BS: Catholic bigotry in the Sistine Chapel

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic bigotry in the Sistine Chapel
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Oct 18 - 08:14 AM

"The art hoard is a strawman."
I agree entirely, but it is quite likely to become collateral damage should push come to shove
Jim

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic bigotry in the Sistine Chapel
From: Thompson
Date: 07 Oct 18 - 06:06 AM

The Catholic Church owns vast land banks and is a major rentier. It has plenty of property to sell. The art hoard is a strawman.

This corporation has no intention of compensating its victims.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic bigotry in the Sistine Chapel
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Oct 18 - 05:31 AM

Whaterer the rights and wrongs o selling and owning this art horde, should the Church find itself in financial trouble - forfend the suggestion - it is quite likely to sell it to the highest bidder anyway - that's how business works
Jim

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic bigotry in the Sistine Chapel
From: DMcG
Date: 07 Oct 18 - 05:00 AM

And I should apologise in turn since you also covered galleries being outbid by private interests!

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic bigotry in the Sistine Chapel
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Oct 18 - 04:47 AM

"I did mention museums and galleries in my post,"
You did D - my apologies - to early in the mornign for multi-tasking
Jim

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic bigotry in the Sistine Chapel
From: DMcG
Date: 07 Oct 18 - 04:33 AM

I did mention museums and galleries in my post, Jim. Selling to the highest bidder is almost always private hands these days: witness galleries trying various crowd funding techniques to save important works for the nation.

All I am really saying is we should explore other alternatives before risking artworks disappearing into a vault somewhere.

As to whether the Catholic Church is inherently too wealthy: that's a different topic. It is, in my view, at the very least far too centralised wealth.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic bigotry in the Sistine Chapel
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Oct 18 - 04:22 AM

"But is selling publically accessible art into private hands so only the privileged few can see it the right way?"
Who said private hands?
The commercial art world is a profit-making business and more often than not, the national galleries are outbid on some of the most important art in the world - the Chester Beatty in Dublin puts on regular displays of art
Why can't the Vatican offer its art at a realistic price to the nation - or even have it held in trust and shared with other nations - we were lucky enough to see two exhibitions o Van Gogh's works and the Tutankhamun riches in London.
The Catholic Church can hardly plead poverty with its investments and financial support ?

Due to revelations, power of the Catholic Church has waned in the last couple of decades and that decline continues steadily and internationally
Some way to go yet but if that decline continues it is going to end up as a much reduced church with a chokable number of assets
There is nothing to stop it from selling those assets (almost certainly to te highest bidder) to make up its losses
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic bigotry in the Sistine Chapel
From: DMcG
Date: 07 Oct 18 - 04:04 AM

That's a difficult one, Jim. Let's agree the church needs to find a way of compensating the victims. you are quite right about that. and perhaps also establishing some sort of "legal aid" fund to make it easier to bring cases against them.

But is selling publically accessible art into private hands so only the privileged few can see it the right way? That I am far less sure about. Selling to galleries and museums is marginally better, but so many of them are having to sell stuff to remain open.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic bigotry in the Sistine Chapel
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Oct 18 - 03:41 AM

We were lucky when we went - our visit was part of an offer by the travel firm and we didn't have to queue
I was stunned at what we saw - not just the art, but the rather overkill display of wealth and opulence
For me, it is questionable that it should remain in private hands ns not be freely available to all that is the case with all art as far as I'm concerned
Some of the vatican's acquisitions, particularly some of its African and Asian holdings, are 'iffy', to say the least - others have been obtained on spiritual promises that can never have been fulfilled

Some time ago I had an argument about the compensation due to abuse victims and was told that, in order to do so The Vatican would have to sell of some of its holdings and that this would be wrong
I've often wondered if the same would apply if say Getty or Rothschild had been found to be doing what the church was doing, would the same apply
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic bigotry in the Sistine Chapel
From: Joe Offer
Date: 06 Oct 18 - 11:06 PM

I dunno, Steve. I think that for most people who visit, seeing the Sistine Chapel is a once-in-a-lifetime event. I'd hate to see tighter restrictions on the number of people who can see it. Yes, the crowds are annoying - but I think they're necessary. Nonetheless, because of the crowds and the expense, I'd much rather spend my time just walking the streets of Rome. That, to me, is what is truly delightful about Rome.
I suppose I would have been annoyed by the crowds in Egypt - but I went in 2012 in the middle of their unrest, so there were no crowds anywhere. It was delightful. If you want to have a tourist spot all to yourself, go in wartime.
-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic bigotry in the Sistine Chapel
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Oct 18 - 08:57 PM

"The crowds were annoying..."

Well both you and I, on our separate occasions, were of those crowds. Tourism has multiple downsides, but the people who show up to see the Vatican Museums and that famous ceiling are at least, on the whole, genuine aficionados, if just for a day, of culture. They've paid a lot of money and have sacrificed several hours to queue in the heat. They haven't just gone on Amazon to buy a picture book. They've travelled to Rome and they've showed up. It wasn't the crowds that annoyed me. It was the overbooking, the lack of information and the couldn't-care-less attitude of the authorities in charge of the place. The honest thing would be to restrict the numbers of tickets sold each day. But no, they are determined to make as much money as possible and they don't give a fig for the well-being, comfort and safety of the people whose hearts are at least in the right place, if nothing else.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic bigotry in the Sistine Chapel
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Oct 18 - 08:03 PM

As for covering up in churches, I don't see why the same protocols that apply outside the church shouldn't apply inside. As long as your tits (of all genders), arse and genitalia are covered, what's the issue? No, really? If folks' bare arms and legs don't offend you outside the church, why do they suddenly become offensive to you once you're in? Do you think God has never seen your "white bits," as we used to call 'em oop north? Would you really tut-tut at a lovely young woman with comely legs who was looking at some of those very dodgy putti with their immature little bums and willies shamelessly on display? And all those naked angels flying around? Get a grip!

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic bigotry in the Sistine Chapel
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Oct 18 - 07:44 PM

On photography: it's time-honoured that you take a camera with you to record mementoes of your holiday. It's been thus since and before those old Kodak box cameras. My first camera was a Brownie 127 when I was seven years old. There are still a few snaps around that I took on that camera and they mean a lot to me because I took them. Those among us who think that a book of photos from a gift shop is some kind of adequate substitute are definitely missing something. It behoves anyone who goes into a church or gallery to be considerate to other visitors. To me, that means no whacking great big multilens SLRs that are big enough to need a rucksack, no flash, no selfie sticks and no standing there in pelvic thrust mode with a camera held high above the head. Otherwise, I can see nothing wrong with shooting away. Tiny smartphones are ideal and can be used discreetly in silent-shutter mode. I'm sick of killjoys who make up a new rule every time there's an innovation of some sort. Miniskirt? Ban them! Mohican hairstyle? Not allowed! No tie? You can't come in here, mate! When rock 'n' roll was in its heyday my school banned sideburns that came below the ear. And don't even THINK of wearing anything that remotely approaches winkle-pickerhood! And when the condom, then the pill, then the coil were invented, why, ban them, one at a time, as soon as they come in! Why we put up with this nonsense I'll never know. As for that Sistine Chapel, unless they're using it to make a new pope it has absolutely NOTHING to do with worship and EVERYTHING to do with making as much mazumah as possible out of hot, sweaty, knackered, overcrowded tourists who have been queuing and herded around for hour after hour. I know, because in April I was that tourist, even though I'd been suckered into buying an expensive fast-track ticket that ended up being no such thing.

One other thing about churches. Let's talk about who they REALLY belong to. Let's talk about the near-slaves who built them in the first place and where the money come from to build them (a clue: it wasn't exactly a pot of gold miraculously provided by God). Let's talk about the fact that, despite my being a rabid atheist, they are every bit as much my heritage as they are the heritage of the most saintly daily worshipper. They get tax breaks, gift aid and grants, all out of my tax money, as well as whatever I pay to go in and see them. If religions want to claim that the churches are theirs then let them bloody pay for them. Those churches are part-mine, so you stop making up petty rules as you go along and I promise to be considerate. Deal?

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic bigotry in the Sistine Chapel
From: Joe Offer
Date: 06 Oct 18 - 07:12 PM

I checked the Vatican Website for ticket prices. Unguided access to the Vatican Museums and the Sistine Chapel is 17 Euros, plus a 4 Euro online booking fee. I understand that visitors often have to stand in line for three hours.

I went with a group tour in 1999 and 2012, so we didn't have to wait. The displays in the Vatican Museums looked worn and dingy, and the Sistine Chapel was wall-to-wall people. The crowds were annoying, but I guess it's one of those things you have to see once in a lifetime. I skipped the audience with the Pope - I don't like crowds, and I don't like waiting. Instead, I walked by myself in Rome and had a wonderful time.

When I visited Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris in 1973, there were no restrictions, and the place was a zoo. When I went again in 2008, it was closed for Mass, so I didn't get in. I was pleased to see that it was closed during Mass, because all those tourists would have been distracting to worshippers. In recent years, it seems like churches are requiring more decorum of visitors, and I think that's a good idea. It makes a visit more pleasant for everyone.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic bigotry in the Sistine Chapel
From: Senoufou
Date: 06 Oct 18 - 04:44 PM

I sometimes think Jesus would have a right laugh at some of the daft things the Established Churches get up to.

We were once asked for a total of £38 just to get in to Westminster Abbey to pray at the tomb of Edward the Confessor. I had a bit of a strop at the door, saying that it was disgraceful having to pay to pray.

The two vergers were downright rude to my husband and kept telling him to take off his little Muslim cap. They thought we were tourists trying to get in for free.

Later I wrote to the Dean, pointing out that Jesus would probably have been disgusted and she was very apologetic about it. She had a 'word' with the vergers, and agreed one should be able to pray without paying.

As I'm on the PCC of our local church, she sent a 'parish pass' allowing anyone from our village to enter the Abbey without paying when visiting London.

I might as well add that my husband had a bad accident as a child which left him with a large dent in his skull. He always wears a hat of some sort as he feels it's unsightly.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic bigotry in the Sistine Chapel
From: Tunesmith
Date: 06 Oct 18 - 04:16 PM

I bet they wouldn't let Jesus in to the Sistine Chapel with his hippie looks and barefeet in sandals etc

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic bigotry in the Sistine Chapel
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 06 Oct 18 - 10:42 AM

Amen to that second paragraph, Sen. JL is the thinking septuagenarian's totty! ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic bigotry in the Sistine Chapel
From: Senoufou
Date: 06 Oct 18 - 10:17 AM

My sisters-in-law, although wearing 'pagnes' or long skirts, often go about topless in their family courtyard in the intense heat, and nobody bats an eyelid (about 60 people live there) Boobs are totally uninteresting to men in W Africa. Nevertheless these women would never in a million years fail to cover up all but their faces and hands when going to the mosque.

I really admire Joanna Lumley. She has a programme on at the moment about her travels along the Silk Road, and my goodness she's respectful of local dress codes and unfailingly polite and gracious. She makes a point in thanking people for small services and complimenting everyone she meets. I like her such a lot - she's a model of how one should behave when a visitor abroad.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic bigotry in the Sistine Chapel
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Oct 18 - 10:08 AM

"catholic bigotry at its worst!!!"
Bigotry at it's worst is making this "Catholic" and I'm sure Bozo knows this because he only posts to shock
Jewish places of worship have dress codes, as do many orthodox Christian ones - Muslim Churches certainlt do - this restriction is across the board internationally
I'm no friend of any church, but I think that if you choose to visit their buildings you need to adhere to their requests
Personally, I think all tourists who behave like the OP when abroad should have their passports removed - Britons abroad have a bad enough press as it is without adding to it - especially those who believe their money buys the right to behave badly or insensitively
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic bigotry in the Sistine Chapel
From: Senoufou
Date: 06 Oct 18 - 09:42 AM

I suppose for me it isn't a problem to wear clothing that covers me up pretty much all over. My legs aren't exactly gorgeous (rather knobbly knees and slightly bandy from childhood, covered by squashy fat bits now I'm elderly) The less of me on view the better in my opinion!

(Browses a burka catalogue...)

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic bigotry in the Sistine Chapel
From: DMcG
Date: 06 Oct 18 - 02:01 AM

Whe I am paying a not inconsiderable entrance fee, I think that I have the right to choose what I wear, especially in temperatures like to exceed 40C

I don't think either of us have that right. Just like this site, it is not yours: you are a visitor, and do so under the rules they set. If we don't like the rules, we don't have 'a right' to go at all, any more than I have a right to wonder round your home.

When we go on cruises, we tend to pick lines with 'formal nights' where people are expected to dress up. Lot's of cruises don't have them, so it is easy to avoid them if you don't like them.

Every so often someone starts yelling at the door that they have paid a lot of money for this holiday and will wear what they like. Not a moments thought for everyone else who has also paid a lot for the holiday expecting a formal night.


It's all about consideration and sensitivity, not 'my rights'

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic bigotry in the Sistine Chapel
From: ollaimh
Date: 05 Oct 18 - 11:12 PM

i wish the canadian natives who used to go to vatican city to perform an excorcism of the demons who raped murdered and tortured native children, would go back.. they clearly still need the exorcism. the raping children church is still the only one that hasn't apologized and dodges playing reparations.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic bigotry in the Sistine Chapel
From: Senoufou
Date: 05 Oct 18 - 06:18 PM

I suppose I was lucky in that I visited these places long before package holidays became popular, and no-one had a phobile moan with which to take selfies. There weren't so many crowds, and it was all generally calmer.

(Except the Palace of Versailles, which was so crammed with sightseers that one couldn't see anything much, just the back of the person squashed in front!)

If I'm visiting a church, mosque, cathedral, chapel etc I like to try and sit quietly somewhere and reflect for a time, and offer up a few silent prayers.
One can always buy postcards or guide books with good photos to keep.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic bigotry in the Sistine Chapel
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Oct 18 - 06:11 PM

It isn't bigotry, Bonzo. It's twattery all right. But bigotry is not the right word.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic bigotry in the Sistine Chapel
From: Rapparee
Date: 05 Oct 18 - 04:42 PM

Buy some photos and some books and don't go if you feel that way -- you'll get a better view. I would not any more wear shoes in a mosque than I would visiting a house in Hawai'i or the Orient.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic bigotry in the Sistine Chapel
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 05 Oct 18 - 03:49 PM

Whe I am paying a not inconsiderable entrance fee, I think that I have the right to choose what I wear, especially in temperatures like to exceed 40C - catholic bigotry at its worst!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic bigotry in the Sistine Chapel
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Oct 18 - 12:32 PM

I wouldn't say that the Church treats the Sistine Chapel primarily as a place of worship, not by a long chalk.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic bigotry in the Sistine Chapel
From: Senoufou
Date: 05 Oct 18 - 12:28 PM

In Tunisia I often saw drunken, scantily-dressed young women (skimpy skirts and bikini tops!) going round the souks. In a Muslim country this was utterly shocking to the residents, and of course the Tunisian men tried to touch them, chat them up and made suggestive remarks.

It always amused me to see the outrage on the lassies' faces, as if they couldn't for the life of them work out why they were being accosted like that.

It's as if a completely naked woman suddenly appeared in a branch of M&S.

I've seen tourists in Istanbul getting cross because they were asked to cover their hair (females) and remove shoes etc. Usually shorts weren't allowed either. The Blue Mosque is stunning, but naturally one should respect the rules. It is a place of worship after all, as is the Sistine Chapel.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic bigotry in the Sistine Chapel
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Oct 18 - 11:14 AM

Did you walk the Samarian Gorge ?
We were staying at a hotel which was caring for a tourist lady who did so in sling-back shoes - they had to ship her back early

All this doesn't have too much to do with the subject title except that it relates to how tourists react (often badly) to the sensibilities of other countries
We were appalled at overhearing a tour-guide one night persuading a bunch of her drunken charges to "come and see the pretty lights" in the local cemetery
One of the most beautiful experiences we had in Northern Greece (which we are still totally besotted with) was to go into a cemetary one evening and see the way local people fondly commemorate the dead by placing a lighted candle inside a specially made glass box placed over the grave - magic - but not in drunken bunches (the Falaraki Syndrome)
Jim

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic bigotry in the Sistine Chapel
From: Senoufou
Date: 05 Oct 18 - 08:44 AM

It is lovely Jim and I enjoyed Crete immensely. The museum at Heraklion
has many REAL artefacts, little statuettes, stone bits and pieces and necklaces & adornments.
Evans didn't adhere to the golden rule of today's archaeology - leave things as they are and don't try to over-restore!

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic bigotry in the Sistine Chapel
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Oct 18 - 08:16 AM

Knossos was 're-invented' by Sir Arthur evans who musiled in on somebody else's (Minos Kalokairinos, a Cretian merchant and antiquarian)
and used his money to satisfy his own imaginings of what the ancient civilisation was like
Having said that, it's a beautiful site and well worth visiting, but it ain't history
Jim

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic bigotry in the Sistine Chapel
From: G-Force
Date: 05 Oct 18 - 07:05 AM

I was in the Sistine Chapel in 1969 and had no difficulty taking photos of the big fresco on the end wall (the Last Judgement?). But nowadays it's in glorious technicolour, but then it was just fifty shades of brown.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic bigotry in the Sistine Chapel
From: Senoufou
Date: 05 Oct 18 - 03:50 AM

At Knossos on the island of Crete in Greece there's a superb Minoan palace which was discovered by Sir Arthur Evans in the late 19th Century. It dates from neolithic times.
When I visited it (in the sixties) there were the most wonderful frescoes of dolphins, athletes jumping over bulls and topless ladies with elaborate plaited hair-dos. Even the fat pillars were painted a rich red.
Only afterwards did I learn that all this had been 'restored' from faint, fragile shadows of their art. :(

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic bigotry in the Sistine Chapel
From: Joe Offer
Date: 05 Oct 18 - 12:28 AM

Hi, Rap - I would imagine that more durable paints were used in the restoration of the Sistine Chapel. So, not to worry.


Most of the temples in Egypt had been brightly painted, and now they're all sand-colored. I wonder if there will ever be an attempt to return any of them to their intended colors. I hope not. There are 60-some tombs in the Valley of the Kings west of Luxor. Since the tombs were discovered only recently, many have intact interior paintings. On a visit to the valley, tourists are admitted to only three tombs, opened on a rotating schedule. I'm sure that keeps damages to a minimum.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic bigotry in the Sistine Chapel
From: Rapparee
Date: 04 Oct 18 - 09:09 PM

I wonder how long it will be before the breath and other exhalations of the visiting hordes will cause damage such as has been found in the caves at Lascaux.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic bigotry in the Sistine Chapel
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Oct 18 - 07:05 PM

I have a selfie stick with a Bluetooth remote, but, to be honest, I rarely use it and I share the annoyance of those who they annoy. After the Sistine ceiling was renovated in the eighties (I think), a Japanese TV company who had helped to fund the restoration had some kind of copyright on the ceiling, for a time. But that has now lapsed. You WILL get shouted at in there if you point your camera but you CAN take photos. You've bloody queued for hours, paid a fortune to get in, have been forced to overdress and have been herded into an extremely overcrowded room in a shameless attempt to rip as many people off as possible. Take your pics shamelessly and enjoy them!

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic bigotry in the Sistine Chapel
From: Joe Offer
Date: 04 Oct 18 - 05:49 PM

I don't remember there being a restriction on photos in the Sistine Chapel. Maybe that's a relatively new restriction - perhaps brought about by the annoyance of selfie sticks? It really is annoying to have those things waving around. I worry about getting impaled...and they sure get in the way of us "legitimate" photographers. I suppose the photo restrictions are a response to the few photographers who get obnoxious, and the other idiots who don't know how to turn off their flash. I take my photos quickly and move on, but often I'll see a crowd of people waiting forever for some guy to get a photo of his wife in perfect focus in front of some work of art.

I sometimes got stopped taking photos in temples in Egypt, but I suspect that was just a way of collecting bribes. Bribes are a way of life in Egypt.

I've always been fond of the San Damiano Crucifix, an icon that is also a crucifix. I thought it was in the church at San Damiano, where St. Francis prayed before it, and I never got the chance to go there. I recently found out it is in the Basilica of St. Clare in Assisi. I've been to Assisi twice, but never inside the Basilica. So, I asked a friend to get me a photo when she was there this week. She found out photos weren't allowed, but she got me a couple good photos anyhow.

Things were pretty wild in a lot of churches we visited in Israel last December. We were in a group of 200 (often split into 4 or 5 parts), led by a Filipino-American priest. The priest asked me to sing something every time we went into a church, and then he'd lead a quick prayer and give a blessing. I usually sang Taize chants, or something in Gregorian chant. It was amazing how people quieted down as soon as I began singing, and they often sang along. And it was nice to have a few moments of quiet in each place, not disturbed by selfie-takers. And I loved the chance to test out the acoustics in all those beautiful places.

So, was I out of line?

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic bigotry in the Sistine Chapel
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 04 Oct 18 - 10:23 AM

my complaint(s) about the Sistine Chapel, when I was in there last year, were that people were packed in there shoulder-to-shoulder, the ignorant bastards (in particular the gobby Yanks, who were there in hordes) would not STFU, and the paintings looked as though they'd been done by children.

We thought the Vatican, as a whole, was the least impressive of all the things we saw during our Rome visit.

St. Peter's Basilica, OTOH, was stunning - beautiful beyond words - and truly had a genuine 'spiritual' feel. Wonderful.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic bigotry in the Sistine Chapel
From: Jos
Date: 04 Oct 18 - 09:45 AM

Steve Shaw and Thompson, there was a mention on the radio recently of an Orthodox Christian church that didn't allow in any women between certain ages (I think it was from 10 to 50 or thereabouts), just in case.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic bigotry in the Sistine Chapel
From: Donuel
Date: 03 Oct 18 - 10:45 PM

Humid and oily humans are actually an enviormental hazard to paintings

You should feel lucky they do not insist on hazmat suits.

Senofou if you get a chance see the Crystal mosque.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic bigotry in the Sistine Chapel
From: Rapparee
Date: 03 Oct 18 - 09:36 PM

Most churches in Rome have only slightly less rigid rules than the Vatican.

I ask guests not to smoke inside my house. There were two exceptions, and my brother is dead. Others are welcome to smoke outside. It's my house, after all, and I ask that you follow my rules.

Likewise the churches. Mine allows folks in wearing shorts, tee shirts, and other casual attire (near or complete nudity is forbidden). The Greek Orthodox two blocks away has different rules. The LDS churches have rules that would make your eyes bug out. You might not agree, you might think the rules are silly, but the place is theirs. Check first and if you don't like it, don't go.

As for flash photography: It can eventually damage fabrics and paper, such as books. Ask first, and a DSLR is preferable to a phone and you'll get a better picture. For interiors, most flash pictures are fairly useless if a phone is used because of distance other other factors -- get a DSLR.

We were in the cathedral in Toulouse and the inside was dark, dark, dark! Our friend Paula, a nun (wearing Bermuda-length shorts) was saying how her camera wouldn't get any pictures in that much dark. Suddenly the place LIT up! No, it wasn't a miracle -- a German television crew heard her problem and turned on the lights they were using to film the cathedral interior. Thus I highly recommend bringing your own television crew along.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic bigotry in the Sistine Chapel
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Oct 18 - 06:26 PM

How did they check?

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic bigotry in the Sistine Chapel
From: Thompson
Date: 03 Oct 18 - 06:16 PM

Greek Orthodox church in Cyprus wouldn't allow in any woman who was having her period. Religious people are crazy, that's all there is to it.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic bigotry in the Sistine Chapel
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Oct 18 - 09:25 AM

Generally, flash is useless in galleries and churches because everything is too far away from your camera or, if you do get close up, you get all sorts of glare. Compact cameras and smartphone cameras can take great handheld snaps these days in fairly low light without flash. And you can always press the shutter two or three times if shaky hands are an issue to make sure you get one sharp shot. Compact and phone cameras can mute the shutter noise completely, to make things even more discreet. I'm not going to be told I can't take take pictures by anyone except the Turkish army (in northern Cyprus, for example). In return, I practise perfectly discreet and flash-free behaviour at all times.

I asked a jobsworth at the Sistine Chapel why I wasn't supposed to take photos. He muttered something about "copyright."

Michelangelo? Copyright??

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic bigotry in the Sistine Chapel
From: Jack Campin
Date: 03 Oct 18 - 08:56 AM

There is a reason (apart from it being bloody annoying to everyone else in the building) why flash is banned, and it has nothing to do with light. Typical flash intensity is aimed at matching 1/60 second of sunlight, which it typically does in 1/50000 second (and with the same spectrum as sunlight, or the colours would all come out wrong). A stadiumful of phone-poppers couldn't produce enough light to do any harm; my favourite example of that is the Kariye in Istanbul, which has had glassless windows letting the sun on the frescoes for about 1500 years, and still has a flash ban.

For modern flashes, that's it. That wasn't true in the early days of photography, when you either used open pans of flashpowder or aluminium-in-oxygen flashbulbs. Flashpowder has a greater explosive force than gunpowder (it quite often got photographers killed or seriously injured), and bulbs would quite often explode in a shrapnel blast of glass splinters and burning metal ribbon. That wouldn't do any artwork any good.

No tourist would bring a studio flash setup into a cathedral, but they raise some of the same issues. They store astonishing amounts of energy in their batteries - I've heard of one blowing a hole through a brick wall when it failed.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic bigotry in the Sistine Chapel
From: DMcG
Date: 03 Oct 18 - 08:29 AM

Don't agree about banning photography. Especially if you've paid a big wad to get into the place. It's easy enough to be discreet, just a compact camera or phone camera, no flash.

I suspect most of the time it is really flash they want to ban, which can damaging on fabrics and artworks. But a lot of people don't seem to know how to turn the flash off, forget, or can't be bothered, so it is much simpler to ban all photography. After all, if someone holds up a camera you don't know if the flash is disabled or not until afterwards.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic bigotry in the Sistine Chapel
From: Jack Campin
Date: 03 Oct 18 - 07:49 AM

Try a Google image search for "Uffizi". I very much doubt your phone can ever do better than what that shows you in a few seconds.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic bigotry in the Sistine Chapel
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Oct 18 - 07:30 AM

Don't agree about banning photography. Especially if you've paid a big wad to get into the place. It's easy enough to be discreet, just a compact camera or phone camera, no flash. I have dozens of pretty good photos from inside the Uffizi in Florence which cost me nothing. I suppose I could always have been ripped off by buying a pricey book of pics in the gift shop, on top of the hefty entrance fee. That's the only reason they like to ban photography. My iPhone 6 took some great pics in the Sistine Chapel. I do stand there and look at the art as well, usually for a lot longer than Mrs Steve's patience will stretch to.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic bigotry in the Sistine Chapel
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 03 Oct 18 - 07:24 AM

At Canterbury you don't get nearly as far as the door without paying. Sadly cathedrals need to charge, the upkeep is expensive and although you may think the C of E is loaded, they cannot afford both to pay clergy and maintain their buildings.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic bigotry in the Sistine Chapel
From: Jack Campin
Date: 03 Oct 18 - 07:02 AM

I can only recall being refused entry to a place of worship three times: the main mosque in Sarajevo, probably just because the guy on the door was in a bad mood; the Hagia Irini in Istanbul, by local authority folks in hi-vis jackets who were pretending to work on it; and Carlisle Cathedral, because you don't get more than a few steps inside without paying. I've never had a dress code problem.

I did once prepare for stricter codes when visiting Turkey by carrying a skullcap as local men do - never needed it.

Banning photography is a GREAT idea. You can always buy or download better pictures than anything you could do with your phone, and mobs of tourists taking pictures rather than simply looking are a bloody nuisance. They seem to have some sort of magical ideation that says there's something special about the picture because it was theirs. Which there will be if you're including your boyfriend with his arm round that statue of the BVM, but just go home and learn Photoshop, please.