Photographing the DAVID
 

I wanted so much to photograph David, but there were guards standing around saying that it is not allowed. Why? For goodness sake, the flash won't melt the marble. I didn't, because I was told not to and wanted to follow the rules. When that rule is made, do you suppose it is for several reasons? To not bother others? To sell the great postcards in the gift shop? I'm not going to sell my photographs (I'm not that good.) Does anyone have an opinion on these rules?

Hi

Maybe they meant you could take pictures but not use flash. I think the flash damages the item over time. You need to consider that thousands of people are zapping the item with this extreme light so over time I could see how it could cause damage. I videotaped the statue without problems (or flash) but that was back in 2002. Policy could have changed. I found the policy of "no photos" even more confusing, particularly when visiting churches. Some allow photos, others don't.

I know that light damage on paint is irrepairable and I believe it also degrades the marble's surface color. Also, the David is annoying enough to see with all the people around. With photographers stopped to get "the perfect shot" it would be even worse.

I actually think that since there are so many postcards available, there is no reason to stop and take your own picture.

Hi P,

Photos are banned so that people will buy the ones in the museum store. They are better than the ones we amateurs could take, anyway.

((I))

You know, that's what I thought all along. I really wouldn't have taken as good a photo as the postcards. Although, it would be nice to have the photo to actually show that I was there.

I was told that it may do with copyrights (which situation, apparently also exists in other museums in Italy), and has nothing to do with the potential damage to the structure.

Flash is not going to destroy marble any quicker than the throngs of people breathing on it would. Remember The David sat outside in the elements for quite a long time before it was moved to The Accademia. Now a couple of thousand flashes a day on a Degas chalk would probably do some damage over time but marble is well, marble. There's a reason the make floors out of it.

Usually the main reason you can't take pictures is monetary (they want to keep the copyright and sell you books, postcards, etc). Secondary, flash is pretty annoying for other visitors.

You're right about the breath Cadillac that's why after they spent lots of money giving him a good scrub, the museum also installed a high-tech air system to keep the area dust free and clean it of other harmful things.

is this a change? 5 or 6 years ago, I don't remember there being any guards, or even any signs saying no photography. We took lots of photos. i can't remember if they allowed flash or not, i think we took no-flash pics.

I know in the Sistine when they did the restoration work, Sony paid for the work and hence owns the photo-rights. So you can't take pictures, you have to buy theirs.

You know ChinaCat, I was just thinking the same thing. I seem to recall that several years back a no-flash pix was ok with David, but I donot remember for certain. Does anyone remember?

With that said, I cannot tell you how many people we saw taking flash pictures during our most recent trip to Italy, it was disgraceful. My DH couldn't believe it. Big signs everywhere and still they would snap their pix, many did get yelled at though.

Well, that's just it! Many people will always say, "Rules are meant to be broken". It's just not so. Rules are made to follow and respect. That is why when I was right in the presence of David, I didn't take the photo. It killed me, but rules are rules. I also saw people taking the pictures, some with flash, and other without and some trying to sneak a photo off to the side or with a camera hidden in their pockets, etc.

More and more, people are trying to get away with not following the rules, and that goes for lots of situations. I always ask at a museum if it will be alright to photograph something. If they say, "No", then so be it, it's "No".

"Although, it would be nice to have the photo to actually show that I was there."

You mean your friends won't believe you unless you show them a picture?

Dozens of people were taking pictures, including me and the guards had no problem with it. The rule was "no flash" when I was there last. Who would want a flash anyway with the perfect natural lighting from above?

I too am amazed how many people take flash pictures everywhere even when instructed not to. Usually they act all sorry as if they thought the flash was turned off. Then they go to the next room and do the same thing again.

I think the 'No Photos...Period' is starting to become more of the norm all over since apparently a signifigant portion of the public cannot be trusted with the 'No Flash' policy.

In 2002 there was a 'no photo policy' in place at the Accademia

Trying to see a work of art with flashbulbs going off around is very annoying, not to mention hard on one's eyes. Anyone trying to see the Mona Lisa at peak hours in the Louvre will see primarily the backs of the heads of other people taking photographs.

When we were there in 2000 you could take no flash photos, in 2004 it was no photos period.

I like the no photo policy. Was there last December and one can actually walk pretty close to it and enjoy the sculpture. Instead of looking at people crowding the place to have their photos taken in front of David.

Same reason I love the Borghese in Rome.

If you want a photo in front of "a" David, go do it at the replica in front of Palazzo Vecchio.

The Louvre won't let you take photos in certain very busy areas. Not because of any possible damage but because of the blocked views.

Neopolitan, I Just like to take pictures of myself, together with my husband, in front of monuments, a great statue, church, etc. I know that I have been to see a site without my photo, but I enjoy seeing the picture of us during our vacation together and remembering the time we had.

With very rare exceptions, flash does no harm to art. It has no effect at all on stone, and its effect on paintings or any other art object that is already being displayed in normal artificial or natural light is too small to be significant.

Additionally, old works of art are not protected by copyright. Certainly David would be in this category.

The real reasons for prohibiting photos are usually monetary, or occasionally logistic. The arguments about protecting the artwork are bogus, but are used because people are less likely to object to them.

They definitely had a no photo policy when we went last year, and I was surprised to see a lot of people surreptitiously sneaking pictures even though a stern female guard (who seemed to be in charge) kept shushing everyone and yelling - no pictures...

I wasn't even tempted to sneak a picture after seeing a few tourists reprimanded by her:)

I've been to see the David on 4 separate trips in different years, and I've always been able to take photos. Now, they have recently (late last year I believe) finished the restoration and maybe they changed the rules?? I don't know. I know I have taken many through the years. It's probably the flash thing. That is my guess. OF course, many many years ago on trips to the Tower of London, I was always able to take pictures inside the little chapel, and the last visit they said "No photos allowed" so through the years that rule changed.

We are fairly involved in our local museum, and the experts there say that camera flashes do do damage to paintings. Of course, they are also careful that the paintings are displayed so as not to be exposed to direct sunlight, also.

I was a bit surprised to find some European museums where the works were not apparently protected from sunlight, and the windows were even open. Perhaps they drape the windows when the sun threatens their paintings. It was quite a contrast from home, where the museum is strictly climate controlled, with recording devices in almost every gallery to check the temperature and humidity.

Because I know of the damage that flashes cause to paintings, I never use a flash to take a picture of a painting, even when it is allowed. I always ask on entering what the policy is. Some museums bar photography, some bar flash photography, and some bar flash photography only for the paintings; statuary is fair game. Frankly, it is easy to forget to turn off the flash, so if I ran a museum I would either ban flash, or ban photography altogether (just because it would be easier to administer that policy).

It is true that there is an economic incentive for museums to bar photography so we will buy their pictures. I rue that policy, because at the end of our trip, I have my most meaningful pictures done up in a book, which becomes a memento of our visit; I suppose I could buy their best picture, take a picture of the picture, and get it into my book that way. But still, I didn't see any pictures for sale of the slaves at the Accademia, which I had found very moving, so I have a picture of a slave only in our book on Paris.

On our next visit to Florence, I am going to have my wife bring her pencils and do a sketch, which is permitted, even though it takes far longer than taking a picture.

Bingo! I think photography is banned mostly because the overwhelming majority of point-and-shooters haven't a clue how to turn their camera's flash off. Or what it can and can't do, for that matter. The amount of light that's wasted at sporting events (where the subject is 500' from the flash) could illuminate a small country.

Since guards can't be expected to screen every camera and ensure that the flash is disabled, the museums simply draw the line at "no photography." On occasion, I have shown museum personnel my manual film camera and they allowed me to photograph.

The experts say just the opposite: flash has no real effect on paintings (and of course it has no effect on sculptures, either).

Damage to paintings from light is a function of total light exposure. The light from a photo flash is insignificant compared to the light illuminating a painting under normal viewing conditions in a museum (be it natural or artificial light). Any painting sufficiently sensitive to be damaged by photo flashes would be so delicate that it could not be kept on display. And any painting that is on display is being damaged so much by the light that normally falls upon it that the tiny increment of light provided by even a large number of photo flashes is insignificant.

In other words, the arguments about flash damaging paintings are 100% bogus. Competent curators know this but they may still encourage the myth for their own purposes.

Thank you all for responding, -- I've learned a lot.