The War on Photography Heats Up

Photographer Guy Flâneur writes that, after he recently took a picture of a building in downtown St. Paul,

...out came a security guard who informed me that "pointing a camera" at this building was prohibited. I simply stated that his claim was not supported by law. But I also mentioned that I was attending a meeting in the building, so just walking away was not an option. We didn't discuss the matter further, but as I was signing in for the meeting, I found myself facing the head of security for the building. He pulled me aside and told me, sotto voce, that in any year but this one, photography would not be an issue, but they were being especially careful because of the upcoming Republcan convention. Neither he nor anyone else asked me to delete my photographs or even wanted to see them (and I didn't offer).

I thought things were amicably settled when I turned around to face two police officers from the local constabulary. One was friendly enough; the other scowled threateningly, hiding behind sunglasses to conceal her identity. The friendly cop asked for identification, which I willingly shared. He did not interrogate me in any way, but did take notes and mentioned to the security guard that he'd let him know the "case number." He also mentioned to the security guards that he had to pay strict attention to detail because his "sargeant" was standing nearby; there was another officer nearby, but not in standard police blue uniform.

With their departure the security guard issued my visitor's pass, my meeting host showed up and nothing more was said.

I suppose that's a happy ending, kinda sorta. But it's also more of the same — unnecessary bullshit and harassment from people who think they wield more power than they do, and who nonetheless have more power than they should, and who've convinced themselves that photographers may very well be dangerous spies — or, at least, "persons of interest."

This suspicion-filled attitude toward people with cameras has been building for years, and some of the quasi-off-limits locations include (semi-)public buildings like museums. Just check out what happened to another talented shooter last Friday, when he took a photo from the atrium of the MoMA in San Francisco, an area where photography is explicitly allowed. The museum's Simon Blint had photographer Thomas Hawk forcibly ejected from the building. Oh: Blint's title? Director of Visitor Relations. Curiouser and curiouser.

I realize that in Hawk's case, we may or may not be getting the full story. Blint and Hawk each deserve the benefit of the doubt, but SF MoMA isn't helping its own case by keeping mum on the matter so far. My sense is that Hawk is telling the truth, but I'll be happy to revise that statement if and when more details become known.

Meanwhile, it's clear that especially street photographers are engaging in risky behavior by the simple act of pushing a button on a camera. It didn't used to be that way, and I keep wondering why even just ten or 20 years ago, people seemed to have a better knowledge of the law, a keener sense of propriety, and a firmer grasp of what liberty means.

Comments

[sevein]

The MOMA one is exceptionally odd. You would think that an art museum would understand photography and think of photographers as the enemy, but rather as friends and fellow artists.

[tim]

I live in Minneapolis and all sorts of oddness is happening. Just a month or so ago - there was an 'issue' on the skyways (connects buildings to one another so we don't have a walk outside - its cold here ya know). The issue was the new Baseball stadium. Well someone was taking pictures of the 'in process' stadium from one of the skyways and the DA stated they 'would have to review the rules' regarding picture taking because the stadium was a possible terrorist threat. Typically we are a pretty pragmatic bunch the RNC convention is making everyone weird.