Wounded room

Uploaded 9 Dec 2009 — 18 favorites
Spotlight This! Enter Shoot Out
Login Required

To add items to your favorites you must login.

Already have a JPG account?


Need to create a JPG account?

JPG+ Required

Collections are a JPG+ feature. You must be a JPG+ member to create new collections and to add photos to collections.

Sign up for JPG+ to start using collections now!

© joe navin
Views 303
Likes 0
Favorites 17
Comments 11
Would you like to also give a props comment to the photographer?
All dislikes require a comment. Please tell us why you do not like this photo.

More of joe navin’s Photos

  • Art weapon
  • Wounded room
  • Subdued
  • Thousand origami cranes
Photo Info
UploadedDecember 9, 2009
TakenDecember 6, 2009
ModelCanon PowerShot G10
Exposure1/40 sec at f/2.8
FlashNo Flash
Focal Length6.1 mm
No categories yet.
No tags yet.

Q: I am curious about more information on the RULES

A: Do you know?

Photo license: © All rights reserved

Anish Kapoor installation at Royal Academy London

11 responses

  • Catherine Hadler

    Catherine Hadler gave props (11 Dec 2009):

    good shot - how did you manage to take a picture in there?

  • joe navin

    joe navin said (12 Dec 2009):

    Thanks - it was a bit random - camera hanging round my neck and firing when the guards weren't watching. Not right that they don't let you do non-flash IMO.

  • Bruce Miller

    Bruce Miller (Deleted) gave props (29 Dec 2009):

    Wow! Ugly and beautiful!

  • Craig Bortmas

    Craig Bortmas said (8 Jan 2010):

    I worked in a museum for 7 years... there are copyright and legal issues involved, especially if the artist is still alive. I've even been refused permission to photograph in the gift shop during a Dali exhibit in Philadelphia.

    I'm not an advocate for deceptive photography, but thanks for taking the chance...impressive image.

  • joe navin

    joe navin said (9 Jan 2010):

    Hi Craig - artists copyright should be respected. Artists (and their backers) should be the only parties to gain commercially from the work.

    But charging people to view art and then preventing them from recording their experience of it isn't realistic (and must be a bugger to police). The whole world carries a camera and a good chunk of it is sharing what they see through social media.

    Why should art be excluded from that?

  • JamesHarmon McQuilkin

    JamesHarmon McQuilkin   gave props (29 Jan 2010):

    Great capture---Times have changed greatly, because of the new technology. Along with the changes, humanity's --as a whole-- measure of character and fairness has deminished. I was an Art History major, and have been a photographer since '75. Standards have gone from: "Take a picture of anything you'd like."(--all the way to--)"Sir, are those your real eyes, or a camera? Please remove them anyway." I have shots of some of the greatest pieces of art in the world, and (overall) the sames rules, laws, and ethical standards still apply. If the heart of the artist is as poisoned as the rest, then the motive remains the same for all--greed, without honour, respect, and humility. Pawning someone else's work as your own is like 'Playing God' and spitting on yourself at the same time.

  • Ariel Peters

    Ariel Peters (Deleted) gave props (6 Feb 2010):


  • Brendan Smith

    Brendan Smith said (5 Mar 2010):

    Very interesting, I like it.

  • NiteRunner

    NiteRunner gave props (11 Mar 2010):

    wow, thats cool.

  • Cjor

    Cjor said (19 Sep 2010):

    Great shot, and I agree with you, artists shouldn't expect people to view your work and then no expect them share it with others who didn't get to view it.

  • John Linton

    John Linton gave props (28 Feb 2012):

    Killer entry!

To add your comment, Log in or sign up!

Please Login or Sign Up

You must be logged in to enter photos into JPG Shoot Out contests.
Login or Sign Up