Sketching in galleries and museums?! The nerve!

[Hammerskjold]

This first link is about the Royal Ontario Museum and the British Museum.

http://artblog.net/index.php?name=2004-0...44-drawing

The second is about an art gallery in Baltimore.

http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/news/010705_...tcher.html

(Talk about courage, that museum guard\amateur copyright lawyer deserves a medal for confronting that vicious 6 year old.)


I was just visiting the Art Gallery of Ontario today, to catch a special exhibit on a painter named Modigliani. I'm a graphic artist, so obviously I brought my sketchbook. When I was about to start sketching one piece I liked, a guard came up and told me I could not sketch in this area, but there are other areas where I could. I asked is this policy new, he replied it has always been like this. Sounds like BS to me.

However at that point I was still too bewildered to fully comprehend what he was talking about, so I moved to the area where I thought he pointed at. So there I was attempting to sketch a second time, when a second guard told me there's no sketching -period- in this special exhibit.

So now I'm even more bewildered, and I'm starting to look for signs of "Candid Camera". Or maybe Aston Kutcher was taping a special edition of 'Punk'd : Gallery style!" I couldn't spot a celebrity nearby though, so maybe they're just rehearsing their prank on me.

I browsed what I could, and went to ask some questions from the lady at the information desk. I asked them is this 'no sketching' policy new, since I was here before for another special exhibit before and no one stopped me from sketching. The lady replied well sketching with a pencil is ok, pens are prohibited in case of spills. I can understand that concern, though I don't quite agree with it. I was using a pretty spill resistant ballpoint pen anyway.

Then she added it's also the last week for this exhibit, maybe that's why they've stopped me. The implication being there was more people visiting, and I was impeding traffic. Now I definitely smell some BS. Last time I was at another special exhibit, it was the last -day- of showing. And there was a hell of a lot more people then, but I was able to sketch away. If anything I'm guessing because of a heavy snowfall today, there was less people visiting. So spotting someone attempting to sketch a piece might be easier.

The lady then said something that's pretty funny in more than one level, " It's best to check with that head guard over there, since we at Information are usually the last one to be told about these things."

I checked with the head guard, and yes she confirmed in that special exhibit, there is no sketching of the pieces allowed at all. Now the funnier thing is, you can write notes, you can sketch the people or furniture around the pieces, you can stare for a long time at a piece, you can probably take a nap in the special exhibit. But as soon as you sketch a piece, you are now impeding traffic. (*edited rant addition: Impeding traffic? If they're serious about it, why not put up a sign 'No wheelchairs, crutches, old or slow walkers, and narcileptics allowed at this point'.)

I suspect what some of these people's ideal version of a trip to the gallery is this: Pay the ticket price, go in, enjoy the pieces for however long you want within reasons, (we highly recommend 15 seconds) move to the next line, exit to the convenient gift shoppe where you can buy a DVD of the exhibit, T-shirts, coffee mugs, and assorted officially endorsed glo-sticks.

Now to end my ranting. Some people might say who cares, these things are not life and death, paintings schmaintings, if getting hassled at a howty towty gallery is your biggest problem then you have no problem at all.

What worries me and pisses me off is the larger implication. Should I expect to be lectured on intellectual property at a concert if I'm whistling Bethovens 5th symphony during intermission? Maybe next time I go to a library, I should also expect a sign saying 'Please do NOT read or TAKE NOTES in the library, that's what bookstores are for."

Most of all it amazes me that this might be the same people who laments the general public are 'neglecting' museums and galleries and always cries out for a public handout, arguing that museums and galleries are an important part of culture and history.

A picture might be worth a thousand words, now if only there's a way to charge people a dollar a word for looking at it.

[DeeBye]

Scan of your sketch please :)

[Hammerskjold]

>Scan of your sketch please :)

Unfortunately I don't have a scanner at the moment. I managed to snag a very quick 3 minute sketch (more of a doodle notation really) of one his scupltures.

But I don't want to get anyone including myself in more trouble for showing contraband material. I mean it IS a prohibited item, not to mention it was done with a pen. That's double bad evil!

[Occhidiangela]

This first link is about the Royal Ontario Museum and the British Museum.

http://artblog.net/index.php?name=2004-0...44-drawing

  The second is about an art gallery in Baltimore.

http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/news/010705_...tcher.html

  (Talk about courage, that museum guard\amateur copyright lawyer deserves a medal for confronting that vicious 6 year old.)
  I was just visiting the Art Gallery of Ontario today, to catch a special exhibit on a painter named Modigliani.  I'm a graphic artist, so obviously I brought my sketchbook.  When I was about to start sketching one piece I liked, a guard came up and told me I could not sketch in this area, but there are other areas where I could.  I asked is this policy new, he replied it has always been like this.  Sounds like BS to me.

  However at that point I was still too bewildered to fully comprehend what he was talking about, so I moved to the area where I thought he pointed at.  So there I was attempting to sketch a second time, when a second guard told me there's no sketching -period- in this special exhibit.

  So now I'm even more bewildered, and I'm starting to look for signs of "Candid Camera".  Or maybe Aston Kutcher was taping a special edition of 'Punk'd : Gallery style!"  I couldn't spot a celebrity nearby though, so maybe they're just rehearsing their prank on me.

  I browsed what I could, and went to ask some questions from the lady at the information desk.  I asked them is this 'no sketching' policy new, since I was here before for another special exhibit before and no one stopped me from sketching.  The lady replied well sketching with a pencil is ok, pens are prohibited in case of spills.  I can understand that concern, though I don't quite agree with it.  I was using a pretty spill resistant ballpoint pen anyway.   

  Then she added it's also the last week for this exhibit, maybe that's why they've stopped me.  The implication being there was more people visiting, and I was impeding traffic.  Now I definitely smell some BS.  Last time I was at another special exhibit, it was the last -day- of showing.  And there was a hell of a lot more people then, but I was able to sketch away.  If anything I'm guessing because of a heavy snowfall today, there was less people visiting.  So spotting someone attempting to sketch a piece might be easier.

  The lady then said something that's pretty funny in more than one level, " It's best to check with that head guard over there, since we at Information are usually the last one to be told about these things."

  I checked with the head guard, and yes she confirmed in that special exhibit, there is no sketching of the pieces allowed at all.  Now the funnier thing is, you can write notes, you can sketch the people or furniture around the pieces, you can stare for a long time at a piece, you can probably take a nap in the special exhibit.  But as soon as you sketch a piece, you are now impeding traffic.  (*edited rant addition:  Impeding traffic?  If they're serious about it, why not put up a sign 'No wheelchairs, crutches, old or slow walkers, and narcileptics allowed at this point'.)

  I suspect what some of these people's ideal version of a trip to the gallery is this:  Pay the ticket price, go in, enjoy the pieces for however long you want within reasons, (we highly recommend 15 seconds) move to the next line, exit to the convenient gift shoppe where you can buy a DVD of the exhibit, T-shirts, coffee mugs, and assorted officially endorsed glo-sticks.

  Now to end my ranting.  Some people might say who cares, these things are not life and death, paintings schmaintings, if getting hassled at a howty towty gallery is your biggest problem then you have no problem at all.

  What worries me and pisses me off is the larger implication.  Should I expect to be lectured on intellectual property at a concert if I'm whistling Bethovens 5th symphony during intermission?  Maybe next time I go to a library, I should also expect a sign saying 'Please do NOT read or TAKE NOTES in the library, that's what bookstores are for." 

  Most of all it amazes me that this might be the same people who laments the general public are 'neglecting' museums and galleries and always cries out for a public handout, arguing that museums and galleries are an important part of culture and history.

  A picture might be worth a thousand words, now if only there's a way to charge people a dollar a word for looking at it.
[right][snapback]65924[/snapback][/right]

This appears to be a classic case of "policies" that folks don't think through, and the problem the worker bees have of exercising their "powers" and feeling that they are doing something right.

It's also a damned shame.

Occhi

[ShadowHM]

Hi

I am a member of the ROM. I just fired off an email enquiring about such policies and their justification. I will share whatever response I get.

[DeeBye]

I am a member of the ROM.    I just fired off an email enquiring about such policies and their justification.    I will share whatever response I get.
[right][snapback]65931[/snapback][/right]

You are a beautiful person ShadowHM. I look forward to reading any reply you might get. This policy sounds like a load of crap.

[Zingydex]

Sounds like? It IS a load of crap.

[eppie]

Yup this is quite strange. Are you sure it was not some anti-terrorism policy?

Anyway, in teh national gallery in London (where you don't pay an entrance fee) I have seen several times people that are even painting (with paint).
For sure they will have asked for an offical permission, but it at least shows that there they don't mind people doing these things.

I like it to watch somebody "copy" a masterwork. You get a nice idea what the work is like and what techniques were (and can be) used.

[Tal]

Minor nit.

The second is about an art gallery in Baltimore.

http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/news/010705_...tcher.html[right][snapback]65924[/snapback][/right]

The museum in question was the North Carolina Museum of Art featuring artwork on loan from the BMA not the Baltimore Museum of Art itself. I've sent an e-mail to the BMA to confirm that sketching is permissible - I'll share what ever response I get.

[Munkay]

Absolutely ludicrous! I've spent many days sitting at the amazing museums in the Boston area and never run into a problem like this. I've visited museums in New York City, and Montreal and sketched artwork in all of them.

The Museum of Fine Arts Boston is particularly welcoming to students, offering 'in gallery' drawing sessions with models on certain nights. I'm racking my brain to think of one single time I've been to a museum and not seen some one sketching a piece of artwork.

I thank you for bringing the links,

Cheers,

Munk

[Hammerskjold]

>Minor nit.
>The museum in question was the North Carolina Museum of Art featuring artwork on loan from the BMA not the Baltimore Museum of Art itself.

Ah, thanks for that correction. I'm still scratching my head trying to find a good reason to forbid sketching. Certain sketching materials limitations due to possible damage\obstruction is one thing. But copyright issues is frankly, a crock. So is the threat of 'forgery' by sketching. If they're so worried about damage, why bother loaning and displaying these pieces at all?

I love to be in that meeting where someone had the brilliant idea of coming up with 'impeding traffic' as a reason.

[jahcs]

  I checked with the head guard, and yes she confirmed in that special exhibit, there is no sketching of the pieces allowed at all.  Now the funnier thing is, you can write notes, you can sketch the people or furniture around the pieces, you can stare for a long time at a piece, you can probably take a nap in the special exhibit.  But as soon as you sketch a piece, you are now impeding traffic.  (*edited rant addition:  Impeding traffic?  If they're serious about it, why not put up a sign 'No wheelchairs, crutches, old or slow walkers, and narcileptics allowed at this point'.)
[right][snapback]65924[/snapback][/right]

I would ask the supervisor if they can show me these policies in writting. Then I would go back to the gallery and spend 2 hours sketching the pedestal the statue is on or the lighting system and frame of a painting without actually drawign the painting or sculpture. Or, if you are able, contact the artist directly (probably only possible for shows of living, local artists ;) ) and obtain permission in writting from him or her to do a rough sketch of their work. That would be assuming the museum or some other collector didn't own the piece.

On the argument of lingering in front of displays of art - if they don't want to set up escorted tours for all patrons to shuttle them through (which isn't a good solution) or put time limits on admissions, then as long as a patron does not block others from viewing the piece, sets up an easel, or pitches a campsite then tough.

If someone sketches art with the intention of reproduction or sale then there is a problem. But then there is the whole proof of intent to worry about.

I would bet that if the Museum sold sketching supplies in it's gift store and only allowed it's materials in the gallery(kind of like popcorn at the movies) then I bet they wouldn't have any problem with sketching.

[ShadowHM]

You spoke (typed) too soon, DeeBye. :blush:

Below is what I sent (italics) and what I received (in quotes) in an exchange of emails:

Hello

I have been a member of the ROM for about a year now but it has only today been brought to my attention that under some circumstances sketching of the exhibits is prohibited. Could you please outline exactly what the policies of the ROM are in this area? I would appreciate any background information you can provide about why such policies are chosen as well.

Sketching limitations have been a contract condition for several special
exhibitions, like those from the Victoria and Albert, and have to do with
copyright.
Freehand sketching with pen or pencil is fine in the permanent galleries as
long as traffic flow is not impeded.

I am confused. How does copyright apply? Does a museum that holds
artifacts that they purchased or were bequeathed have a copyright to them?
How? This runs counter to the notion I had about what museums do. Would
you please clarify.

There is even copyright on buildings and landscapes. If museums didn't
have copyright on artifacts and specimens, then their holdings could be
exploited inappropriately and/or might be undisplayable.
If we have a couturier dress on display, for example, we have many
restrictions even for marketing and publicity because the designer
continues to hold moral rights. Think of living artists - a museum has
to negotiate rights when works are acquired. If you look at our web site
of past exhibitions, you will find many where the images are blank. Our
contract specified the length of time and the purposes for which we were
entitled their use. In the same way, we license images for publishers
and private use.

This is a quick response to a deeply complicated question. What I hope
I made clear is that your children should enjoy themselves. You might
keep a lookout for the folding stools that school groups use when they
are being taught in the galleries.

I do the back page of "Rotunda" and in the issue for Spring 2004, there
is a photo of a child sketching. Another issue shows boys sketching in
the Currelly Gallery. So it's a long tradition.

So, as suggested in the original link that Hammerskjold provided, it seems that it is not the ROM that sets restrictions. It is the lending institution. And I find it hard to fault the ROM on this. They have to make a choice between not providing an interesting exhibit loaned from another institution or not fullfilling their mandate to make objects accessible to all.

I can understand completely with the restrictions when there are living artists involved. I have major problems when it involves something like the Ancient Egypt exhibition that was at the ROM last year.

Perhaps some follow-up emails to the institutions that have mandated such restrictions will bear some fruit.

Edit: I was given this link by the ROM librarian for a statement of the ROM's policy.

[Hammerskjold]

>I would ask the supervisor if they can show me these policies in writting. Then I would go back to the gallery and spend 2 hours sketching the pedestal the statue is on or the lighting system and frame of a painting without actually drawign the painting or sculpture.

Believe me I was pretty tempted to do just that. Ultimately I decided against it that day, because I was there to enjoy the work and learn. Spiteing boneheaded policies wasn't high on my list, yet.


>If someone sketches art with the intention of reproduction or sale then there is a problem. But then there is the whole proof of intent to worry about.

At the risk of oversimplifying the copyright issues, most artists I've dealt with are pretty cool with sketching for the purpose of learning. Some treats it as 'industry secret', but most are quite happy to share. Since that's how they learned themselves.

But if I were able to say, convince someone a pencil sketch of mine is the actual Mona Lisa, I'd probably quit wasting time on this art thing and switch to politics instead.

>I would bet that if the Museum sold sketching supplies in it's gift store and only allowed it's materials in the gallery(kind of like popcorn at the movies) then I bet they wouldn't have any problem with sketching.

Don't give them anymore ideas, next thing you know I'll be seeing official Gallery Approved\Gallery Safe pencils at 10$ a pop.

[jahcs]

Hammerskjold,

Some of what I suggested would fall under the category of juvenile.
When I made the statement about reproducing works of art a better phrase may have been "to counterfeit." rather than simple reproduction to learn techniques, etc.

Your replies did bring a smile to my face, especially that Mona Lisa bit. :D


ShadowHM,

Kudos for firing off those emails. And I would say the ROM has made an honest attempt to answer the question, even if the answer raises more questions. It's refreshing when an agency doesn't just fire off a blanket form letter that almost addresses the issue or just hits the delete key for the incoming email.

[Munkay]

Thanks for the emails and the clarification ShadowHM :)

What blows my mind is something as simple as sketching is not allowed, in a day and age where digital cameras can easily be snuck in and within a matter of moments a very high quality image can be taken.

Granted this is not allowed either if sketching isn't, but if some one were to be using sketches of pieces of art for profit, I'd think they'd steal some pictures and work from them later, completely bipassing the 'copyrite security measure.'

I've taken my fair share of art courses and art history courses, and understand the importance of being able to sketch the piece in person. It's a shame that our greed is getting in the way of sharing great art.

Cheers,

Munk

[Hammerskjold]

Thanks for the info, and it does raise more questions.

They mentioned moral rights, now I could be mistaken here. But moral rights as I understand it is this, http://www.legal-definitions.com/IP/moral-rights.htm

I have a hard time seeing how sketching something for personal or educational purpose alters the original work. I don't claim that my sketch of another's work is now my own, and I seriously doubt I would publish these type of sketches anywhere. Anymore than anyone else would publish their study notes as an original novel.

>So, as suggested in the original link that Hammerskjold provided, it seems that it is not the ROM that sets restrictions. It is the lending institution. And I find it hard to fault the ROM on this. They have to make a choice between not providing an interesting exhibit loaned from another institution or not fullfilling their mandate to make objects accessible to all.

Yes, I don't really blame the host either. I do think things like this policy is way too ham fisted.

>I can understand completely with the restrictions when there are living artists> involved. I have major problems when it involves something like the Ancient Egypt exhibition that was at the ROM last year.

You nailed it right on the head, some works came from eras where the creators don't\can't sign their names. 'Anonymous' is not just a name of a Greek sculptor.

[Alrin]

You will soon see people be arrested for scetching outdoors because it violates the architects/landscapers copyright on the park/house you draw. Actually, in this sick and bureaucratic world I would not be all too surprised or shocked to hear about such an arrest/lawsuit.

*smirks*

-Al

[jahcs]

I'm going to go file a copyright on the use use of grass as a landscaping material right now!

I'll be rich I tell you, rich!

I'd be willing to settle with all you Lurkers out of court for a nominal fee.

Please remit checks to:

jahcs
2468 Not in My Wildest Dreams BLVD
Suehappy WA 54321

[Chile]

Artists have copied the work of past (and even present) masters for centuries. Indeed, in traditional painting schools, copying is a neccesity before one becomes a master. Where would Manet have been in the context of past masters without the inspiration of an Ingres, Velasquez, or Courbet painting to first copy?

I personaly commend you for taking on an artist as challenging as Modigliani. His art was an art based entirely on line, often drawn so hard that he would peirce the substrate with his drawing tools. His sculpture was a third dimensional embodiment of his drawing, and equally hard to understand. The only way to explain his art was to understand that he searched for perfection with each passing stroke, and the ones that missed brought tremendous energy to his compositions.