blahflowers: (Jiving Girl)
blahflowers ([personal profile] blahflowers) wrote2013-01-05 07:37 pm

Dear White Cube Bermondsey (But Really All Art Galleries)

'Model' by Antony Gormley, White Cube Bermondsey

Seriously. What was wrong with me taking this picture? This being 'Model', the largest piece of work at the White Cube Bermondsey which currently has a show of sculptures by Antony Gormley. As the White Cube favour a rather minimalist approach to showing it will probably be enjoyed by Gormley fans and/or those that are unsure. What I don't understand is why photography isn't allowed, both here and at other art galleries. Does excessive flash photography bleach steel? Is there a concern that through photography the soul of an artwork is lost?

I wouldn't mind so much if the galleries weren't such hypocrites over the whole issue. They are quite happy to let the press take photos of course. They don't stop people taking photos of the Gormley piece outside in their courtyard but I stood and watched as someone who had taken photographs came inside, walked up to the first piece they saw, raised their camera and were told they weren't allowed to take photos. Why?

The funniest time I remember was years ago when I was told by a guard at Tate Britain that I couldn't take photographs of a piece of sculpture, the piece in question being a painstaking recreation of the anti-Government display by the peace campaigner Brian Haw, who was at that time camped about a quarter mile along the road.

I can see how there is an issue that excessive flash photography may bleach old paintings but we live in a world now where we don't have to use our flashes for every photograph we take indoors, indeed the flash on my camera doesn't seem to be a very good one so frequently photos in poor light manage to come out better than those with the flash.

As it was, I was disappointed by 'Model', it wasn't interesting to the touch, like a Richard Serra or Anthony Caro. Clambering about inside it was also rather dull, there was the brief excitement of whether your head might meet an excitingly sharp corner and start bleeding, but other than a few little cubbyholes to crawl around in it was a bit meh. The rest of the models, all variations on figures standing, sitting or lying down and doing yoga poses, were a lot more interesting, right up to the one item which was a copy of another, simply inverted in the vertical.
'Model' by Antony Gormley, White Cube Bermondsey
katieastrophe: selfie photo of katie in krakow, poland - wearing a black coat, black tshirt, & red trousers, & smiling (Default)

[personal profile] katieastrophe 2013-01-05 10:50 pm (UTC)(link)
Typically, galleries are worried about copyright and related issues. Notably if you take photographs of sculptures and installations, because you can then go on to sell those prints and make a profit that the artist/sculptor will never see. And it doesn't just have to be photographs of the artwork itself; people will buy prints of people looking at art, if the image is good enough.
katieastrophe: selfie photo of katie in krakow, poland - wearing a black coat, black tshirt, & red trousers, & smiling (Default)

[personal profile] katieastrophe 2013-01-06 10:07 am (UTC)(link)
Like I said, what if you sell the prints you take and make a profit? That the artist never sees? How do we know that the press photographers you mention haven't paid a fee to be able to take photographs? (I'm not saying the galleries are correct, I'm explaining the reasons I've been given for why I can't take photos and eg, the press, can.)