London Art Blog has recently splashed out on a camera, I’ve been kind of trigger happy ever since. Increasingly though the amateur photographer is being treated like a criminal; its gone so far I feel like a smoker or a motorist.

You can’t take photos in private without people’s permission, you can take anyone’s photo in public (although they are invariably unhappy about it) as long as they aren’t the police, a government agency or under the ages of 18 – remember were all potential pedophiles under the all-seeing-eye. Certain areas like tube stations, train stations and military sites are now being policed as no go areas for photographers; ironic when in the space of five minutes in London you’ve been photographed yourself to the tune of about 10,000 frames.

So why oh why can’t I take photographs in an art gallery? I can buy a book with professional photographs of an exhibit (sometimes) and scan them in to my computer. I can drag photographs off a gallery website (what I usually do, although I wait for some tedious gallery to tell me I don’t have permission), so why can’t I take the photos themselves?

Its different with text. My reviews and blog postings are original content, unlike the many art blogs and art portals that just copy and paste favourable press releases (I await the joyous day I read one declaring. “unoriginal artist’s who aren’t very good, concentrating on crap art.”). And yet I’m allowed to go into a gallery – and record the experience with language, but not with a camera. Similarly I can draw the work, but not photograph it.

At Plimsol Uni (my pet name for Parasol Unit) I was informed that “photography was not allowed.” Funny, the fucking artist had used it enough. The gallery had taken photos which were on the website and in the book they had published. Of course what she meant was I wasn’t allowed to take photographs. In case of what? Printing them the size of half the wall and declaring them originals? Would I steal their soul? Was I pinching ideas from the artist? Would they shrink and degrade under the blistering gaze of my lens? Are they adverse to publicity? This from a gallery that has a remit of, “promoting contemporary art for the benefit of the public.”

The sad fact is, this policy is all too common, and one that probably hasn’t been give much thought. Ultimately, the fear it seems, is that people could come in, take a photograph and then start selling either posters, limited editions or copies with fake signatures purported to be by the artist. Its a concern not unlike piracy in the music industry.

Today, Lily Allen declared she is quitting the music industry (obvious jokes aside about whether she was ever in it), a position widely seen as a petulant riposte to her views on the piracy issue. She is against all piracy as she thinks it damages young musicians and the industry that supports them. She seems to have thought little about how much the industry itself is responsible for crimes against music, for limited playlists on radios and for signing prefab bands formed in the armpit of a marketing company, designed to exploit mercilessly a particular demographic. Capitalism has been to the detriment of music and creativity, many bands going unheard beneath the din of talentless plastic fast food music. Piracy is a way to stimulate the market for good music again and there will always be rewards for success no matter which way it comes. Its a pity that Lily Allen has fallen so damningly on the side of rampant commercialism.

One side of the piracy debate points to a vibrant music scene that has enabled more people to engage in music, another points to the music industry suffering. I have always sided with the pirates simply because when someone starts copying, selling, trading, and disseminating a copyrighted material, its because people like it; and if people like your stuff you’ll get rich and successful anyway. If they don’t like it you should probably be doing something else or be prepared to be poor for a good while . Hoping some industry that fleeces the general public to help you along is a bit much.

Its not as if any of these industries – art and music – are even taking wild chances in artists. Any old artist picked up by White Cube or Lisson will command high prices and become a commercial success because they are within their circle of artificial control. In with the venture capitalists and all that nepotism and horse trading. The music industry is maybe even worse. Fake fabricated bands, idiotic talent shows, massive pay-offs to miming good looking gimps whose only talent is a grasping need for recognition and pathetic lust for fame. Piracy is the greater public voting with its feet. How man of these shite sterile throw away bands truly challenged us? How much modern music is worth three hours work at minimum wage to buy a £15.99 CD rather than a cursory free download and a few listens. People who find rewarding music end up paying for it one way or another anyway through concert tickets, merchandise and inevitable music sales.

The fact is piracy aides proliferation amongst the general public, something that modern art is much in need of. Banksy and other street artists that exist outside the gallery system (there commercial activities are incidental not the reason for their work) don’t have a problem of proliferation but there are many artists who are worthy of the public’s exposure who will never get it (although I am the first to counter that this engagement with the public is the artists responsibility primarily). Galleries are not places the public visits en masse regularly and for good reason; it this snooty, protectionism and the last vestiges of upper class protocol and etiquette in galleries – all this hush hush and “don’t take photographs” and read this French post structuralist philosopher if you want to understand modern art crap, that turns many potential art lovers off modern art.

If we could all go into a gallery, take photographs and then print them off…or buy art illegally for fifty quid rather than fifty thousand quid, art would be coming to everyone’s living room near you; and the cultural discussions inherent in art would thankfully encompass a broader and more dynamic demographic.

In other words, art would belong to everyone not just the elite, in their hushed, camera shy galleries. Would Jay Jopling (Lily Allen’s one time sugar daddy?) be willing to take a 20% hit in his sales? Not likely. Will unthinking pawns who side with the art and music industries still campaign against piracy and the loss of money via copyright infringement- sadly yes.

Rather than worry about the ten, twenty percent hit in revenues or the potential for someone to pirate an image, they should get on with either being creative or helping to nurture and expose that creativity to a willing public.

In other words let the camera’s in; art shouldn’t be exclusive, it should be inclusive.