if he has it on a tripod. In contrast, a Linhof 4x5 view camera is not a "handheld camera," even if Thomas were (miraculously) hand-holding it.
--
Seen on your photo stream. (?)
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

außerirdische sind gesund  Pro User  says:

monkeytime: I respectfully diagree. It seems no tripod was involved, however.
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

scubapup  Pro User  says:

yup, im behind you on this one thomas
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

Guy Flâneur  Pro User  says:

You don't meet someone named Simon Blint everyday, so a Google search of his name came up with about 7 pages of links, most tied to this incident. But there was one unusual entry. Unless there's another Simon Blint in the Bay Area, you'll find his "face" residing at the following link on Facebook: www.facebook.com/people/Simon_Blint/115695367 4
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

svdodge  Pro User  says:

I agree with you TH, the situation is very unfortunate.

On the other hand, I really like that picture of him. I love that you caught him with that expression. It's very cinematic, reminds me of Boondock Saints. I'm sitting here trying to imagine his voice.
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

asianz  Pro User  says:

I was at SF MOMA last week and took many pictures on second floor and in atrium. I was never approached by anyone nor harassed. I guess you really had a bad luck on that day.
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

QuantumJedi  Pro User  says:

unbelievable.
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

Pix Gremlin  Pro User  says:

I picked up this story via EPUK, England. Seems like this Simon character is a microbe!
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

vergo913 says:

Thomas seems to have conveniently skipped a small but crucial detail:

Thomas was on the 2nd Floor balcony, positioned directly above a female staff member on the 1st floor, and was aiming his camera directly down her shirt. When asked to stop, he repeatedly refused to cooperate and continued aiming his camera down the girl's shirt until she noticed, and buttoned up, humiliated.
Thomas~ spinning the facts to generate sympathy for yourself is pretty low, you perverted worm.

GET A LIFE, YOU STUPID ASS-CLOWN!
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

vandyll.net  Pro User  says:

Ahh, the joy of being able to hide behind the anonymity of the internet. This has been address in Thomas' blog, thomashawk.com/ , so try again.
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

Meester Steve  Pro User  says:

Apparently the gallery rules have been updated:

"Photography is not permitted in the galleries. Flash photography is permitted only with a handheld camera in the Atrium."
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

torbakhopper  Pro User  says:

@ vergo913

you are a first class spinner of your own "truths" which come from some other place besides the actual events

seeing as you weren't there and i was, i will just assume you are in a position much like blint -- that is, ignorant and belligerent

so, back to the facts you have pointed out inaccurately:

first, we were not on the 2nd floor balcony. secondly, the woman was not wearing just a shirt. she had on a yellow sweater AND a scarf around her neck

but go ahead and explain why i should have been asked to leave the museum for just standing there getting a lesson on the wide angle power of the 14mm lens instead of a "zoom" lens like blint called it? is there some justification for hostilely accosting me for standing beside mr. hawk?

and lastly, it was blint himself who humiliated the "girl", who was actually a WOMAN. not until his enraged scene transpired did anyone below experience any kind of humiliation -- calling people perverts in public spaces will certainly generate shame across the board

so, as to facts and spinning of stories, i think you should consider venting your aggressions somewhere else so that you don't come off looking like a slanderer, because calling someone a "perverted worm" in text is indeed, slander.
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

chris hennebery  Pro User  says:

Ohhh... this Blint dude is burned in the intertubes.
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

vergo913 says:

Blow me, vandyll.net . I was responding strictly to what had been written on this blog page. But thanks for the link to the other blog page, which does address this misconduct.
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

rwirtz says:

Sorry I had to find out about you through this particular news item, but I applaud both your photographic art and your courage for taking a stance in this instance.
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

vergo913 says:

@ vergo913 you are a first class spinner of your own "truths" which come from some other place besides the actual events
seeing as you weren't there and i was, i will just assume you are in a position much like blint -- that is, ignorant and belligerent

TORBAKHOPPER~ ??? WTF? WHY ARE YOU CALLING ME IGNORANT AND BELLIGERANT? I WAS THERE AS WELL AS YOU, DICKHEAD.

so, back to the facts you have pointed out inaccurately:
first, we were not on the 2nd floor balcony.

THERE WAS A STAIRCASE BALCONY 10-15 FEET DIRECTLY ABOVE THE FEMALE TICKET TAKER. IF NOT THE 2ND FLOOR BALCONY, WHAT DO YOU CALL IT?

secondly, the woman was not wearing just a shirt. she had on a yellow sweater AND a scarf around her neck

YOU POMPOUS ASS, ON ANOTHER PAGE OF THIS BLOG WHICH SHOWS A PHOTOGRAPH OF THE TICKET TAKER AS VIEWED FROM THE 2ND FLOOR, AND SOMEONE ASTUTELY WRITES, "NICE BOOBIES'! NEXT TO HER CHEST, SO DON'T GIVE ME ANY CRAP THAT YOU GUYS ARE ANGELS AS YOU DELIBERATELY POINTED THE CAMERA DOWN HER SHIRT.

ON A SIDE NOTE, IT SEEMS NAIVE OF YOU TO ASSUME NO ONE WOULD TAKE OFFENSE AT THIS SEEMINGLY FLAGRANT BEHAVIOR OF VOUYERISM... OR IS THIS SOME SORT OF SETUP WITH YOUR PRETEND OUTRAGE OF NOT BEING ALLOWED TO TAKE A PHOTO OF THE LOBBY ( EVENT THOUGH THE CAMERA IS CLEARLY POINTING STRAIGHT DOWN THE GIRL'S SHIRT)? WHO ARE YOU GUYS KIDDING?

but go ahead and explain why i should have been asked to leave the museum for just standing there getting a lesson on the wide angle power of the 14mm lens instead of a "zoom" lens like blint called it? is there some justification for hostilely accosting me for standing beside mr. hawk?

PERHAPS YOU LOOKED AS SHADY AS THIS INCIDENT FEELS. LOL, JUST JOKING. C'MON, TORBAKHOPPER, GROW UP. LIKE IT OR NOT, GUILT BY ASSOCIATION IS THE FIRST REACTION MOST PEOPLE WOULD TAKE. SEEING AS YOU WEREN'T KICKED OUT, IT SEEMS SILLY OF YOU TO KEEP WHINING ABOUT IT.

and lastly, it was blint himself who humiliated the "girl", who was actually a WOMAN. not until his enraged scene transpired did anyone below experience any kind of humiliation -- calling people perverts in public spaces will certainly generate shame across the board

SIMPLE SOLUTION: STOP AIMING YOUR CAMERA DOWN GIRLS' - AND WOMENS - SHIRTS. PROBLEM SOLVED.

so, as to facts and spinning of stories, i think you should consider venting your aggressions somewhere else so that you don't come off looking like a slanderer, because calling someone a "perverted worm" in text is indeed, slander.

THIS WARNING COMES FROM ONE WHO CALLED ME "IGNORANT AND BELLIGERANT"? LOL! NOT SURE WHAT YOU'RE SMOKING, IF ANYTHING, TORBAKHOPPER, BUT YOU'D BETTER LAY OFF OF IT FOR A WHILE BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT MAKING TOO MUCH SENSE.
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

monkeytime  Pro User  says:

@ vergo913: I repeat to you what I wrote on the other thread:

Are you playing obtuse or just really not too bright? The "nice boobies" comment is clearly – clearly – ironic. You can barely make out a goddamned feature of the seated figure in yellow, even in the largest size image. "Nice boobies" is an ironic riposte to the claim of Blint and his defenders that Thomas was "shooting down her shirt" (presumably for prurient reasons). This claim debunked, Blint seems entirely in the wrong.

Feel free to let loose with the epithets. I've been called a "dickhead" by better men (?). But I must decline to "blow you."
--
Seen in my recent comments. (?)
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

Guy Flâneur  Pro User  says:

Well, one thing's for sure, Thomas manages to leave a big wake.

If the "offending photo" is the adjacent wide-angle, there's is certainly no evidence of any kind of intrusion upon anyone's privacy. Blint could have spared himself a lot of adverse internet publicity simply by taking up Thomas's offer to view the photo in question. He didn't avail himself of the opportunity, so now he is infamous around the world and, so long as the internet and Google last, for all time. Every employer in his future who cares to Google his name will find out all about this incident.

There is little doubt who, in the end, will be the loser.
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

monkeytime  Pro User  says:

Blint certainly fucked with the wrong marine.
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

iowapix  Pro User  says:

The jerk looks stoned, I wonder if he could pass a field sobriety test, even in San Francisco.
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

dill8 says:

Hey Monkeytime, is it clearly ironic?
The only thing clear to me is that Thomas is a pretentious sleezeball.
Have you seen HIS picture?

Any employer who does Google Simon will see that he was not afraid to protect his staff. That he was willing to step up and deal with a crybaby stalker who likes to hide behind his "ART".

But hey, "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law"
Who cares how it makes other people feel.
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

außerirdische sind gesund  Pro User  says:

dill8: Thomas might have gone a bit over the top, but it seems Simon Blint has a history of being an arrogant bully:

Read the first comment at the bottom of the page here:
www.edrants.com/is-thomas-hawk-a-first-rate-j erk/
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

monkeytime  Pro User  says:

@ dill8: Yes, it seems clearly ironic to me. What else do you propose? Do you think it is literal – or directed with sarcasm at the woman herself? If so, please explain how so. You can't make out a feature of the person and can infer that she's a woman only from the scarf and hair.

As for the rest of your contentions, it seems to me that, if Simon were really concerned with how his employee felt, he would have taken Thomas up on his offer to let Simon view the images and assure himself (and his employee) that they weren't peeper shots.

I think it's overblown to accuse Thomas of Crowleyan sentiments here. Even considering how large a self-aggrandizing project he embarked on here, the identity of the woman remains obscure because of the size and angle of her image, and, in fact, the publication of the photo demonstrates that Thomas was not taking pervy shots.
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

Guy Flâneur  Pro User  says:

Tim Nichols, a reporter for Minnesota Public Radio, published this story on an MPR blog today. You can see the posting at minnesota.publicradio.org/collections/special /columns/con...

"It's starting to feel a little like that on St. Paul streets these days, photographers are finding as the Republican National Convention is approaching.

At least three times in recent weeks, photographers say they've been stopped on public streets or sidewalks, told to stop taking pictures or produce identification or leave the area.

It happened to me yesterday, as I was walking down West 7th Street, past the St. Paul headquarters of the Travelers insurance company, carrying a Nikon SLR. A Wackenhut Corp. security guard approached me on the sidewalk, held up his hand to break my stride, then told me that I needed to show identification. He was wearing the same uniform as the guys you can see walking around inside the Travelers atrium.

I declined to give him anything, told him it was a public street, and proceeded to an appointment I had nearby.

It's eerily similar to the experience of a Washington, D.C., area photographer who was in the city on business earlier this month. He asked not to be identified so that he wouldn't draw attention to his Minnesota clients.

He's known on the Flickr photo website as Guy Flâneur, the alias under which he publishes his photos. He kicked of an extensive discussion of public photography on the site here.

He was taking these pictures on the street outside Travelers, he said, when a security guard came out and told him to stop pointing a camera at the building. The photographer declined, but a few minutes later two St. Paul police officers arrived, approached him and one of them asked for identification.

"He didn't say anything. He just asked questions," Flâneur said."He said, 'You don't look like a terrorist, but we need to check things out."

Travelers spokesman Gail Liebl said today that she wasn't aware of either incident, although she did note that there's a "heightened sense of security in the next few weeks," since the Republican National Convention was right next door.

But did add that it is not company security policy to stop members of the public in the street and make them identify themselves.

A third incident happened at Lambert's Landing, on the Mississippi River, on Aug. 8.

Retired airline mechanic Jerry Houk, of Maplewood, said he was going down to take some pictures of the Motor Vessel Mississippi, the Corps of Engineers' massive tow boat. It's the biggest tow on the river, and so he brought an 11-meter pole, known to photographers as a "catfish pole" to take aerial pictures of the boat.

You can see some of them here.

Houk says he started taking pictures when a St. Paul police officer disembarked from the M.V. Mississippi and told him he could not photograph "a federal boat." Houk says that when he begged to differ, the police officer took his camera and pole, separated them and proceeded to try and break the fiberglass pole with his shoe. Houk says he retrieved his camera and the officer left.

"I was shaking, literally," Houk says.

He says he stood on the shore beside the boat and tried to get the attention of several tourists on the boat who might have seen the incident.

Instead, he says, two St. Paul officers disembarked together and approached him. Houk said he took pictures of them, but that they took his camera, citing the authority of the Department of Homeland Security and the preparations for the Republican National Convention. Houk says the officers erased his pictures, put him in a squad car, cited him for disorderly conduct and told him he was banned from the area.

The St. Paul police, of course, beg to differ. The report on the incident says he was "yelling and screaming at tourists" on the boat, and doesn't mention any contact he had with police prior to that. The public version of the report doesn't mention photography at all.

"We don't take people's cameras," police spokesman Peter Panos told me, when asked about Houk's version of events. Panos said there are no restrictions on photography in St. Paul and that people are free to take pictures of whatever they like.

Or not.

"I've been taking photos for 45 years and this is the first time this has ever happened to me," Flâneur says of his experience near Hamm Plaza "I have taken pictures of demonstrations in front of the White House and this hasn't happened to me. I have taken pictures in Communist East Germany and this hasn't happened to me. Only in St. Paul."

Maybe one-time St. Paulite and famed photographer Gordon Parks was righter than he knew when he said he chose a camera, albeit for very different reasons, as his "weapon of choice."

Have you been stopped or asked for ID while taking pictures in downtown St. Paul as the Republican National Convention approaches? Post your story in the comments below and, if you're willing, send your contact information to me here."
Posted 16 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

torbakhopper  Pro User  says:

nice to see that vergo913 and dill8 are not members of the flickr community

both clearly have anger issues and an inability to control themselves in public forums without resorting to childish behavior

and yes, vergo913, as you have never identified yourself or where you were or anything of the sort, you are definitely belligerent and ignorant. i think few would disagree with that statement...
Posted 16 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

iowapix  Pro User  says:

nice to see that vergo913 and dill8 are not members of the flickr community

I call that the "Photo.net troll syndrome" where those with the biggest mouths have nothing to show for themselves.
Posted 16 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

Mr:Burns says:

A real psycho this Simon Blint. The man is a big son of his mother.
Posted 16 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

I'll fight you for that sandwich says:

*ssholes generally sport goatees
Posted 16 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

LVshooter  Pro User  says:

Glorified mall cop. And jerk. Is it wrong to say that even if photos WERE being taken of cleavage...uh, it that somehow illegal now, too? The whole thing was a fiasco. The whole idea of "intrusion" into someone's privacy, in a public space, is dopey. The law is ultimately on the side of photographers, thankfully.
Posted 16 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

Arty Smokes  Pro User  says:

I think he has a nicely trimmed beard and there should be a flickr group set up solely for photos of this fine man.
--
Found in a search. (?)
Posted 15 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

sylectra  Pro User  says:

This is awesome. Way to go, Thomas! Score one for the photographers.
Posted 14 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

David Paul Ohmer  Pro User  says:

So you're allowed to shot photos in the atrium, and you got kicked out for doing something you're allowed to do. Lets keep this simple...sounds like you have a case(lawsuit) against SFMOMA. Go for it Thomas and keep us informed on your eventual win!
Posted 13 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

myrtlebough says:

Actually, your story is a lie based on a blackmail you posed to this very decent Simon Blint. You were sexually harassing an employee of his....and THAT is why you got kicked out, isn't it? And, you tried to blackmail this very Simon Blint into a cover-up by threatening him with internet lies, didn't you? Don't listen to this asshole, folks. He's a liar, a sexual predator, and a blackmailer, and Simon Blint is a decent, upstanding guy who did the right thing.
Posted 10 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

monkeytime  Pro User  says:

myrtlebough, do you have some new facts to offer into the discussion? Your statements that TH is a "sexual predator," that TH was "sexually harassing" a MOMA employee and that TH attempted to "blackmail" Blint are novel. Please share further.
Posted 10 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

Arty Smokes  Pro User  says:

@ myrtlebough: Libel on the internet is still libel. Why do anonymous people think it's OK (or even legal) to post bullshit and hearsay?
Calling someone a liar while not offering any facts yourself is rather juvenile and unhelpful.
Posted 10 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

Lisanne!  Pro User  says:

Passing off lies is the last resort of people who don't have a counter argument. I won't speculate as to who precisely Myrtlebough is, but it is obviously someone with a agenda. If events were as stated, why wasn't Thomas Hawk arrested for harassment?
Posted 10 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

Cairlinn  Pro User  says:

SFMOMA say; "We are a nonprofit organization of 353 individuals dedicated to the idea that art and museums can transform lives. By embracing the challenge of the new and unexpected, we hope to encourage fresh ways of seeing, thinking, and engaging with the world.

SFMOMA has a long history of excellence in exhibiting and collecting the foremost artists and designers of our time. But we also strive continuously to expand the range of cultural experiences we offer, and to provide as many ways as possible to make the art meaningful and accessible for our community.

In keeping with those goals, we have recently undertaken a number of projects designed to help visitors get more out of their time with SFMOMA"

Perhaps Simon Blint was just offering Thomas Hawk a new cultural experience.
Posted 5 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

Zel Ebrity says:

Zel Ebrity 133

www.ZELEBRITY.it

www.myspace.com/zelebrity133
Posted 6 weeks ago. ( permalink )

Would you like to comment?

Sign up for a free account, or sign in (if you're already a member).

[?]
view photos Uploaded on August 8, 2008
by Thomas Hawk

Thomas Hawk's photostream

33,872
uploads

This photo also belongs to:

SOMA (Set)

552
items

Photography is Not a Crime (Set)

22
items

San Francisco Museum of Modern Art (Set)

256
items

Renegade Photography (Set)

111
items

10 Faves or More (Set)

3,826
items

25 Faves or More (Set)

1,206
items

Tags

Click this icon to see all public photos and videos tagged with 10 10

Additional Information

AttributionNoncommercial Some rights reserved Anyone can see this photo

Add to your map
Anyone will be able to see this on the map
 (edit)