Wanted to share with you an extraordinary piece of artwork, which I ran across on yesterday while at the Brooklyn Museum of Art. I found it to be so striking that I thought I would share with you. It comes from their Feminist Art Exhibit. Later, after taking the photographs, I was told that picture taking in that particular part of the museum was not allowed. Who knew…the pictures were taken already and no one was there guarding at the time. I’m posting them here for educational purposes. And if you’re ever visiting New York City, a trip to this out-of-the-tourist-trap-beaten path museum would be very much worth your while.

“Patricia  Piccinini. Big Mother, 2005.

**
Description:**

"Big Mother" represents a genetically engineered primate wet-nurse. It was inspired by a story about a female baboon whose baby died while still nursing. The primate mother, overwhelmed by grief, abducted a human child as a substitute (the little girl was quickly recovered unharmed).

**

Medium:**
Sculpture”

Enjoy.

Brooklyn Museum

wow.. that is really incredible. Reminds me of the work of Ron  Muek although its slightly more fantasy. stunning sculpture!

That kinda looks like an orang pendek, except that its not hairy and too large

If you think that's wierd check this one out:
The Young family

Quest

Reminds me of Planet of the Apes.

Woah spooky stuff!

As for not being allowed to take photos - I'm sick of this kinda thing. Apparantly you can't take pics of LandsEnd here in the UK. You have to hire a Council employed photog to do it for you. And if you paid to go to that museum Quest, and they stopped you taking pics then they are ripping you off, even stealing part of your life. We take pictures to enhance the quality of our lives, to record what we did in our lives - and if someone prevents you from doing that you should sue.

And as you are now an expert in the US judicial system that shouldn't be a problem. :lol:

Thanks for posting!

 

i'll throw my tuppence worth in here. i work in a museum and the photography rule changes depending on what the subject is. for instance if we stage an exhibition of picasso paintings from other galleries or museums then no photography is allowed because the lenders have not given permission.
however if we stage an exhibition of picasso items that we own, then you can snap away till yer hearts content..

would any painter staging an exhibition agree to everyone photographing their paintings? i doubt it.
so don't sue or shoot the messenger.it's the individual artist or owner of the pieces that decide if it can be photographed in most cases, not the institution.

So how does that work in places like St Paul's Cathedral in London or Landsend?
You put it on display in a public area you should be ok with people taking photographs.
Just MY £0.02p

the lands end scenario is just stupidity, i agree with you there, and as for st.pauls. i'm unaware of the photography policy although it might be a low level light situation where the delicate paintwork could be damaged by too much flash photography.or it might be more sheer bloody mindedness ;)

i can't agree with the "if its on public display its fair game" point of view, that would surely condone any work of art being public property as soon as it is released (a bit like downloading your favourite new track illegaly perhaps?). There is always something to be said for having an original i think.

They do allow photography without flash and that is vigorously pursued. All these pictures and the many others I took where strictly without the use of flash. In many, especially in dark ambience situations they required wide aperture settings together with slow speeds, which often resulted in blurred photos. 

It’s just in some exhibits that the taking of pictures is not allowed, like this particular exhibit. I would generally think that the individual artist would benefit highly when like in this case, their artwork is getting free publicity and exposure (sorry for the pun).

i can't agree with the "if its on public display its fair game" point of view, that would surely condone any work of art being public property as soon as it is released (a bit like downloading your favourite new track illegaly perhaps?).
Not at all. There's a huge diff between what's on the net and what's in Museums and Art Galleries. Let's put it another way. I go to a city and go sightseeing. I visit a museum or an art gallery. I go home and tell my family and friends about it. Ho-Hum.

Same scenario but this time I take my trusty Nikon. I go home and Oh WOW! My family and friends suddenly want to go and visit those same museums etc.

Trouble is, those in charge think me and my Nikon are out to rip somebody / them / the artist off. I can't beleive that every tourist is a rip-off artist.
As Quest said, they should be gratefull for the free publicity.
But it seems that with St Pauls the aim is to force you to buy THEIR photographs.

@ Donniemc0; Brooklyn Museum has an online touring page which goes back a few years. I was browsing through some of their stuff there and I came across the artist you mentioned: Ron Mueck. Here’s some of his work. Really excellent work:

Two Women

Big Man

In Bed

Mask-II

Enjoy.

Quest