The Great “No Flash Photography” Scam
by Todd ~ January 17th, 2005. Filed under: Museums.As I’ve mentioned before, I’ve always thought the “no flash photography” rules of many museums were just a scam to force people into buying their keepsakes at the gift shop. Seems this hunch has been vindicated. No, I haven’t unearthed evidence of DaVinci’s Louvre royalty payments piling up in a numbered Zurich bank account.
As part of the discussion on this site about solutions to overcrowding at MoMA, someone asked the apparently stupid question “Has it been scientifically proven that camera flash damages art?” Well, I think we all took it as a given that flash photography does in fact damage art despite my suspicions stated above. On a lark, I ran a couple of Google searches to come up with what must be plentiful evidence of the flash bulb’s nefarious effects. Nothing. After a few minutes, I ran across a reference to a message on a conservation email discussion list that actually argued that flash photography’s effects are nil. But I couldn’t find the entire post. I casually passed the info on to Dan Hopewell of Iconoduel. Dan’s more diligent than I (actually, he just knew where to look) and was able to come up with the post in question. Bottom line is, “300 amateur flashes a day is equivalent to adding five minutes to the display day.” In other words, no big deal.
Check out the complete story at Iconoduel.
January 17th, 2005 at 11:43 pm
Though it might not do any damage to the art, flash photography certainly would disrupt the overall museum-going experience for others. Imagine if in each room of MoMA you had a dozen visitors taking flash photos. The art might not be hurt, but your eyes would!
January 18th, 2005 at 4:13 am
> “Bottom line is, ‘300 amateur flashes a day is equivalent to adding five minutes to the display day.’ In other words, no big deal.”
And that’s under fairly generous assumptions—it probably works out to have even less of an impact.
> “Though it might not do any damage to the art, flash photography certainly would disrupt the overall museum-going experience for others.”
I’ll offer no big argument here. Note though how different the stakes become once we can take conservation issues off the table.
January 18th, 2005 at 10:31 am
I completely agree that banning flash photography in the museum environment is useful for creating the proper atmosphere for contemplation, as does banning the use of cell phones.
January 27th, 2005 at 11:31 pm
Worse yet: museums that do not let you bring cameras into the gallery. The Kaohsiung Museum of Fine Arts makes you check them at the front. I don’t think they found my quizzical look “precious” either.
http://www.kmfa.gov.tw/
W
July 13th, 2005 at 1:53 pm
I arrived here searching for opinions on the issue of flash damage since our foundation is assuming the administration of two small museums at archaeological sites in Central America. These receive between about 2,000 and 4,000 visitors a month. The materials displayed are ceramics, lithics and wood, in addition to graphics and text. No textiles, no copyright issues.
Up to now there had been a ban on flash photography and camcorders. We lifted the latter, which seemed senseless to all involved. The no-flash mandate is thorny, however, having originated with museum conservation staff. Perhaps significant to the thread of messages posted here is that a great many vistors have cameras with automatic flash (though they may be desactivated, the owners usually do not know how to do this). The museum guards deal with this by usually banning cameras in general, resulting in the most common complaint from visitors. I share the opinion that distracting activities should be minimal in museums, like cellphones and noisiness in general, but I take the occasional flash as a sign that someone is interested in what they are seeing and may never see again except in that image they have just captured.
February 16th, 2006 at 7:36 pm
I am a professional art restorer, specializing in oils and frescos. I would love a ban on cameras in Museums, just because they are annoying. I am also looking for more scientific data to back up the claims that flashes fade art.
Based on the data you have unearthed. This is more then just “No big deal.” When you take into consideration large European museums like the Vatican which sees and estimated 35,000 visitors per day on average.
If there were no rules about flashes, figure 35,000 flashes inside the sistine chapel everyday. Divided by 300. amateur camera users. that is 117 (5 minute segments,) which ads up to almost 10 hours of of exposure to a light which peaks at 5500° Kelvin. This is more then just “no big deal.” This could seriously damage a work of in less then a decade.
Granted, only a handful of museums see this kind of traffic everyday in the world, but if you visit one of these world class museums on any given day, you’ll still see hundreds of flashes going off in a 2 hour visit.
If a standard of behavior was set and enforced for museum visitors consistently, it is more likely the rules will be observed more frequently in places where they really do make a difference.
December 13th, 2008 at 5:55 pm
[...] flash photography is acceptable. Both because it may have a small deteriorating affect on the art (though this is debatable) but because it’s just distracting. I would prefer if they had no flash photography instead. [...]
May 18th, 2009 at 6:56 am
I think there are two other thoughts not mentioned–or maybe not clearly enough for me. The places showing these pieces of art you want to photo are making a living by getting you to pay to see them. If there are lots of photos floating around then why go and look? They are providing oppotunity for postcards and such of expertly photographed items without Billy or Sally cropping into your pic and like others said, not getting their experience runied by your flashes or demands of people to move….. and also providing lights, air conditioning, guards to protect the stuff….. are you trying to rip off the gift shop by taking your own pics? This is a business and you are trying to cheat them. Follow the rules. They have the RIGHT TO MAKE THEM.
Another thought–is the desire to look, photo, preserve and gawk at these relics what the Creator would want us to do? Are we supposed to be so enamoured with the PAST that we fail to live up to what we should be doing in the present? So much of ‘history’ is MADE UP–fabricated from old relics and stories and accounts embellished until we don’t really know anything. We all get sucked into the imagined history and do not look at the RECORDED history of the Holy Scriptures. How does seeing some old thing change how we live our lives today? After learning a lot about old Egyptian art I now see much of the forms and patterns repeated in modern things. According to the ‘experts’ many of the symbols were supposed to mean something and we are throwing them around in our jewelry and clothing like they are just pretty things free for the public to embrace and exploit for the new look. Where using a swastika would offend many because of what it stood for 50 years ago and we know who used it and what happened, what do these new things actually signify?
Be careful.
You want your limits respected. Respect those of the museums you visit. And be careful what you are worshipping.
June 12th, 2009 at 6:51 am
mhmhmhm i always thought this was an expired measure for the old cameras were they used tha powder to make light….