|Image taken by me. Just so you know. Please ignore the snippet of art bottom left.|
A friendly, albeit snooty, lady in a uniform raced out the door and said 'we don't allow photography of the artworks'. To be fair, she didn't tackle me, or stand over me until I deleted the images (which I have done).
However, I fail to see *why* photography is not allowed. Their website mentions nothing about restricting photography (yes, I checked before I went). Why would you not want people to remember their visit? Would they have allowed me to *sketch* the artwork? What if I have a photographic memory? What rights are they trying to protect, exactly?
For comparison, both MoMA and the National Gallery of Victoria allow photography for personal use (i.e. not to put on the internet, or publish in any other way). This seems reasonable.
I'm confused. I can understand not allowing me to publicly reproduce the art, even in the form of a photograph of the artworks in their physical context (a public park, by the way). But I can't understand why a) they don't publish their restrictions on their website, and b) the restrictions exist in the first place.
You may have noticed my Creative Commons licence at the bottom of the page. Essentially, you can show my work on your own webpage if you credit me, but you must not alter my work or use it commercially. I don't see my work as any more or less 'art' than theirs, so what's the story??