You aren't signed in     Sign In    Help

More on the Whole Simon Blint Fiasco

Super Jerk
haha. note the foot up power stance. what a douchebag
simon, you are getting your just desserts for acting like a child when your job requires ADULT-like behavior
nice boobies
That's a chick?
notice how he isn't getting chucked out? because he doesn't have an attitude problem. if they tell you to stop taking photos, there's not need to go on a rant about your rights or anything. afraid to even use your own name on your blog, you are engaging in mud-slinging with a member of the public.
My point is that you are sullying a good man's reputation with this unnecessary war. Maybe the female employee felt uncomfortable and told Blint? Maybe Blint knows about the 5D's pixel densities? The 14mm lens won't fill her in the frame, but it will at original size. Odd, you disabled it.
i stood next to th during the whole episode. you didn't. your opinion is a good one and i agree with you. the point is that blint was irrational and made up sexual accusations. get it? is that cool? is this SEXY to you?
Isn't this the original?
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
More on the Whole Simon Blint Fiasco by Thomas Hawk.
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.

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

Comments

< Prev 1 2
(106 comments)
view profile

Love Of Carnage! says:

you should have chinned him! great shot!
Posted 16 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

astrogirl529  Pro User  says:

I think for all the controversy the image is great!
Posted 16 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

pfeyh  Pro User  says:

what about the allegation that you were ejected for eating McDonald's food in a "no food" area and dropping fries over the balcony?
Posted 16 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

taylorkoa22  Pro User  says:

Where in the hell did I put the water balloons?......Oh, here they are!!!
Posted 16 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

~C4Chaos  Pro User  says:

thanks for clarifying this and showing more compassion for the other party involved. good luck with your 1,000 published photo goal.

~C
Posted 16 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

Thomas Hawk  Pro User  says:

Haha, Patrick that was by a troll and certainly not the real Simon Blint. I don't generally eat McDonalds and was not eating food at all at the SF MOMA. torbakhopper, his friend Pete, mrsth and I on the other hand had a delightful Mexican food lunch in the Mission before we made our way down to the SF MOMA.
Posted 16 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

chegs  Pro User  says:

I don't like what went on but I'm really liking this photo
Posted 16 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

nahl says:

TH, people like Blint deserve this, "don't be sorry, Th" you stand tall, while this jerk blint looks small and petty.
Posted 16 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

dssstrkl  Pro User  says:

You might as well post all the relevant images, just to keep all those anonymous trolls quiet. In any case, I don't see any down shirts or fries in that pic, just a self-righteous jerk.
If people are worried about what consequences might befall Blint, they need to remember that actions, particularly public and humiliating confrontations with members of the public while representing a large institution, have consequences.
Posted 16 months ago. ( permalink )

tephdra [deleted] says:

A lot of emotion in such a wide angle shot. Mostly emanating from that little man way down there...

--
Seen in my contacts' photos. (?)
Posted 16 months ago. ( permalink )

immaculatious [deleted] says:

Somehow I suspect Mr. Blint may not have realized what turmoil he was getting himself into....
Posted 16 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

Thomas Hawk  Pro User  says:

Automatt, I shoot every single day of my life, hundreds of shots every day. I think part of it is simply that I spend 95% of my life with a camera in my hands.
Posted 16 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

Planet Vicster  Pro User  says:

My job requires a ton of contact with the public and I admit there are lots of days where I'm completely exasperated and fed up and it could well be that Simon Blint was just having *one of those days* and one of his employees pointed you out and he lost his rag. But we'll never really know his side of the story because so much time has passed now and anything that comes from SFMOMA will be a filtered account of what happened.

That being said, if he had to get two security guards to deal with you, then he was in waaaay over his head and he needed to call in HIS boss to deal with the situation. Since security was involved, there is likely an incident report sitting on someone's desk and I hope, upon review, Mr. Blint and the rest of the SFMOMA staff realize that there are better ways to deal with these situations--ways that don't open him and his facility up to a lawsuit.

It's disconcerting to think that the next time I go to SFMOMA I may well need to have a copy of The Photographer's Rights, SFMOMA's camera/photography policy AND an attorney with me.
Posted 16 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

andrew71ca says:

Simon says: "No photos for you!" :)

Good to see you standing up for your rights and the rights of all photographers. It will be interesting to see how this situation resolves.
Posted 16 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

torbakhopper  Pro User  says:

what i LOVE about TH is his passion for the creative pursuit of photography as a lifestyle. his camera is an extension of his personality and his photos, which he shares with a generosity that is rarely seen and frequently admired by those of us who learn from his perspective on a daily basis. everywhere he goes, he lets his eyes and camera record the nuances and wide spectrum of life -- isn't that why we all peruse his stream?!?!?!

thank you, TH, for all the work you do and share with us.

@ planet vicster: as a bystander and witness to the entire scene, your scenario is patently NOT what happened. i understand your sense of empathy, but the actuality is that mr. blint was out of control and does not deserve the title of "visitor relations"


i am appalled by his behavior AND accusations. he actually insinuated that i was a pervert who looks down female blouses and enjoys that process of photographing them. i find this UNACCEPTABLE, especially in a public setting and HAVE NO SYMPATHY for his perspective. he was a control freak who was willing to defame himself in a public setting. in my opinion, he does not deserve the right to be a visitors' relation representative of the museum.
Posted 16 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

Rafael Coelho Salles / rscsales  Pro User  says:

I'm really liked your good work!!!

For a good time I was looking at your works, and do I wonder, where does its inspiration come from?

Congrats!!!!
Posted 16 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

blehk says:

very cool
Posted 16 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

pdxsean  Pro User  says:

As always, Thomas, it's great to have you out there fighting the good fight. It's because of you that I feel comfortable standing up to the security and over zealous employees that try to prevent me from legally practicing my art of street photography.

I've sent an email to the MOMA in protest, assuring them that they will not be on my agenda when I visit your fair city.
Posted 16 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

Bill Stickers -c  Pro User  says:

you can't even tell that the employee is female from that angle
Posted 16 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

Groovymarlin  Pro User  says:

This is really a great shot. Ironically, the only person in this photograph displaying anything that even slightly resembles "cleavage" is Simon Blint himself!
Posted 16 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

Ruud Welten  Pro User  says:

It looks like Simons Blint's Facebook was the top result on his name on google before this incidint. It isn't now ...

Still I'd say blogging about this was the right thing to do.
Posted 16 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

torbakhopper  Pro User  says:

just to put a word in, VISIT the museum!!!!
it is AWESOME and worthy of your time
the collections are incredible, the architecture is inspiring

please DO NOT boycott the sf moma based on the actions of a little person like blint. that would be tragically unfair to yourself!
Posted 16 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

hagbard73  Pro User  says:

Great photo and interesting food for thought. As an amateur, I've certainly taken far fewer photos than you and have only been asked to stop once or twice and the situation always seemed to be handled better than this.

It's interesting to me though to think about the idea of "checking photography" that you mention. I'm wondering if "checking" here is synonymous with "controlling"/"halting" or rather with "inspecting"?

If it's "controlling", then the museum should hire someone with better people skills to better handle situations such as this where other patrons and staff are included in a photo.

If it's "inspecting", then there's the slippery slope. If we don't want people inspecting/approving the images that we take... but you offered to show them to him anyway... Who is the ultimate arbiter? And, does the museum really want to review every frame captured?

You've certainly got me thinking with this one. Love your work.
Posted 16 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

brancusi7  Pro User  says:

power corrupts.
Posted 16 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

Dan's sordid & sundry pictures  Pro User  says:

Oh baby, where can I get more hot photos of that yellow humanoid shape? I just can't get enough of...is it a her?
Posted 16 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

Salvatore Mangione  Pro User  says:

Nice shot!
Posted 16 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

pdxsean  Pro User  says:

I am really surprised MOMA hasn't responded to this yet. Could they be so out of touch? Do they think a passive "please stay on topic" mention on their blog will get out in front of this thing? Do they not have people reading their contact email, where I (and surely others) have expressed disappointment with the actions of their employees?

It's amazing that such an institution could be so behind the times that they don't promptly and properly respond to an issue such as this.
Posted 16 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

pdxsean  Pro User  says:

Why should the SFMOMA respond to this? Only because it has gotten thousands of hits on high profile internet sites. Because it has gotten media attention as far away as the UK. Because a major museum should be on top of their potential PR black eye.

I'm guessing that the people at the SF MOMA don't believe that this will affect them in a negative way. Maybe they are right. I think that it already has. Perhaps they are doing the right thing in not responding. That doesn't mean I can't be surprised that they haven't.

Should Thomas be ashamed of being a vocal proponent of our legal rights as photographers? It is because of Mr. Hawk's public advocacy that many street photographers such as myself feel empowered to stand up for our rights when confronted for taking perfectly legal photos in a public space.
Posted 16 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

very1silent  Pro User  says:

There actually seems to have been a (somewhat covert) response. SFMOMA has changed this page from reading:


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

to reading:

Photography is allowed for personal, noncommercial use, except where noted. Flash photography and videography are not allowed in the galleries. Tripods are not allowed.

The latter reflects the policy SFMOMA told Thomas Hawk that they would be following starting on July 14.
Posted 16 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

charles villyard  Pro User  says:

Seems to me their response might just be to pull the plug on the whole photography thing? I am at times a street photographer myself, I have been escorted off properties and even taken to the police station where I was easily able to defend my right to photograph in public spaces. Photographers have been harassed since the camera was invented. The only difference is that in the past they would suck it up, sneak off and print the photos that they got. Now they blog about it and try to play the victim in the hope of crushing an evil non-profit entity such as the SFMOMA.
Posted 16 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

cristelos says:

i like this photo its very interesting...


jejejejjejejej
Posted 16 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

Steve Hopson  Pro User  says:

Unfortunately we are living in a time where the right to photograph is increasing under attack. I agree with your blogged appraisal of the irony of a museum displaying Cartier-Bresson and then denying a photographer's ability to shoot in a public area. Keep up the good work - your photos are very interesting.
Posted 16 months ago. ( permalink )

__mA( [deleted] says:

cool!
Posted 16 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

monkeytime  Pro User  says:

@ the state bird: 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.
--
Seen on thomashawk.com (?)
Posted 16 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

[ L.K ] 夜 says:

Brilliant photo

L.K
Posted 16 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

Chuckumentary  Pro User  says:

My better half works at the Minneapolis Institute of Arts, where she organized a Flickr photo walk to encourage photography and get staff used to the whole idea of openness.

SF MOMA needs someone like that, not a freakin' bouncer.
Posted 16 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

dsnraju17 says:

G
Posted 16 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

nishant_tencom says:

Nis
Posted 16 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

Anthony Ching / Sickwitit Photography  Pro User  says:

Well...all being said......the guy made the shot in my opinion....random people wandering about oblivious to what's around them.....then there's Blint.....standing all serious and sh!t.....posing for the shot.........you should give him one and thank him....and ask him for a model release...then kick his ass!!!
Posted 16 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

Anthony Ching / Sickwitit Photography  Pro User  says:

oh and stop shooting down womens tops...............lol
Posted 16 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

_ Claudio Brazil ♫  Pro User  says:

Great
Posted 16 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

sheryl stephen / WaveOfModulation  Pro User  says:

BS
Edited to add : This really seems like self interest & puffery. Not at all balanced or respectful.
Posted 16 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

charles villyard  Pro User  says:

Hey Monkeytime....Yes I understand sarcasim. Yes I get it that fools are being sarcatic. I suppose then it would be OK if I found your picture on your photostream and put some notes regarding your nice boobies and whether or not you are really a man? Of course you did not ask for a comment like that to be made on your person. Neither did the person sitting in the chair. I was actually prepared to leave those notes but I noticed you had the notes feature turned off....smart man. Anyway all I am saying is that comments are now being misdirected, this whole event is being overblown and more than anything....this argument is incredibly one sided. Thomas Hawk is no saint. Neither is Simon but he does not deserve this bashing. No body mentions the fact that a complaint was made by one of the women on the front line concerning Thomas Hawk and Simon came over to protect his co-workers. The story just starts from Hawks perspective that Simon wrongly accused him. Also....heres another eye witness account I found on the SFist blog....

"I was at the museum on Friday and saw this whole thing go down. Thomas Hawk's account of what happened is unabashedly one-sided. What he neglects to mention is that he was standing on a balcony with his camera pointed down, aiming directly into the shirt/cleavage of one of the female employees working at the museum. Simon Blint asked Thomas Hawk to stop taking photos in order to protect his staff from a creepy perv, not because he was using a dSLR or for whatever BS reason Thomas Hawk claims.

Seriously, that museum is photographed by visitors constantly; do you really think that Thomas Hawk was randomly, forcibly ejected for no reason at all? I feel bad for Simon, as no one has really heard his side of the story."

anyway and very lastly...I can't say I am a fan of Thomas Hawks photos but this one in particular is kinda cool. Its too bad he didn't suck it up, post his photo and let everyone rave about how cool he is. Instead he has convinced me that he and Simon are one in the same. Two ego-maniacal fools who think they are right and nothing else matters. Both of them need to get over themselves and stop damaging the reputation of SFMOMA.
Posted 16 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

harpy  Pro User  says:

i just posted about this on my flickr stream.
fyi.

www.flickr.com/photos/harpy/2613771426
Posted 16 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

charles villyard  Pro User  says:

Right on Harpy!
Posted 16 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

Whole Wheat Toast  Pro User  says:

nice!
Posted 16 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

ashi  Pro User  says:

Hi, I'm an admin for a group called Photography is not a crime, and we'd love to have this added to the group!
Posted 16 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

Brynn.  Pro User  says:

I've read a lot of other places where you've written that you have been avoiding to 'financially support the SF MOMA.' Do you really think the MOMA needs YOUR support?

It doesn't matter what they're kicking you out for, whether it be down-blousing or nose-picking. The fact is, they CAN. They're an established organization with rules. Rules that you weren't following. This isn't about your rights as a photographer. The SF MOMA isn't public property. Somebody owns it, and somebody owns each and every piece of art that is displayed there at any given time. People are paid to sit down and discuss how they can cater to you as the guest and make your visit a pleasant one while at the same time respecting laws or requests of the featured artists. They're not trying to be the bad guy here. They're on your side.

Also, they shouldn't have to respond to this at all. You're a teeny tiny blip on their radar. You ruined one employee's day, maybe week. Congrats. In the big scheme of things, you mean nothing to them. Paint it on a sign and wave it in their faces, it's been done and will accomplish nothing. Don't expect them to change their minds about major policies just because you threw a tantrum about it.

Read up on copyright laws. It's pretty hard to do much with a photo without signed consent of all models involved. Good luck.

If you were really and truly concerned about the reputation of this particular employee, you'd man up, apologize and remove whatever rants you have floating around the internet.
Posted 16 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

Dan's sordid & sundry pictures  Pro User  says:

"Rules that you weren't following."

Um...isn't that the whole point - that he *was* following the rules, that he offered to *prove* it, and that the people responsible for enforcing the rules instead made a mockery of their own rules by forcibly ejecting a paying customer who did nothing against their rules and offered to provide proof?

The way business works is that one person offers a good or service to another, who pays for it. If one person accepts payment and then fails to provide the good or service offered, it's not just rude, it's unethical. That is what MOMA did (or, at least, one fool they had working for them).

TH is doing MOMA, as well as everyone else, a favor if he can get them to start enforcing their own rules correctly and/or remove those (i.e. Blint) who destroy the economic relationship between MOMA and its customers, and who make a mockery of his own institution's rules.

The only one who suffers here is Blint, the man who chose to subvert both his employer's rules and anything resembling human civility. And that was his choice - a choice he affirmed several times. He even said he didn't care if his actions were blogged. This is all by his will.

No one with integrity complains about the publicization of actions they knowingly and willingly took. That is the definition of deception and lack of integrity.

It's telling that even those who criticize TH - including those who were there - can't claim that TH was doing what he was accused of (and, really, who's seen a downblouse on this photostream?), or that Blint didn't do what he is said to have done here. Some people just like to stand up for the establishment, or to take potshots at whoever's winning. Shame on them.
Posted 16 months ago. ( permalink )

leather donut [deleted] says:

Dan,

The problem is that there is only TH's claim that he was following the rules as well as the fact that he has repeatedly flouted rules when he feels like it.

See thomashawk.com/2007/11/on-renegade-photograph y.html and tell me that that's okay. What's more telling is that he was doing this at the MOMA.
Posted 16 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

Dan's sordid & sundry pictures  Pro User  says:

That is a very good point - in a different dicussion.

It's not relevant here because this is not about TH; it's about MOMA and Mr. Blint.

Though it's a hopelessly flawed and probably dangerous analogy, take Rodney King. King is almost undoubtedly a complete SOB, but if he did not do something on March 3, 1991, that made it necessary for the LAPD to stomp and beat him in order to protect and serve the citizens of Los Angeles, then the fact that they, as police officers, used their power to beat a man brutally isn't any less valid just because he happened to be a jerk.

Or...if I happen to assult a total stranger walking down the street and it turns out that the stranger I just beat with a shovel is actually a child abuser, does that make my decision to brutalize a stranger ok?

I don't know Mr. "Hawk," so I won't comment on his character. Certainly the MOMA had reason to complain, and to throw him out, when he took those "renegade" pictures.

But they didn't. The fact that they threw out an innocent man who happened to have been previously guilty was just dumb luck. They threw him out not for some rule he had broken in the past, but according to a completely false accusation in the present, which they refused to view the evidence against.

Aside from appreciating some of his photographs and hoping that he reaches his lifetime goal of 100,000 pictures or whatever, I don't know or care at all for Mr. "Hawk" personally. But I do care for the rights of photographers, and for institutions like MOMA both to uphold their business practices and to treat people decently. And that, not Mr. "Hawk's" character or previous obedience or disobedience to the rules, is the issue.

(If MOMA knew who he was and intended to punish him for his previous "renegade photography," they should have refused to accept his money and admit him. They should have refused him business. Not taken his money and then failed to hold up their end of the bargain.)
Posted 16 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

Love Of Carnage! says:

"MOMA said lock you out!" ... sorry.
Posted 16 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

stefanv says:

Mr. Hawk, congratulations on being so incredibly full of yourself.

This one-sided 'story' of yours is not about SF MOMA. It is not about Mr. Blint. It is not about harrassment. It is not about the rights of photographers - don't even get in into your head for one second that you're representing me with this. And it is most certainly not about art.

It is about one pitiful thing: you. It is about the glorification of the sad little man that you obviously are.

You thought it only fair to warn Blint that you would be blogging about the incident? Puh-leaze! You're lucky he didn't laugh in your face - I would have.

Be proud, Mr. Hawk, be very proud of yourself. Enjoy all the comments and attention to the fullest - even the small bit I'm giving you right now. You've obviously earned every bit of it.
Posted 16 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

very1silent  Pro User  says:

SFMOMA official response:
www.sfmoma.org/press/pressroom.asp?id=371& do=recent
Posted 16 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

lightboxdc says:

Hawk: I suggest you get a lawyer to look at SFMOMA's response. They are making some very strong assertions about you, and you have photographic evidence that appears to contradict their assertions. And let's have their security camera video content brought out in discovery, and see if it backs up their assertions.
Posted 16 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

lightboxdc says:

Brynn wrote: "Read up on copyright laws. It's pretty hard to do much with a photo without signed consent of all models involved. Good luck."

Actually, since you're holding forth on the law in this matter, why not just further enlighten us with some cites, Brynn? People in public are a matter of copyright, not privacy case law?

I think I know who should "read up", and it isn't Hawk.
Posted 16 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

Dan's sordid & sundry pictures  Pro User  says:

"You thought it only fair to warn Blint that you would be blogging about the incident? Puh-leaze! You're lucky he didn't laugh in your face - I would have."

Considering that this blogging made Blint's doucheness common knowledge to millions (even the top story on digg), it was really the courteous thing for "Hawk" to do. And anyone who'd laugh about the fact that him being an ass was read about by millions of people is either extremely antisocial or extremely stupid.
Posted 16 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

scubapup  Pro User  says:

what a stupid response from the museum
Posted 16 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

stefanv says:

DansSordidNSundryPictures: you say you don't know Mr. "Hawk," so you won't comment on his character. But you do know Mr. Blint personally, I'm sure. Cause that makes it okay to call him an ass based on the one-sided story of someone you claim you don't even know. You know Mr. Blint, so you've experienced his doucheness first hand, obviously. Right?

Ever considered this scenario: you are in your work environment and one of your team members feels threatened or harrassed by a stranger. What are you gonna do? Who's word are you gonna believe? Mr. Blint acted in a responsable way. It wasn't about wether or not Hawk took photographs he wasn't allowed to take. It was about safeguarding his team member. If you want to discuss the manner in which he did? Fine. But this online crucifiction? Ridiculous.

There are numerous blogs out there that are extremely relevant. Mr. Hawk's ego-blog isn't one of them. If digg picked this up, to me that only proves the 'danger' of everybody blogging and feeling the need to throw their 'fascinating' opinions out there: the pile of written crap on the net has become too big to filter and find the really interesting stuff.

And that is all the energy I'm wasting on this.
Posted 16 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

Dan's sordid & sundry pictures  Pro User  says:

No, but I've heard the statements of several people about Blint's actions, and those statements are pretty clear. Anyone who can't find all they need to know about the man's character - at least as it relates to the job he is payed to do - is working pretty hard at staying blind.

I've heard no such statements about TH, only the accusations of those like you who don't know him. Thus I won't judge what I have no information about.

Who am I gonna believe? Someone who is offering evidence of his innocence. There is nothing "responsible" about a director of guest relations refusing to check the evidence before throwing out the guest. Why should TH be guilty not only until proven innocent, but guilty and refused the opportunity to prove himself innocent? What is this, Gitmo?
Posted 16 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

sandor21 says:

you need therapy dude
Posted 16 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

sandor21 says:

calling out someone by name like that who is trying to make a living, seems like you an awful lot of free time. Get a life seriously, if they don't want a photo taken inside, get over it. I guess i am a first rate jerk too.
Posted 16 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

lightboxdc says:

@ stefanv: nice job repeating SFMOMA's talking points about an imagined threat to staff. It isn't backed up by the photographic evidence.

@ sandor21: "if they don't want a photo taken inside" Did you miss the part where photography *is* permitted?

facts are fun
Posted 16 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

Dan's sordid & sundry pictures  Pro User  says:

"Someone who is tryint to make a living" ought to do his job correctly, or at least try.

"If they don't want a photo taken inside," they can say so before they accept people's money on false pretenses.
Posted 16 months ago. ( permalink )

SF Lights [deleted] says:

I work at Safeway. If someone has a complaint about a customer or an employee (anybody), then we have to do something about it. Safeway doesn't permit photography either. I'd love to watch this bandwagon of "sheep", but I have to break some bad news to you all. The SFMOMA is a privately owned organization, they use a pass system for access. They are not entirely public, so the right to take photos is a privledge in there. The second that Thomas was asked to stop taking photos, his privledge was revoked. What Simon (By the way, why use his whole name, so you can get revenge on him and humiliate like "he did to you") did was only in his own job, and he had every right to do so.

Thomas, you are a nusiance when it comes to many things. Your constant whining about being banned from DeleteMe, the fact that you got someone fired, how others hate you for taking their picture when they ask you not to, so I find it so hard for you to believe that this was just a case of someone else being a jerk to you. Face it, you don't have that bad of luck with a camera. You're arrogant and you like to gloat about what the amendments allow you to do. Did you ever consider the ethics of what you were doing though? I don't think that you ever consider the ethics behind what you're doing, even if the person isn't asking you as nicely as you would like.
Posted 16 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

Dan's sordid & sundry pictures  Pro User  says:

And the privelege was revoked arbitrarily, in violation to their own standards.

If you stopped someone at the door of your Safeway and accused them of stealing something, - a case of beer or whatever they sell at safeway - and refused to watch the surveillance footage that proved they had in fact payed for the beer, and took that beer away from them after they'd paid you for it, you should be fired.

So should Blint. That is an exactly analogous situation. Your analogy was not exactly analogous; it was exactly apples to oranges.

And Blint *said* it was ok to use his name. He said he didn't care. Does he need people like you to defend him against his own decision to allow his name to be used? Is he a baby?
Posted 16 months ago. ( permalink )

SF Lights [deleted] says:

Actually we can do that at Safeway, and we shouldn't be fired for it. We did it last night, and the person was arrested.

You're right, the comparison isn't the same...but either way it's their property and they can do whatever they want to in it. Thomas Hawk had no right to keep taking photos after being asked to stop. There's nothing else more to it, Simon Blint could be the nicest person ever, but TH has a reputation of giving people bad names on the internet. He shouldn't be fired, first of all, because there's no real proof that Blint was that rude other than TH's story, which if you're objective, would be held skeptically. He shouldn't be fired until the real story comes out, and if you were objective you would understand that.
Posted 16 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

Dan's sordid & sundry pictures  Pro User  says:

At Safeway, you can have a person arrested while willfully suppressing evidence?

I just got a little prouder that I've never shopped there.

Their right to do "whatever they want to" is limited when they enter a business agreement with a customer. In MOMA's case, the customer (TH) pays them $30 or whatever in exchange to photograph the museum in accordance with their rules. By taking his money in exchange for providing that service, MOMA is giving up their right to not provide the service (at least without refunding the money).

Otherwise, it's theft.

Also, there are corroborating witnesses to TH's story.

Furthermore, the photo above - the one you're commenting on - is the proof that he followed their rules (unless he was hiding a second camera up his sleeve just in case a good downblousing chance came along). So there's no question he wasn't breaking their rules; you are commenting on the evidence itself.

I suppose maybe he and the corroborating witnesses are all lying about him offering this evidence in his favor - maybe he really wanted to get kicked out rather than to get to photograph the art he just paid to photograph; maybe he gets weird pleasure from that - but unless he and the others are lying about that (and there's no incentive for them to lie about it) there's nothing to dispute.
Posted 16 months ago. ( permalink )

SF Lights [deleted] says:

There's no proof to believe that the accusation that TH stated is even true about the blouse, and there won't be until we get real proof of what happened, if we ever get it.
Posted 16 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

Dan's sordid & sundry pictures  Pro User  says:

So...he & everyone are lying?

Why?

How?

And, if this is so, why didn't MOMA say so in their statement?

Doesn't add up, objectively.
Posted 16 months ago. ( permalink )

SF Lights [deleted] says:

You're still taking Thomas's side of the story.
Posted 16 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

lightboxdc says:

Actually, Dans seems to be taking the side of logic, linear thought, and photographic evidence.
Posted 16 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

Shadowgolem  Pro User  says:

I can't tell that the person in yellow is a female. Even in the large version. It could be a guy with long hair and 80's fasion sense.

Is it just me or does it seem like the damn burst on Lake Stupid and we are up to our eyeballs in it?
Posted 16 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

Dan's sordid & sundry pictures  Pro User  says:

I'm taking the side of every single person whose account is available, the stated rules of MOMA, the way business works, the photographic evidence, and logic.

SFLights is taking the side of "I don't like Thomas Hawk." People like that don't change their minds.

Oh well...who cares?
Posted 16 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

Chris.Andrews  Pro User  says:

I found it amusing that the MOMA response said "...allow photographers to take pictures of ... the museum’s public spaces."

I guess they mean the public spaces in which there is no public.
Posted 16 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

SuzOH says:

I’ve been reading this post and Thomas’ blog on what happened and I finally had to put my 2 cents worth in.
I am a lawyer, am I’ve seen way too many misstatements of the law here and on other sites. The law is waaaay more complicated than I can set out in a short post, but I’ll do my best to get the basics out.

1. Brynn wrote about copyright laws affecting how you can use a person’s photo. She was probably thinking of Privacy laws. In CA, this is Civil Code section 3344, which prohibits you from using a photograph of an identifiable person in an advertisement without their permission. Every state that I have been in has had a similar law. Aside from use in commercial advertisements, you can do what you want with that photo, post it to your blog or flickr, or maybe even sell it as art (See Nussenzweig v. diCorcia, 832 N.Y.S.2d 510).

2.Libel and slander: Libel is written and slander is spoken. SFMOMA could be in trouble for both. If the Director of Visitor Operations yelled across the lobby to TH, and accused him of photographing down an employee’s blouse, he may have committed slander by making the accusation in a way that other people heard it. Likewise, the museum, in their post, confirmed that they believed he was doing something immoral and potentially illegal (CA Penal Code 647). Making that kind of accusation with nothing to back it up is the way libel suits get started.

3.To note—calling someone an asshole or a jerk is not generally considered slander because there is an exception in the case law for things that are matters of personal opinion. Name-calling generally falls into the category of opinion.
Posted 16 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

torbakhopper  Pro User  says:

two days ago i was in the santa barbara art museum wandering through the permanent collections doing some photography of myself in front of pieces. the guard came up to me and said, "would like me to take a photograph of you in front of that piece?"

i smiled. ah, whatta great museum!!!!!

i wrote a personal letter to the sf moma on saturday. i explained the events the way they appeared to happen to me. i have not heard back from them. i don't expect to, though i suggested in my letter that it would be nice since blint had accused me of perverted behavior in public in front of a crowded foyer full of people

my point is this, TH was only one of the people involved in the blint hostility. blint had no reason, nor did i give him any, for being hostile to me and certainly no right to accuse me of perversion publicly.

if TH is guilty of anything, it's that he questioned blint for blint's behavior, accusations and continued to object to what appeared to be anyone's right to take photographs in the foyer as stated in the museum's guidelines and rules.

last time i checked, policies are put into place to create order. blint's decision to create disorder was his own.

i only wish y'all could've seen his face in action and the distorted anger over this incident. he was well down the road of a bad day and i hardly think that i should've had to suffer his indignities and patently false accusations.

should he lose his job? well, that's a tricky one. he was not exactly what i would call a "visitors' relation" kind of guy acting like a child as he did. that would be a decision that his superiors would make best, not based on this incident at all. none of us have the "right" to make that decision, imo.

however, more than anything, i hope this doesn't affect the museum's change in the photo policy. i felt lucky to be able to take photographs and interact with the art collections.
Posted 16 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

ja | castillo  Pro User  says:

...FTW...
Posted 16 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

Dan's sordid & sundry pictures  Pro User  says:

If TH wasn't getting "publicly admonished" then why did he end up out of the museum on his ass?

Why are people so irrational?
Posted 16 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

Studio H (Chris)  Pro User  says:

I came across this photograph without knowing who had taken it. As I read the description of the incident I found myself wondering if Thomas Hawk knew about it, as it sounded a lot like the type of experience he seems to run into frequently. Then I looked over at who the author was, and suddenly it all made sense.
Posted 16 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

Cynical At Last  Pro User  says:

I should preface this by saying that I fully support photographers rights to shoot anything that they like.

I also believe that you do not have the right to take pictures of some one who does not want to be photographed, and who specifically goes out of their way to ask you to stop.

It seems that in this case, you made the female employee feel uncomfortable to the point where some one else in the museum was inclined to act, and I don't think what they did was wrong.

The fact that you had a wide angle on the camera does not matter. The fact that you had a professional looking camera with a detachable lens breeds fear in people, as they assume that all of them are "ev0l telephotoz" that can see through clothes at 1000 yards.

If that camera made some one feel that you were violating their privacy you should have stopped.

Instead you pressed on, created in incident, then spun the facts to favor yourself.

Rally for your rights, but don't create problems for photographers by creating incidents and overstepping your bounds.
Posted 16 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

monkeytime  Pro User  says:

It seems that in this case, you made the female employee feel uncomfortable to the point where some one else in the museum was inclined to act, and I don't think what they did was wrong.
Well, that really is begging the question, isn't it, CAL? Simon apparently claims that the woman felt uncomfortable, but so far we have only his word on that. Moreover, Simon acted in a way that many of us think is inconsistent with that being his motivation. Thomas says that he offered to show Simon the images he'd taken. Simon could have looked at those, or even invited the woman over to see how unoffensive they were. This would have solved the problem, allowed the woman to feel comfortable and made everyone walk away happy. (No one seems to have suggested that there is anything offensive about the images themselves.)

Instead, according to Thomas, Simon refused to look at the images, refused to pay any attention to the fact that Thomas was shooting wide angle and called Thomas a pervert in front of a room full of people. All these factors make me doubt the vague claims proferred by Simon, the MOMA and their supporters. Indeed, even the SFist blog post that state bird quoted above does not support the claim that an employee felt uncomfortable. That quote says:
What [Thomas] neglects to mention is that he was standing on a balcony with his camera pointed down, aiming directly into the shirt/cleavage of one of the female employees working at the museum. Simon Blint asked Thomas Hawk to stop taking photos in order to protect his staff from a creepy perv...
There is nothing about an employee complaint. To the contrary, it suggests that Simon acted on his own and without any prompting. Mind you, this quote is of dubious value considering that it repeats the canard that Thomas was shooting "into the shirt/cleavage" of an employee, which seems wholly debunked by the images themselves. Still, if the only (apparent) detailed report supporting Simon fails to mention an employee complaint, it seems bizarre to rely on that as an excuse for Simon's behavior.

If in fact employees did feel uncomfortable, then double bad on Simon for failing to take care of his employees – first by refusing the opportunity to put everyone's mind at ease by reviewing Thomas's images and second by escalating the situation.

I've little doubt that Thomas can be an ass. I just don't think, based on the information available, that this was such an instance. On the other hand, if you can demonstrate that in fact Thomas "spun the facts to favor" himself, please present that information. We can then all reevaluate.
Posted 16 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

Studio H (Chris)  Pro User  says:

I'd also like to point out that ironically, in this very museum is an elevated bridge with a transparent floor that passes over a public area. This certainly has to be an uncomfortable area to cross for any patrons wearing a dress or skirt. This is where I'd be concerned with cameras, and not in the lobby.
Posted 16 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

razzzerphotography says:

such a great shot alot of emotion and the colours work really well.
Posted 16 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

Rubbyfaced funnyman Arthur Smokes  Pro User  says:

My theory is that the the female employee quietly mentioned to Blint that it would take a while for her to get used to the new "photography allowed" rule. As a way to impress the female employee (who Blint has probably been trying to get into bed for months) Blint decided to come over all macho and heroic when he saw the harmless TH shooting from above. Jumping to all the wrong conclusions, he got him kicked out, before he remembered his job title. If "visitor relations" means throwing people out without engaging in conversation, (Why didn't he just look at the photo?) then the museum has a problem.
What's most shocking is that they issued a press release (possibly written by Blint himself). Why did they feel the need to say "[Blint] 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"?
The obvious answer to such a statement is the photo above. If that's "inappropriate and harassing", one wonders about some of the art in the collection!
If street photographers are treated like criminals by art galleries, there's not much hope for us that shoot on the streets. :(
--
Seen in a discussion of the group "FlickrCentral" (?)
Posted 15 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

tsevis  Pro User  says:

Great view!
Posted 15 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

& Me  Pro User  says:

Wow, looks like you cause quite a stir! Simon has a facebook page, you should check it out. Anyway, I just have to throw my opinion in here. When a person is out in public, they should present themselves the way they would want to be though of. I can see in your photo that even if she did have a low cut shirt on, you would need a microscope to see it. And lets say she did have a low cut shirt on, she must have had a reason for doing so. Women can very easily decide to wear a non-revealing shirt, and when they choose not to, they should understand the attention that they may get may not be "professional". Simon Blint must be a Republican! Im surprised he can stand to work in a place that houses so much self expression.

--
Found in a search. (?) <--I was searching for something completely unrelated!
Posted 14 months ago. ( permalink )

leather donut [deleted] says:

MikeDowdNJ - You sir, are an idiot. All of this has been hashed out before. Thomas Hawk AKA Andrew Peterson (his real name) decided to lash out. This is only one side of the story.

Andrew has a well documented history of inciting confrontations and has even proudly stated what he calls "renegade photography" i.e. that he has on previous occasions blatantly photographed in the MOMA even though it was not permitted, just because he felt that he had a right. Well it's not a right and he has done a lot to set real photographers back in terms of working with organizations to allow photography.

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

Besides, taking closeups of things and upping the saturation while eyecatching is not real talent.
Posted 14 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

jakerome  Pro User  says:

Damn TH. When renowned photographers like leather donut unleash an attack on your photographic skill like that, you really have no choice but to hang up the camera and call it a career. Sorry bub.
Posted 14 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

monkeytime  Pro User  says:

jakerome – in leather donut's defense, he did call MikeDowd "sir." That shows a high level of class and sophistication. You know, like the Republican candidate for president, who similarly called his significant other by a derogatory term referring to the female genitalia and rhyming with "runt." Although McShame lacked the genius to advertise said significant other on Flickr and then Twitter the epithet and feature it prominently on his website.
Posted 14 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

Rubbyfaced funnyman Arthur Smokes  Pro User  says:

I think leather donut just got really angry because he uses flickr to look for porn, but this "cleavage view" was terribly disappointing. I mean, have you seen the one public (and probably stolen) image in his stream, or his profile? (His website is just great though. Gee, he's got talent!)
--
Seen in my recent comments. (?)
Posted 14 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

jakerome  Pro User  says:

Hey, I just realized we don't even know leather donut's real name.
Posted 14 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

i b r a h i m says:

nice!
Posted 14 months ago. ( permalink )

leather donut [deleted] says:

Google it.

All I see are you little player-haters with crappy pictures. @jakerome - You need a lot more practice. Composition, my friend. Same goes for you Arty.

BTW Arty, it's a linkblog not a website.
Posted 14 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

Rubbyfaced funnyman Arthur Smokes  Pro User  says:

Indeed. Calling it a website was granting you too much creativity.
--
Seen in my recent comments. (?)
Posted 14 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

ososment  Pro User  says:

What T.H. fails to mention is that he was shooting with a Sony in night mode and an IR filter attached...


;))
Posted 14 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

& Me  Pro User  says:

Haha, I googled "leather donut" and at urbandictionary.com it is said to be another name for asshole. So, thanks for giving me the idea "leather donut", you sure can prove yourself
Posted 14 months ago. ( permalink )

immaculatious [deleted] says:

why the fuck are you people STILL talking about this? oh yeah thats right...i forgot what some of you are all about. get a fucking life.
Posted 14 months ago. ( permalink )

< Prev 1 2
(106 comments)

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 10, 2008
by Thomas Hawk

Thomas Hawk's photostream

32,820
uploads

This photo also belongs to:

SOMA (Set)

531
items

Photography is Not a Crime (Set)

22
items

San Francisco Museum of Modern Art (Set)

236
items

10 Faves or More (Set)

3,767
items

25 Faves or More (Set)

1,186
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