Imaging Images
I was at LACMA recently, viscerally enjoying the massive works of Richard Serra. Incredible presence and have made me mentally refer to our own Serra work at the Denver Art Museum as “excerpt” since it feels like just a shaving off of some larger work. I’d love to show you some pictures but as my trusty digital camera emerged from my pocket, security guards were quick to approach and inform me that photography’s not allowed.
Yeah, yeah, I work at an art museum and I understand the issues of copyright and wanting to own image rights to works of art. But, that night, it seemed a little more stupid than usual. Honestly, my small image of oxidized (rust to you non-art types) metal is probably indistinguishable from my many other pictures of the distressed and weathered world. It’s not like Serra emblazes a Louis Vitton-like logo across all metal surfaces and my photographic subterfuge would be revealed.
But to the real point here, where’s the fine line between exact duplication (which is the thing to be feared and why DRM really exists (and this situation is really just analog DRM)) and something changed enough from the original that it’s all okay. And, if we can’t really find this line, then do we need to think it’s there in the first place? Especially in a creative commons world, what holds us back?
Here’s my thought experiment while I was in the shower in the following morning: So, given that a digital image is bad, what if I’m a lousy photographer and my pictures are blurry? Is that still close enough to the original to violate policy? Is it the potential of the perfect image that makes the device the bad thing? What if I had a randomly distorting lens that always shot things imperfectly — some axes through the images are 10-20% stretched or something — does that get me in the clear? What if my camera is more of a camera obscura and I trace the resulting image. Is that bad? (This is different than most museum’s non-sketching policies where they just don’t want pens or other color laden devices in galleries that could deface the actual works.) What if I never display my original perfect image but instead use it in a collage?
Is it the fear that my picture taking is somehow stealing the soul of the original painting? I don’t see at what rational point I actually cross any sort of threshold that’s meaningful.
Better yet, what if I take a picture of another Serra, in a public setting, crop it just so, but claim that’s it the Serra from LACMA… Have I crossed any boundary?
Right? At what point is all of this just silly? What’s the real harm in letting people take away memories of their experiences when they really grooved on some piece of art?