[smuncky]

good news about the photography "ban", no doubt. i'm looking forward to my next visit where i can finally take some shots.

hopefully they will allow photography in galleries as well, without flash of course.

 

[wyliepoon]

I certainly applaud the AGO for relaxing the photography ban, but I wonder what "copyright restrictions" there are for the artwork that the AGO is keeping the photography ban on. I can understand that there might be restrictions on more modern pieces of art, but medieval pieces and model ships?

I'm in favour of fully lifting the photography ban. If the AGO doesn't want people to shoot in some galleries or specific pieces, it can politely put up a "no photography" sign in those areas. This is the photography rule at the ROM and other museums and galleries that I have been to.

 

[Urban Shocker]

Mostly, I think museums and galleries introduce such bans to protect objects from the damaging effects of repeated flash photography ( think ROM Bishop White Gallery temple frescoes, the painted screens in the Japanese Gallery, the Mediaeval textiles in the Costume and Textile Gallery etc. ), since their light-sensitive artifacts are already presented in appropriately subdued conditions, with screens on the windows etc.

 

[TKTKTK]

The external staircase is another example of combining aesthetics and practicality. It looks good as an external feature and does not detract from or break coherence of internal exhibit space thereby maximizing usable area, while also providing unique public views of Toronto.

[...]

This staircase allows users to go down a fairly straight section and then turn more tightly on flat landings while all the while retaining magnificent views.

Bunk. They do this successfully with the internal staircase in the Walker Court which irons out the clunkiness of landings into a beautifully fluid shape. The external stair was clunky in renders, it's clunky in real life. I dare say it was designed to be clunky.

I'm not charmed by the aesthetics of some metal barnacle forever hanging over the Grange, threatening to sheer off and crash through it's roof.

 

[Archivist]

I have heard recently, from a "real" archivist, that the thinking is now that flashes don't really harm objects. Some art museums, like the National Gallery in Washington and the MoMA in New York, allow flash photography. I have to say though, I found it intrusive when they did.

 

[Urban Shocker]

Yes, it's just plain irritating to have these flashes going off when you're looking at a work. And what do these flashwraiths do with all these images anyway? The whole process seems to be more about creating a sense of self ( I flash, therefore I am ) than anything else. Same thing with all those tourists and their video cameras. What happens to these millions of images of museum objects and streetscenes?

 

[ShonTron]

I have heard recently, from a "real" archivist, that the thinking is now that flashes don't really harm objects. Some art museums, like the National Gallery in Washington and the MoMA in New York, allow flash photography. I have to say though, I found it intrusive when they did.

I agree. Even though I did take some photos in the National Gallery last year, I still refused to use the flash even though I knew it wasn't prohibited. Photographs are only prohibited in the special exhibitions (at the time I went it was JMW Turner and Edward Hopper) and certain works. I just find the flash pointless (it doesn't make for very good photography with a small handheld camera except close up, like of people) and yes, intrusive and almost disrespectful.

I am glad for some relaxation of the photo ban, where photos of architecture, but not of specific works, are fine, but I'd be happier with a general no-flash policy which would be easier to enforce.

 

[TKTKTK]

Same thing with all those tourists and their video cameras. What happens to these millions of images of museum objects and streetscenes?

They probably end up here...

 

[interchange42]

The AGO certainly do enforce their photography policy. I had a number of run-ins with security before the policy was changed, and even yesterday after the change of the policy, in the Galleria Italia, a guard approached me, even though my camera was put away in my camera bag, to tell me just how I was allowed to photograph within that gallery (length-wise) and how I was not (directly at the objects). That, of course, is not how the policy is described exactly at the Art Matters blog that TO City of Light linked to earlier.

Anyway, enforcement has all to do with whether there is security in the room at the time or not. The guards, which typically circulate amongst a few rooms, but who are always by the Massacre of the Innocents, will call you out if they see you.

Before the policy was changed the craziest exchange I had with a guard took place while I was in the barnacle staircase shooting out toward the financial core. I was told "no photos anywhere in the AGO", even shooting from it to the outside world. I told him I did not care about the policy, and that I was going to shoot what I wanted to shoot. He told me he'd have me escorted out, and called a superior on a walkie-talkie. I told him I'd keep shooting until I was finished, and if my escort arrived before that then I'd ask to speak to someone in charge. I finished before anyone showed up.

Meanwhile, the gallery was wonderfully busy yesterday. I was showing a couple of friends around who were in from California. Both had been here back in the old days, and were impressed by all the changes, and were surprised by how big the place is now. One questioned what Thomson's model ships were doing in an art gallery instead of a museum.

42

 

[Urban Shocker]

Yes, I love how the traditional definitions are being blurred.

Next time you're in the barnacle staircase take a few shots of the hack-job with the drywall, beneath the wooden overhang. "Out of sight, out of mind" appears to have been their guiding principles. And a few shots of the detailing on the Walker Court stairway where the poorly-done curved wood meets the similar wooden overhang ( on the inside core ) is instructional. We gotta bitch a little bit about the detailing, surely?

 

[jks]

I just came back from the AGO. I was very impressed by the additions. also, all the new Canadian art, especially the group of seven, absolutely stunning. However, the contemporary galleries, the things that were on display were complete CRAP. I hate things like that. I mean, the contemporary in the Galleria Italia and the sculpture atrium is amazing. But the stuff that was in there, that was so randpom. There was a freaking SINK attached to a wall that was painted black, you call that ART??? IT's plumbing gone wrong. I did enjoy the stairs immensely.

As for photography, I did take pictures, I didn't even know they actually were banned. In the Galleria Italia, the security guard saw me, but said that it's the only area you ARE allowed to take photos. I don't get it?? IN the brochure, it does say no photography WHATSOEVER! So idk, what happened??

 

[adma]

There was a freaking SINK attached to a wall that was painted black, you call that ART???

Well, no more than Duchamp, back when he was boffing Shania Twain

 

[interchange42]

As for photography, I did take pictures, I didn't even know they actually were banned. In the Galleria Italia, the security guard saw me, but said that it's the only area you ARE allowed to take photos. I don't get it?? IN the brochure, it does say no photography WHATSOEVER! So idk, what happened??

The photography policy just changed last week, and the brochure was produced before that. The guard in the Galleria was wrong, by the way. The new policy allows you to take pictures anywhere art is not hanging on the walls.

42

 

[Archivist]

And what do these flashwraiths do with all these images anyway? The whole process seems to be more about creating a sense of self ( I flash, therefore I am ) than anything else. Same thing with all those tourists and their video cameras. What happens to these millions of images of museum objects and streetscenes?

You pose an interesting question. Do you remember that artwork that was at the AGO maybe more than a decade ago? It was a robot, that one by one picked up hard-copy photographs of everyday scenes (graduations, parties in basements, blurry shots of houses), moved them so as to display them to a viewer for a moment or so, and then promptly dropped them into a shredder. The pieces ran up a conveyor belt and formed an ever-increasing pile at the base of them. The kicker was, there was a sensor that the viewer could activate with their hand, and if you held your hand over it, the photo would not be shredded, but would be placed gently into an acid-free archival box instead. But the default was shredding.

The description accompanying the artwork indicated that no known negatives existed for any of the photos.

Needless to say, as an archivist (which I was at the time, a real one) I would stand and watch the photos being shredded, not saving a one. In some ways, it was quite melancholy, though, since these were all "moments" that were disappearing. They must have meant something to someone, sometime.

Of course, with digital, the number of photos taken rises exponentially. They are of no permanent value, of course, and will pretty much all disappear within a few years, even if they seem to be sloshing around cyberspace quite a bit for a while.

 

[TKTKTK]

Of course, with digital, the number of photos taken rises exponentially. They are of no permanent value, of course, and will pretty much all disappear within a few years, even if they seem to be sloshing around cyberspace quite a bit for a while.

I would think the idea of a decade so thoroughly documented as this one would have you trembling with excitement...You don't think that in 100 years from now people will want to look at these random candids to get a taste for what life was like?

Don't we wish we already wish we had more candid records from our past? In the Strathcona Hotel thread for instance...