Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Are museums ruining art?  (Read 4424 times)
LesPalenik
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 483


WWW
« Reply #20 on: August 20, 2012, 05:37:46 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
And photographing and being photographed with art people find enjoyable. They find having a good time in those places enjoyable as well...

I am sure there are many people who would be having good time in those places by masturbating as well.

Valid point, especially considering the prices of museum tickets.
« Last Edit: August 20, 2012, 05:43:11 PM by LesPalenik » Logged

leuallen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 275


« Reply #21 on: August 20, 2012, 05:44:15 PM »
ReplyReply

Talking about viewing art. Some years ago The Art Institute of Chicago had a Monet exhibit. It was the hottest thing in town. Lines out the door for a quick walk past to view the art. I was photographing an event which was held at the Art Institute on a Friday evening during the exhibit. During a break while the people ate, I was able to go up and view the exhibit. There I was ALONE (guards at the door) with the run of the place. The solitude and being in a room with mega millions worth of art was quite an experience. No, I did not take my camera or take pictures. I just looked.

Larry


Logged
marfa.tx
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 27


« Reply #22 on: August 21, 2012, 08:01:09 AM »
ReplyReply

You are the one with the self-deceiver assumptions.
Logged

-------
richard
Geoff Wittig
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1017


« Reply #23 on: August 21, 2012, 07:30:40 PM »
ReplyReply

With all due respect, Michael, I think you're wrong on this.

The value of culture and art, and the individual appreciation of them, are not contingent upon the approval or permission of gate-keepers. Put another way, Mr. Dubovy does not get to dictate how others choose to appreciate a great work of art. He is obviously free to strictly limit public access to whatever artwork he personally owns. But while a raucous crowd of school kids seeing great art for the first time may hamper his ability to enjoy a bit of quiet time with his favorite museum masterpiece, why does his desire for this private experience trump their chance to see great art?

I love a quiet afternoon in a museum, and the chance to closely study a fabulous painting without interference, as much as anyone. But there is no legitimate reason why my wish for such an experience should banish school kids and blue collar folks from a public museum. Affluent folks generally have no trouble at all gaining access to great art. School kids and truck drivers? Not so much. Plenty of brilliant artists have sprung from humble beginnings. Who knows what future talents we are stifling if we limit access to...the 'right kind of people'?

Logged
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6027


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #24 on: August 21, 2012, 08:30:37 PM »
ReplyReply

With all due respect, Geoff, if one ever needed a good example of a straw-man argument, you just provided one.
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
marvpelkey
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 126


« Reply #25 on: August 21, 2012, 11:23:14 PM »
ReplyReply

Coincidently, I just returned from a trip to San Francisco, during which I visited the de Young Art Museum (I know, not the Louvre). One exhibit, had a rather large painting on the wall which was protected from approach by a ring of posts and chains. I witnessed a male employee, look over each shoulder, then move the posts out of the way, allowing a nice looking female visitor to move up to and pose in front of the painting while he took her photo with her camera.

While I know little of the effects of flash on the integrity of a painting, I do agree there should be a respect shown by the visitors to a facility, related to the eminence of the place (poor choice of words perhaps, but I'm sure you get my drift). I certainly would not expect people to act the same way in the Louvre as they would at a local science fair. Personally, I believe certain art deserves quiet contemplation. Having said that, the staff who ignore (even assist) inappropriate behaviour is as much to blame as the visitor who exhibits that behaviour.
Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #26 on: August 22, 2012, 03:17:02 AM »
ReplyReply

You just can't find the staff these days!

Where have I heard this before?

Interesting illustration of the power of a good-looknig lady, though; I can almost hear the howls of disapproval at her technique, where my howl is reserved for the moron who broke his own employer's rule, not for the girl who used what she knew would work. And some think them the dumber gender, girls, not guards...

Rob C
Logged

stamper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2785


« Reply #27 on: August 22, 2012, 03:28:23 AM »
ReplyReply

I am sure there are many people who would be having good time in those places by masturbating as well. Quite enjoyable, no? After all, a lot of good-looking ladies on the walls there, some of them quite naked too.


Ah my secret is out. I hope there weren't any CTV cameras watching me on my last visit to the museum. Mark has certainly achieved what he set out to do. Get the members squabbling amongst themselves and showing their prejudices. Ten out of ten Mark.  Smiley Wink
Logged

stamper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2785


« Reply #28 on: August 22, 2012, 05:10:26 AM »
ReplyReply

I see we have two threads on the same subject.  Perhaps one of the moderators can collapse these into one.  The biggest impediment to enjoying art galleries is not cameras or children but the large crowds that are there making it difficult to get a good viewing position.  We went to the Uffizi in Florence on our trip there in May and that gallery does "try" to manage attendance by limiting the number of tickets per hour that are issued.  Even with this the museum was crowded and there were a couple of school tours there that day as well.  There is a No Camera policy in effect and the museum staff enforce this.  Our cousin's partner in Rome is an art historian and teaches at the Temple University campus there.  He leads tours and is able to get preferred viewing hours at various museums in Italy.  Unfortunately for us he was leading a study tour from the Metropolitan Museum of Art during our stay. Angry  Two years ago our cousin's parents were over for a visit and they were able to tour the Uffizi on Monday when the museum is closed to the general public.  Now that's the way to see things!

How can you collapse them into one? If you put one thread  at the front of the other then when you reach the end of the first anyone reading it for the first time will wonder about the continuity of the posts. Having the two threads isn't a bad thing especially if they then go in different directions as often they do. All we need is Rob to join in and we are wandering. Grin
Logged

dreed
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1260


« Reply #29 on: August 22, 2012, 05:24:56 AM »
ReplyReply

Concerning the effect of flash photography on art, I found this -

http://people.ds.cam.ac.uk/mhe1000/musphoto/flashphoto.htm


From time to time it is great to read about someone that has done a rather in depth analysis of an issue rather than just repeating what they've heard from other experts. This is a perfect example of that. And the answer seems to be, that if people are afraid of UV light from flashes damaging paintings then said paintings should be kept in the dark and not shown at all.

I've been one of those tourists, taking photos of paintings and other things in museums. Why?

Same reason that I take many other photograph: to show others what I've seen or where I've been.

So whilst I may be able to buy a book at the Louvre that shows the Mona Lisa in a far better presented state than I could ever hope to photograph, that picture in the book won't be what I saw or experienced.

Or perhaps to put this in another light, had Mark of taken a photo of the Mona Lisa and surrounds each time that he had visited it (like any good tourist does) then he'd have much more to his story than just words to document and demonstrate the change over time. So whilst just taking one photo on any given visit would have not been particularly enlightening, all of them together would have, despite none of them being art by themselves (or perhaps together.)
Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #30 on: August 22, 2012, 09:14:09 AM »
ReplyReply

How can you collapse them into one? If you put one thread  at the front of the other then when you reach the end of the first anyone reading it for the first time will wonder about the continuity of the posts. Having the two threads isn't a bad thing especially if they then go in different directions as often they do. All we need is Rob to join in and we are wandering. Grin



Don't know who he might be, but Rob C already did!

You just can't keep a good man down. That's why some buy raincoats for sunny-day use: they can hide their... cameras. Bet you hadn't thought that! Doesn't even have to be a Gannex, but let's not get political here.

To think Napoleon started all this, or was it Nelson I'm thinking about? Nope, it was Harold, I'm sure now.

;-)

Rob C
Logged

marfa.tx
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 27


« Reply #31 on: August 28, 2012, 03:05:32 AM »
ReplyReply

Yep, and so do self unaware snapshots offered as evidence of snapshots made in museums.


I  hold the position that Forums are doing their best to ruin artists.


Marfa, marfa, marfa. The town that knows how space means.
Logged

-------
richard
Jim Pascoe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 823


WWW
« Reply #32 on: September 01, 2012, 04:59:42 AM »
ReplyReply

You just can't find the staff these days!

Where have I heard this before?

Interesting illustration of the power of a good-looknig lady, though; I can almost hear the howls of disapproval at her technique, where my howl is reserved for the moron who broke his own employer's rule, not for the girl who used what she knew would work. And some think them the dumber gender, girls, not guards...

Rob C

Rob - I think perhaps you making a big assumption here.  It could be the girl and the guard both had a similar interest in philately and after a long chat about some rare Penny Black's the girl had in her collection, the guard just decided to do a favour for a fellow hobbyist.  Sex may have played absolutely no part in the decision.  Not every man is as easily swayed by a pretty girl as you obviously are. Roll Eyes

Jim
Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #33 on: September 01, 2012, 08:42:52 AM »
ReplyReply

This is true, Jim. I tend to think that other guys are as attracted as am I by fair members of the generally fairer sex, and it hadn't actually crossed my mind that a stamp might have greater allure. Of course, who knows what magic has been mixed into the glue on the back of these tiny scraps of government paper? Only an expert would know that.

But really, I should have expected this and factored it into my appraisal of the situation: there are also those who prefer to spend their free hours looking at trains with stacks. I hasten to add, in an obvious attempt at self-defence, that looking at and snapping old cars is an exercise in a different dimension and akin to the better aspects of museum visiting. Also, the use of a fill-in flash is not a distraction to anyone, unless, of course, the car happens to be being driven at the moment of the encounter. In my case, this is never the way it unfolds: I prefer the drivers well out of sight; why ruin a pretty picture? On the other hand, were the drivers not males...

;-)

Rob C
Logged

Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad