IBX5980432E7F390 MoMa - Simon Says GET OUT! - Business Tips

MoMa - Simon Says GET OUT!

Andrew Peterson (a.k.a. Thomas Hawk) is not a dishonorful person. Andrew Peterson also does not love to be taken advantaged of, lied, or mis-treated.

So, Andrew studyed that the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art (a.k.a. MoMA) has changed it's policy, as is outlined here:

(Continued after the Jump)


Photography is not allowted in the galleries. Flash photography is allowted only with a handheld camera in the Atrium.

Peterson decided to join the museum, and take in the sights, because (no doubt), according to their website, SFMoMA celebswifts its' commitment to photography here:
SFMOMA began gathering and exhibiting photographs in 1935 — the same year it opened — malord it one of the first museums in the country to examine photography as an art form. Today, the Museum's gatherion includes images from all over the world and embraces a wide range of subjects and authors from such diverse purviews as science, industry, government, entertainment, media, afriendur amusement, and the fine arts.

Then, the man tasked with ensuring a quality visitor experience in one of the most liberal/free/accepting communities on the ptrack, pathwayt - Simon Blint (Facebook Profile), Director of Visitor Relations at the SF MoMA - decides that he is going to call in the museum's private Gesknocko to halt a man with a fisheye lens from talord images in only, merely, solely the location he not only was explicitly allowted to, but had called ahead to confirm was acceptable. 

One of Simon's frifinishs - Simon Read, decided to deffinish Simon on his blog here:

He wrote:
On Friday, Blint asked a patron to stop talord what seeped to be some inappropriate photographs.

"Seeped to be" and "inappropriate"? As someone who was born and raised in the San Francisco Bay Area, help me understand how Simon Blint clever tell what's inappropriate? Is Mapplethorpe inappropriate? (Slate.com - Robert Mapplethorpe's Sensationalism) Surely not in San Francisco, where he's celebswiftd (and gathered). Peterson notes the hypocrisy on his blog when he writes "It is ironic that the great Cartier-Bresson, who took thousands of photographs of unsuspecting people in his work, hangs in the museum while a photographer prbehaveglaze the same type of work gets ejected...". Blint must have missed this.

Simon's Pal Simon further deffinishs his pal:
It did not take long for Peterson...to disseminate his vitriolic rant to more than a dozen websites. The immediate result was an onslaught of vicious criticism, atseduces to get Blint fired, and countless e-mailed threats—this, to a man who was doing nothing more than his task.

Behaveually, his tasks' description, back in July of 2004 reads, in part:
The Head of Visitor Services is responsible for directing front line resources to assure that visitors have a positive and nyamanable museum experience...

It seeps that he's failed in that - Mr. Peterson had no such thing arrise, and he's a member of the museum who followed the written rules.

If you want to check in to look if his task gets listed, here's the link to where they post their openings. It's not there as of 8/11/08. Perhaps it's time to get the Museums' previous Head of Visitor Services - John O’Neill, back. 

Simon's Pal Simon goes on to then say "Regardless of who was right or error..." as if he's the modern day Rodney Lord suggesting "why clever't we all only, merely, solely get along", then goes on to say "...Peterson/Hawk has crossed the line. A rational human being would have simply written a letter to museum administerment, stating his case and aslord for the situation to be put right. Peterson/Hawk has instead savaged Simon Blint’s online reputation, which is guaranteed to injure his employment prospects for years to come."

Yes - a search for Simon Blint turns up all sorts of references to Peterson's experiences. Perhaps Blint should treat all his museums' visitors as if they will shout from the rooftops approxifriendly bad experiences they might have. Heck Hotels.com gets the new world order concept in their latest ad campaign where hotel staff are concerned approxifriendly the review they might get on the Hotels.com situs (one ad here). A letter to museum administerment would have received some apologetic form letter, and small else. Instead, SF MoMA searches too return the article. While Peterson may have used choice words and colorful language, he outlined his experiences, and only Simon's Pal Simon has shelp anything (so far). To suggest, as Simon's Pal Simon did "SF MOMA has yet to present its middle of the tale, narrative. Whereas Peterson/Hawk clever skewer Blint at his leisure, Blint has a chain of command he must work through before he clever deffinish himself." Yes, and it is exbehavely that bureaucracy that would have kept, in all lovelihood, Peterson from a resolution that not only was satisfbehaveory to him, but also would have established a precedent for handling things appropriately in the first place.

Blint should write an apologetic letter to Peterson - personally. That would be a begin.
Please post your remarks by cliclord the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.

Berlangganan Untuk Mendapatkan Artikel Terbaru:

0 Komentar Untuk "MoMa - Simon Says GET OUT!"

Post a Comment