Comments on: Bloggers Stage Photo Protest Against 303 Gallery at Whitney Biennial

By: Kianga Ellis

Kianga Ellis — Mon, 02 Aug 2010 23:43:28 +0000

Thanks Brent, for turning me on to this excellent post from my pre-Hyperallergic days! http://heartasarena.tumblr.com/post/895269586/control

By: Dave Rupert

Dave Rupert — Mon, 19 Apr 2010 02:26:28 +0000

old people making old rules in old galleries that show old artists that make old art

By: BK MFA » Blog Archive » Whitney Biennial 2010 (and its discontents)

BK MFA » Blog Archive » Whitney Biennial 2010 (and its discontents) — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 04:38:25 +0000

[...] like these cats the best: they just want to talk shit on 303 gallery and shoot guerrilla photography while wearing [...]

By: Hrag Vartanian

Hrag Vartanian — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 00:07:52 +0000

That’s a rather cynical take on those who take photos of art. And you can be assured that if someone is having their art bootlegged in Chinatown then they probably don’t need the money and/or the amount that one would profit from the venture is so small that it would be rather absurd.

The vast majority of people — I’m almost willing to say everyone — who take photos do so for their enjoyment and for documentation. I, for instance, take them so that I can write about them another time.

Increasingly, creative people are realizing that allowing people to reproduce their work actually increases their value, and not the other way around. Also, the issue of artists who use appropriated images is doubly ironic. Why can they swipe images and remix them while others can’t?

You can see what happened to record labels and publishers when institutions are blind to change. You can be sure that the same will eventually happen to institutions in the art world that refuse to adapt to the times.

By: Kathy Lambert

Kathy Lambert — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 18:49:21 +0000

As to taking photos of art displayed in galleries, please consider the possibilities of scam “artists,” who intend to digitally copy the works, reframe as prints and sell them down in China Town or the net. Haven’t you bought crap on the streets of China Town, knowing full well it is a copy and a bad one of some movie you hadn’t seen in theatres yet? The same with art. The policy is protectionist because the ownership belongs to the artist. So far as I know, artists need this protection. So get permission when they lay down the law, it will eliminate bad vibes and further hassles.

By: Hrag Vartanian

Hrag Vartanian — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 21:33:29 +0000

As a viewer in 2010, I don’t understand why galleries have a need to control my experience of seeing and recording what I see. Why can I write whatever I want about an art work, even if it is horribly negative, and not take a photo unless someone approves of it. That type of visual control restricts experience and doesn’t contribute anything to the work. Photography by its nature is subjective and my way of seeing isn’t the same as someone else’s. It is particularly ironic that artists who rely on appropriation, collage, etc. don’t support other people interested in remixing or appropriating an image.
An artist creates a work and puts it out into the world and people experience it different ways. I think it’s lovely that people want to take images and remember it and discuss it online. An image, even if it is bad, makes you want to see the original.

By: Erin

Erin — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 20:46:53 +0000

I don’t really understand what’s behind the entitlement of being “allowed” to photograph everything you see. Doesn’t it really just become about image consumption and mere documentation? It’s not so much about looking anymore. Why exactly do you need to photograph it? Just because you have a blog shouldn’t mean you have the rights to any image you want. If it is indeed for a press purpose, what’s the trouble in contacting the gallery and asking for an image? Or going to the gallery’s website, and copying the image but crediting them?

Before digital cameras and the internet, I really don’t think there was this great need to document ad infinitum.

If this is indeed what it is being satirized, I stand corrected.

By: Loren J. Munk

Loren J. Munk — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 06:22:59 +0000

Hrag,
sorry for the confusion, I thought that looked like the satirical leg of Hyperallergic.

By: Hrag Vartanian

Hrag Vartanian — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 23:11:13 +0000

Loren, the post is written by The Editors. It is the satirical arm of Hyperallergic.

By: Man Bartlett

Man Bartlett — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 22:51:27 +0000

And that you have a blog: http://sacheverellpei.blogspot.com/