MoMa - Simon Says GET OUT!
Andrew Peterson (a.k.a. Thomas Hawk) is not a disrespectful person. Andrew Peterson also does not like to be taken advantaged of, lied, or mis-treated.
So, Andrew learned that the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art (a.k.a. MoMA) has changed it's policy, as is outlined here:
(Continued after the Jump)
CamerasPeterson decided to join the museum, and take in the sights, because (no doubt), according to their website, SFMoMA celebrates its' commitment to photography here:
Photography is not permitted in the galleries. Flash photography is permitted only with a handheld camera in the Atrium.
SFMOMA began collecting and exhibiting photographs in 1935 — the same year it opened — making it one of the first museums in the country to examine photography as an art form. Today, the Museum's collection includes pictures from all over the world and embraces a wide range of subjects and authors from such diverse purviews as science, industry, government, entertainment, media, amateur amusement, and the fine arts.Then, the man tasked with ensuring a quality visitor experience in one of the most liberal/free/accepting communities on the planet - Simon Blint (Facebook Profile), Director of Visitor Relations at the SF MoMA - decides that he is going to call in the museum's private Gestapo to halt a man with a fisheye lens from taking pictures in just the location he not only was explicitly permitted to, but had called ahead to confirm was acceptable.
One of Simon's friends - Simon Read, decided to defend Simon on his blog here:
He wrote:
On Friday, Blint asked a patron to stop taking what appeared to be some inappropriate photographs."Appeared to be" and "inappropriate"? As someone who was born and raised in the San Francisco Bay Area, help me understand how Simon Blint can know what's inappropriate? Is Mapplethorpe inappropriate? (Slate.com - Robert Mapplethorpe's Sensationalism) Certainly not in San Francisco, where he's celebrated (and collected). Peterson notes the hypocrisy on his blog when he writes "It is ironic that the great Cartier-Bresson, who took thousands of photographs of unsuspecting people in his work, hangs in the museum while a photographer practicing the same type of work gets ejected...". Blint must have missed this.
Simon's Pal Simon further defends his pal:
It did not take long for Peterson...to disseminate his vitriolic rant to more than a dozen websites. The immediate result was an onslaught of vicious criticism, attempts to get Blint fired, and countless e-mailed threats—this, to a man who was doing nothing more than his job.Actually, his jobs' description, back in July of 2004 reads, in part:
The Head of Visitor Services is responsible for directing front line resources to ensure that visitors have a positive and enjoyable museum experience...It appears that he's failed in that - Mr. Peterson had no such thing occur, and he's a member of the museum who followed the written rules.
If you want to check in to see if his job gets listed, here's the link to where they post their openings. It's not there as of 8/11/08. Maybe it's time to get the Museums' previous Head of Visitor Services - John O’Neill, back.
Simon's Pal Simon goes on to then say "Regardless of who was right or wrong..." as if he's the modern day Rodney King suggesting "why can't we all just get along", then goes on to say "...Peterson/Hawk has crossed the line. A rational human being would have simply written a letter to museum management, stating his case and asking for the situation to be put right. Peterson/Hawk has instead savaged Simon Blint’s online reputation, which is guaranteed to hurt his employment prospects for years to come."
Yes - a search for Simon Blint turns up all sorts of references to Peterson's experiences. Perhaps Blint should treat all his museums' visitors as if they will shout from the rooftops about bad experiences they might have. Heck Hotels.com gets the new world order concept in their latest ad campaign where hotel staff are concerned about the review they might get on the Hotels.com website (one ad here). A letter to museum management would have received some apologetic form letter, and little else. Instead, SF MoMA searches too return the article. While Peterson may have used choice words and colorful language, he outlined his experiences, and only Simon's Pal Simon has said anything (so far). To suggest, as Simon's Pal Simon did "SF MOMA has yet to present its side of the story. Whereas Peterson/Hawk can skewer Blint at his leisure, Blint has a chain of command he must work through before he can defend himself." Yes, and it is exactly that bureaucracy that would have kept, in all likelihood, Peterson from a resolution that not only was satisfactory to him, but also would have established a precedent for handling things appropriately in the first place.
Blint should write an apologetic letter to Peterson - personally. That would be a start.
Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.
16 comments:
Maybe Simon Blint hasn't had enough of Mapplethorpe's "Man in a Polyester Suit"
He should examine the photograph, it might loosen him up.
It appears Mr. Blint needs to work on his soft skills. Perhaps his skill set is better suited as a Meter Maid, tow truck driver or an exciting career at the DMV.
Poor Simon Blint, he will surely be the newest entry in the Urban Dictionary.
blint (noun):
1. Insulting term of address for people who are stupid or irritating or ridiculous.
2. A thoroughly contemptible, detestable person.
3. Vulgar slang for anus.
examples
"Before his first cup of coffee, John could be a real blint."
"Jane was popular with the boys. They all new she would take it up the blint."
"After Simon read the letter from Thomas Hawk's attorney, his blint began to pucker."
Personally I find the whole incident a joke. Why? Andrew Peterson (AKA Thomas Hawk) is constantly trolling for reasons to confront people in his way when it comes to photography. If you dig deeper on his blog you'll find Andrew Peterson has as much if not more disregard for rules a Blint apparently does in this incident. I have no doubt that Andrew Peterson went looking for trouble and found it... all to further his ability to get on a soap box about photographers rights... rights he's happy to fight for when it comes to taking photos, but not when it comes to enforcing the use of photography. Ironic for a guy who had been pushing a photo marketplace on Zooomer, a company he is associated with as an evangelist and CEO. It's this constant contradiction that over time has completely turned me off and enables me to tune out his rants.
On Renegade Photography
"Rather than simply miss Jeff Wall's work due to my dogmatic protest against the SF Moma's anti-photography policy, I decided that I would go, but that I'd shoot anyways...
I'm sure this rubs some people the wrong way, that I'd purposely disrespect an institution's right to restrict photography in a private place. But I believe that art should be more open."
I am with Jim here. That Thomas hawk Peterson has been provoking people with his camera in order to have a reaction. The fact that harrington you fell in his media trap is not an honor for you.
This is a discredit to you and all professional photographers who feel attached to this SF based spoiled blogger brat.
What's the agenda here? Why are people referring to Thomas Hawk by a name that is virtually unknown in the medium in which this article was written?
It detracts from the value of the article.
Jason --
If you've ever worn a press credential, you've been hassled by people who think they have a right to tell you what to do when they don't; you've been threatened with arrest for choosing not to be cordoned off in the "press area" and tried to stand where the general public is congregating; or you've otherwise been hassled because you have a camera. Hawk/Peterson was a member of the public - not the press - being hassled, and that's not right. He was mistreated for operating a "professional looking" camera or because Blint thought he shouldn't be taking pictures. As someone who has experienced that - with and without a credential around my neck - I applaud Hawk/Peterson for doing so. I fell into no trap.
Chris -
Thomas Hawk is his "nom de plume", but his legal name is Andrew Peterson. We note that at the beginning of the article with the "a.k.a." - which, incase you didn't know - stands for "also known as", and is a common to use when someone is equally well known by more than one name - or in some cases, mostly well known by the "a.k.a. name". When Puff Daddy was in trouble with the law, people referred to him as Sean Combs. Same concept.
John,
If Andrew Peterson/Thomas Hawk was just behaving as an average member of the public, I would agree with you. But he's had multiple run-ins over the years with people who don't want him to shoot. Now while some of these people have definitely been unaware of photographer's rights to shoot in public spaces, Peterson makes sure they know it...by blogging and calling them out with insults, knowing that he can rally a mob. The problem is further aggravated by Peterson feeling that not only does he have the right to shoot in public spaces, he thinks he should have unlimited rights to shoot in private locations where they have specifically asked people to not photograph. The SF MOMA being one of the spots, as well as the SF Ballet etc where he has photographed art and performances knowing full well that he is breaking the rules. He even has a name for it...he calls it "renegade" photography and brags about it on his sites.
How can he expect others to respect his rights when he refuses to respect theirs?
The reason why I think it's important to call him by his real name rather than his pen name is that he seems to feel no problem with naming people (who aren't hiding behind a nom de plume) and potentially ruining their online reputation, but needs the protection of a fake name to protect his. When he went after photographer Jill Greenberg calling her a "sick woman who should be arrested and charged with child abuse" http://thomashawk.com/2006/04/jill-greenberg-is-sick-woman-who.html he was very upset when Greenberg's husband uncovered his real name and the company he worked for.
Funny how both of those behaviors tie in so closely together...that Peterson thinks his rights trump the rights of others, that his privacy and reputation is more important.
I think it's very important to hear all sides of the story before deciding that he was an innocent victim of an overzealous employee.
Lane --
One of the things that happens in a court of law is that past transgressions of the law don't enter into the equation (for the most part). The case at hand is what is discussed, and the merits of that particular situation. While I am not a court of law, I can readily appreciate the compartmentalization of a situation like this, and am taking the position that it should apply here.
In this case - and specific to this case - Peterson/Hawk was within his rights to make images, according to the website, and the image he showed. Further, there is no report of Blint (even by his friend) accusing P/H of taking pictures in the galleries - just the atrium - where it is explicitly stated that that is the only place you can take photos.
This case is not about P/H's "renegade photography", because we could discuss that separately, but rather, it's specific to this situation.
There's a saying about free speech - even when you vehemently disagree with what is being said - "I disagree with what you have to say but will fight to the death to protect your right to say it." So too, to P/H's right to take photos in public spaces, and where - by written rule - he can as well.
As to Peterson's use of a nom de plume - there are a number of examples of people separating their names for different work in different areas - Garth Brooks and his alter-ego rocker Chris Gaines, comes to mind. I don't believe that when Peterson created Thomas Hawk, he did so for the sole purpose of hiding behind a name to make attacks.
Until such time as Blint is cited anywhere as saying that P/H was photographing in the galleries, P/H was taking pictures where the public was allowed to - the atrium - and as such, should not have been precluded from doing so, I'll defend his right to have done so.
-- John
Thanks for your reply, John.
Until I hear both sides I am reserving my judgment about whether or not his rights were violated. The SF MOMA photography policy is not an unlimited free-for-all, and as some stories have it, Peterson/Hawk was taking photos that might have made staff or patrons feel uncomfortable.
What I do know, and can show, is that he's been violating the SF MOMA's rights for quite some time now. A quick tag search of his stream for SF MOMA and "renegade photography" will show a number of photos he has taken when he knows he is not welcome to. So what about this? What about the rights of the artists who might have specified that they didn't want their work photographed? And how is that further complicated by the Creative Commons licenses he places on his work?
For example, here's links to both tag searches:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/thomashawk/tags/renegadephotography/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/thomashawk/tags/sfmoma/
Here's some work by an artist:http://www.flickr.com/photos/thomashawk/2439444895/ We have no clue who the artist is, because he didn't bother to credit them. Under his CC license I am free
" * to Share — to copy, distribute and transmit the work
* to Remix — to adapt the work
Under the following conditions:
* Attribution. You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work).
* Noncommercial. You may not use this work for commercial purposes.
So I can grab that photo and "remix" it for something, but I am required to credit Thomas Hawk/Andrew Peterson with it. If I link to his blog, he makes ad revenue on every hit. But the original uncredited artist gets nothing.
Peterson has done a fabulous job of documenting his activities. Here he blogs and calls for a boycott of Hyatt Hotels because he was asked to stop shooting, which he refused to do:
http://thomashawk.com/2008/07/boycott-hyatt-hotels.html
Here he went ahead and photographed Kerouac's "On the Road" manuscript, although it was clearly prohibited:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/thomashawk/88696710/
And here he blogs about violating the rules of the SF MOMA:
http://thomashawk.com/2007/11/on-renegade-photography.html
Some memorable quotes:
"The SF Moma does not allow photography in their museum. I took this photograph anyways."
"Rather than simply miss Jeff Wall's work due to my dogmatic protest against the SF Moma's anti-photography policy, I decided that I would go, but that I'd shoot anyways. Several times I was asked not to photograph and I'd comply when asked only to whip out the camera and begin shooting again in the next gallery."
"This recent trip to the SF Moma has made me rethink my aversion to places where photography is not allowed. I think I'll be going to a lot more of them in the future, I'll just be collecting my own style of renegade photographs in the process. At some point I'll probably use these photographs to construct a renegade photography collage of sorts.
I'm sure this rubs some people the wrong way, that I'd purposely disrespect an institution's right to restrict photography in a private place. But I believe that art should be more open. That it should be more public. I believe that as a non-profit for the general public's artistic enlightenment, that the SF Moma should have a more tolerant photography policy and I believe that renegade photography is a good thing and will create a more vibrant and beautiful world for us all to share in."
I think it's fairly clear that it's Peterson/Hawk who has violated the rights of others. The jury is still out on the SF MOMA employee.
You say we should compartmentalize this particular situation, yet you fully take every word of TH as truth. Why not wait for the other side of the story? Especially considering how he has a history of this kind of thing. I'm with Lane on this.
My intuition is Blint went over the line here, a classic over-reaction by someone with a little authority, but in the end TH's response was completely disproportionate in nature. TH got kicked out, Blint had his character assassinated by mob rule, and you just piled on?
For a second there, I thought you were going to be the one voice of reason with that start saying how we've all been in those situations. I thought you were going to say something like if we all over-reacted like that as photographers every time something like this occurred, we'd all be out of jobs. Even if this happened in a non-professional situation, TH shoots hundreds of photos a day, he's completely immersed in it to the point of OCD, and he knows the deal. I'm betting Blint kind of had it coming, but at the same time, TH likes to push it, and seriously, it's just a little coincidental that this happens on his first visit to the museum since they opened up their policy a little.
I personally think the guy is actually causing more problems on this topic than he's helping. I also agree with Lane on his hypocrisy, which I commented on in several of his threads on the renegade subject. He's so adament about the rules letting him shoot, yet he's willing to completely cast aside any other rule he doesn't like. The guy's got issues, and I believe, very strongly, that it's guys like him that are going to push new laws and new rules into effect that limit photography more not less. Hopefully I'm wrong, but it wouldn't be all that far fetched for SF-MOMA to just ban photography altogether after something like this. Why bother with the hassle, and it's true that the museum experience in many places is being degraded by the masses of photographers.
I won't get into discussing Hawk's past actions since I don't know him, but what anyone has failed to take into account is that perhaps Hawk escalated the situation by continuing to photograph Mr. Blint while Blint was trying to talk to him. It might not have been illegal to do so but neither is the paparazzi harassing people on the street. There is a tactful way to handle each situation and clearly Hawk has no interest in taking the high road.
If somebody were to take pictures of me in a harassing manner like that then I wouldn't really be interested in seeing the photos nor discussing the matter any further either. Hawk got himself tossed out whether he's able to recognize that or not.
As an asshole who will napalm my way through an argument relying totally on principle I always find it interesting that people will discount my ideals based on my delivery. "You don't have to be a dick about it" doesn't really change the premise, just people's ability to stick to the subject. What are the facts? What are the rules? Excuse the delivery, what is the point of contention?
The fact is that we have a one-sided argument as of now. Perhaps due to Blint's employment situation he can't comment publicly. Or perhaps SF MOMA doesn't feel the need to comment either because it's not as big of a deal as people on the internet are making it out to be.
This commenter's quote gives a small taste of just what this guy is all about, and this is not an isolated incident (see below).
He also did a similar thing with a Cigar shop owner. The shop owner was obviously ignorant of photography laws when he tried to get Thomas to stop, so although Thomas (it's ridiculous to use his fake name, but whatever) was probably technically right, his method of popping photos off of the poor guy in his face, posting them to the Net with phone numbers and addresses of his shop, and basically encouraging people to harrass the guy, now that takes some real talent -- a real stand-up guy. I don't care what the "law" says, that's out of line and unethical as far as I'm concerned.
He's definitely not the guy I personally want championing photographer rights. There's no doubt in my mind that part of the reason Blint over-reacted was cause TH kept popping off frames in his face even after being asked to stop (which is proven by his own photos, and despite the stated "policy", I'm sure that same policy allows SFMOMA to do whatever the f*ck they want, it's private property). And even though Blint accused him publicly in the atrium, which was very stupid, TH surely has a history of escalating tensions. Between that and his "renegade photography," general ego-mania (the guy refers to himself in the 3rd person) and hypocrisy, his reputation now DOES IN FACT play a role in evaluating any situation he's involved in, especially when the other side hasn't even been heard yet. Someday, his karma is going to catch up with him, I have no doubt.
Here's the troubling comment:
"I'm a friend of Simon Blint's. His home address has now been printed on several websites and, because of the hatred whipped up against him, he can't go home.
Thomas, regardless of what happened at the museum, it's time to call this off. A MAN'S SAFETY IS AT STAKE."
SF MOMA has released a Press Release on the matter in a very general fashion.
In the event you were unaware
"Last Friday an incident occurred in our museum in which a visitor was asked to leave the building. We stand firmly behind the actions of our director of visitor services, who acted appropriately to ensure the safety of the museum’s admissions staff. He took measures to protect another staff member who according to witnesses on our staff and among the general public was being photographed in an inappropriate and harassing manner. SFMOMA welcomes over 600,000 visitors annually; disputes and disagreements between our guests and our staff very rarely occur.
This was not an issue relating to the museum’s official photography policy. In fact, SFMOMA recently made a policy change to allow photographers to take pictures of the permanent collection, the architecture of the building, and the museum’s public spaces.
We have heard the concerns that have been expressed, and we hope that online discussion concerning SFMOMA can now return to focus on the terrific exhibitions we currently have on view and the many exciting public programs that we are offering to support them. We thank you for your comments.
Department of Communications
San Francisco Museum of Modern Art "
Post a Comment