Flash photography is in itself unlikely to be a significant source of deterioration for artworks. It doesn't help, mind you, but is not usually a major source of light deterioration. I visited one major European museum with strict bans on flash photography posted everywhere....including right by the open windows allowing full sunshine and outside atmosphere to hit the artworks. Obviously, a barrage of photographers could not match the damage that the works were receiving from exhibit conditions. 

The meaningful reasons for restricting photography of works on exhibit include security, ownership, copyright, and reproduction issues. In addition, flash photography in a controlled-lighting gallery can be very disturbing to other patrons, and the noise of photography is equally problematic. (The photos are not likely to come out well, either, but that's the photographer's problem.) The museum is well within its rights to restrict photography for all these reasons and more, and does not have to spell out the reasons for the restrictions to the public. Depending on its governance structure and set-up, the museum is also often well within its rights to charge for photography of its holdings, building or grounds. The money doesn't usually matter half so much as the effect: charging tends to weed out the serious projects from the more dilettantish, and gives the museum a basis of information if security is later breached or unauthorized reproductions pop up in print or on the market.


Sally Shelton
Collections Officer
National Museum of Natural History
Smithsonian Institution