Don't mind me, just STEALING this painting

Don't mind me, just STEALING this painting

>taking a photo of just the painting
Could just google the painting and save the image

But the person who uploaded that photo would be stealing

if you save it from google how do you get likes in you soc. media? or how would people know you've viseted some artsy fartsy gallery?

Why do museums and galleries prohibit taking photos anyway?

Something with the light (radiation) of the flash-light damaging the painting.

I've been to plenty of galleries and it's usually "taking pictures is okay but please do not use the flashlamp"

This.

The original intention was because lots and lots of high light exposure would cause paintings to fade faster than they would otherwise.

Now it's to get entrance fees.

Interesting.

if you're going to justify piracy (or whatever you wanna call it) atleast try to come up with a suitable comparison.

how is it not a suitable comparison?

think a little about who made this painting at what time for what purpose and how it has found it's way into a museum/gallery. than compare that to a movie.

Yeah, a nonprofessional photo looks more artistic anyway.

me the chinese tourist photographing every single painting in the museum whilst periodically being told to stop doing that by increasingly pissed off security guards

"me so solly..."

That just makes piracy of films sound better. There is no "aura" to a film because it's already a reproduction of a reproduction that is massively manufactured.

Although I will say that the "aura" of a movie IS there if you see it opening night or at a premiere. It's like live music, the "aura" is in the vibe from the crowd.

I saw Fast Five opening night with my buddies and laughed my ass off. The crowd slowly realized the movie was a satire of the action genre about halfway through and laughed with us. What a great comedy.

When that second grenade drops on the Rocks crew member, my god it was hysterical. None of them have been as funny as Fast Five was that opening night.

Believe me if the Jews had painted these paintings there would be as strict laws as there are around films. They are incapable of such art though, so they invent new "art" like cubism and abstract rubbish that anyone can draw.

Pretty sure iPad's are banned from museum's faggot. She probably would've been kicked out if there were any security nearby.

But go ahead and be a degenerate pirating leech.

That's why you can literally wash yourself with sunlight.
All the radiation cleans your skin, it even pierces it and also cleans the blood! You can take the filthiest, stinkiest socks or underwear, rinse it with water and put it in the sun. It will be clean, sterilyzed and no longer smells. Just don't sit naked for hours in the tropic sun, of course.

>before we could record music most people heard a specific piece of music only once in their life

ITT: fucking idiots

A painting in the 21st century is valuable as an object in itself, not for the image it presents. Why do people queue for hours to see the Mona Lisa when they can just google it, and why do people pay tens of millions of pounds to own Vermeers and Picassos when framed prints are cheaply available? Why would an exact forgery of the Mona Lisa be next to worthless compared to the same thing? It's about the exclusivity and the handcrafted nature of the original painting that can't be replicated. Comparing the art market to films is facetious and stupid

Why is it legal to not pay to view the painting but it's illegal to not pay to view the film?

Around here, museums only prohibit flash photography. I don't know what shithole you live in.

I don't know about your shithole country but here museums are free.

At tourist trap museums like the Lourve they have to do it or every single painting would be blocked by a crowd of Chinese people.

>Tourist trap museums

...

this

Regarding taking photos, I'm a painter, so I take close ups to see brushwork.

The value of the painting is in physically owning it (it's an original work). The value of a movie is in viewing it (it was made with the express purpose of having copies made of it)

baka desu

it is on display. in a museum. that you have to pay to get into. it is not the same as piracy, although tons of museums do expressly forbid photography because they want to sell prints.

it is a false equivalency. really taking a picture of a painting would be more akin to copying a rented video tape for personal use, which the supreme court ruled legal. but sharing that tape freely in the internet would be illegal.

I never got the big deal about museums. I mean if you filled a museum with fakes so good you cannot tell them apart from the original picture, does it really matter if you have the original?

it is on display. in a cinema. that you have to pay to get into. it is not the same as piracy, although tons of cinema do expressly forbid recording because they want to sell films

it is a false equivalency. really taking a film of a movie would be more akin to copying a rented video tape for personal use, which the supreme court ruled legal. but sharing that tape freely in the internet would be illegal.

tons of shit in museums are fakes.

but sometimes you just come across a painting that takes your breath away. that is the point of museums.

second paragraph. you can film a movie you paued to watch, unless the cinema prohibits it, for your own personal use. it is the sharing of it that is the crime.

/thread

satanic trips of truth