tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7493276.post1927041120140855390..comments2008-12-24T10:30:55.556-08:00Thomas Hawkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13668592668702218229noreply@blogger.comBlogger92125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7493276.post-65494951520382123152008-09-26T14:37:00.000-07:002008-09-26T14:37:00.000-07:00I get a kick out of all the above MoMA employees above stating Blint was protecting his staff!...from WHAT? Anyone can clearly see by the photos that no-one was put in any awkward position at all. Blint acted like an A** and didn't want to made a fool of in front of his employees(a power thing). Being SFMoMA stands behind his type of behavior towards visitors, I wouldn't want to visit such a place. There's plenty more to see in SF.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7493276.post-73556122899194137632008-09-18T13:51:00.000-07:002008-09-18T13:51:00.000-07:00Simon Blint is a great guy and you are a pretty sad person if you put this much energy into slamming his name because he didn't want you to take photographs... <BR/><BR/>I have known Simon for YEARS and he has always been a wonderful person and I have no doubt that he wouldn't be so pathetic as to spend precious time and effort in slandering a complete strangers name.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7493276.post-42500752967772139372008-08-24T13:55:00.000-07:002008-08-24T13:55:00.000-07:00Wow.<BR/><BR/>You're as <A HREF="http://trancemist.net/blog/index.php?id=3957280022575419039" REL="nofollow">determined and unrelenting</A> as I am.<BR/><BR/>And Simon is a complete idiot.TranceMisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09255995238470270836noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7493276.post-62323453219502247822008-08-24T13:41:00.000-07:002008-08-24T13:41:00.000-07:00I came upon this "affair" this morning. I've spent the last hour or so reading Thomas' postings on it, many comments and other postings. <BR/><BR/>I have stood in that very spot within SFMOMA and taken similar photos. With both a long lens and a short, wide lens. With my big old 1D Mk2N. I probably spent 15 minutes and no one said anything. And I too become somewhat emotional when told I can't shoot someplace so I'm familiar with the surge of feelings that accompany such a confrontation. <BR/><BR/>SFMOMA is not public space so if I'm asked not to shoot I don't. Now, if some sort of beating or illegal activity was going on I might choose to disobey understanding that decision subjects me to a higher level of disobedience - namely trespassing. But if I'm shooting for my portfolio I say, "OK" and move on or, as others have pointed out, ask to talk with a supervisor if it was that important to me. FYI I've been asked to stop shooting and to leave a number of places.<BR/><BR/>Another issue is taking photos of an employee without asking. TH asserts there was nothing revealing about her dress and implies that made it OK to shoot her. Not the point. An employee may not be able to simply move, turn away or otherwise remove herself from the shot because of her work rules. This is what makes something like this shade into "abuse". That may seem extreme until you have it happen to you but the thing is it's about how the employee feels not how you feel about it. SFMOMA's photo policy, as I read it, doesn't extend to permission to photograph employees so you'd want to at least extend the courtesy of asking not to mention the whole issue of releasing the person's image. <BR/><BR/>If you're not willing to ask a subject to take their photo, and willing to accept the answer, perhaps you want to re-think what you are doing. Voyeurism is observing people without their knowledge or consent. Street photography shades into voyeurism after about 2 frames in my opinion. In the workplace it's the responsibility of management to be aware and protective of the rights of employees. So, if Mr. Blint was the manager on duty or simply a senior management member on the premises it would be appropriate to intervene if he saw a situation that appeared inappropriate. Consider how different this may have played out if TH had talked with the employee first, perhaps offering a print or at least a jpeg as consideration, and she had informed Mr. Blint, "It's OK. He asked me first."<BR/><BR/>These appear to be the principles of this interaction and they seem pretty clear. What's creating the shit storm is the personalities involved on both sides are fragile and insecure. Thus the sound and the fury and all the misplaced emotionality, hyperbole, righteous indignation and thrashing about for justification. That Mr. Blint may or may not be a pleasant fellow doesn't change the fact Mr. Hawk was responsible for the first actions in this progression and by his own admission didn't comply with a request not to continue. You can't blame Blint for that.<BR/><BR/>It's unfortunate this escalated as it has. Nothing having to do with photography is being helped or furthered here. Threats of a backlash by the blogosphere won't result in more trust or openness nor change a stupid interaction into an intelligent one. We can't yell our way to civility. Such rantings only serve to deepen divisions, increase polarization and encourage egregious acts such as publicizing the personal information of Mr. Blint, most likely by "anonymous." This is completely wrong and I'm underwhelmed at Mr. Hawk's response of, "I took it down here and on another blog I saw - where else is it?" I notice Mr. Hawk doesn't publish his actual contact data and no one seems to be outing him. Where is the fairness in that?<BR/><BR/>Finally, there are lots of comments on both sides of this issue posted by 'anonymous'. I don't think this is a discussion well served by anonymous voices hurling incendiary opinions or impassioned moralizing from the shadows. Leadership is not anonymous.Kirkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01885744946198118275noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7493276.post-46121819988506009272008-08-21T11:08:00.000-07:002008-08-21T11:08:00.000-07:00so a current employee comments and acknowledges that Simon Blint is unpleasant to work with. <BR/>Simon Blint chose the wrong person to take his less than professional work ethics out on (yes, the reality is that TH is very popular, well liked and respected, his blog is read by many - regardless if you like his photography or not ) and my guess is that when Mr. Blint is lying in bed at night he is probably saying to himself over and over: shit! I wish I could take this back.<BR/><BR/>But the reality is that, as someone else stated, he is the one in a position of customer "service" and had he shown initial respect and calmly asked TH to come to the office to discuss this - especially when it was getting out of hand - I am sure there would not be all this commotion now. <BR/><BR/>Thomas has all the right to share this with his readers on his blog. Of course it has now turned into a huge fiasco...but I am sorry...Mr. Blint had all the chances (even now) to stop the escalation. I don't wish him any harm, but it looks like it was his time to learn a HUGE lesson.<BR/><BR/>(and I have been reading Thomas' blog for a long time now - I find no arrogance in his posts)Michelenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7493276.post-69349552933916992272008-08-21T00:39:00.000-07:002008-08-21T00:39:00.000-07:00Is anyone else a little peeved at their total non-answer non-apology statement? The whole "let's get back to talking about how great we are" thing is very old-skool PR. Sorry guys, that doesn't fly now that information is free.Seanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09384255047869086754noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7493276.post-23486668472495476092008-08-18T22:29:00.000-07:002008-08-18T22:29:00.000-07:00Leatherdoughnut,<BR/>I met Thomas Hawk briefly...In the short time I met him it is quite apparent that what you are saying is patently false. How do I know? Because I asked Mr Hawk if he would like to join me and shoot some pictures over a fence into an off limits area and his reply was no. He was going to ask the person for permission to shoot this area. I urged him to just do it! Again he declined the offer. What does that tell you? Hawk wanted to take photos of what was beyond that fence as badly as I did but was not willing to risk possible legalities. I thought it was legal as long as we didn't trespass. Don't assume you know Hawk, I met him but I certainly know enough to dispute many of these over blown characterizations.SurfDaddyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16096802348594313849noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7493276.post-11022161164365657922008-08-16T04:20:00.000-07:002008-08-16T04:20:00.000-07:00"He took measures to protect another staff member who according to witnesses on our staff and among the general public was being photographed in an inappropriate and harassing manner". <BR/><BR/>Well they had to stick up for hm didnt they. If you ask me, he is just one of those guys who was bullied in school, now he is getting his revenge (kind of).<BR/><BR/>Dont worry about him. Everyday he feels insecure. Imagine being like that!?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7493276.post-88638972337986611872008-08-15T17:06:00.000-07:002008-08-15T17:06:00.000-07:00I guess it's all been said. The only thing I can add is that this incident was provoked by Blint, who I'm assuming is a college educated person.<BR/><BR/>Most of the confrontations I've been involved in have been with $7.50 an hour security guards. <BR/><BR/>Even had one tell me years ago when I was an amateur that I had to be a professional because I had a tripod!<BR/><BR/>Keep fighting the good fight.Billhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05577849718532863841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7493276.post-39976763214319883482008-08-15T15:21:00.000-07:002008-08-15T15:21:00.000-07:00Well, any interest I had in visiting that museum is over. Thanks for the warning. I'm not interested in patronizing places where people like that work in official positions.Muzzlehatchnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7493276.post-73059217050829301442008-08-15T13:13:00.000-07:002008-08-15T13:13:00.000-07:00After reading Thomas Hawk's most recent comment on his SF Moma incident, I can't help but think..."Does this guy like the sound of his own voice or what! "Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7493276.post-24773542675407063582008-08-15T07:09:00.000-07:002008-08-15T07:09:00.000-07:00Was the Museum's response inapropriate? Yes.<BR/><BR/>Did they have the right to throw you out anyway? Yes.<BR/><BR/>You were taking pictures on private property. They asked you to stop, and you refused. A better response would have been to ask to see a higher level manager immediately, rather than arguing. I find that a useful phrase in situations like this is "I'm sorry... I'm likely to be fairly touchy about this subject, so I'd like to get a third party involved; can we maybe meet with your boss?"<BR/><BR/>But regardless... they have the right to toss you out if they feel you're causing a problem. It's private property. Get over it.Alexnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7493276.post-88236538597044162042008-08-14T23:30:00.000-07:002008-08-14T23:30:00.000-07:00Posting an image of the girl *after* you were asked to stop shooting doesn't prove that she was wearing that sweater when you *started* shooting. Did she put it on to cover herself after she felt you were looking down her shirt?<BR/><BR/>The bottom line is, why would you insist on taking pictures of people that don't want their photo taken? Attitudes like yours contribute to people being generally suspicious of photographers. Thanks for that, douchebag.<BR/><BR/>Stop acting like an entitled simpleton that got his hand slapped.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7493276.post-16715956867938214202008-08-14T19:26:00.000-07:002008-08-14T19:26:00.000-07:00I am a photographer. While I dislike the idea of photography being banned, and agree that the issue could have been handled better by the SFMOMA the "name and shame" routine exercised on this blog is also far from ideal.<BR/><BR/>As we have seen Mr Blint has now been targetted personally, his home address published etc etc for what may have been a momentaty lapse of reason caused by low caffiene levels or something similar. Simon had no evidence to the contrary when whe wrote his first article.<BR/><BR/>The issue was really a failure of SFMOMA management. Either the current camera policy needs to be reworded or the staff need educating as to what the policy actually is.<BR/><BR/>Unfortunately the simplest response from the museum's point of view is to ban photography again thus avoiding any possible recurrence. A blanket ban is far simpler to enforce. This is far from what I would like to see happen.<BR/><BR/>Legally "Thomas" was on private property NOT in a public place so should respect managements wishes. It is ironic that Tom writes under a psuedonym yet has no hesitation in identifying others...<BR/><BR/>Oh yes - I choose to remain anonymous for the exact same reason that Mr Blints name should not have been published... and I appreciate the irony of that too!Zaphodnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7493276.post-63538443156505009002008-08-14T14:27:00.000-07:002008-08-14T14:27:00.000-07:00re you TH supporters ignorant. The museum addressed the situation, which was the protection and well-being of their staff in an uncomfortable situation. ENOUGH SAID! It's not about 'photographers rights' it's about the security of the staff. <BR/><BR/>If your staff came and asked to resolve a situation where people were concerned, would you simply ignore them. People forget that looking at TH's "art" is not at the heart of the matter, but a simple excuse that you are hiding behind. <BR/><BR/>If it was your daughter who felt she was being 'violated' would you not want someone to stand up for her, ask the customer to leave so she can perform her job w/o a feeling of intrusion? <BR/>I hope that you get what is coming to you Mr. Hawk, b/c you have wronged someone in a very large manner, and should be held accountable for your slanderous ways. <BR/><BR/>To all those 'faithful' to this blogger, get a life and learn to think for yourself... being blindly lead by his one-sided words is so sad.Think_4_Yourselfnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7493276.post-84546764412310117142008-08-14T13:39:00.000-07:002008-08-14T13:39:00.000-07:00Perhaps an artistic tent over the ticket takers chair could ensure the staffers future protection.Mrsthnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7493276.post-4512594597031262912008-08-14T12:29:00.000-07:002008-08-14T12:29:00.000-07:00TH, I find it shameful that you have such a hard time acting like an adult in situations such as this. You are doing NOTHING for photographers rights by acting with a sense of entitlement with a sanctimonious and spoiled attitude. If someone says stop, then just stop. Why stir the pot? Did you expect you would change the world by stomping your feet and having a tantrum? You are doing such a disservice to photographers all over the world by your lack of self control and egotistical actions. You need to lay off the booze and learn some proper social graces to begin with, maybe then you could step back and see things like an adult. Don't try and "help" photographers anymore, you are doing more damage then good. Your spoiled rant is embarrassing and shows how immature you really are. This isn't the first time you have stuck your foot in your mouth...you are fighting to be right about being in the wrong. Shameful, simply shameful.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7493276.post-19614425382875528582008-08-14T10:39:00.000-07:002008-08-14T10:39:00.000-07:00The center is defined by the extremes - in this case Blint on one side and Thomas on the other. Hopefully we can all meet closer to the middle.<BR/><BR/>I don't fault either side for standing their ground.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7493276.post-84987173059638967122008-08-14T07:34:00.000-07:002008-08-14T07:34:00.000-07:00I enjoyed this 'further reflection' post. The museum's response was pretty lame - they would have been better served saying nothing I think.Dave Zatzhttp://www.zatznotfunny.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7493276.post-50019682279595961642008-08-13T22:28:00.000-07:002008-08-13T22:28:00.000-07:00So much to say, so little space to say it. Blint was not a customer service rep. He was an a hole. I woule like to know the written polices for SF MOMA regarding taking care of problems. If he followed procedures, then hats off to him. If he failed to follow procedures, then off with his head. A hole, jerk or saint, it's doesn't matter. Keep this blog and this story in on top until a resolution has come about. OH, and how anonymous said "if you stood taking tickets and answering the same question hundreds of times with a smile for 8 hours, or patinetly dealt with people trying to damage priceless art, or took care of a guest who has fallen ill or been injured while visiting and needed medical help, or tried keeping employees safe from hostile and inappropriate guests, or sat in hours of meetings discussing how to make visiting the Museum a pleasant and enjoyable experience especially during shows like Kahlo where the lines are lengthy," if an employee can't do their job with professionalism, GET A DIFFERENT JOB. No excuses. BYW, If Blint can make a decision in moments bout Hawk, then Hawk can make a decision about Blint. Good for the goose and for the gander. Or is it only a one way street in SF?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7493276.post-38876806234732030862008-08-13T15:37:00.000-07:002008-08-13T15:37:00.000-07:00That is certainly a tepid response from SF MOMA. Either they don't understand the influence of the online community, or they don't care. They were given a chance to share their side of the story, and declined to do so.<BR/><BR/>So it sounds like all it takes is someone not liking a camera pointed in their direction to get a photographer kicked out of the museum. Apparently for their administration, a perceived slight (no matter how flimsy) is enough to warrant removal of a rule-abiding paying customer. What a shame.Sean Gentryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15576641403443113250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7493276.post-13434028334076400552008-08-13T14:06:00.000-07:002008-08-13T14:06:00.000-07:00What an awful thing to do to someone who was just doing his job! I hope you have a good attorney who specializes in slander/libel. I have more sympathy now for underpaid museum employees being harassed by self-obsessed photogs for the sake of publicity.<BR/><BR/>Hawk is well known in the SF photo community as being a failed artist, and an a-hole who likes to start trouble and then blog about it. It's sad that he has no talent and thus needs to provoke incidents to have something to document and then rant about the outrage he feels for "the man" in his blog. Perhaps coffee table books and postcards would be a more suitable outlet for his “art”.Alan Smitheenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7493276.post-62368811972092869102008-08-13T13:30:00.000-07:002008-08-13T13:30:00.000-07:00Well looks like I'll never step foot in SFMOMA Again:<BR/><BR/>http://www.sfmoma.org/press/pressroom.asp?do=recentEric in SFhttp://www.plantworld.org/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7493276.post-18242804549749955252008-08-13T13:08:00.000-07:002008-08-13T13:08:00.000-07:00SFMOMA has published a response at http://www.sfmoma.org/press/pressroom.asp?id=371&amp;do=recentvery1silenthttp://www.flickr.com/photos/66504007@N00/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7493276.post-72440019374207269482008-08-13T13:00:00.000-07:002008-08-13T13:00:00.000-07:00Hmmm... sounds like two dicks had a pissing match. Nothing new.jasjasnoreply@blogger.com