At the Guggenheim

[SidW]

Two FEDs walking up the spiral gallery at the Guggenheim museum in New York, his a 1 and hers a 3, (or were they a Leica II or III and an M?) held flat in the palm of the hand.

Photography is permitted at the Guggenheim but only in the entrance hall. Everyone takes pictures of the skylight and the spiral gallery, hundreds a day, every day. Here are my versions:





EOS 20D, EF 17-40mm/4, ISO 200 (skylight) and 800 (spiral). Fully colour corrected in RGB then converted to greyscale.

[kiev4a]

Sid. Really nice shots. I'm a big fan of architectural geometry.

[herron]

I really like the second shot, Sid. Those figures on the first level really give a sense of scale.

[SidW]

Thanks for the warm comments. I thought both pictures were begging for B&W, they were already almost monochrome in RGB.

I forgot to mention they had two or three kits in the store for making pinhole cameras. Fun for the kids' stockings maybe.

[minoltaman]

I bought a LOMO fisheye camera at the Guggenheim a few years back. It's a "far out" museum most of the time. Sometimes they run shows that are more "normal".

Nice shots Sid, I really like the B&W. I also know that this is as far as you can go with a camera in that museum.

[SidW]

Thank you Tommy. If there's an exhibition that puts you off you can always go in to their permanent collection of impressionists. But the current exhibition of central European photography from the 1930s is a MUST, on until early January (see my thread in Open Topic (I thnk it was).

Regarding cameras in museums, I'm surprised how sympathetic they are to you not wanting to leave a camera in the cloakroom - I've had no trouble being allowed to walk around carrying one in the Tate Britain and Tate Modern in London (no photography permitted anywhere), the Metropolitan museum in NYC (no flash or tri/monopod photography, extremely generous), and the Guggenheim (photogarphy only on ground floor). To show good faith I keep mine in a closed bag or case, but there are plenty who hang them openly round their necks.

[kiev4a]

In our European travels last spring plenty of museums, chueches and galleries didn't want you to take photos but no one made you check your camera or even put it away. I always put mine in the bag but a lot of people with P&S digitals didn't and it was obvious some were taking photos--some with flash!!!!

[mickeyobe]

The McMichael Gallery near Toronto, which specialises in Canadian artists and our Group of Seven, allows photography but no flash or tripods. Monopods are a little iffy.

Many digital cameras have a "Museum" setting which disables the flash.

Mickey

[nikonbob]

SidW

I always thought that the Guggenheim had an interesting photogenic entrance hall. I can understand restrictions on the use of flash as museums are worried about the possible degrading effects on paintings and tapestries and the like. I really hate people who can't seem to turn their flashes off inside these places. The restrictions on tripods also makes sense from the tripping hazard they pose. I can't imagine the falling of knocking some priceless object and damaging it in a crowded museum. I can recall having to pay for a camera permit to be able to take photos in churches, Canterbury Cathedral comes to mind.

Bob

[doubs43]

I may have posted this before but when my father visited Westminster Cathedral, the sign clearly said "NO PHOTOGRAPHY ALLOWED". One visitor apparently didn't believe it until he was escorted to the door and told not to return.

While in Germany I visited the Mainz Cathedral and I took many pictures. It was permitted. One of the few times I've violated a "no photography" rule was taking a picture of Spanish La Guardia Police in Madrid in 1972. I used a Leica IIIf and 35mm Elmar lens (pre-focused) held at waist level so they wouldn't notice.

Walker

[SidW]

"No flash" also prevents idea theft (or whatever they call it), pictures of actual exhibits will be too low grade for publication. Same for tripods, once someone sets one up they can put any sophisticated reproduction gear on it and sneak pictures for possible illicit purposes.

[SidW]

nikonbob said:

.... I always thought that the Guggenheim had an interesting photogenic entrance hall ...

Yes indeed Bob, the building is an exhibit in itself.

And yes, English cathedrals tend to have photo permits as a source of income. Canterbury has found another - entrance to the Cathedral is free but you pay to cross the precincts to get to the door (the precincts are free when you're attending a service).

[minoltaman]

Yes, it's tough about museum policies towards photography. The Louvre and the d'Orsay were always pretty liberal with allowing photography....and I always noticed flashes popping in those places! The Academy and Uffizi in Florence were strict 'no photography' while the Vatican museum tolerates photography, albeit no flash....but that never seemed to stop the flashes popping off everywhere!

In Venice several years back, I snuck of photo of inside St Mark's Cathedral even though the sign at the front clearly states no photos. I held the camera waist level, autofocus, no flash, but the shot came out a little too blurry. Oh well, guess I must go back there if I want to see it again!!

[kiev4a]

At Westminster I commented to my wife that there was enough light to shoot a picture and a voice behind me said something like "But you better not!" Turned out to be one of the security people. I struck up a conversation with the guy (very friendly) and he pointed out visitors who obviously were trying to sneak photos (and obviously looked guilty doing it). I got the feeling that no one was likely to get their camera confiscated as long as they weren't obvious and didn't use a flash.