Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2010/01/05
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]no flash and no tripod make sense to me no complaint at all ric On Jan 5, 2010, at 9:56 PM, Adam Bridge wrote: > In my experience at SF-MOMA it depends on the exhibit. Photography is > not forbidden in Avedon exhibit but it was prohibited in the > Adams/O'Keefe gallery. I don't know why. > > Over the holidays I spoke with a relative who is a curator at the > Smithsonian and she is VERY sensitive to the effects of > high-light-levels on materials they are trying to conserve. If > something is a one-of-a-kind, and it's highly valuable (unlike some of > my prints), then I would assume you'd do everything you could to make > sure it isn't destroyed by the very people attempting to enjoy it. > > If there is a non-linear relationship between light intensity and the > destruction caused on a particular kind of work of art, then it would > make sense to limit flash photography. > > I recall the Hopper exhibit at the National Gallery of Art was quite > dimly lit except for the lights directly on the work and those weren't > all that bright either. Clearly they were concerned about something. > And maybe they are know-nothing knee jerk idiots who don't know diddly > . . . but I sorta doubt that. I imagine there is real science > involved although I might be unpleasantly surprised. > > Adam > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information