Sue_xx_yy

< I just don't like the self obsessed who think taking a photo of food is a good idea. I do believe that food should not be advertised especially with anything containing sugar or any addictive content. Taking a photo of something that brings such misery to so many people is frankly disgusting. Look at all the type 2 diabetics around the western world and keep shoving pictures of food in their faces, especially small children why don't you. >

I read bilbo's post above and felt a hard tug on my leg as I read the part about food bringing misery to people and the implication that a picture of food could be a form of child abuse. The piece de resistance, i.e. what was for sure the giveaway that bilbo was not being serious, was the rhetorical question posed at the end, why don't you.

Perhaps being facetious should be banned. We'll call him (?) banned-o-burglar from now on.

What? Oh, yes, the OP's concern.

To paraphrase Yogi Berra, nobody wants to go to a museum that is too crowded. It doesn't matter what 100 of one's closest friends are doing, they could be sitting cross legged in front of "The Night Watch" and meditating, that would still annoy someone.

In some places one is allowed to sketch the paintings (part of learning to draw involves learning by copying the masters) provided one does so standing up. I think this would probably take up just as much space.

Sue_xx_yy

By the way CounterClifton, I do think you are on to something about cameras and how it is assumed someone in possession of one is 'working' and not merely a run of the mill tourist. As if a camera conveyed exclusive ownership rights for a given point on the time-space continuum. (Wonder what Stephen Hawking would have said about this.)

However, surely when one enters a museum as part of public admission, the public is part of the experience that you should expect to photograph, even if accidentally. (You might also end up photographing iBobi pitching a camera toting musem goer down the stairs, but that's another story.)

CC, I think I would object less to accommodating someone on a fairly vacant footpath, than I would to being expected to do accommodate obsessive photogs in crowded places. Especially art museums like the place I call the 'fish tank' - the Raphael Rooms of the Vatican museum, so -named by yours truly because people seem to constantly swim in front of the paintings, like fish in a tank.

But for anyone to complain when one cannot get a people-free image in some places, either to the naked or camera lens eye, is to indicate one's divorce from reality.

nanabee

Now this is something we should all rally around.

Here are just a few of the problems with leaf blowers:

• 1.2 billion gallons of gas are burned in lawn and garden equipment in the United States annually.
• The ongoing fueling and maintenance necessary with gas lawn machines results in huge amounts of extra waste in our landfills.
• Harsh chemical solvents are used to degrease and clean carburetors, spark plugs, fuel and air filters, and decks of gas-powered machines. These elements end up evaporating into the air, poured into the soil, or washed down a drain,
• Noise pollution poses critical physical and psychological health effects including tinnitus & hearing loss, stress, hypertension, headaches, and productivity loss.
• Toxic gas & oil, carcinogenic emissions, noxious exhaust, and unsafe noise levels make gas-powered lawn care a very hazardous job — particularly for unprotected lawn crews working full-time at the source of emissions and noise. Workers may have few options and little agency.
• Ground level ozone (formed by VOCs and NOx in the presence of sunlight) and fine particulate matter cause and contribute to early death, stroke, heart attack, congestive heart failure, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and cancer.
• Gas emissions degrades air, soil & water. It affects neighborhood quality of life and contributes to climate change

kureiff

I covet my neighbor's leaf blower.

Trophywife007

That's real sweet but all I meant was that after my gardener blows all the junk from my yard on to my neighbors' yards, their gardeners come and blow all the junk back into my yard, usually just when Mr. 7 is detailing his car. I'd like to call a truce on this process. This wasn't meant as a call to bring back push mowers.

nanabee

I have no problem with any kind of lawn mower just leaf blowers. They smell of toxic fumes are loud and annoying and are probably a health hazard to the lawn guys who use them everyday. Rant over.

Trophywife007

Agreed... the only disturbing thing is that it smacks of Nanny State.

nanabee

Yes Nanny State for sure. Like outlawing cigarette smoking in public places. Sometimes we need a good Nanny to protect the well being of citizens.

NeoPatrick

One thing I've learned about rules generally is that the only ones who complain about a rule are those who do the thing that the rule forbids. In our HOA we currently have a whole lot of people saying our pool and clubhouse have too many rules. I've asked and asked "which specific rules would you eliminate-- would you allow glass containers at the pool? Would you allow toddlers not potty trained to enter the pool sans diaper? Would you allow diving in a pool that is at most 5 feet deep?" Funny thing, not one person has ever responded to a single rule they'd eliminate but they still say 'too many rules'.

nanabee

Would you allow toddlers not potty trained to enter the pool sans diaper?

Yikes!! LOL. That should shut down the use of the pool for a good 24 hours!

LucieV

I like all rules, as long as they're ones that I've made up.

Sue_xx_yy

LucieV, you're clearly a fan of the strip 'Calvin and Hobbes'.

http://calvinandhobbes.wikia.com/wiki/Calvinball

Neo, you can have the members of your condo association play Calvinball, including having them go to the Pernicious Poem place.

CounterClifton

Baffling? There are probably a lot more phone cameras now but they do still sell quite a lot of SLR cameras. It's a big business. Surely people use them? I see them in use around Melbourne streets all the time by international (at least seemingly) and to me, it appears some do still use (or try to use) the functionality it comes with rather than just set it to auto.

I spend a bit of time looking at a painting too. Usually 2 or 3 people can and do look at a painting at the same time, yeah? Or at least it seems it to me. I'm trying to imagine a straight single-file queue with each person taking their 5 minutes to stand and look, lean in, stroke their chin in consideration..... while the orderly, disengaged line behind them looks like waiting patrons for the post office clerk because it's not their turn to look yet. lol

I'm just saying that sans cameras, people tend to sort it out, crowd in a little, cooperate and subconsciously interact to make room for each other to an extent. Bring out the camera and people have a different way of behaving that creates a no-walk, no-lean zone (within polite folk anyway) between the photographer and subject.

CounterClifton

Sue, you know... generally I agree with you. It's just like trophywife is saying - it's not the picture taking, it's being inconsiderate about it. Now, I don't value museum photos particularly so if a museum had a "no photography" sign out, I wouldn't care.

My comments are less about cheering for such a policy as recognizing the spot problems they may be trying to rectify by the ban. Those spot problems aren't around 95% of the artwork in a museum. If someone was in front of one of those, I wouldn't even think about it. Why would I? (similarly, I don't actually fathom why someone taking a picture of their plate in a restaurant matters to others).

What I'm talking about really, more than photography, is just consideration. Like being at the head of a long line, where perhaps a couple of people could enjoy at once and then choosing to claim those "exclusive ownership rights" for an inordinate amount of time (even if you don't realize you're doing so).


ps - I love having crowds or passersby in my photos. It provides a sense of scale and as importantly, a realistic look at what the place is really like.

scrb11

Last time I was in Paris I wanted to go to the D'Orsay again, particularly to take pictures from their balcony.

They prohibited so I went elsewhere.

People getting carried away with photos in museums is not new. There were crowds in front of the Mona Lisa 20 years ago.

I like the way some of the galleries are, when they have good natural or artificial lighting. They spent millions on architects and designers. If you don't allow pictures, I'll go to ones which do.

I think with the advent of the web, some museums worried that people would share pictures of famous works and give people reasons not to visit. Unfounded fears really.

Back in the day before the web hit big, museums would sell CD-ROMs or DVDs for virtual visits of museums. They still may but really they should be putting that stuff up on the web. Of course they want to monetize it.

With the way ticket prices have gone up, if you put up restrictions, it's easy to walk away.

ibobi

How's this for a radical idea:

Fill each gallery room with couches you can lean on or lay down on. Plenty of space to walk or stand in between them, if that's your thing.

And put all the art on the ceiling.

Nobody will be getting in the way of your photos, or your viewing, unless they can fly. Everyone gets to see the art for as long as they want, or just snap a quick selfie. Security won't have to constantly tell people to back away or stop touching the art, because they won't be able to. Can't get close enough for your liking? Bring or rent a low-power, wide-field binocular.

Put the art on the ceiling.

LucieV

Been to the Sistine Chapel?

Sue_xx_yy

< Put the art on the ceiling. >

Spiderman, spiderman, does whatever a spider can
Gets to art
on a thread
Take a look
Overhead
Hey there, there goes...

maitaitom

I have no idea how I missed this thread, but here's my nickel's worth. Obviously, we take lots of photos (even in museums and of our food ... sorry Bill). We use an iPhone, and we make it a point not to step in anyone's way at a museum. As far as food, I have no clue why that would bother anybody, unless someone is using a flash. Before visiting tha Barnes Foundation in 2018, there was a policy of no inside photos. I emailed their new marketing director, and she said she was changing that policy, because where she had worked before the more exposure (pun intended) a museum gets, the more traffic. I do see not taking photos in museums with incredibly high traffic (the palace in Madrid comes to mind), because then you are interfering with the high flow. Of course, I don't think museums are going to be overcrowded for quite some time now with social distancing, so that shouldn't even be a problem.

On another trip, this time in Beaune, France, we were taking a photo of one of the dishes, and the owner came up to us to show us better angles of the food. Afterward, she was quite happy, and said she enjoyed people taking photos of her restaurant's creations. If you don't want to take a photo, I don't care, but it is a little weird to me that it bothers so many when others do.

One thing I will agree upon, however, selfies look really stupid, unless you are traveling alone. Plus, it makes my face look as big as the heads on Mt. Rushmore. In true Zebec fashion, "I'm so vain, I think that this photo's about me." Camera off. I am out!

Michael

Not all art is available as postcards. I take something that strikes me at the moment. I do not go around trying to take a picture of the must-see paintings such as the Mona Lisa or the Raft of the Medusa.
https://flic.kr/p/7D1fvH https://flic.kr/p/7CLNgB https://flic.kr/p/27Ejw7Y