Photography Disrespectful?

[VTHokiEE]

I was in San Antonio, Texas this past week on business and decided to take a walk over to the Alamo. As I walked inside, I noticed the "no photography" sign plastered around, but apparently my colleague did not. He went to take a photo and the workers told him not to take pictures. He asked why and at least one of the employees said it was disrespectful. I don't fully understand this logic, how taking a picture would be disrespectful (in this particular instance). Any thoughts?

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Plain simple. You walked in where "no pictures" is posted. You ignored the rule.
You are disrespectful to the rules.

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

I agree with Ko.Fe. Their place, their rules.

 

[Roger Hicks]

"Respecting the rules" and "being disrespectful" are often VERY different things.

I often ask, "Why is photography forbidden?"

Cheers,

R.

 

[ZeissFan]

I don't quite understand how a national landmark can have a "no photography" rule, unless it's to protect items from the cumulative damage of electronic flash.

I am not a fan of the "no photography" rule. Corporations do this all of the time with their buildings.

I just go across the street and photograph it anyway.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Yes, I'm asking, if no obvious reason.

Went to see kings' palace somewhere not so far from Surrey, UK. Few years ago.
No problem, to take pictures. Allowed, but only one room - no pictures.

I asked why. The answer - "light from the camera might destroy old paintings".
I didn't ignore this stupidity to not become disrespectful.

 

[Roger Hicks]

. . . I asked why. The answer - "light from the camera might destroy old paintings".
I didn't ignore this stupidity to not become disrespectful.

Respecting whom or what?

La lucha continua no terminara facilmente.

For those whose Spanish is as bad as mine, "The struggle goes on and will not end easily", or perhaps, less literally, "We will go on fighting and won't give up."

Cheers,

R.

 

[Photo_Smith]

Ko.fe
That was probably a National Trust place, they are staffed by volunteers and have a no photography policy in some houses, sometimes just a few rooms in a house. You might find the houses are partly occupied and some areas also verboten.

So the old lady who said 'the light will destroy the painting' has probably been told the flash is bad, distracting and to be discouraged.

 

[tunalegs]

I don't quite understand how a national landmark can have a "no photography" rule, unless it's to protect items from the cumulative damage of electronic flash.

I am not a fan of the "no photography" rule. Corporations do this all of the time with their buildings.

I just go across the street and photograph it anyway.

The Alamo also have a no hats rule. I think it is part of an idea that the place needs to be given reverence. Of course there are millions of other places where thousands more died serving their country or defending their way of life. You can take photos at the USS Arizona memorial for instance, and I don't see anything inherently disrespectful about wanting to document one's visit to a place of historical importance to their country. In my opinion the no-photo rule at the Alamo is a bit silly.

 

[Pioneer]

I think the answer is pretty simple in this case. Have you seen the prices on their souvenir photos in the gift shop? Someone is being allowed to be "disrespectful" as long as the money goes where some people feel it should. 🙂

 

[mfogiel]

Sometimes, what is OK in one culture is forbidden in another and it could have been some belief they had there. For example, once some people believed, that if you make a photo of them, you will take away their soul. I believe, that we have no souls. Who is right? Generally though, ban on photography is suspicious and retrograde.
Photography records reality much better than human eyes.

 

[VTHokiEE]

Plain simple. You walked in where "no pictures" is posted. You ignored the rule.
You are disrespectful to the rules.

So am I understanding you correctly, in that it has nothing to do with reverence and everything to do with silly rules? (BTW, I feel the need to say I, and my coworker, did respect their rules, if someone doesn't want a picture taken I don't take it.) I thought it had more to do with reverence for the dead, but there are many other places it America that many more people died that allow photography.

Sometimes, what is OK in one culture is forbidden in another and it could have been some belief they had there. For example, once some people believed, that if you make a photo of them, you will take away their soul. I believe, that we have no souls. Who is right? Generally though, ban on photography is suspicious and retrograde.
Photography records reality much better than human eyes.

I understand that philosophy, but didn't think that applied to Texas (but one never knows...).

The Alamo also have a no hats rule. I think it is part of an idea that the place needs to be given reverence. Of course there are millions of other places where thousands more died serving their country or defending their way of life. You can take photos at the USS Arizona memorial for instance, and I don't see anything inherently disrespectful about wanting to document one's visit to a place of historical importance to their country. In my opinion the no-photo rule at the Alamo is a bit silly.

This was more along my line of thinking.

 

[Brian Atherton]

Having travelled extensively around Britain visiting country houses and National Trust properties, some allow non-flash photography inside, some don’t allow photography inside at all.

I’ve come to the conclusion the reason is usually:

1 To keep copyright and maximise the owner’s own photo sales
2 To avoid fading damage to paintings, furnishings or tapestries etc from flash
3 To avoid the distraction of flashes firing
4 Security
5 Because they can

When I’ve asked, many have been perfectly okay with me taking photos inside as long as I don’t use flash or a tripod. The logic being is that ‘professionals’ use tripods, and professionals have their photos published for a payment.

The only time I’ve been asked to stop taking photos was when visiting Sandringham, being told, “I am sorry, photography is not allowed, sir.”

I was using a small pair of binoculars to view the ceiling. 🙄

 

[Scrambler]

In the modern era you could just hold your cell phone up to your mouth and whisper hoarsely "I can't talk, I'm in the Alamo/Sandringham/wherever" while pressing the shutter. You might want to have the camera noises turned off though. 😛

If prints are being sold then photography itself is not the issue. But with the modern mania for "selfies" and the delays that occur with trying to get a group into a photo, I can understand that a ban on photography might really be to encourage people to think more of the place they are in and less of themselves i.e. to "show respect."

 

[chathaway]

ugh, my brain hurts...

 

[hellomikmik]

...Photography records reality much better than human eyes.

One good reason why photography should be sometimes forbidden.

 

[daveleo]

I did not read the previous replies. I don't want to get into another internet fight.

IMO, the sign says "No photography". Do us all a favor and don't take pictures. Common courtesy. Nothing to do with your "freedom". Put the camera away, buy some postcards in the gift shop.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I did not read the previous replies. I don't want to get into another internet fight.

IMO, the sign says "No photography". Do us all a favor and don't take pictures. Common courtesy. Nothing to do with your "freedom". Put the camera away, buy some postcards in the gift shop.

Or common servility and unwillingness to ask why?

Do us all a favour and read others' viewpoints before caving in.

Cheers,

R.

 

[peterm1]

In general photography need not be disrespectful no matter where the image is made - it comes down to the attitude of the photographer, mostly. If the photographer is respectful then the photo is likely to be. But I believe that I, myself should respect other people's wishes in this regard - and that included obeying signs saying "no photography" no matter how much I may happen to disagree.

In places like the Alamo it may be because "rubber neck" tourists get out of hand in some of their behaviours and the managers of the facility wish to keep a more restrained and contemplative setting in a place so important to US history and where so many died, without people climbing over each other to get a shot. A lot of people know no boundaries and you have to be prepared to set those boundaries for them. Even when this also limits other people who might do nothing more than quietly and respectfully make an image.

Clearly this problem of limits does not apply only to tourists - Bruce Gilden is an example of someone who's approach I dislike greatly - both in terms of how his images are made and generally, the result. Shoving a camera and flash in someones face is not conducive to showing respect and neither is it to getting good shots. (IMHO) It just p#sses people off for no good reason and gives the rest of us a bad name, although it is only guilt by association.

Or in the case of the Alamo it may be nothing more than a commercial thing dressed up as something altogether more noble. If they have a gift shop and prefer tourists to buy images and post cards from there for example. (St Pauls Cathedral in London is sometimes criticized for this as it is renowned for not allowing images to be made - I cant recall if this is an absolute prohibition or if they allow it when a fee is paid. Certainly the latter applies to commercial images which is demonstrably reasonable. I believe though that they justify the restriction on the grounds that it is still a place of worship not just a tourist attraction and they justify the fee for commercial images on the grounds that they have to operate the place and maintain it. Neither seems unreasonable to me in the circumstances). I sometimes wonder about this when I go to places like Hong Kong where visiting temples to take photos is a common tourist thing.

My local city art gallery the National Museum of South Australia does not allow people to take photos inside the facility - even though very nearly every other major public art gallery in Australia that I have visited does allow it provided no flash is used (again a totally reasonable restriction). I think this is a dumb rule (it does not seem to be a commercial thing as they don't have a large gift shop) but never the less I willingly obey it because as I said I believe photographers should respect such boundaries because not to do so only invites even more restrictive rules.

BTW the only exception to the above general rule about major public galleries allowing photos that I can think of in Australia is the National Portrait Gallery in Canberra which is somewhat ironic in that the majority of its exhibits are exactly - photos.

As an aside other businesses sometimes have such rules too. A couple of years back I went to a large new coffee shop/cafe and while waiting for a friend, idly took a photo of a chandelier (the style of the place was generally what I would describe as "Parisian bordello" ). A very officious lady manager come over and gave me a dressing down in front of other patrons for doing so and stood over me demanding I delete the image. A bit of over kill considering that no perosn was in the image. I don't think there was a sign - or if it was it was tucked away in an inconspicuous place and I thought about making a fuss but instead just smiled and complied (the image really was of no importance so why ruin my day more than it had been by fighting). Instead I never went back. Presumably others did not either (although I imagine not for this reason alone) as a few months after opening it went broke.

 

[__jc]

Photography is not disrespectful per se, but certain behaviours can be seen as being disrespectful largely depending on context. It would seem that the board of trustees or whoever is charged with running public access to the Alamo has reached the opinion that there is less likelihood of disrespectful behaviour if the right to take photographs within the Alamo is abrogated.

From my recollection, the room in question is the chapel to which, during the famous battle of 1836 (thanks, Wikipedia!) a large number of Texian soldiers retreated and were subsequently slaughtered. It has been declared a Texas State Shrine so it is not really surprising that a degree of respect is requested.

On the other hand, it is the most popular tourist destination in Texas, and you are only given a minute or two to walk through the chapel. Again, one can understand why photography isn't encouraged as it would stop the rather rushed flow of visitors.

It is a rather sobering place to visit.