antiquark
Derek Ross
Yeah, that would be a lovely scene. Grandmothers getting carted away in handcuffs because they "flashed" the Bill of Rights!
Somehow I don't think that surrounding the Bill of Rights with tazer-bearing thugs is really appropriate, considering that it's the BILL OF RIGHTS!
wgerrard
Mentor
There's no need to start arresting people for popping off a flash inside the National Archives. Nor, frankly, is there a need to cast this as an erosion-of-liberty issue. It's about finding a way to prevent damage to documents caused by the flashes. It's a "house rules" issue. If someone comes into my house, I will ask them not to smoke. Yes, that's an absolute limitation of their liberties. No, it doesn't threaten their liberties.
Maybe a technical solution is possible, like putting the documents behind glass or plastic that blocks the damaging light waves.
Failing that, funnel all visitors to the exhibit through a narrow entrance that forces them to see signs that say "No photography". Reinforce it with verbal reminders from museum staff. If someone uses a flash, a polite staffer should politely remind them. If the visitor continues to use a flash, a polite security guard should ask them to leave. If someone gets obnoxious about it, treat them as any obnoxious museum visitor would be treated.
One hopes that Archive visitors have enough respect for these documents that they would not want the written words bleached away.
Maybe a technical solution is possible, like putting the documents behind glass or plastic that blocks the damaging light waves.
Failing that, funnel all visitors to the exhibit through a narrow entrance that forces them to see signs that say "No photography". Reinforce it with verbal reminders from museum staff. If someone uses a flash, a polite staffer should politely remind them. If the visitor continues to use a flash, a polite security guard should ask them to leave. If someone gets obnoxious about it, treat them as any obnoxious museum visitor would be treated.
One hopes that Archive visitors have enough respect for these documents that they would not want the written words bleached away.
oftheherd
Mentor
Do you think they are not?
oftheherd
Mentor
I have been trying to find time to do that for over a month, visit that is. Let us know how the visit is. I hope I make it before it goes away.
antiquark
Derek Ross
Even if such draconian measures reduced the flashing by 99%, there would still be 100 flashes per day. The documents would continue to fade.
If the goal is to protect the documents, then simply banning cameras is more effective.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
I think the first thing that goes through their head when told about the flash is: "who cares!" :bang:
mackigator
Well-known
I think they should enforce a large cash fine for each flash. Easy enough to enforce and it would generate some revenue. I mean if littering is worth $500 (in many US jurisdictions), how much for damaging the original copy of the Constitution?
ryan26
Established
Can I eat a chocolate chip cookie while hovering over a Cai Guo-Qiang installation?
I promise:
A) not to drop chocolate chips on the art (flash)
B) not to annoy the people beside me with my crunching (cameras clicking or even worse, the awful "digital click")
C) to still buy a cookie from the museum cafeteria (gift shop sales)
probably not...
Is it worth it for the museum to set up a ticketing agency to catch people who eat cookies and break one of these three faux pas?
probably not...
I promise:
A) not to drop chocolate chips on the art (flash)
B) not to annoy the people beside me with my crunching (cameras clicking or even worse, the awful "digital click")
C) to still buy a cookie from the museum cafeteria (gift shop sales)
probably not...
Is it worth it for the museum to set up a ticketing agency to catch people who eat cookies and break one of these three faux pas?
probably not...
bmattock
Mentor
If people will not obey 'No Flash' rules, what makes you think they will obey a ban on cameras?
furcafe
Mentor
It seems that they intend to enforce the rule.
"One final comment dealing with enforcement of the proposed rule
suggested that any visitor with a photographic device on their person
would be turned away and that overzealous security guards might subject
visitors to harassment or bodily harm. NARA can assure this commenter
that those hypothetical behaviors and policies will not happen.
Visitors with photographic devices will be allowed to enter the
building with their cameras, cell phones, and other photographic
equipment. However, they will be met by appropriate signage and
security personnel throughout the NAE to explain the ``no photography''
rule. In the event that a visitor makes the mistake of displaying or
attempting to use a photographic device, they would first be warned
that such behavior is not allowed. If, after they have received a
warning, they continue to ignore the ``no photography'' rule they will
be politely escorted from the building.
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/2010-1331.htm
"One final comment dealing with enforcement of the proposed rule
suggested that any visitor with a photographic device on their person
would be turned away and that overzealous security guards might subject
visitors to harassment or bodily harm. NARA can assure this commenter
that those hypothetical behaviors and policies will not happen.
Visitors with photographic devices will be allowed to enter the
building with their cameras, cell phones, and other photographic
equipment. However, they will be met by appropriate signage and
security personnel throughout the NAE to explain the ``no photography''
rule. In the event that a visitor makes the mistake of displaying or
attempting to use a photographic device, they would first be warned
that such behavior is not allowed. If, after they have received a
warning, they continue to ignore the ``no photography'' rule they will
be politely escorted from the building.
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/2010-1331.htm
Last edited:
antiquark
Derek Ross
In the very least, it's easier to enforce. As soon as the camera is visible, the guards have a chance to warn the photographer, or actually confiscate the camera for the duration of their visit. They could also place their hand in front of camera to prevent the flash from hitting the exhibits, if someone tries to pull a fast one.
bmattock
Mentor
And they could not apply the exact same enforcement method to a 'No Flash' rule because?
It smacks of 'and this time we really mean it'. If they didn't mean it the first time (no flash), then apparently they don't mean it now. Or perhaps, when this rule also gets ignored, they'll move on to banning people altogether. That'll take care of that flash problem.
I do not understand why they do not find it difficult to enforce a no photography policy, but a no flash policy is impossible to enforce. They're both 'after the fact' enforcement from your description, so the damage is already done by the scofflaw in question. What's the difference, except in the new policy, the people restrained are those who otherwise would not be damaging the documents with flash.
bmattock
Mentor
The camera has to come out before the flash comes on. If anything, they'd have more time to stop the flash-user over the no-flash user.
Al Patterson
Ferroequinologist
I have a camera in my cell phone, so let's ban cell phone use as well...
antiquark
Derek Ross
Most point-and-shoots have the flash built it. The flash is ready as soon as the camera is visible.
wgerrard
Mentor
As I implied earlier, I'd ban photography, but not go to great lengths to enforce that against people surreptitiously using non-flash cells and point and shoots. The point is to curtail the exposure of the documents to camera flashes. In any case, if you ban flash, you've effectively banned the cameras of all those people who don't know how to turn the flash off.
Much can be done with exhibit design to curtail unwanted visitor behavior. For example, when I visited the Chinese terra cotta warrior exhibit in London a few years ago, groups of a set number were allowed in at set times. As we were queued waiting, museum staff had ample time to lecture us about the rules. Once inside the exhibit, we found ourselves in a large dark room, directed by design and by narrow walkway to pass through in a snaking single-file line. Any use of flash would have produced a hostile reaction from other visitors, due both to the interruption of traffic flow and to the annoyance of being exposed to a flash in a dark room.
Paul T.
Mentor
You know the answer to this question. People don't understand "no flash". Or their camera "tells" them it needs flash, it's a piece of impressive equipment so they believe that, rather than the notice. SImply telling them "no cameras" makes it easier for them to understand.
You've seen tourists, haven't you? And I figure I might have seen you make an argument along the lines of, "give 'em an inch and they'll take a mile."
oftheherd
Mentor
Thnks, I've been waiting for this. They do have a gift shop and it does sell replicas. I don't know what it is like now. When I was there many years ago, the documents were behind such thick glass that a replica would be much better anyway.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
I think we should all be able to do what we want. Since all rules are dumb and will always be broken, it is far more cost-effective not to have any, and not to enforce any.
Down with this sort of thing.
Down with this sort of thing.
ItsReallyDarren
That's really me
Your not supposed to take a pictures of the Mona Lisa at the Louvre but people still do it regardless. I assume it was in the spirit of protecting the painting from fading expedited by camera flashes. It still didn't stop people from taking pictures, and at worst the person who got caught gets yelled at and forced to leave the room.
So far yelling hasn't been an effective solution and neither has a ban sign.
If they really want to stick it to all visitors they should put a picture of the priceless artifact in place of the original and have a sign that says photograph away...
So far yelling hasn't been an effective solution and neither has a ban sign.
If they really want to stick it to all visitors they should put a picture of the priceless artifact in place of the original and have a sign that says photograph away...