Category: Technology Author : Duncan Riley Posted: August 10, 2008
Tags : , , ,
Subscribe: Tech Feed, Email, Twitter

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing


    StumbleUpon Digg Reddit Mixx del.icio.us MySpace Fark Facebook TwitThis Propeller Wikio Yahoo! Buzz

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.



You might also like



  • Tom
    I think Mr Hawk's omissions in his first post show he was willing to portray the situation dishonestly to make his point. Lets look at what he originally posted...

    Blint told me that "he did not care" and that he needed to "protect" his employees -- employees that might appear in my photographs. I was not shooting with a tripod. I was not shooting with a flash. I was being quiet and respectful of the area and the other patrons.

    Now lets look at his correction (after being called on his initial omission)

    One allegation that has been raised is that Blint threw me out because he felt that I was shooting down a low cut blouse of one of his employees sitting in the atrium below where I was shooting. The photo above is a photo that I snapped of Blint as he was publicly admonishing me from the floor, that's him with his arms crossed there -- he's about the size of an ant in the photo. As you will see, the female employee in question also appears in the photograph (the ticket taker next to Blint). She is not wearing a low cut blouse. In fact she's wearing some sort of a yellowish/orangish sweater or jacket sort of thing -- she's sort of hard to see as a 14mm lens makes people look super far away. Her arms, shoulders, in fact every visible area of her except her hands are completely covered in clothing.

    Now, don't get me wrong, I think Mr. Blint over reacted. Had he kept his calm this might not have turned into a thing. Mr. Hawk claims not to have been taking pictures of the employee in question and says he offered to let Mr. Blint review the photos which is probably what Mr Blint should have done

    But that said, Mr. Blint thought he caught someone trying to take elicit pictures of one of his female staff and it seems to me that he was blinded by anger which is a perfectly understandable position to take. I think this was a big misunderstanding where I suspect tempers flared on both sides (Mr. Hawk claims to have been perfectly calm but his post on the subject suggests he wasn't)

    Had Mr. Hawk been completely honest in his original post I think most would have seen it as the misunderstanding it was.
  • Andy
    "...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?"

    There is (first) the option of working one-on-one, directly with the offending organization or individuals. That Hawk chose to immediately make this a public conflict, instead of at least attempting to wrest any acceptable result via direct interaction (including investigating whether he might be entitled to legal relief) shows that not every reasonable avenue was explored or used before resorting to (literal) name-calling. Whether he was wronged is an open issue, since we don't have all sides. But whether he had options other than publicly defaming someone whom he believes had wronged him, that is clear: he had other options but leapt straight to the blogger's prerogative: denouncing someone with whom he could at least have tried to resolve the conflict. By his own admission he threatened to blog about it before he was even ejected from the museum.

    He's allowed to blog, but it shouldn't be the first resort, especially if he's naming names. You can call this a "battle over personal rights and freedoms," but you still need to ask whether he exhausted other more reasonable means before taking it public.
  • I think given the circumstances, in which he attempted to ask the person in question to contact others there or go higher up the chain constitutes at least an attempt to keep it internal. Did they not escalate it first?
  • calling bull
    The SF MOMA has not had days to respond. This was posted on a Friday and it's now Sunday night. It is entirely possible that there is not an official response until the beginning of the work week.
  • Calling, last time I looked most museums are open on the weekend, indeed Sat/ Sun are usually the two busiest day. They may yet respond, but the longer they don't the more we only see one side of the story
  • Mads Jorgenson
    Duncan > 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.

    Duncan, they are likely just an institution that does not have the resources to constantly monitor their brand (i.e. every blogger mentioning the word "MOMA"). Google has 30M results for "MOMA"... Yes, I understand there are some tools to bring down this number, but if I were funding MOMA, I'd object to them spending any time and effort on this. That's not their core business (and they will not get a visitor less, because of some "Thomas Hawk" speaking badly about them).

    You can consider not participating in the blog wars and bitch memes arrogant, but most people don't even know they exist -- much less would they find them relevant.

    We need to give the real world a chance to live their lives without forcing them to go virtual.
  • How odd, even when I accidently took a photograph where they weren't allowed, I was just cautioned and nothing more. :) Sheri
blog comments powered by Disqus
King.com (Midasplayer.com Ltd.)