The Great Art Debate

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

^ hmmm - paragraph one - he is already moaning about "intense flashlights" - which is NOT what is being proposed... - and "noisy" smartphones?? they are no more noisy than some nobby tart clacking past in high heels..

epic fail... just disguised snobbery...

also - taking a photo - and standing to contemplate art - these things are not mutually exclusive. If this says what you think better than you can say it - then you haven't got a very smart thing to say!

I think his point is that what is being proposed and what may actually happen aren't necessarily the same thing, given his experience of other galleries that allow photography but not flashes. I imagine there are a lot of people who would take a photo without knowing whether they've got the flash turned on.

Exactly - the point is that in museums and galleries that allow photography, flashes go off by accident all the time because the light level is usually quite low and triggers the 'auto' setting.

I can't have it that Grumpy is a snob - read that whole post and you can see he is passionately against elite and priviliged access to art.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

who are you or I or Jon to make that kind of judgement on how other people should approach or experience art and conclude that they should be subject to some kind of a ban?

Just out of interest, would you feel the same at the theatre or the opera?

[bobo the clown]

People can't do this and seriously engage with the art.

why not? or do you mean that YOU can't do this and seriously engage with art? serious question...

How terrifically elitist William, I always knew it. Wouldn't you rather people engaged to a limited extent than not at all as for sure most aren't going to take the interest of someone really brainy like you ?

Small oaks and all that.

Just look at any gallery, let alone the Natiional, and 99% (unverified, before anyone challenges that) of people walk through at quite a rate. I guess ignoring magnificent pieces of work as they plough on to the Turners or Constables, or the classic Canaletto's. But at least they are there. A proportion will think it's worth coming back. A yet smaller proportion will take up a serious interest.

Not everyone has the gigantic intellect, or interest, of mummy

[William the White]

yes - those are different arguments...

one argument is about is diminishing YOUR experience - that would be (I think) a valid criticism if it could be shown that this is the case any more than simply having other people around - clacking their heels, talking, giggling, jostling, sneezing, coughing... or any other distracting thing that other people do... short of allowing people in one at a time to silent spaces - there will always be noise.. but - I can understand that objection - adding one more noise to the equation.

it's the other argument I was interested in..

that you would ban something because the people doing it are not appreciating the art - or, rather, you surmise that they are not appreciating the art - in the way that you think they should appreciate it - the way YOU appreciate it.

who are you or I or Jon to make that kind of judgement on how other people should approach or experience art and conclude that they should be subject to some kind of a ban? It seems a bit draconian to me. Other people may have a different approach to at than you do - and I do - or Jon does - and whilst I may wish that they understood and appreciated things as deeply as you and I do - I don't see why you or I should feel it necessary to insist that they change their way by imposing a ban.

I'd also dispute the idea that everyone taking a snap on a mobile is simply having a cheap tourist experience. maybe many are - but not necessarily. they might have contemplated the picture every bit as deeply and knowledgeably as you have - and drunk it in - and then taken a snap because it reminds them of an experience shared with someone else - "saw this and thought of you"...

I think I am in favour of letting art speak to people in whatever way they might come to it - it's big enough - it won't break - rather than police the approach to a narrower "right way" of viewing art.

it seems to me that the National Gallery have recognised the potential distraction to other viewers by not allowing tripods or flash and being aware of people blocking the view (though people do this with or without cameras - it's the downside of letting the public into galleries in the first place - the buggers will insist on turning up!) - and then taken a perfectly reasonable approach in allowing people to experience the art in the way which suits them best.

Bit unfair on what I actually said, I think. I certainly don't expect or require or want people to approach art like I do - unless they do. The subjectivity of the experience is as it should be and, at its best, the debate on it is enriching.

But just to point out - the change is not emanating from me, but from the National Gallery. I was seeking to keep rather than to ban.

And is it actually possible to be a bit draconian?

[thebish]

who are you or I or Jon to make that kind of judgement on how other people should approach or experience art and conclude that they should be subject to some kind of a ban?

Just out of interest, would you feel the same at the theatre or the opera?

interesting comparison... leaving aside the technical copyright reasons for it being banned at such places...

yes - I think I'd feel different - and interesting to be challenged as to why... I suspect my answer would be that I'd be against it in theatre and opera - but only because I can't see how it could easily be done without spoiling thye experience of the person sitting around. at the theatre or opera you are trapped in your seat and there in front of one "picture" permanently - you are not moving around - and nor is the person taking photos. they would have to raise their camera in front of you - which would always be distracting - so I think it is a very different scenario.

If there was a way they could take photos that did not distract the person behind them or near them - then (other than legal copyright gubbins) i can't see why i would object - i certainly wouldn't object that they were not experiencing opera properly by doing it.

it's one thing to object because it spoils the experience of another

it's quite another thing to object on behalf of the person who is happily taking a photo because you think that person is incorrectly experiencing something.

[thebish]

Bit unfair on what I actually said, I think. I certainly don't expect or require or want people to approach art like I do - unless they do. The subjectivity of the experience is as it should be and, at its best, the debate on it is enriching.

But just to point out - the change is not emanating from me, but from the National Gallery. I was seeking to keep rather than to ban.

And is it actually possible to be a bit draconian?

no - the decision has already been made. you voted in a newspaper now against it - after the event. having been allowed by the gallwery - you were voting that it now shouldn't be allowed - ie. banned.

and - I have read what you wrote again - and it still reads as if you want to prevent people taking photos because in doing so they are not (capable of) experiencing art as you do...

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

who are you or I or Jon to make that kind of judgement on how other people should approach or experience art and conclude that they should be subject to some kind of a ban?

Just out of interest, would you feel the same at the theatre or the opera?

interesting comparison... leaving aside the technical copyright reasons for it being banned at such places...

yes - I think I'd feel different - and interesting to be challenged as to why... I suspect my answer would be that I'd be against it in theatre and opera - but only because I can't see how it could easily be done without spoiling thye experience of the person sitting around. at the theatre or opera you are trapped in your seat and there in front of one "picture" permanently - you are not moving around - and nor is the person taking photos. they would have to raise their camera in front of you - which would always be distracting - so I think it is a very different scenario.

If there was a way they could take photos that did not distract the person behind them or near them - then (other than legal copyright gubbins) i can't see why i would object - i certainly wouldn't object that they were not experiencing opera properly by doing it.

it's one thing to object because it spoils the experience of another

it's quite another thing to object on behalf of the person who is happily taking a photo because you think that person is incorrectly experiencing something.

I agree.

So, the main difference between us on the gallery point is that I am sure it will diminish non-photographers' experience of viewing pictures, and you are not.

If they had photography days and non-photography days, that would be great and we could all make our choices about when we'd rather be there... sadly that's not what is on the table.

[William the White]

People can't do this and seriously engage with the art.

why not? or do you mean that YOU can't do this and seriously engage with art? serious question...

How terrifically elitist William, I always knew it. You're the biggest know nowt I know!

Wouldn't you rather people engaged to a limited extent than not at all Yes, of course

as for sure most aren't going to take the interest of someone really brainy like you ? Why not?

Small oaks and all that. Grow into big ones?

Just look at any gallery, let alone the Natiional, and 99% (unverified, before anyone challenges that) of people walk through at quite a rate. I guess ignoring magnificent pieces of work as they plough on to the Turners or Constables, or the classic Canaletto's. But at least they are there. A proportion will think it's worth coming back. A yet smaller proportion will take up a serious interest.

Agree with this 100%. Just not sure why you think it relevant to my post.

Not everyone has the gigantic intellect, or interest, of mummy. Why should they? Who in their right mind would expect or want that?

[thebish]

I agree.

So, the main difference between us on the gallery point is that I am sure it will diminish non-photographers' experience of viewing pictures, and you are not.

If they had photography days and non-photography days, that would be great and we could all make our choices about when we'd rather be there... sadly that's not what is on the table.

it looks that way. your idea sounds like a sensible compromise. (I have to say - you were wrong - you put it much better than the bloated, pompous guff of an article you linked me to originally!)

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

I agree.

So, the main difference between us on the gallery point is that I am sure it will diminish non-photographers' experience of viewing pictures, and you are not.

If they had photography days and non-photography days, that would be great and we could all make our choices about when we'd rather be there... sadly that's not what is on the table.

it looks that way. your idea sounds like a sensible compromise. (I have to say - you were wrong - you put it much better than the bloated, pompous guff of an article you linked me to originally!)

His original anti-photography piece is better.

http://grumpyarthistorian.blogspot.co.u ... phy_5.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[thebish]

His original anti-photography piece is better.

http://grumpyarthistorian.blogspot.co.u ... phy_5.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

awww - come on! you said the FIRST ONE said it all better than you could!! speak for yourself man!

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

His original anti-photography piece is better.

http://grumpyarthistorian.blogspot.co.u ... phy_5.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

awww - come on! you said the FIRST ONE said it all better than you could!! speak for yourself man!

I said, as a general proposition, that he explains the case against better than I could.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

I'm also lazy.

[thebish]

I'm also lazy.

you could contract your views out to me - for a small fee - giving you time to spend with the missus and the dog! everyone's a winner!

[Prufrock]

The atmosphere is different in places were it isn't allowed to where it is, and it's distracting. It isn't a noise thing for me, I don't want totally silent galleries; you should be able to hear yourself think, but people should be free to talk about things with their companions. I find people buzzing around stopping for three seconds camera up, camera down, off-we-go distracting. it's not a 'They're doing it wrong, how dare they' reaction.

[thebish]

The atmosphere is different in places were it isn't allowed to where it is, and it's distracting. It isn't a noise thing for me, I don't want totally silent galleries; you should be able to hear yourself think, but people should be free to talk about things with their companions. I find people buzzing around stopping for three seconds camera up, camera down, off-we-go distracting. it's not a 'They're doing it wrong, how dare they' reaction.

is the buzzing around stopping for three seconds have a quick gander and off-we-go also distracting??? It sounds like it's not the camera you object to - but the brevity of the viewing! how long should these tourists spend by each picture in order that it not be distracting to you?

[Prufrock]

No it's the camera too. Hold it up, spin it round, step back, step forward again, ooh bit to the right, sorted, click, right off we go and again.

It's properly distracting!

If you were sat in a waiting room and someone picked up one of the magazines, flicked through each page turning it landscape then portrait then chucked it down and picked up another flicked through that, chucked it down, picked up another, you wouldn't find it distracting from the book you were trying to read?

I'm all for yes days and no days.

[thebish]

No it's the camera too. Hold it up, spin it round, step back, step forward again, ooh bit to the right, sorted, click, right off we go and again.

It's properly distracting!

If you were sat in a waiting room and someone picked up one of the magazines, flicked through each page turning it landscape then portrait then chucked it down and picked up another flicked through that, chucked it down, picked up another, you wouldn't find it distracting from the book you were trying to read?

I'm all for yes days and no days.

well - that's a step forward from your original - yay let's ban these morons!

[Prufrock]

I didn't say that! If it's a binary 'allowed all the time' or 'allowed none of the time', which are the only options presented, then I'm an 'allowed none of the time' guy. But in fact I'd be fine with them having days where you could do photos, I just wouldn't go then.

[thebish]

I didn't say that! If it's a binary 'allowed all the time' or 'allowed none of the time', which are the only options presented, then I'm an 'allowed none of the time' guy. But in fact I'd be fine with them having days where you could do photos, I just wouldn't go then.

you're old a long time before your time!