Does flash photography really damage art? The persistence of a myth.
imaging-resource.com
Does flash photography really damage art? The persistence of a myth.
1–8 of 8 posts
Re: Does flash photography really damage art? The persistence of a myth.
#2Even if it does require billions of flashes to begin to fade artwork in a gallery setting, consider some of the most popular pieces of artwork, such as the Mona Lisa, which are heavily photographed and will continue to be so over hundreds of years. Over time, it's feasible that enough people would photograph it with a flash that it would begin to fade.
If the data and its analysis in this article are correct, it doesn't make much sense to ban flash photography in most settings, but it does for things which are and will continue to be extremely popular for centuries.
Re: Does flash photography really damage art? The persistence of a myth.
#3This is great info to know. It kind of reminds me of "no cell phones" on an airplane.
That said, it's the rule in a lot of museums and while it bugs me, it drives me crazy to watch all these entitled people snapping away with their flashes on.
To all of you flash photographers out there (and Alec Baldwin), you may be right that it's a stupid rule, but none the less it's the house rule so start following it.
Re: Does flash photography really damage art? The persistence of a myth.
#4Even if it does require billions of flashes to begin to fade artwork in a gallery setting, consider some of the most popular pieces of artwork, such as the Mona Lisa, which are heavily photographed and will continue to be so over hundreds of years. Over time, it's feasible that enough people would photograph it with a flash that it would begin to fade. If the data and its analysis in this article are correct, it does…
I'm surprised they allow photography in art museums anyway. Even putting aside the "buy a print at the gift shop" argument, you're taking a picture of a painting. What's the point? Are you really going to be looking through your photo album for pictures of the Mona Lisa?
Have an experience for once that doesn't exist through the lens of a camera. A famous painting isn't something that can only be seen once in a lifetime by traveling to Paris.
Re: Does flash photography really damage art? The persistence of a myth.
#5Even if it does require billions of flashes to begin to fade artwork in a gallery setting, consider some of the most popular pieces of artwork, such as the Mona Lisa, which are heavily photographed and will continue to be so over hundreds of years. Over time, it's feasible that enough people would photograph it with a flash that it would begin to fade. If the data and its analysis in this article are correct, it does…
I'm surprised they allow photography in art museums anyway. Even putting aside the "buy a print at the gift shop" argument, you're taking a picture of a painting. What's the point? Are you really going to be looking through your photo album for pictures of the Mona Lisa? Have an experience for once that doesn't exist through the lens of a camera. A famous painting isn't something that can only be seen once in a lifet…
I take photos (where allowed) of artworks simply as a reminder that I liked the piece, not to preserve a realistic reproduction of it. In that sense it's like any other photograph - I'm capturing a facsimile of my experience.
Regarding the article, I think flash photography should still be banned, simply because it makes for a better museum experience. Can you imagine the crowd in front of the Mona Lisa? It would be like red carpet for the Oscars.
Re: Does flash photography really damage art? The persistence of a myth.
#6Even if it does require billions of flashes to begin to fade artwork in a gallery setting, consider some of the most popular pieces of artwork, such as the Mona Lisa, which are heavily photographed and will continue to be so over hundreds of years. Over time, it's feasible that enough people would photograph it with a flash that it would begin to fade. If the data and its analysis in this article are correct, it does…
I'm surprised they allow photography in art museums anyway. Even putting aside the "buy a print at the gift shop" argument, you're taking a picture of a painting. What's the point? Are you really going to be looking through your photo album for pictures of the Mona Lisa? Have an experience for once that doesn't exist through the lens of a camera. A famous painting isn't something that can only be seen once in a lifet…
Many times they don't allow people to photograph pictures, or at least they ask people not to use the flash. Unfortunately, about 8 out of 10 people don't listen or they can't figure out how to turn off the flash.
Re: Does flash photography really damage art? The persistence of a myth.
#7another kind of art: caves. People were not allowed to use a tripod. I think the idea was that you had to buy the official photos because without a tripod there is no way you will get a decent picture of a cave, even with flash.
Re: Does flash photography really damage art? The persistence of a myth.
#8Even if it does require billions of flashes to begin to fade artwork in a gallery setting, consider some of the most popular pieces of artwork, such as the Mona Lisa, which are heavily photographed and will continue to be so over hundreds of years. Over time, it's feasible that enough people would photograph it with a flash that it would begin to fade. If the data and its analysis in this article are correct, it does…
You're ignoring that they're already degrading it by having it in a lit room at all. Flash photos are technically worse but have no practical effect in such an environment.