The Great "No Flash Photography" Scam
As I've mentioned before, I've always thought the "no flash photography" rules of many museums were just a scam to force people into buying their keepsakes at the gift shop. Seems this hunch has been vindicated. No, I haven't unearthed evidence of DaVinci's Louvre royalty payments piling up in a numbered Zurich bank account.
As part of the discussion on this site about solutions to overcrowding at MoMA, someone asked the apparently stupid question “Has it been scientifically proven that camera flash damages art?” Well, I think we all took it as a given that flash photography does in fact damage art despite my suspicions stated above. On a lark, I ran a couple of Google searches to come up with what must be plentiful evidence of the flash bulb’s nefarious effects. Nothing. After a few minutes, I ran across a reference to a message on a conservation email discussion list that actually argued that flash photography’s effects are nil. But I couldn’t find the entire post. I casually passed the info on to Dan Hopewell of Iconoduel. Dan’s more diligent than I (actually, he just knew where to look) and was able to come up with the post in question. Bottom line is, “300 amateur flashes a day is equivalent to adding five minutes to the display day.” In other words, no big deal.
Check out the complete story at Iconoduel.
Though it might not do any damage to the art, flash photography certainly would disrupt the overall museum-going experience for others. Imagine if in each room of MoMA you had a dozen visitors taking flash photos. The art might not be hurt, but your eyes would! ;-)
> "Bottom line is, '300 amateur flashes a day is equivalent to adding five minutes to the display day.' In other words, no big deal."
And that's under fairly generous assumptions—it probably works out to have even less of an impact.
> "Though it might not do any damage to the art, flash photography certainly would disrupt the overall museum-going experience for others."
I'll offer no big argument here. Note though how different the stakes become once we can take conservation issues off the table.
I completely agree that banning flash photography in the museum environment is useful for creating the proper atmosphere for contemplation, as does banning the use of cell phones.
Worse yet: museums that do not let you bring cameras into the gallery. The Kaohsiung Museum of Fine Arts makes you check them at the front. I don't think they found my quizzical look "precious" either.
http://www.kmfa.gov.tw/
W
I arrived here searching for opinions on the issue of flash damage since our foundation is assuming the administration of two small museums at archaeological sites in Central America. These receive between about 2,000 and 4,000 visitors a month. The materials displayed are ceramics, lithics and wood, in addition to graphics and text. No textiles, no copyright issues.
Up to now there had been a ban on flash photography and camcorders. We lifted the latter, which seemed senseless to all involved. The no-flash mandate is thorny, however, having originated with museum conservation staff. Perhaps significant to the thread of messages posted here is that a great many vistors have cameras with automatic flash (though they may be desactivated, the owners usually do not know how to do this). The museum guards deal with this by usually banning cameras in general, resulting in the most common complaint from visitors. I share the opinion that distracting activities should be minimal in museums, like cellphones and noisiness in general, but I take the occasional flash as a sign that someone is interested in what they are seeing and may never see again except in that image they have just captured.
I am a professional art restorer, specializing in oils and frescos. I would love a ban on cameras in Museums, just because they are annoying. I am also looking for more scientific data to back up the claims that flashes fade art.
Based on the data you have unearthed. This is more then just "No big deal." When you take into consideration large European museums like the Vatican which sees and estimated 35,000 visitors per day on average.
If there were no rules about flashes, figure 35,000 flashes inside the sistine chapel everyday. Divided by 300. amateur camera users. that is 117 (5 minute segments,) which ads up to almost 10 hours of of exposure to a light which peaks at 5500° Kelvin. This is more then just "no big deal." This could seriously damage a work of in less then a decade.
Granted, only a handful of museums see this kind of traffic everyday in the world, but if you visit one of these world class museums on any given day, you'll still see hundreds of flashes going off in a 2 hour visit.
If a standard of behavior was set and enforced for museum visitors consistently, it is more likely the rules will be observed more frequently in places where they really do make a difference.