Photography Disrespectful?

[hendriphile]

The most disrespectful act involving the Alamo I've ever heard of was when uber-Rocker Ozzy Osbourne, in a very "refreshed" state wandered up to it and urinated upon it. Even my my liberal standards, I could understand the locals being a bit frisky about that sort of antic.

Here in the UK, we have an organisation called The National Trust. This organisation is a charitable trust which "looks after" a lot of stately homes, historic and other places of interest, including coastline, country estates and the like.

My wife and I were members for many years but cancelled our membership earlier this year. The main reason being that they have a very erratic and irritating attitude towards photography. The use of flash photography is universally banned (for the same non-reasons as discussed already - i.e. priceless paintings and tapestries which would be bleached white should any light fall upon them)

Tripods are banned, because they pose a health and safety risk indoors (and, in some bizarre cases outdoors as well). When one explains that the camera doesn't possess a flash nor does it require one, the car-park attendant mided employee will think up some other bullsh*t reason.

My own belief is that these places sell their own guide books and allowing punters to take their own snaps prevents further contributions to the upkeep. If they were honest about it and say as much in so many words, I'd respect them. As it is, the National Trust lost my respect altogether. I won't try to buck the rules as they are entitled to do as they wish. Equally, so am I and I'm not short of places where I can visit and take photos.

The moral of the story, I suppose, is that they need our money more than we need to visit their properties. Unless, these (usually well-meaning but often ill-informed or delusional) organisations catch up with the 21st century, they risk alienating their customer base to the point that they will have no reason to continue to exist.

Incidentally, The British Museum (and many others in the UK) has a very enlightened attitude towards photography.

This Yank thanks you for the explanation of the N.T.
Now I can understand the reference: "...a soap impression of his wife which he ate and donated to the National Trust..." 😀

 

[Marcuza]

Selective enforcement.

Selective enforcement.

Interestingly, this rule was suspended for a week in early January when the monument was photographically documented by historians from several universities using laser scanners and large format film cameras. Read the story here:

http://www.mysanantonio.com/community/southside/news/article/Save-the-Alamo-5139200.php

 

[Spanik]

I read a few times here that The National Trust (sometimes) allows photography inside their buildings. I'm a bit surprised by that. I have been member for about 5 years (must be in the 1990's) when we visited the UK each year and I haven't been allowed to take a single photo in any of the properties I visited. Is this a recent change?

I have no problem with "no photo allowed". Or with paying a reasonable fee to do so, like in some cathedrals or museums where I can understand that money is welcome to keep the thing going. But it got the be clear what can and what can not.

 

[biomed]

It is quite puzzling why the rule of photographing or not varies from place to place. Here in the Seattle area we are blessed with several outstanding aircraft museums/collections including the Evergreen Aviation & Space Museum and the Tillamook Air Museum in Oregon. Photography is allowed in all of them even with tripods. South of us is the amazing LeMay Museum with the largest collection of automobiles in the world. They allow photography but ban tripods because of possible damage to the cars - most of them are not behind any barrier. When I was in the Alamo it was different. No photographs and no talking above a whisper in the chapel. It is more than a historical site to Texas. It is a shrine to the larger than life fallen heroes of the Texas Republic and Texas freedom. The Alamo is usually staffed with members of the Daughters of the Republic of Texas ( the organization that is responsible for saving the Alamo). As much as many disagree with no photography policies, it is what it is.

Mike

 

[E__WOK]

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?

http://www.thealamo.org/plan-a-visit/rules.html

The Alamo has a unique set of rules befitting its status as the Shrine of Texas Liberty and hallowed ground. Please read the rules before entering the Shrine to ensure a respectful, pleasant visit.

Rules of Reverence

Help Honor Their Memory

Gentlemen, please remove your hats inside the Shrine.
No open containers are allowed inside the buildings.
No food or drinks are allowed inside the buildings.
Photography is not allowed inside the buildings.
No camera or cell phone use is permitted inside the buildings.
Please do not touch the walls or display cases inside the Shrine.
No pets are allowed on Alamo Grounds (service animals allowed).
No restrooms inside the Shrine. Public restrooms located at back of grounds.
No obscene or offensive clothing is allowed.
No bikes or skateboards are allowed on the grounds.
Please lower your voice when speaking.
No unauthorized weapons are allowed. CHL allowed with permit.
Ice chests are allowed but must not be left unattended at any time.

 

[Lss]

In fact using electronics (yes, even phones) has a negligible impact on a plane's operations. But by virtue of bureaucracy it is still required that every electronic device used during takeoff and landing be individually tested...and airlines find it easier to simply ban everything instead of only allowing a certain number of devices.

It is changing in small steps. I already made a couple of flights this year where gate-to-gate mobile device use was allowed.

 

[Takkun]

Couldn't help myself.

 

[greyelm]

For visitors to London here is a list of venues that I have photographed inside within the last
two years.

Tower of London
Museum of London
Imperial War Museum (except the Holocaust exhibition)
British Museum
Hampton Court (except the Chapel)
Ham House
Brooklands Museum

For other venues their web sites usually have details of photography restrictions (if any).

 

[Chris101]

Couldn't help myself.

That could totally be recaptioned ya know ...

 

[shadowfox]

Of COURSE it's silly...it's TEXAS !!!

Of course!!
That's why "silly" people like ... say, Toyota Motor Corp chose to move to TX from CA.

😀

 

[Kenj8246]

Think Will was responding to the TX basher from CA. We now return you to your regularly scheduled discussion....

 

[Rick Waldroup]

You know, you can call Texans many things, and most of them would be well deserved and most Texans would proudly agree with you- loud mouth boors, ignorant hillbillies, redneck assholes, gun-toting fanatics, overbearing braggarts who are full of bull****, I mean the list is endless.......

But there is one thing you cannot call them, and that is, silly.......

No real Texan will put up with that.

Just so you know.😉

 

[shadowfox]

You know, it's funny. I had two occasions when people were very friendly to my taking pictures at their properties, I had a good chat about photography with them, and they sent me off with a smile.

One in Texas, one in California.

People are quite nice up close and personal, if we don't pick up a broad brush and paint labels instead.

 

[Scrambler]

Of course it's silly ...it's Paris !!!

http://www.musee-orsay.fr/en/visit/individuals/copying-filming-photography.html

Thanks for that - and a very interesting read, including their logical but slightly left-field reason.

The interesting thing to me is that they are quite happy for you to sketch with a A3 notepad and pencil but not to photograph.

 

[uhoh7]

Which is worse, violating a no photo rule (w/o flash), or speeding?

 

[Scrambler]

Which is worse, violating a no photo rule (w/o flash), or speeding?

Do you want what people think is worse, or which one they do more often?

The Photography Police are pretty vigilant, and getting thrown out of a museum is embarrassing and wasteful of time and money.

Speeding is only very occasionally detected and therefore the average cost of speeding is probably lower than the average cost of taking an "unauthorized" photograph.

 

[dct]

Just heard a podcast on this topic (1st minutes, only German).
http://www.srf.ch/sendungen/kultur-kompakt/fotografieren-erlaubt-paradigmenwechsel-in-den-museen

It seems museums in Switzerland are adopting their rules to the benefit of visitors: Private photography is more and more allowed as long as you don't use flash or tirpods.

I will give it a try in the next months.

Just found an example: The KUNSTHAUS Zurich explicitly allows photography for their permanent exhibition.
http://www.kunsthaus.ch/en/information/
(read: general house rules)

 

[Deardorff]

If taking a photo is disrecpectful why are postcards OK?
Your photos would be personal. The Postcards commercialize the place.

 

[charjohncarter]

What's 'Disrespectful' is building a department store less the 50 meters from the Alamo on one side and some other nutty looking building on the other.