It would appear that SFMOMA believes that they are beyond reproach, and that the legitimate concerns raised in the matter need not be addressed. A perhaps typical answer from an old fashioned cultural institution that believes itself to be better than the general population. The facts remain that Hawk offered to show the pictures to Museum employees, that he was not using a zoom lense but a wide angle lense, and that he was taking shots looking down into the atrium at a distance. They have now slandered Hawk, and with any luck this may end up in court, where the truth may eventually be revealed.

I don’t want to dwell on the points of the case, but the whole thing raises something far more concerning for society as a whole: that today we live in a state of fear. A fear that a person taking pictures is a pervert, a pedophile or even a terrorist.

How did we get to where we are today?

The obvious target is the media, who likes nothing more than beating up minor incidents into national or international stories. I don’t seek to belittle the serious nature of crimes, particularly against children, because one incident is one too many, however the number of perverts behind cameras as a general portion of the population is extremely small. And yet, today if you are taking pictures from the ledge of an atrium, or even of your child playing in the park, society has been conditioned to label you a pervert first without any due process or evidence. It is healthy to be wary that there are evil people in society, but have we gone so far as to have created a state of fear where photography has become a crime, at least in the eyes of bystanders? And what of the lost opportunities, the artistic expression that is lost because people feel unsafe in taking photos? Are we as a society better off in this state of fear than we were before?

We of course cannot blame the media alone, for ultimately we choose to fear, and we choose to presume the worst in varied situations, where as 20 or even 40 years ago we presumed the best first. I just hope no one reading this will ever be on the receiving end of the mob justice such fear inevitably delivers, I’ve been fortunate, but I know every time I pick up my camera that the mob can often be around the next corner.

Related posts:

1. State Department – a twittering we shall go
2. All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing
3. WTF: State Department sends Twitter rep to Iraq to help the locals

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:

1. A State of Fear
2. How to identify an asshole
3. Michael Arrington: Evil Genius