Photography is Not a Crime!

Posted by Justin Korn
on August 8, 2008

This post will be a quick and to the point.

Thomas Hawk was forcibly ejected from the SFMOMA on Friday, August 8, 2008 for doing what he loves most, taking photographs. More importantly, the SFMOMA recently lifted their ban on taking photographs in the Atrium of the museum.

SFMOMA Camera Policy

Thomas HawkThomas writes:

“…because of this change in policy, I decided to purchase a family membership in order to support the museum, both with my artistic energy and financially. I was excited to begin spending regular time exploring and documenting the museum.

Unfortunately, I should have known better than to really believe that the San Francisco MOMA was serious about opening up the art and architecture entrusted to them to the general public.

After purchasing my family membership and visiting the museum today I was forcibly thrown out of the museum by two museum security guards at the direction of the Director of Visitor Relations Simon Blint.

My crime? Taking a photograph from the second floor stairs in the SFMOMA’s atrium (an area where the SF MOMA’s own website explicitly says photography is allowed).”

I know Thomas Hawk already has a large following, but as of this writing, his article has been dugg less than 200 times. Please, take the time to DIGG Thomas’s article and spread the word in any way you can. This kind of treatment to photographers and humans in general is inhuman and should not be tolerated.

I appreciate you taking the time to read this and DIGGING Thomas’s article.

Till next time…

[UPDATE]

If you want to take it one step further, here are some top people you can email at the SFMOMA to make your voice heard:

[UPDATE]

Thomas Hawk post a follow up to the Whole Simon Blint Fiasco

[UPDATE]

This is not an offical announcment, but SFMOMA is expected to make a statement about the incident.

[UPDATE]

SFMOMA seems to have changed the wording on their website.

New:

SFMOMA - Camera Policy

Old:

SFMOMA Camera Policy

[UPDATE]

SFMOMA Responds

Related Posts with Thumbnails
Be the first to rate this post: 1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars
Come on, give this post some love!
Loading ... Loading ...
Categorized: News Around Town, Photography
Tagged: , , ,
  • Agreed, we shouldn't jump to judge.

    This comment came from someone who was there and next to Thomas when the "event" went down: http://www.flickr.com/photos/thomashawk/2744778... He seems to agree Simon did not act appropriately. It's one thing to serve his responsibility, it's another to over react and make an unnecessary scene.

    Lastly, I know Thomas personally. He isn't the type to make up stories for his own benefit. Using the word "asshole" originally was probably not in his best judgment, but the bottom line is, Simon Blint appears to have abused his authority and treated Thomas, a paying customer, below dirt.

    If another story comes out (it has now been 3 days), I'd be happy to to listen and examine the facts, but until then, I support Thomas and the fact the Simon reacted inappropriately.
  • Maneesh Bhide
    Ok, so, none of us were there, so I don't really know what happened. But:

    1) Just because Thomas claims he was using his 14mm wide angle lense, do we *know* that he was?

    2) Do we know that the director didn't ask to review his photographs and that Thomas refused?

    My only point is that at a certain point Simon Blint has a responsibility to the museum and it's employees, and has to some times take actions that out of context can seem arbitrary and capricious. In this case, the only information we really have is Thomas' account of what happened, and I think we can all agree that he has a vested interest in what opinion people come to.

    I'm not saying definitively that either Simon or Thomas is right or wrong. I'm just saying let's hold off on the rush to judgment.
  • Maneesh,

    Though I was not at the scene, I can safely say there are a few things wrong with the story provided by ValleyWag:

    1) A bystander is quoted saying, "...with his camera pointed down, aiming directly into the shirt/cleavage of one of the female employees working at the museum." Thomas claims to have been using his 14mm ultra wide angle lens. With such a lens, Thomas would have had to been literally next to the employee with the lens down her shirt to grab a shot that would be label him and the picture as "perverted." There is no way this bystander could have verified that the camera was in fact "aimed directly into the shirt/cleavage..." from the first floor.

    2) "Seriously, that museum is photgraphed by visitors constantly; do you really think that Thomas Hawk was randomly, forcibly ejected for no reason at all?" - First, they JUST changed the policy a month or two ago to allow photography at all. Second, I believe the issue is not that Thomas Hawk was ejected forcibly by random, but rather, according to Thomas's account, without discussion. If the alleged story is that he was spying on employees and was being ejected because he was coming off as a "pervert," Simon Blint should have reviewed his pictures and realized this was in fact not the case.

    The bottom line is,Simon Blint should have handle the situation differently.
  • Maneesh Bhide
    Hey Justin, take a look at this... http://valleywag.com/5035325/museum-ejects-thom...

    Sure, maybe it's not a crime, but it sure is creepy, and -- if it's true -- I think we'd all agree a valid reason for his ejection.
blog comments powered by Disqus