Why can't you use flashes in museums?

I enjoy museums and never understood why you can't use flashes?  Why is that? 

people.ds.cam.ac.uk/mhe1000/musphoto/flashphoto2.htm

Multiple possible reasons.

1. Could be they want you to buy posters and postcards.
2. They could know flashes bouncing off glass will look stupid.
3. They could believe that flashes will hurt the artwork (this is usually not true, but this myth continues)
4. They could not want to disturb the atmosphere/people with flashes going off all the time (personally I think this is the best reason, if I were enjoying some art I'd be mad if someone was shooting of their flash all the time).
5. They could have already paid for the "No Flash Photography" sign and couldn't be bothered wasting it.

There have been tests done that show that flashes do not actually harm the pigment in paintings, but the belief has been held so long that you are not going to get the curators of museums to change their minds. You cannot take a picture of Michelangelo's David.  How in the world would a flash harm marble?   This is true in most museums across the globe.  

One of the main reasons that they don't allow photography in museums at all is to keep the crowds moving.

SN's link is a good reference.

Mostly I think it's because of the persistence of the myth of flash. I ran into this in an old victorian house turned museum in Portland, ME. One of the docents in another house said that they allow it during Christmas, and it really slows down pedestrian traffic. So I'll go with #3 and #4. As for selling material, I think that's perfectly reasonable.

The museum here in town allows non-flash photography except for any temporary exhibit. With a good camera and lens that's not a problem.

garyrhook wrote: SN's link is a good reference.

Mostly I think it's because of the persistence of the myth of flash. I ran into this in an old victorian house turned museum in Portland, ME. One of the docents in another house said that they allow it during Christmas, and it really slows down pedestrian traffic. So I'll go with #3 and #4. As for selling material, I think that's perfectly reasonable.

The museum here in town allows non-flash photography except for any temporary exhibit. With a good camera and lens that's not a problem.

       wishy washy, if you ask me

I'm going with Ninja's #1 and #4. There is money in those good shots and people are usually there for relaxing views. 

Stealthy Ninja wrote: people.ds.cam.ac.uk/mhe1000/musphoto/flashphoto2.htm

They could have already paid for the "No Flash Photography" sign and couldn't be bothered wasting it.

Too Funny!!

Copyright protection in some cases....

Perhaps the flash will harm works of art got started in the flash powder days. So they just choose to say that is the case. I think it is most likely to not disturb others enjoying the art, and the over all atmosphere. But do you really need a flash if you have one of the newer camera models? This is why the camera Gods created High ISO. 

Copyright?  That's a silly one (not doubting you, just saying).  I thought it was because the light will fade the art.

Ryan Obryan wrote: Copyright?  That's a silly one (not doubting you, just saying).  I thought it was because the light will fade the art.

Um, no, incorrect.

Copyright applies to more recent works of art, and gives the creator of the piece complete control over what can and can't be done with their work. That's applicable to many a museum. It's not nearly as silly as your statement. Please consider learning about copyright laws here and abroad lest you inadvertently violate them because you think consideration of them "silly".

You might also read the (yes, rather long) article that Stealthy links to. It's a pretty exhaustive investigation into the myth of flash, and very informative (if a bit dry and overly wordy). The light from a flash does not fade the art, and is wholly irrelevant for sculpture and modern art.

It would be nice if the museums would just say, "no flash photography because it's darned annoying to the other patrons." That should be reason enough.

Interesting thread, good to know

garyrhook wrote:

Ryan Obryan wrote: Copyright?  That's a silly one (not doubting you, just saying).  I thought it was because the light will fade the art.

Um, no, incorrect.

Copyright applies to more recent works of art, and gives the creator of the piece complete control over what can and can't be done with their work. That's applicable to many a museum. It's not nearly as silly as your statement. Please consider learning about copyright laws here and abroad lest you inadvertently violate them because you think consideration of them "silly".

You might also read the (yes, rather long) article that Stealthy links to. It's a pretty exhaustive investigation into the myth of flash, and very informative (if a bit dry and overly wordy). The light from a flash does not fade the art, and is wholly irrelevant for sculpture and modern art.

It would be nice if the museums would just say, "no flash photography because it's darned annoying to the other patrons." That should be reason enough.

Aren't we delightful.   Your right, using a flash is about retaining copyright.  Because when you don't use flash, it's a completely different story.   

I'm not trying to be an a$$, just a few basic thoughts.  I guess it's good that I don't normally go photographing stuff like this.  

It's a conspiracy! 

Ryan Obryan wrote: I'm not trying to be an a$$

Neither am I. I was attempting to add to the discussion aspects that had not heretofore been addressed, to clarify, and provide additional information.

My point about modern art was to emphasize the idea that, if it were really about "fading the paint" there would not be a restriction on using flash to photograph sculpture.  Yet there is. I think the museums (happily) conflate the issue to attempt to explain a position that they should not need to explain. Thus: "Photographic flash annoys other people. Don't do that."

My other point about copyright has to do with it's relevance for newer art, but that's about photorgraphy, period, not just flash. It's an important point, but somewhat orthogonal to the discussion of flash. I read your post (above) and interpreted it as dismissive. If I misunderstood, please forgive me.