No Photos! at the Louvre

Two weeks ago I was at the Louvre and may have lucked out as they
instituted a new no-picture-taking policy at the Louvre a couple days
after I went there and took a gazillion pics of the Mona Lisa,Raft of
the Medusa,Death of the Virgin,etc.I may have been one of the last
people to be able to do so.The second time I was there on my last
night,a Wednesday night 9/14,the guards were loudly shouting "No
photos!" at all the tourists and telling them to put away their
cameras.It was funny watching hundreds of tourists from around the
world just gazing at the Mona Lisa just dying to snap a photo when just
a few days before everyone was snapping away with oblivion taking turns
posing in front of the Mona Lisa,etc.
They still allowed picture-taking in the sculptures sections and the
Egyptian antiquities section,but it now appears the most popular areas
of the Italian and French paintings it is being strictly prohibited as
well as in the Louis XV crown jewels room.
I now truly appreciate my timing and picking that week to go.

I'm surprised there is any paint left on those canvases after being
photon blasted innumerable times despite the previous prohibition of
*flash* photography that was nearly ignored... Shall I even mention the
weird 'auto-focus beams' projected by many modern digitals too...

Yup; nothing like the spectacle of the throng trying to be photographed
next to the Mona Lisa... Nothing like the current view of the painting
either, through a forest of digital cameras held high over the heads of
those in closer...

Perhaps a moving walkway (like the Crown Jewels in London) is now in
order to give some semblance of a decent look without having to deal
with a mob scene in front of the painting.

Tim K

"luckym" wrote in message
ups.com...
Two weeks ago I was at the Louvre and may have lucked out as they
instituted a new no-picture-taking policy at the Louvre a couple days
after I went there and took a gazillion pics of the Mona Lisa,Raft of
the Medusa,Death of the Virgin,etc.I may have been one of the last
people to be able to do so.The second time I was there on my last
night,a Wednesday night 9/14,the guards were loudly shouting "No
photos!" at all the tourists and telling them to put away their
cameras.It was funny watching hundreds of tourists from around the
world just gazing at the Mona Lisa just dying to snap a photo when
just
a few days before everyone was snapping away with oblivion taking
turns
posing in front of the Mona Lisa,etc.
They still allowed picture-taking in the sculptures sections and the
Egyptian antiquities section,but it now appears the most popular areas
of the Italian and French paintings it is being strictly prohibited as
well as in the Louis XV crown jewels room.
I now truly appreciate my timing and picking that week to go.

Found this release from the Louvre.

www.louvre.fr
[Begin quote]
Wednesday, September 14 2005
New Museum Regulations for Visitors
New rules have been put in place in order to ensure the comfort and
tranquility of a visit to the Louvre. Specifically, photography and
filming are now restricted in certain areas of the museum.
This regulation, proposed in 1999 with the intention of improving the
museum-going experience, is now in effect. Starting on Wednesday,
September 14, 2005, it is strictly forbidden to photograph or film in
the most crowded areas of the museum, namely the Galerie d'Apollon and
all of the first- floor rooms in the Denon wing (Italian, Spanish, and
French paintings).
With the growing success of the Grand Louvre project, marked by a sharp
increase in annual attendance, the museum decided that the implemention
of a partial restriction of photography and filming was needed. The
restriction affects only the most crowded areas of the museum, where
blocked views are most frustrating to the visiting public.
Signs clearly indicating the restriction of photography and filming
have been placed in all of the concerned areas, and visitor services
and security personnel have been instructed to rigorously enforce the
new regulation.
Special permission to photograph or film in these areas may be granted
to certain types of visitors-teachers, curators, academic
researchers, and art students-in the interest of educational
initiatives or research. Authorization can be requested by writing to
the museum's communication department at the following address:
Mus=E9e du Louvre
D=E9l=E9gation =E0 la communication
75058 Paris cedex 01

They still allowed one to take as many non-flash pictures at the Musee
D'Orsay of Monet's Blue Lilies,Gaugin's self-portrait,
Whistler's Mother,etc.,but think they will soon follow the Louvre's
lead especially as their most famous paintings are uncovered.

Two weeks ago I was at the Louvre and may have lucked out as they
instituted a new no-picture-taking policy at the Louvre a couple days
after I went there and took a gazillion pics of the Mona Lisa,Raft of
the Medusa,Death of the Virgin,etc.

None of which would have been anywhere near as good as even the crudest
image in a book or postcard, and would have been eclipsed by dozens
available on the web, so why on earth did you bother? (I suspect that
Bourdieu's book on photography as a middlebrow art has the answer).


I'm surprised there is any paint left on those canvases after being
photon blasted innumerable times despite the previous prohibition of
*flash* photography that was nearly ignored...

It never mattered to the paint. A camera flash delivers as much
light to its subject as 1/60 second of direct sunlight, and the
spectrum is much the same. (I suspect this sort of ban dates to
when flash was done with bulbs or powder, both of which often
went explosively wrong - flying glass and white-hot magnesium
wouldn't do a painting any good at all).

On the other hand the Louvre's concern about the effect of flash on
other viewers is bang on.

============== j-c ====== @ ====== purr . demon . co . uk ==============
Jack Campin: 11 Third St, Newtongrange EH22 4PU, Scotland | tel 0131 660 4760
http://www.purr.demon.co.uk/jack/ for CD-ROMs and free | fax 0870 0554 975
stuff: Scottish music, food intolerance, & Mac logic fonts | mob 07800 739 557

luckym writes:

Two weeks ago I was at the Louvre and may have lucked out as they
instituted a new no-picture-taking policy at the Louvre a couple days
after I went there and took a gazillion pics of the Mona Lisa,Raft of
the Medusa,Death of the Virgin,etc.I may have been one of the last
people to be able to do so.The second time I was there on my last
night,a Wednesday night 9/14,the guards were loudly shouting "No
photos!" at all the tourists and telling them to put away their
cameras.

This is a particularly stupid policy. Many people go to the Louvre
_only_ for the purpose of taking pictures (e.g., most Japanese
tourists). I can't imagine what sort of idiot would have come up with
this.

It was funny watching hundreds of tourists from around the
world just gazing at the Mona Lisa just dying to snap a photo when just
a few days before everyone was snapping away with oblivion taking turns
posing in front of the Mona Lisa,etc.

I guess I can raise the price of the pictures I have of the painting.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Timothy Kroesen writes:

I'm surprised there is any paint left on those canvases after being
photon blasted innumerable times despite the previous prohibition of
*flash* photography that was nearly ignored... Shall I even mention the
weird 'auto-focus beams' projected by many modern digitals too...

Flash photography and auto-focus beams have virtually no effect on
paintings, compared to the damage done by ordinary daylight.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic wrote:

This is a particularly stupid policy. Many people go to the Louvre
_only_ for the purpose of taking pictures (e.g., most Japanese
tourists). I can't imagine what sort of idiot would have come up with
this.

I haven't given much thought to the effect of photography on works of
art. What might be worth considering is the effect that photographers
have on other viewers of works of art. Some people seem to act as if
having a camera exempts them from normal rules of good social
behaviour.

I guess I can raise the price of the pictures I have of the painting.

I suspect that they don't have great scarcity value.

--
PB
The return address has been MUNGED

Padraig Breathnach writes:

I haven't given much thought to the effect of photography on works of
art. What might be worth considering is the effect that photographers
have on other viewers of works of art. Some people seem to act as if
having a camera exempts them from normal rules of good social
behaviour.

My experience is that ill-behaved tourists are ill-behaved whether
they have a camera or not, and well-behaved tourists remain so even if
they are carrying cameras.

I suspect there are other, unspoken reasons for this change in policy.

I suspect that they don't have great scarcity value.

Probably true.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Padraig Breathnach writes:
[snip]
I suspect that they don't have great scarcity value.

Probably true.


Never attribute to cunning, that which can be explained
by stupidity.

It has just been pointed out to you that a flash may the equivalent of
1/60th s of direct sunlight (or whatever fraction it must be); multiply
this by tens of thousands of flashes over many many years... there is no
doubt it can have *some* effect. TO state it has *no* effect is your
normal ridiculous statement... Why indeed was a flash ban maintained to
begin with; Zircon bulbs haven't been commonly used in Decades.

Tim K

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Timothy Kroesen writes:

I'm surprised there is any paint left on those canvases after being
photon blasted innumerable times despite the previous prohibition of
*flash* photography that was nearly ignored... Shall I even mention
the
weird 'auto-focus beams' projected by many modern digitals too...

Flash photography and auto-focus beams have virtually no effect on
paintings, compared to the damage done by ordinary daylight.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.