A few weeks ago, I had requested books from the Metropolitan Museum’s Watson Research Library. I had a sanshin lesson later that day, and so had my sanshin with me. I live much too far from the city for it to make any sense to go into the city to go to the museum, go home to get my instrument, and then go back into the city for my lesson, and, I had nowhere else to leave the instrument, since public train stations and the like don’t offer public lockers anymore. So, I had my instrument with me. And, since I was leaving town the very next day, this was my only chance to get into the Library to get the books I had requested.
So, despite knowing that museum policy forbids musical instruments, I headed to the Metropolitan Museum, assuming that the staff there would say “let’s see what we can do,” and offer some kind of alternative solution. Turns out I was mistaken. As usual, as I entered the museum, I was greeted not by Visitor Services staff, or anyone otherwise charged with presenting a positive and welcoming atmosphere, but rather by a cohort of Security officers. Before I could even open my mouth to say “look, I know, but here’s the story, and could you possibly help a guy out?”, I was denied entry to the museum flat-out. No “I’ll see what I can do,” no “I sympathize with your situation, but…” and no “well, you could go down to the Guggenheim and see if they’ll let you leave it in their coatroom.” No effort whatsoever to be sympathetic or helpful. And so, after leaving my things in the Guggenheim, coming back without the instrument, getting into the museum and doing what I needed to do, I filed a complaint, and then spoke with the security officer in question. Suddenly, he was sympathetic and human. Suddenly, now, he said “Oh, I’m glad it worked out for you; listen, I sympathize, but, you know, policy is policy.” If only he had been so human and sympathetic before…! Saying “let me see what I can do” instead of “no” is so easy.. it’s not a difficult thing to do.
Anyway, today, I got this letter:
Thank you for the comment you shared with us following your recent visit to The
Metropolitan Museum of Art. Such observations give us the very valuable opportunity to better
serve our audiences.Please be assured that the utmost priority is placed on training our staff to be
knowledgeable, courteous, and helpful to the Metropolitan’s visitors, and we emphasize the
importance of setting and maintaining the highest professional standards at all times in the
Museum. We regret that your encounter with our staff did not rise to our high standards of
excellence and apologize for any unpleasantness this may have caused you.Please also accept my apologies for any inconvenience you experienced while attempting
to check your luggage. However, as is explained on our website (www.metmuseum.org), the
Museum maintains a discretionary policy as to what can and cannot be checked. We have had
to reexamine our former security procedures and continually make refinements to these policies
for the safety of all of our visitors and the collection. We believe this restriction is necessary to
ensure the safety of our visitors and we know that this same policy is being enforced by many of
our sister institutions throughout the world.I want to thank you again for taking the time to forward your comments to us, and please
accept my sincere apologies for your visit not being the very best possible Museum experience.With kind regards,
Sincerely,
Harold Holzer
CC: John Barelli, Chief Security Officer
Suzanne Shenton, General Manager, Visitor Services
Here is my response:
—-
Dear Ms. Peltz and Mr. Holzer,
My sincere thanks for taking the time to reply to my concerns; I hope that my concerns were shared with the Security department, and not seen only by those in Communications & External Affairs. I am sure that you must get thousands upon thousands of comments, and so I appreciate that you have taken the time to send me this form letter.
I would appreciate it even more, however, as would a great many of your visitors I am sure, if you would actually consider changing your policies. I adore the Metropolitan, and in fact I dream of working there someday. Your building is incredible, your collections are incredible, and your exhibitions are incredible. Unfortunately, the unfriendliness of the welcome at the entrances to your museum is also incredible.
There is an anecdote, perhaps apocryphal, in which the famous novelist and art collector James Michener, who had arrived at the Metropolitan that day to donate a sizable art collection to the museum, was so rudely treated by the museum’s security that he turned around and donated his collection to another museum instead. A truly serious loss for the museum. Now, I am certainly not someone of Mr. Michener’s caliber, but that should not matter. You should aim to treat all of your visitors politely, and more importantly, sympathetically and humanly. No visitor should be refused admission flat-out simply because they are carrying the wrong thing. The priority should always be to help a visitor, with museum policies being second, and flexible. When the question is “how are you going to help me?” the answer should never be “I am not going to help you.” One should always, always, say “I’ll see what I can do,” or offer some alternative solution. This is a core element of the training and philosophy of any Visitor Services department, but, quite evidently, not of Security officers.
I eagerly look forward to my next visit to the Metropolitan, and hope that perhaps this next time I might be greeted not by security officers, but by Visitor Services staff.
Thank you very much,
Sincerely,
———
Look, I know that Security are just doing their jobs. Believe me, I understand the complex dimensions of this situation. The Met is a prominent potential target for terrorism, it’s the most visited tourist site in New York, there’s a genuine need for security measures, blah blah blah. But doing your job doesn’t mean you can’t be sympathetic and human, and being a prominent museum doesn’t mean you have to make Security, rather than Visitor Services, the face of your organization.
Have you had any unfortunate run-ins with unhelpful or downright unprofessional museum staffers (esp. security)? Please share your stories.
I got this mail, and I just felt like I had to do something. Replying to them directly, and blogging about it, might still not achieve any results, but not replying at all certainly won’t.
The idea that they can just send me some fiddling form letter, and that that will satisfy me is really kind of obnoxious. I know it’s super typical, but that’s really no excuse.
Ok in Japan you cannot use a mobile phone in a museum. What does this mean? Well I think there is room for interpretation. Apparently the museum staff I have encountered at the Fukuoka National Museum and at the Kyoto Arts Museum interpret the rule as: ‘it is forbidden to take your mobile phone out of your pocket’. It doesn’t matter if your phone is actually a smart phone, which you use as dictionary, maybe in order to check difficult characters on the explanation of a mandala, whose English version is only 30% of the original. Staff will jump on you and won’t admit explanations. Of course, this is in Japan, what shall I expect. But maybe I’m going off-topic here…
Well, Japan certainly has its own levels of cultural norms when it comes to strict, inflexible adherence to policies as worded, regardless of the intention or spirit of the policy (or, for that matter, sometimes, logic). But, of course, this happens to varying extents all around the world as well.
In fact, I encountered the precise example you mentioned just a few weeks ago. Most museums frown on the use of ink pens in the galleries, just to safe, to make sure that no freak accident could happen in which pen ink would get on one of the artworks. Some museums ban mechanical pencils, but allow the old-fashioned-type pencils. I honestly can’t remember the last time I saw a pencil sharpener… But I’m getting off-topic. There are also those museums which, for whatever reasons (copyright? or to ensure good flow-through so you’re not blocking up foot traffic?), forbid sketching in the galleries as well, and most forms of writing, e.g. jotting down notes, get wrapped up in that.
Many museums furthermore do not allow visitors to carry bags in the gallery. So, where am I supposed to carry my notebook and pencils, then? I therefore find myself, often, trying to use my smartphone to take notes. And, also, as you suggest, for looking up characters, or looking up other information. This often turns problematic, as in your example.
Fortunately, at the Gardner Museum, I was permitted to step out of the gallery into the corridor, use my phone, and then step back into the gallery.
The really key point, though, was the demeanor and attitude of the guard, who in a very friendly and sympathetic sort of manner, said “hey, I know it’s silly, but if you don’t mind stepping outside to use your phone, I’ll let you right back in. I know you’re just taking notes, but, I’m just not supposed to allow phone use inside the galleries.” So, even though he did force me to abide by a rule that wasn’t exactly designed with note-taking or character-researching in mind (most likely designed more to prevent photography, distractions associated with texting, etc.), he did it in a kind, human, sympathetic way, and offered a simple and reasonable solution, rather than banning me from taking notes at all, and that, for me, is the most important part.
Yes. Attitude is key, as always. I must admit I understand and to some extent also endorse the ban on mobile phones in museums as in theatre halls. I probably got used to the permissive rules of places like the British Museum or the National Gallery in London, where of course you cannot call but you can text or do other things- even taking pictures in the case of the BM but if course that’s another story. Sketching and note taking: why is it banned? I understand the security measure: is that all?
I don’t know what reasons a museum might actually have in mind, but two things that occur to me are:
(1) Copyright issues. Not that a museum genuinely, legally, holds copyright over the objects within its collection, but museums do often like to be fairly restrictive with images of their works, so that they can make money off of postcards and like, as well as off of selling formal image publication rights to, for example, scholars trying to get a journal article published.
(2) And this is the more likely one, a lot of museums worry a lot about free and easy movement of people through the galleries, and they don’t want people blocking up the space. Sitting on seats provided with a sketchpad shouldn’t seem like a big deal, but if/when you bring your own seat, or just sit on the floor, or god forbid bring your own easel, now you’re in the way, and perhaps even infringing on fire regulations about obstructing exits or something. In the wide open galleries at some of the largest museums, this seems like it shouldn’t be a problem, but at a place like the Gardner Museum, which is basically just a converted Victorian home, some rooms of which were never really meant to hold five people at a time – maybe 10-15 max – you can start to understand why they want to make sure people keep moving and don’t 邪魔をする。
Copyright? I had no idea that would extend to drawings. Of course museums want to sell their own catalogue, so they don’t want people to take pictures.. but drawings! The drawing of a picture is not the photographic reproduction of a picture, and I don’t think that copyright issues apply equally! Plus how many people are going to buy someone’s drawing of the Mona Lisa instead of buying the postcard?
Yeah, the copyright argument doesn’t really hold water…
Yes, copyright is one of several considerations behind such policies, and it has nothing to do with the museum’s desire for profit. Copyright is owned by the artists, regardless of who owns the physical object. If you write and publish a book and I buy a copy of it, you still own the copyright; if you make a sculpture and I buy it for my museum the situation is exactly the same. Living artists, and the heirs and estates of artists who’ve died in recent decades, own the copyright in their works in musem collections, and museums have an obligation to protect those rights. This applies not only to photography by visitors, but to the uses that the museum itself can make of the work, like reproducing it in catalogs, brochures, or posters. Of course, copyright expires after a time, so it doesn’t apply to all museum collections equally, but if a museum has both older and newer works it is much easier to have a single policy for all galleries.
Hi fastauntie, thank you so much for taking the time to read my humble blog, and for sharing your insights & expertise.
If it has nothing to do with the museum’s revenues, then why do museums charge so much for image rights/permissions?
I understand that living artists, and those recent enough to be under copyright by the heirs/estates, are a concern. But I really don’t see why when people hear the word “art,” they immediately think of “American art,” or “modern/contemporary art.” I’m not talking about those things. I’m talking about the Renaissance painters and ukiyo-e woodblock artists who worked centuries ago, before the invention of copyright. I’m talking about religious sculpture and ancient ceramics by completely anonymous craftsmen.
The vast majority of works at any of the major museums of the world (outside of Modern Art museums and American Art museums) are old enough that the works themselves are in the public domain, though the museum’s photography of the works might not be. So, we come back to the question – on what basis is the museum so possessive of protecting a copyright it does not possess? Does it have to do with recouping the costs of maintaining a photography staff & photography studio? Does it have to do with the copyright rights of the photographer himself? I hope I’m not coming across as antagonistic at all – that is not my intention – I am simply curious, and trying to get a straight answer. Because, evidently, the answers that I thought I knew were the true explanations, are not.