no photos
October 30, 2007 9:42 AM Subscribe
Strictly No Photography is a site where people can upload and share photos taken in places where you are not allowed to take photos. Lots of photos from art galleries, airports, museums, and even places in Glasgow (nsfw).
Curiously tiny.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 10:12 AM on October 30, 2007
posted by Kirth Gerson at 10:12 AM on October 30, 2007
Intriguingly undescriptive.
posted by TheNewWazoo at 10:13 AM on October 30, 2007
posted by TheNewWazoo at 10:13 AM on October 30, 2007
No complaining, please.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:21 AM on October 30, 2007
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:21 AM on October 30, 2007
Dangerously purple.
posted by arcticwoman at 10:26 AM on October 30, 2007
posted by arcticwoman at 10:26 AM on October 30, 2007
Inscrutably malicious.
posted by Citizen Premier at 10:34 AM on October 30, 2007
posted by Citizen Premier at 10:34 AM on October 30, 2007
snarkily snark.
posted by blue_beetle at 10:35 AM on October 30, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by blue_beetle at 10:35 AM on October 30, 2007 [1 favorite]
What, no locker rooms?
posted by Reggie Digest at 10:42 AM on October 30, 2007
posted by Reggie Digest at 10:42 AM on October 30, 2007
Sorry, to be jerky. I just was expecting more "Wow!" from the pictures since they are taken of things that are not meant to be photographed.
posted by josher71 at 10:43 AM on October 30, 2007
posted by josher71 at 10:43 AM on October 30, 2007
A good idea, but not well-realized. It needs more content, and better editing.
Here's a related self-link: My forbidden photos from Mark Twain's house in Hartford, Connecticut.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 10:44 AM on October 30, 2007 [1 favorite]
Here's a related self-link: My forbidden photos from Mark Twain's house in Hartford, Connecticut.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 10:44 AM on October 30, 2007 [1 favorite]
Magically delicious.
posted by The Bellman at 10:47 AM on October 30, 2007 [3 favorites]
posted by The Bellman at 10:47 AM on October 30, 2007 [3 favorites]
I wouldn't buy a coffee-table book of that stuff anyway.
posted by ChuqD at 10:52 AM on October 30, 2007
posted by ChuqD at 10:52 AM on October 30, 2007
Unexpectedly tedious.
I don't disagree, but I find this interesting. We went in expecting something exciting, arguably because the idea that something can't be photographed makes it forbidden, and that makes it hot and interesting.
Of course, when we are presented with the mundane reality; that many places forbid photography as a way of dealing with flashes, or security, or whatever, we are disappointed, because we wanted it to be awesome, and it's just unexpectedly tedious.
posted by quin at 11:05 AM on October 30, 2007 [2 favorites]
I don't disagree, but I find this interesting. We went in expecting something exciting, arguably because the idea that something can't be photographed makes it forbidden, and that makes it hot and interesting.
Of course, when we are presented with the mundane reality; that many places forbid photography as a way of dealing with flashes, or security, or whatever, we are disappointed, because we wanted it to be awesome, and it's just unexpectedly tedious.
posted by quin at 11:05 AM on October 30, 2007 [2 favorites]
Emily Dickenson.
posted by horsewithnoname at 11:05 AM on October 30, 2007 [3 favorites]
posted by horsewithnoname at 11:05 AM on October 30, 2007 [3 favorites]
Well I liked it.
posted by puke & cry at 11:12 AM on October 30, 2007
posted by puke & cry at 11:12 AM on October 30, 2007
The (-)quality of the photos, the lack of interesting composition, subject, and complete lack of skill certainly explains why these photos were not to be taken to begin with.
Now I'm left with the question, why was the website created, which only leads to the question, why was the link posted on the Blue...which, of course, ends with the question...why was I enough of an idiot to click on it...?
And...there was no porn, really...all in all, disappointing
posted by HuronBob at 11:17 AM on October 30, 2007
Now I'm left with the question, why was the website created, which only leads to the question, why was the link posted on the Blue...which, of course, ends with the question...why was I enough of an idiot to click on it...?
And...there was no porn, really...all in all, disappointing
posted by HuronBob at 11:17 AM on October 30, 2007
Now I'm left with the question, why was the website created
I'm not sure, but I bet it has something to do with sticking it to The Man.
posted by bondcliff at 11:24 AM on October 30, 2007
I'm not sure, but I bet it has something to do with sticking it to The Man.
posted by bondcliff at 11:24 AM on October 30, 2007
I liked this as well.
Also, Glasglow certainly isn't safe for work, or for anything else for that matter, so thanks, sgt.serenity.
posted by koeselitz at 11:45 AM on October 30, 2007
Also, Glasglow certainly isn't safe for work, or for anything else for that matter, so thanks, sgt.serenity.
posted by koeselitz at 11:45 AM on October 30, 2007
item writes "Adverb verb."
Surreptitiously photograph?
posted by mr_roboto at 11:58 AM on October 30, 2007
Surreptitiously photograph?
posted by mr_roboto at 11:58 AM on October 30, 2007
Where's the NSFW? I'll get fired if I'm not looking at porn!
posted by klangklangston at 12:07 PM on October 30, 2007
posted by klangklangston at 12:07 PM on October 30, 2007
Needs more Area 51.
posted by pax digita at 12:09 PM on October 30, 2007
posted by pax digita at 12:09 PM on October 30, 2007
thingly thingish.
posted by exlotuseater at 12:26 PM on October 30, 2007
posted by exlotuseater at 12:26 PM on October 30, 2007
Metafilter: Adverb adjective.
posted by Aversion Therapy at 12:47 PM on October 30, 2007
posted by Aversion Therapy at 12:47 PM on October 30, 2007
Site suggestion:
You're not allowed to take pictures of other people while you're hidden in their bedroom closets.
Just saying.
posted by nedpwolf at 1:00 PM on October 30, 2007
You're not allowed to take pictures of other people while you're hidden in their bedroom closets.
Just saying.
posted by nedpwolf at 1:00 PM on October 30, 2007
quin: I don't disagree, but I find this interesting. We went in expecting something exciting, arguably because the idea that something can't be photographed makes it forbidden, and that makes it hot and interesting.
Agreed; that is what makes it really interesting. One wonders if the web site creator had that in mind, or thought it would be lots of cool pictures. I suspect the latter and hope for the former.
I have taken my fair share of forbidden photo's. Of course, they are kind of neat to me often simply for the pleasure of having snuck them; in reality most of them suck. It really gets under my skin to be told no photographs (I don't mind the flash prohibition) for things which aren't violating anyones privacy, etc.
Of course a really great photo essay about forbidden photography would almost certainly be made with special permission to photograph or totally staged. It is an interesting idea to let people down instead, though it would need something more of a statement then this was. A kind of "there is no man behind the curtain" kind of thing.
posted by Bovine Love at 1:34 PM on October 30, 2007
Agreed; that is what makes it really interesting. One wonders if the web site creator had that in mind, or thought it would be lots of cool pictures. I suspect the latter and hope for the former.
I have taken my fair share of forbidden photo's. Of course, they are kind of neat to me often simply for the pleasure of having snuck them; in reality most of them suck. It really gets under my skin to be told no photographs (I don't mind the flash prohibition) for things which aren't violating anyones privacy, etc.
Of course a really great photo essay about forbidden photography would almost certainly be made with special permission to photograph or totally staged. It is an interesting idea to let people down instead, though it would need something more of a statement then this was. A kind of "there is no man behind the curtain" kind of thing.
posted by Bovine Love at 1:34 PM on October 30, 2007
On a somewhat related topic, my wife and I were in the Sistine chapel about 6 years ago and the security people kept making announcements not to take pictures etc.. Every time someone did take a shot they would embarrass the person by basically yelling at them to not take anymore pictures.
Being the rebel that I am, I took my old Canon AE-1, set it for a slower shutter speed, meandered over to the middle of the room, held the camera at waist level and took a snap (without flash).
I still get a chuckle when I look at the photo. Perfectly centered on God and Adam's fingers.
Oh and I took a sneaky pick of some reporter's whale tail at Trafalgar Square a few weeks ago.
posted by smcniven at 1:47 PM on October 30, 2007
Being the rebel that I am, I took my old Canon AE-1, set it for a slower shutter speed, meandered over to the middle of the room, held the camera at waist level and took a snap (without flash).
I still get a chuckle when I look at the photo. Perfectly centered on God and Adam's fingers.
Oh and I took a sneaky pick of some reporter's whale tail at Trafalgar Square a few weeks ago.
posted by smcniven at 1:47 PM on October 30, 2007
Mildly interesting, but I'm puzzled: why are there places that you can't take photographs? I can understand a very few -- such as military installations or stuff that is private -- but why on earth would a museum (for instance) forbid photos?
posted by davidmsc at 4:23 PM on October 30, 2007
posted by davidmsc at 4:23 PM on October 30, 2007
Sometimes museums are concerned that if folk take photos of works, they're less likely to buy the associated books. Similarly, touring exhibitions often have a "no photos" rule which the borrower is required to enforce.
posted by sebastienbailard at 5:26 PM on October 30, 2007
posted by sebastienbailard at 5:26 PM on October 30, 2007
Man, it's picky of me - but I went to MOMA quite recently...and photography (as long as it's 'for personal use') is permitted.
posted by 6am at 5:31 PM on October 30, 2007
posted by 6am at 5:31 PM on October 30, 2007
>but why on earth would a museum (for instance) forbid photos?
to protect objects from the flash
posted by philfromhavelock at 5:48 PM on October 30, 2007
to protect objects from the flash
posted by philfromhavelock at 5:48 PM on October 30, 2007
I was in Paternoster Square, near St. Paul's (feeeeeed the birds....) , trying to take a photo of this statue, when two rent-a-cops wandered up to me and said "You can't do that."
Me: What? I can take a photo of the sheep?
Dumbass Rent-a-cops: Photography is not permitted here.
Me: Why not?
Dumbass Rent-a-cops: Is not permitted.
Me: But it's a public square....
Dumbass Rent-a-cops: Is not permitted.
(and apparently it's not public square)
I suspect if I used my cellphone camera, they wouldn't have blinked.
posted by potsmokinghippieoverlord at 7:05 PM on October 30, 2007
Me: What? I can take a photo of the sheep?
Dumbass Rent-a-cops: Photography is not permitted here.
Me: Why not?
Dumbass Rent-a-cops: Is not permitted.
Me: But it's a public square....
Dumbass Rent-a-cops: Is not permitted.
(and apparently it's not public square)
I suspect if I used my cellphone camera, they wouldn't have blinked.
posted by potsmokinghippieoverlord at 7:05 PM on October 30, 2007
Cool! (Besides the boring ones.)
Here's mine.
Boring? Yes!
posted by The Deej at 7:54 PM on October 30, 2007
Here's mine.
Boring? Yes!
posted by The Deej at 7:54 PM on October 30, 2007
>but why on earth would a museum (for instance) forbid photos?
philfromhavelock: to protect objects from the flash
A bit of explanation is in order. Great paintings, like thoroughbred horses, are high-strung, nervy, and prone to bolt. Any sudden movement, loud noise, or flash of light may set them off. In the early days of photography there were several ugly incidents in which a crowd of museum patrons were trampled by a stampede of Matisses, Renoirs, and Cézannes, panicked by a photographer's flash powder going off.
Nowadays, when paintings are to be professionally photographed, they are heavily sedated beforehand. This explains why photographs of paintings in books and magazines can never match the beauty and liveliness of great paintings seen in person.
posted by Slithy_Tove at 8:11 PM on October 30, 2007 [4 favorites]
philfromhavelock: to protect objects from the flash
A bit of explanation is in order. Great paintings, like thoroughbred horses, are high-strung, nervy, and prone to bolt. Any sudden movement, loud noise, or flash of light may set them off. In the early days of photography there were several ugly incidents in which a crowd of museum patrons were trampled by a stampede of Matisses, Renoirs, and Cézannes, panicked by a photographer's flash powder going off.
Nowadays, when paintings are to be professionally photographed, they are heavily sedated beforehand. This explains why photographs of paintings in books and magazines can never match the beauty and liveliness of great paintings seen in person.
posted by Slithy_Tove at 8:11 PM on October 30, 2007 [4 favorites]
While in a medical museum in the Netherlands, I learned after the fact that I was not supposed to have taken this photo.
posted by Tube at 8:44 PM on October 30, 2007
posted by Tube at 8:44 PM on October 30, 2007
It's too bad the images aren't larger. I'd love a better copy of this no photos sign.
posted by Mitheral at 9:14 PM on October 30, 2007
posted by Mitheral at 9:14 PM on October 30, 2007
Ah - thank you, Slithy_Tove -- now I get it. Rather like King Kong, then.
posted by davidmsc at 10:27 PM on October 31, 2007
posted by davidmsc at 10:27 PM on October 31, 2007
« Older The State gives and the State taketh away | Illustrations of primates Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by mr. strange at 9:59 AM on October 30, 2007