Tags : San Francisco Museum of Modern Art, SF MOMA, Simon Blint, Thomas Hawk
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing
For those who didn’t see the story on FriendFeed, Digg or BoingBoing, well known photographer Thomas Hawk was thrown out of the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art this week for the crime of taking photos. Not an unusual case in itself in an age where the fear of copyright and privacy has overtaken the personal freedom to take pictures, however in Hawk’s case the Museum had posted publicly that it now allowed photography, Hawk had confirmed the rule directly with the museum, and Hawk had subsequently joined as a paid member of the museum due to the open photography policy.
Hawks full post here, but the short story is that Hawk was accosted by Simon Blint, Director of Visitor Relations at the Museum and escorted off the premises by a couple of paid goons, despite others in the museum taking pictures. Hawks crime may have been the use of a serious camera (a DSLR), but given Hawk had gone out of his way to confirm he was ok to take pictures, and had become a paid up member of the Museum, not just a walk in member of the public, leaves no excuse for what happened to him. If the policy did indeed prevent DSLR’s (that there would be a split is odd) then this should have been related clearly along the way, when it wasn’t.
Interestingly while Hawks post on the matter gained wide support, some have posted against it. Two people I respect Jeremiah Owyang and Cyndy Aleo-Carreira have come out against the post; Jeremiah on the basis that labeling someone in public an asshole damages the online reputation of Hawk, and Cyndy suggesting that it was “unprofessional” and that the response has been a mob reaction without all the facts.
The first point comes down to expressing a grievance in public. I’m reminded of the Burke quote “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” Should the fear of professional reputation in the age of Google triumph over highlighting wrongs? I don’t believe that it should. Perhaps a better word than asshole could have been used, but that doesn’t cloud the fact that once again someone has been a victim of wrongdoing. Saying nothing and allowing wrongs to go unchallenged is a morally slippery slope that can only lead to an unquestioning state of totalitarianism. If free speech is a fundamental right in a democracy, we are always best served by practicing it.
Jeremiah suggests that in future that Hawk’s use of the word “will likely impact job screenings.” I could suggest humorously that I’m completely screwed on that front, but in an age that is now, to some degree, championing individual freedom of expression, will the use of the word really deliver that large an impact? And if it did, would Hawk really want to work for a company that believes that the best employees are those that remain silent, worker bees who strictly conform to a strict line of acceptability?
We are seeing a move away from the rigid perceptions of employment defined by the past. Companies are now starting to embrace social media, and encourage their employees to be online, even while at work. A feisty post from Thomas could demonstrate a passion for his art that may open news doors, as opposed to simply closing others. The line between work and home may be blurred for some, but from other employers it is encouraged, and as long as the employee doesn’t slight the company, there isn’t a problem.
I have some sympathy to Cyndy’s position. We don’t have both sides of the story, and there is ALWAYS another side. However, SF MOMA has had days now to respond, and have failed to do so. They may yet respond, but more likely is that they will remain silent, a typical response from an old fashioned institution that holds itself above others. I can’t find a lot of information of the Museum’s structure online, but at least part of their funding comes from the public, including subscriptions and possibly Government support. No matter what the percentage, any institution that takes public money should be accountable to some degree to the public. That Hawk’s post may have showed only one side is true, but what other way is there to hold institutions such as this accountable when they do the wrong thing? Would not this behavior continue without drawing attention to it?
Sometimes people get it wrong, sometimes it is unjust, but we are always better off highlighting injustices rather then to let them go unaddressed.
Update: Thomas Hawk has dropped asshole from the original post, and has more on the situation here.
Related posts:
