#Nofilter: The Only Acceptable Filter for Works of Art
You know that moment when you’re standing somewhere—such as an art museum or a restaurant—and you look up and notice that people are taking pictures of a painting or sculpture or of their food? If you haven’t, you need to get out more…or at least start to because believe it or not, this is a trend. That leads to my next question: what exactly are people doing with these pictures? Nowadays people are mostly taking these pictures to either post on Instagram or Twitter or are sending them to others via Snap Chat.
Let’s think about Instagram and Twitter for a minute. What’s the first thing you do after taking or uploading a picture to one of these social media? You guessed it—filter. We all know that when you add a filter to a picture it’s for reasons such as making yourself or your subject look better or more appealing, or just to share with others where you are, what you’re doing, or how delicious your food looks. Ok, I get this—I even do this and support it!—but what about when people do it in front of a work of art? No. Just…no. I’ve been to the Met and seen people taking pictures of famous artworks and putting color-changing filters on them and wondered, “why on earth would someone think that a classic work of art—usually a painting or sculpture—needs a filter to look even better?” Did Claude Monet not do a good enough job with his colors? Are the sculptures not as iconic as their reputations set them to be? Because if this is the case, I think my whole Art History career has been a lie.
What is the point of my rant, you ask? It’s to ask you all a favor; however this favor is not for me, but for the reputations and memories of the wonderful artists whose life works decorate the walls of our museums, posters in our bedrooms, and pictures in our albums. All I ask is that if you are going to continue to take pictures of these wonderful works—which I hope you do—to just not filter them (ever heard of #nofilter or the “normal” filter?). They are literally “works of art” and are beautiful just the way they are, so why corrupt them? Thinking about it, isn’t that technically some “art copyright” issue? Because I know for a fact that the artists didn’t say “Do you think [insert work of art here] would look better with an Inkwell, Sierra, Sutro, Walden, or Kelvin filter?”
- 28 Struggles Of An Instagram Addict (buzzfeed.com)
- Time-Traveling Art: Renaissance Art in Contemporary Art (artsnapper.com)
- Little Dancer by Edgar Degas: What Makes Her Different and Loved by All (artsnapper.com)
- Monday Muse: Instagram Still Young but it Has Matured Quickly (artsnapper.com)
- Shout Out to Our Instagram Community (artsnapper.com)
- Perfect Picture or Perfect “Snap” – Instagram Sold for $1 Billion (artsnapper.com)