Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Major Museums Start Banning Selfie Sticks

Posted by samzenpus on from the put-down-the-stick dept.

An anonymous reader shares these articles about museums banning the dreaded selfie stick. "Selfie sticks, the logical 'extension' of an already irksome activity, were recently banned in Premier League soccer stadiums. Now museums around the world are starting to do the same over worries of accidental damage to artwork. The Smithsonian barred their use effective last week as a 'preventative measure to protect visitors and museum objects,' especially on crowded days. Meanwhile, a formal ban is pending at Versailles palace and Centre Pompidou in France, and visitors are now being told to stow their sticks by guards at the Louvre. Both Pompidou and the Louvre will continue to allow regular photography and selfies."

43 of 183 comments (clear)

  1. Sure about the Louvre? by Deadstick · · Score: 4, Insightful

    On my visits there, I remember signs prohibiting photography...not that anybody paid any attention to them.

    It's been a while...maybe it was just flash photography.

    1. Re:Sure about the Louvre? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yep, it's just flash. If you use flash, guards will tell you to not-do-that-again. Otherwise everyone walks around photographing.

    2. Re:Sure about the Louvre? by xanthines-R-yummy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      For museums in general, it depends on the exhibit and whether or not the works have been copyrighted. If so, no photography of any kind is allowed. For the Louvre, it seems like most exhibits should allow photography, although not necessarily flash. Even so, it seems like flash photography may not harm paintings after all...

      http://www.arthistorynews.com/...

    3. Re:Sure about the Louvre? by tnk1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Harm to art or not, flash photography is also annoying. That is another reason for not allowing it in museums where people go to actually appreciate the artwork and would prefer to not be strobe lit all the time.

    4. Re:Sure about the Louvre? by mrbene · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The "I don't speak French" tactic was what my dad and I used when I visited a couple of decades ago. I seem to remember it being no flash photography at that time, as well.

      It was a legitimate language barrier. We later had a heck of a time getting our taxi driver to stop so that we could hop out and see the Shuttle being ferried over Paris on a big plane. Once he understood, he seemed rather happy that we had.

    5. Re:Sure about the Louvre? by Chrutil · · Score: 2

      IIRC, non-flash photography is allowed at Lourve, but no photo's at all at d'Orsay, for example. Probably a copyright issue.

    6. Re:Sure about the Louvre? by beelsebob · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You realise that when you take a flash photo, the flash should not be pointing at the subject in all but the rarest cases, right?

      There's only one type of flash photography that needs the flash to point forwards - that's front filling (where you use the flash to try to even out dim lighting close to the camera, and bright lighting in the distance, and which is typically used for landscape photos)

      For pretty much all other cases, instead, you want to bounce the flash off a large surface, to diffuse the light. Otherwise, all you get is photos with a big white specular dot right in the centre.

      This is why when you look at a professional flash, you'll note that it tilts in all axes, rather than simply pointing forwards, like the crappy flashes they put on consumer cameras to try and even out their poor ISO response.

    7. Re:Sure about the Louvre? by disposable60 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And how common is an aimable flash as a fraction of the number of cameras being carried by the general public these days? I believe I heard that the iPhone is the top-selling camera, beating sales of the big three (Nikon, Canon, Olympus) summed.

      --
      You're looking for quotes? See my journal.
    8. Re:Sure about the Louvre? by mwvdlee · · Score: 2

      That's not how light works.

      The flash light is not just visible to you and your camera, it's visible to everybody, even if you don't look directly at the flash.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    9. Re:Sure about the Louvre? by magarity · · Score: 2

      For pretty much all other cases, instead, you want to bounce the flash off a large surface, to diffuse the light

      But not just any "large surface" will do. It's always amusing to see someone with a fancy camera with the flash pointed straight upward towards a vaulted, black ceiling.

    10. Re:Sure about the Louvre? by chihowa · · Score: 2

      Well, if my exposure to people has taught me anything, a huge amount of those visitors would be using flash photography while simultaneously getting annoyed by other people also using flash photography.

      "All this flashing is really annoying," the tourist says just before flashing their camera.

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
  2. Thought these were jokes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Up until I just googled the phrase seconds ago: "Selfie Stick" I thought it was just something people joked about (hyperbole of where selfies are going) and wasn't actually a real product. I just looked them up and wow...

    1. Re:Thought these were jokes by alen · · Score: 2

      back in the day you would have to ask strangers to take a photo of your entire family or group and thieves would steal cameras. worse in the smartphone age when someone can steal your $700 phone and all the personal data on it.

      well worth it to buy a $40 stick with bluetooth on it for personal photos

  3. Good Luck by coop247 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We visited the Sistene Chapel and the tour stops right outside the room and the guide is very clear "Be quiet and absolutely no flash photography" and then you walk in and its absolutely packed with people being loud and taking flash pictures.

    --
    //TODO: Insert catchy phrase
    1. Re:Good Luck by alen · · Score: 3, Insightful

      same with the statue of David. they should just make fake art for some of these museums that can be damaged by photos and save the real thing

    2. Re:Good Luck by steelshadow · · Score: 2

      We visited the Sistene Chapel and the tour stops right outside the room and the guide is very clear "Be quiet and absolutely no flash photography" and then you walk in and its absolutely packed with people being loud and taking flash pictures.

      My experiences differ from yours. I've been to the Sistene Chapel twice in the last five years and did not see any flash photography. The guards were very active in making sure people weren't taking pictures and even checking on people with cameras out to remind them not to take pictures.
      It did get fairly loud in there because of the sheer number of people in the room. The guards would try to "shush" people now and then to lower the volume, which did help, but not for very long. Individual people weren't loud but it was so crowded that the overall volume was loud.

    3. Re:Good Luck by tlhIngan · · Score: 2

      We visited the Sistene Chapel and the tour stops right outside the room and the guide is very clear "Be quiet and absolutely no flash photography" and then you walk in and its absolutely packed with people being loud and taking flash pictures.

      Last Spring when I went, it was a dull roar - the guards were all over people who were taking photographs. Perhaps they're more attentive now given the relative fragility of it. In fact, they didn't allow photos at all - the guards were the loudest ones there and they were mostly shouting "No photo".

      same with the statue of David. they should just make fake art for some of these museums that can be damaged by photos and save the real thing

      The guards were all over people at the Academy museum - they saw a camera and they practically pounced on the guy. not to mention they basically made you keep all your real cameras away, those who had cellphones up in the "taking a photo" stance were generally reminded to not take photos.

      Though there are plenty of replica Davids around (the Ufitzi gallery has one) for your snapping pleasure. The Academy gallery was basically constructed to hold David.

  4. Re:"Dreaded"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    People who have to deal with a lot of them in moderately crowded spaces with multiple millions of dollars' worth of precious, irreplaceable, objects on display (objects that they are employed to protect), that's who.

  5. Selfies... by MitchDev · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Now there is an illness that needs a custom disease to wipe out those who take them...

    1. Re:Selfies... by hey! · · Score: 2

      Now there is an illness that needs a custom disease to wipe out those who take them...

      It's called being run over by a car.

      The problem isn't selfies per se, it's people who are disconnected from the environment they're in and so pose an obstacle or even threat to people they're sharing that space with. Who the hell cares if someone shares a selfie or a Facebook status update. It's wandering around with no awareness of what's going around you that creates problems for other people.

      I have no problem with selfie-sticks per se, but there are plenty of situations where confined spaces and heavy foot traffic make just using your smartphone a nuisance. Just in the last year or so I've noticed a trend of people in the supermarket walking their carts into other people as they text and they don't even notice. I was visiting Manhattan last weekend and I dodged so many young women texting as they walked that I had a flare-up of an old college knee injury that hadn't bothered me in years. If someone wants to take a selfie in Central Park that's one thing, but if just 1-2% of the patrons in a crowded museum corridor try it that's going to be utter chaos.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  6. Re:"Dreaded"? by alen · · Score: 2

    people don't pay attention and swing these things around thinking they are the only ones who matter

  7. Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    When I was in the Louvre last year, I was amazed at what was going on in front of the Mona Lisa. Most people had their backs to it.

    There were more people preoccupied with getting a photograph of themselves in front of it than there were people looking at the damn thing.

    Same story at Venus de Milo statue.

    An observation that I made (and this is nothing more than an observation) is that everyone wielding a selfie stick and not looking at the art was Asian.

    1. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      In my experience, when visiting historic items of this nature, you have 30-60 seconds to stand in its presence, before getting crowded out, or being asked to move along. Why not get a photo of you and your friends to capture the moment? It is not like you are going to close enough, or the time to study it in any significant way. For better or worse, it is more about the journey than the destination.

    2. Re:Good. by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Why would you waste time looking at the real Mona Lisa when you've seen it everywhere since you were a kid?

      You've seen reproductions. At best, printed photographs. It's not the same thing. Which, incidentally, is why taking a selfie with it exactly misses the point.

    3. Re:Good. by mean+pun · · Score: 3, Informative

      Which, incidentally, is why taking a selfie with it exactly misses the point.

      Perhaps for you, but selfies are proof you've been somewhere. That's why I call them evidence photos. For the people in question collecting this evidence may have been the point. Just like the souvenirs that tourists and pilgrims have been taking home for thousands of years.

    4. Re:Good. by bhagwad · · Score: 2

      Nah, I'm pretty much a barbarian when it comes to art. If you show me a printed reproduction and told me it's the real thing, I'd fall for it hook line and sinker. And so would, I suspect, the overwhelming majority of people who go to museums.

      Same for sculptures etc. Do a double blind test to check if people can figure out which is the real and which is the fake and well over 99% of people would fail!

    5. Re:Good. by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 2

      When I was there I didn't even bother to try to get close to either of those 2. I did take some nice pictures of both of them but then I just used a telephoto lens and a small tripod so I didn't have to use a flash. Then again I went to the Louvre to actually see the art and while I did take pictures of the things I liked I spent a lot of time just looking at the pieces I liked. There is a lot of really neat stuff to see if you go through the entire museum, and yes I did go through the entire museum and looked at everything on display, it only took me 2 days open to close.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    6. Re:Good. by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You've seen reproductions. At best, printed photographs. It's not the same thing.

      Indeed. In comparison with how close you can get in the Louvre, the prints have a lot more discernible detail than the original...

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  8. Re:"Dreaded"? by coolsnowmen · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It is, People take shittons more photos now than they used to. The reasons are obvious. Moden technology has enabled cheap photography- where it wasn't too long ago that you had to bring around extra equipment, rolls of film, then get them developed, or even just the fact that SD cards were limiting. Now I can take more photos than I Have time to review- but that is the problem. People are spending more time taking pictures and less time actually experiencing life because of the status, The Facebook status. People aren't making memory books, they are trying to show their friends they are cool and hip and whatever.

  9. Re:Plans to 3D print a selfie stick? by SomeWhiteGuy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I like the idea of the 3D printer mainly because I have 2 small kids and a dog, so toys are broken or chewed quite often. Being able to print new parts and figures overnight as a treat is a nice idea. My problem is the $4k price tag on one plus the plastics and other work once printed. I like it being popular because more and more things are being made for the hobby, but I'd like the demand to come down, and the price for the basics to get started.

  10. Priorities by Andy+Smith · · Score: 4, Funny

    Selfie sticks, the only thing that can rival drones in their speed of being banned.

    1. Re:Priorities by shadowrat · · Score: 2

      Just wait until selfie drones are all the rage! i'm guessing within 2 years.

  11. Selfies are just a logical extension.... by mark-t · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ... of asking somebody else to take a picture of you at some location.

    Some would argue that they have the added benefit of not requiring you to actually be in any way sociable with those around you.

    --
    File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
    1. Re:Selfies are just a logical extension.... by Wycliffe · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Your selfie stick is a lot less likely to run away with your phone than that oh-so-honest person you asked to take a picture of you in Italy.

      The odds of another tourist stealing your camera when you ask them to take a picture is pretty much 0%.
      The odds of a someone (especially a poor local) who asks YOU if you would them to take a picture of you
      stealing your camerais pretty much 100%. This is the same advice I give my kids. If you get lost, don't
      wait for someone to approach you, instead walk up to the first person you see and ask for help. Most people
      are normal law abiding citizens, if you play the odds and pick someone randomly then your chances of getting
      a criminal are very small. If instead you let them approach you then they are picking you which makes the
      odds of them being a criminal considerably higher.

  12. Re:Plans to 3D print a selfie stick? by Rich0 · · Score: 2

    I like the idea of the 3D printer mainly because I have 2 small kids and a dog, so toys are broken or chewed quite often. Being able to print new parts and figures overnight as a treat is a nice idea. My problem is the $4k price tag on one plus the plastics and other work once printed. I like it being popular because more and more things are being made for the hobby, but I'd like the demand to come down, and the price for the basics to get started.

    Sure, but for a common item like this the cost is going to be 99% in the materials, and I imagine that those are going to be cheaper for some chinese manufacturer than your printer.

    It would be like trying to print a paperback book on your home printer. Sure, you can sort-of do it, but it will cost you a LOT more than the 50 cents per copy or whatever a publishing house can do it for, since they aren't using a general-purpose printer for the job but rather machinery optimized for the efficient production of books.

  13. Good riddaance by EmagGeek · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I was at the Museum of Natural History in DC a few weeks ago and got hit in the face more than once with those stupid things. I complained to the curator's office before I left, and I'm glad I'm apparently not alone in doing so.

    Nobody's going to run off with your camera. Just ask someone nearby to take a photo of you.

    1. Re:Good riddaance by nblender · · Score: 2

      so you're saying you were assaulted... I feel that gives you justification to disarm your assailant.

    2. Re:Good riddaance by dcw3 · · Score: 2

      As much as I'm sure this happens, I'm highly doubtful that you were literally hit in the face multiple times. And, FWIW, I'm in favor of the ban.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
  14. Rightly so... by QuietLagoon · · Score: 3, Informative
    The purpose of a museum is to showcase the exhibits of the museum, not the visitors of the museum.

    .

    1. Re:Rightly so... by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 2

      Sadly self centered morons, don't get this.

  15. Re:"Dreaded"? by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 2

    People with a building full of fragile, priceless, irreplaceable artwork dread people swinging long sticks around. With damn good reason, if you ask me.

  16. Re:"Dreaded"? by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 2

    The art museum can does whatever the heck they want. You don't like it - tough titties.

  17. Think Engvall by s.petry · · Score: 2

    Since the world is full of idiots, you can only attempt to idiot proof the world with rules like "no selfie sticks". Just like they had to ban countless hiking trails because the self proclaimed 'nature lovers' would leave mounds of shit and graffiti all over the place.

    Normally I'm pretty libertarian and say leave people alone. There are limits however, these being two of them.

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.