That is utter bullshit. Anyone who knows basic copyright law can tell that you can't restrict the right to take a picture of something blatently in the public space.

park's gonna look like a prison when the razor wire goes up after all the shit gets tagged.

They tried to do this in Chicago's Millennium Park with that bean sculpture. Photographers had to buy a permit to take a picture of the sculpture. It was an effort by the city to get a monopoly on postcards and stuff with the Cloud Gate's picture. I find efforts like these sick and wrong.

http://www.boingboing.net/2005/02/11/chicagos_copyrighted.html

Hey, tagging and photography aren't part of the "endless public dialogue...visual dialogue," ok.

Sounds like what happened when they put that Bean thing up in Chicago.

Rent-a-cops running around telling tourists they can't take pictures or else they'd be arrested just ain't gonna look good.

OTOH, this is not city land, is it? If it's private property, they can pretty much do what they want. But even then, wrestling little digicams away from tourists... I smell February sweeps!

It's private property. The Seattle Art Museum bought it. (It used to be a highly contaminated brownfield; it held oil tanks or something gross)

I'm sure there was some agreement about how public the space really is.

I just want to say that this is the stupidest sculpture I have ever seen (ok maybe not EVER seen). So you take an ordinary object and you replicate it into a much larger scale? Big whoop? Yea, that is soooo artistic. What a vision! Pulleeez!

The only reason I would even want to take a picture of this eyesore is to make fun of it on a blog.

It may be private property, but it's visible from elsewhere. If it's visible from public space, you can take a picture of it from there. Everybody should just gather on the other side of the fence and snap away.

I think the policy is appropriate. It's not fair for photographers to steal the photons that make up beams of light from hard-working artists.

Of course Paul Allen's ultra Keyhole Sats will be up there taking snaps of the snappers 24/7 - probably be able to get DNA matching too.

Just remember that next time your copy of a Microsoft application goes haywire; it's just Paul's payback for you taking illegal pictures of his artwork.

i think it's funny that the only sculpture that i've seen pictures of is this one! this is now the third photo i've seen.

Can't you get that guy to beat it up at least?

That's such bullshit. If you don't want people taking pictures of something, don't make it public. Are eidetics allowed to look at it?

Looks like a paint splash waiting to happen ...

Great post! There is an active Flickr photo group for images of the Sculpture Park. We would love to see you and your reader’s images of this prohibited sculpture!

http://www.flickr.com/groups/36699021@N00/

There's another copy of this piece in the National Gallery's sculpture garden here in D.C. Have a look: http://www.nga.gov/feature/sculpturegarden/sculpture/index.shtm

I don't know if you're allowed to photograph it, though.

Maybe this is only obvious to a few people: MARKETING PLOY!!! Tell someone NOT to do something, especially where artists are concerned, and you already know they do it!

This artist art, name, and history are now plastered all over the internet! Do you think that would have happened without the "No pics" warning?

Bravo to the marketing department.

Maybe he'll run home from the playground crying and take his big fancy toy back home with him.

Oldenburg doesn't need marketing, nor does Paul Allen. Oldenburg is one of the most famous sculptors of the 20th century (that is, if you are familiar with contemporary art). But really, WTF? This is the dumbest goddamn bit of "prohibited conduct" that I can recall in years. Kudos to those taking photos of it from public space and posting to beat the band. Whoever came up with this idea desperately needs to be made the fool.....

dw: No, The Bean controversy was a series of hyperboles wrapped in misunderstandings. (See http://domoni.com/me/2005/05/more_bean.html )

This, however, is plain silly.

As a trademarks/copyrights/logos lawyer, I can give you the bottom line here, in 100% of all such cases: No one can own "the view," try though they might. If the thing can be seen outside an enclosed, private space--please, everyone, photograph away, prolifically. It's the best way to subvert the assholes who try, pathetically and illegally, to scare you into submission with "warning" signs and "guards."

As a trademarks/copyrights/logos lawyer, I can give you the bottom line here, in 100% of all such cases: No one can own "the view," try though they might. If the thing can be seen outside an enclosed, private space--please, everyone, photograph away, prolifically. It's the best way to subvert the assholes who try, pathetically and illegally, to scare you into submission with "warning" signs and "guards."

Posting the "Stop looking at me!" sign was the only way that the artist could get anyone to pay any attention to that ghastly eyesore!

Lets put it into law, if you can't take a picture of it, you get to take a hammer to it. Seems fair as this "thing" is kind of a lame eyesore.

It's funny that they think they can stop people from taking photos, but it's even funnier that people here are trying to bash Claes Oldenburg. Nice try, dudes. Nice try.

So hows about a bunch of shirts get printed up stating “Photography of this person is prohibited” and then folks touring the museum, demanding the same respect as the objects?

Apparently saying-it-makes-it-so, so let’s see the museum play by its own bullshit rules.

Anyone out there Slogging from a typewriter?

Honestly, the really weird thing about this is the claim that it's an "everyday object". Excuse me? I've never seen a typewriter eraser in my life. The first time I saw a picture of this thing I thought it was an abstract representation of sperm.

Michael Maggard said:

"So hows about a bunch of shirts get printed up stating “Photography of this person is prohibited” and then folks touring the museum, demanding the same respect as the objects?"

Let's go further than that. How about a T-shirt that says, "Permission to observe the wearer of this shirt on a security camera is NOT given."

"Lawyerdude" is right: while they could conceivably ban taking photos of a given object from within the park, they can never ban taking photos of something from a public place, such as the Elliott Avenue right of way.

In response to your request: there's plenty of photos of it and its siblings on Flickr already: http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/typewritereraser/

Not only can they not prevent you from taking photos of this sculpture, if the park is open to the public, you can photograph it within the park. The SAM should know better than this. I'd like to see someone tag that sign with some info from here http://wiki.photoblogs.org/wiki/Photographer's_Rights tomorrow during the opening ceremony. We shouldn't have to tolerate this kind of ignorance from an institution built on creative thought and shared ideas.

Dalas sez...

"it's even funnier that people here are trying to bash Claes Oldenburg."

While we're at it, let's go ahead and bash the rest of the shitty pop-art, "neo-dadaist" screw-offs, too! (You know who you are, Roy, Jasper, Andy)

When did we decide that "glib" and "artistic" were one and the same? If I want to hear a one-liner I'll go to the comedy club, not to a museum title card. I mean, sure, the Museum doesn't have a two-drink minimum, but at least at the comedy club I don't feel embarrassed when I laugh out loud.

(And just to be sure, I'll be the first to defend Duchamp's readymades. Those works were both funny AND profound, and better still, Duchamp knew when he had taken that direction to its logical end, and moved on. And, better-better still-still, he and all the other Dadaists would have certainly approved of any and all bashing of any and all artistic efforts.)

Most HILARIOUS: the photographer takes a picture of the sculpture, then complains on Flickr that the photo is copyright.

I'll be gentle and assume that was a joke, because otherwise the irony is TITANIC>

Photographer: "Ha-ha, I'm taking the picture, I'm mocking the wishes of the people displaying the picture."

Photographer: "HEY! Somebody's mocking my copyright by showing my picture and *not even linking it*!"

Dowdy indeed.

If it were in a museum, then they could say "Sorry, no pictures." But when it's out in public space, sorry, doesn't work.

Besides, it's pretty ugly anyway.

A flash mob waiting to happen.

Fifty people, all with camera phones, converge on the (ugly, ridiculous) sculpture at the exact same moment and start taking photos like crazy.

Truly a kodak moment (or would it be a nokia moment?)

Odd, most/all museums I know of allow you to photograph their permanent collection, is this sculpture not a permanent part of the Seattle museum or are they just stupid in not allowing photography of their permanent collection?

Personally, I think it's a halfway-decent sculpture, when you see it in the context of the hill (gives me the impression it's rolling down the hill.)

I'm sure y'all can think of far worse public art than that...Here's my (least) favorite:
http://www.hotcat.org/?p=181

Whether folks like it or not, (I personally love these artists' work) people are responding to a couple of things with this piece of sculpture, both of which are voiced from the position of ignorance. The sovereignty of your ingnorance is not an issue, but you should not be denied an opportunity to know something about that which you find disagreeable.
#1. Mr Oldenburg is an internationally known and respected artist who along with his partner, Ms van Bruggen, has produced for over 40 years iconographic figures of delightfully common everyday objects re-interpreted and reproduced on gigantic scale , many in very public places, which have generated much comment, both positive and negative. It's fine to criticize artwork all you want, but criticism that is born of ignorance ultimately has the interesting effect of making the issuer look like an oaf. It may be true, just as food that is repellent or tastes terrible may still be healthy, but in the end, it depends on whether or not we swallow it and thrive. As for the comment that the object does not deserve our attention because typewriters were obsolete and because you yourself have never seen a type eraser, that is in itself a very interesting comment and asks us to think about what everyday objects we take for granted today will be enigmatic and archaic tomorrow. Think of a world without the iconic "qwerty" keyboard itself. Or, when will we do away with the need for the iconic and ubiquitous bottle of drinking water...there was a time, believe it our not, not long ago when we could drink the water from our taps without worry, and anyone buying drinking water (something that falls free from the sky) for a price twice as expensive as gasoline or even beer would have been cited as an example of a fool. That should give one reason to pause for a moment and think.
#2...as for the protection of the image of the sculpture from photography. People must think that they're being told they can't take snapshots of this work, and technically it can be interpreted that way. In fact the single line of boilerplate is there because of the litiginous society we have become. No doubt, as has been shown many times in the past, due to the nature of the Oldenburg/vonBuggen work, it is prone towards being integrated into others' commercial works and many of their pieces have been mis-appropriated over the years. How would you feel if the front of your home or your face, or your child's drawing of their family casually placed on a school billetin board, were taken and made into a commercial postcard or commercial illustration that involved the potential for money and you were left out or not even asked permission? Artists and the artwork's owners feel similarly since they own something that others could desire. Now, if one wanted to waste some time one could go to the public sculpture park, take a ton of picutes...no one is likely to stop you unless it looks like it's a commercial shoot...and enjoy your lawbreaking; an activity that can be very enjoyable but whatever...hey, maybe around 3 a.m. you'd like to jay-walk across a deserted road-way where it's specifically prohibited. Remember, art in public places is often placed there for your enjoyment. Yes, this is an example of our legal system's pervasive nature, but your criticism should be saved for that specific issue when it comes into conflict with the way we choose to live.
Again, enjoy public art wherever you find it, but if you plan on turning your private activities into a commercial empire you will have to observe the fine print on a lot more than just this insignificant sign...and really, are there those out there who have gone to college and don't know Claes Oldenburg's work...now that worries me.

#27: This guy does sculptures of obsolete objects. That's his schtick.

We digital peasants seem to wilfully ignore that this is an early adopter issue. In the future, examples like this will pass without notice.

Copyright may have begun as a form of limited term monopoly, but it's increasingly conceptualized as a form of permanent ownership. This 'ownership' idea is deeply weird and somewhat psychotic (confusing representations with reality). It contradicts our traditional notion of culture as communication (from Latin, communicare 'to share'), and it contradicts the logic that you can't make something public and keep it a private at the same time, but billions of dollars are invested in making sure it is expanded and enforced by law.

Granted, neo-copyright - or copyright as 'ownership' - suggests that if I made a billion dollars off the sale of an internet company, I could buy everything Elvis ever made and erase him from history. Our grandchildren might know there *was* an Elvis, and they might even be able to read *about* him, but they'd never see or hear anything he did, for I now own that segment of 'culture.'

But even *that* isn't necessarily such a bad thing: I could also conceivably band together with millions of people and buy key patents to jet propulsion and end air travel, thus taking a big step toward recovering from climate change.

Some might argue that culture is the thing that gives life meaning, and by destroying our culture, we really don't have to worry about being destroyed by extreme weather because it doesn't matter - we are as good as dead already. I guess I'd have to concur.

The cheeseburger is not obsolete. Ditto the safety pin, the wall switch, the Swiss Army knife...

The thing I noticed upon seeing a well-lit photograph of the sculpture for the first time is how ineptly executed it is. I think it's great to celebrate the beauty of ordinary objects (and there are a thousand things inside a stationery store (an old-fashioned one, not an Office Despot; a typewriter eraser is a spectacular example) that are more attractive and better-made than most art), but this thing is terrible. The colors and textures are terrible, and the modeling of the ferrule is all wrong. The thing is badly made.

"Mr Oldenburg is an internationally known and respected artist who along with his partner, Ms van Bruggen, has produced for over 40 years iconographic figures of delightfully common everyday objects re-interpreted and reproduced on gigantic scale. . . .
— dogu4"

Much like clown shoes.

'Remember, art in public places is often placed there for your enjoyment. Yes, this is an example of our legal system's pervasive nature, but your criticism should be saved for that specific issue when it comes into conflict with the way we choose to live.'~Dogu4

Prohibiting such innocuous action as snapping a pic of "art" blatantly on display in an open space doesn't come into conflict with the way we choose to live??? I am an artist. If I want to reserve certain works for commercial purposes, I keep them tucked away in a folder. If I want to promote my work, I share it with as many people as possible, knowing full well (and hoping) that it might get passed around.

In today's technological climate, you simply can't demand both benefits without taking a hit to your reputation in balance. It's one or the other. As a side note, there are ways within the current legal framework to accommodate all interested parties if you care enough to do so. I know who Mr. Oldenburg is. And in light of this "have your cake and eat it too" action of his, I've lost respect for him and his work!
~Laer

"Edit!his!"
-at least it speaks 4 itself!

Let's see them arrest Google Earth when the satellites fly over the park. ha ha.

I love this sculpture. Its fun and gives the impression of movement. Reminds me of a Pixar movie character. It makes me smile and that is always a bonus in this day and age. But thats just me....

In my objective opinion, which by definition is always correct, this thing is a pile of junk. But since this is private property, and as you know property rights are more important than Newtonian Mechanics, anyone caught photographing it against the owner's will should be shot on the first offense.

I can't imagine law defends the prohibition of photography of items in a public space. I'd think that if they want to restrict photography, they need to put a fence around the place and restrict admission.

OSP and its protocols are a complete joke, and this sort of thing makes Seattle look stupid, film at 11.

Fnarf, last time I 'modeled your ferrule,' you didn't complain.

I took a picture at the new SAM, then erased the image of the erasure sculpture. Very appropriate.

I took a picture at the new SAM, then erased the image of the erasure sculpture. Very appropriate.

and what gives with also not being able to TOUCH THE ART IN AN OUTDOOR PARK?!
gimme a break, SAM.

This is all extra funny when you take it in context with the quote by the artist on the placard: "The idea of endless public dialogue...visual dialogue... is very important to us."

PUBLIC dialogue. I'm sure that the artist has zero problem with all of us taking pictures and putting them up on Flickr (as I did myself). But if a picture of the artwork were to appear, say, on the cover of the next Radiohead album...

Somebody please get arrested for taking a picture of this. We need a new "trial of the century."

The same exact sculpture exists in Washington D.C. across from the National Archive building, and has no such prohibition.

The same exact sculpture exists in Washington D.C. across from the National Archive building, and has no such prohibition.

I just checked the photographers' rights reference I usually use for such things:

http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm

and it suggests that SAM may actually have a case if they were to prosecute someone for taking photos of this sculpture while in the park (however terrible an idea it would be from a PR standpoint). However, it's quite clear that they can't regulate photography of it from the street/sidewalk:

"The general rule in the United States is that anyone may take photographs of whatever they want when they are in a public place or places where they have permission to take photographs. Absent a specific legal prohibition such as a statute or ordinance, you are legally entitled to take photographes. Examples of places that are traditionally considered public are streets, sidewalks, and public parks.
Property owners may legally prohibit photography on their premises but have no right to prohibit others from photographing their property from other locations. Whether you need permission from property owners to take photographs while on their premises depends on the circumstances... when a property owner tells you not to take photographs while on the premises, you are legally obligated to honor the request." [emphasis added]

There are certain exceptions to this, but they only cover military and Department of Energy sites.

I've never took a picture in SAM because they never had anything worth taking a picture of. I had no problems taking pictures in Europe including The Louvre.

This rule is clearly unenforceable... unless they want to erect a tent around the sculpture. The piece is huge and clearly visible from the surrounding public property. Anyone with a cellphone can take a pic from a passing car.

Up here in Canada, I remember reading the advance publicity for the park and hearing about how the typewriter eraser was deliberately positioned rolling down the hill to evoke light-hearted humour.

Hmmm... looks like things are degenerating quickly into farce.

I'll be interested to learn how things pan out. Good luck!

i took those same pix, but was not asked to stop. I have been asked to put it away at SAM, at the Henry. The Frye let me be. Every museum in new york let me be. the getty center in la kicked me out! http://danbennett.blogspot.com/2007/01/olympic-sculpture-park-preview-for.html

FWIW I saw a placard this weekend that didn't have the offending text on it.

In any case I could feign ignorance as I photographed the thing from the other side of Elliott.

ujqo cixekhl wkgesq isgfocp dwzov vihro ebvwuqmha