junifish

If she'd 'ave kept on goin' down that way she'd 'ave gone straight to that castle.

46 notes

mudwerks:

(via Ownership Mentality: Art Gallery Prohibits Sketching | Techdirt)
…ridiculous notice found at the Art Institute of Chicago:

In case you can’t see the image, it is a sign listing several things that are ”NOT permitted” inside the exhibit: “Photography, Flashes, Tripods, Video Camera, Sketching.”
For starters, items two through four seem rather unnecessary in the presence of item one. Are there photographers out there who, after being told they can’t take pictures, set up their tripod and start snapping their flash just for fun? Has someone attempted to evade regulations by claiming that video cameras don’t count as photography? Somehow I doubt it.
Then there’s the concerning presence of “sketching” on the list. Sketching in galleries is a staple among artists, especially students, and it’s impossible to see why anyone would want to ban it. A sketch of a painting or sculpture — even a masterful one that becomes a piece of artwork in its own right — is never going to serve as a replacement for the original. In fact, banning sketching is just going to make the exhibit less attractive to a gallery’s biggest fans: artists. What purpose could such a ban possibly serve?
That’s the problem with the ownership mentality of modern copyright: few people bother to think about purpose because they are too busy thinking about control, operating from a default “cover-all-our-bases” mentality without bothering to ask why. At some point during the drafting of this sign, somebody should have stopped and said “Wait, why do we care?” — but instead they said “Have we forgotten anything? Better throw tripods on there just to be safe.”

mudwerks:

(via Ownership Mentality: Art Gallery Prohibits Sketching | Techdirt)

…ridiculous notice found at the Art Institute of Chicago:

In case you can’t see the image, it is a sign listing several things that are NOT permitted inside the exhibit: “Photography, Flashes, Tripods, Video Camera, Sketching.”

For starters, items two through four seem rather unnecessary in the presence of item one. Are there photographers out there who, after being told they can’t take pictures, set up their tripod and start snapping their flash just for fun? Has someone attempted to evade regulations by claiming that video cameras don’t count as photography? Somehow I doubt it.

Then there’s the concerning presence of “sketching” on the list. Sketching in galleries is a staple among artists, especially students, and it’s impossible to see why anyone would want to ban it. A sketch of a painting or sculpture — even a masterful one that becomes a piece of artwork in its own right — is never going to serve as a replacement for the original. In fact, banning sketching is just going to make the exhibit less attractive to a gallery’s biggest fans: artists. What purpose could such a ban possibly serve?

That’s the problem with the ownership mentality of modern copyright: few people bother to think about purpose because they are too busy thinking about control, operating from a default “cover-all-our-bases” mentality without bothering to ask why. At some point during the drafting of this sign, somebody should have stopped and said “Wait, why do we care?” — but instead they said “Have we forgotten anything? Better throw tripods on there just to be safe.”

  1. aisiaisia reblogged this from mudwerks
  2. forget-why reblogged this from mudwerks
  3. sisterbeatrice reblogged this from mudwerks
  4. prousthelytize reblogged this from mudwerks
  5. socially-crippled reblogged this from mudwerks
  6. junifish reblogged this from mudwerks
  7. bendonnelly reblogged this from mudwerks
  8. justkuotes reblogged this from mudwerks
  9. onnasora reblogged this from mudwerks
  10. betzistar said: wtf, really?
  11. woodstars reblogged this from mudwerks
  12. nchl reblogged this from mudwerks
  13. hopelessdinosaurs said: I think its more to do with being a pain for other people trying to look at the artworks - people setting up easels and huge drawing pads and blocking people from seeing the displays.
  14. onechair-barbershop reblogged this from mudwerks
  15. nocontxt said: i went to a show at the SF Moma a decade ago that had the same restrictions, but the stated reason was that the work was controversial and they wanted to protect it from attacks.
  16. allenstumblr reblogged this from mudwerks
  17. mudwerks posted this