Anyone who is even slightly interested in attracting attention is a troll, of sorts. Some people are just more overt and hungry for attention than others.

This Thomas Hawk guy clearly handles these confrontations the wrong way. If he were more facile, I doubt he would experience any issue. He simply rejects any suggestion that he might not be within his rights to do whatever he wants, which most people find odious, hence his regular persecution.

Any activity which seeks to actively engage or provoke a certain behavior is trolling.

Trolling increases where social stigmatization is lax. In a small town, trolls would be ignored, rejected, or chastised with threats of physical violence. Bad behavior increases where physical or psychic violence is less of a threat.

Posted by chris sivori on 11 August 2008 @ 10pm

This story surfaced around the same time as well:

Local Idiot To Post Comment On Internet | The Onion

Posted by Iain K. MacLeod on 12 August 2008 @ 6am

Derek, I’m delighted to hear your take on the Hawk/SF MOMA story as it’s mine as well. Hawk has a history of self-centered “professional victim” activity and with a big following he can build a lynch mob in a matter of minutes that itself goes viral. Not good.

By the way, on Salon we call Joan Walsh a “concern troll” as she posts concerned pieces about Obama that seem to undercut him.

Posted by Richard on 12 August 2008 @ 7am

I question the use of the word “troll” here. Hawk wasn’t looking for a fight: however, when he found one, he didn’t back down. Trolling requires premeditation and there was none. In fact, there was the exact opposite of trolling - he learned that the policy had been changed, and he *confirmed* that the policy was what he thought it was, and he proceeded to follow it.

It could be he’s glad of a fight and will enter into and extend one beyond the point that a typical person would, but if you didn’t start the fight, directly or indirectly, you’re not a troll. You may be a jerk, you may be immature, you may be a valiant defender of the rights of all. That part’s infinitely variable. But frankly, the soda-counter sitters of the civil rights movement were a lot closer to “trolls” than this guy was.

M

Posted by MarcW on 12 August 2008 @ 8am

I never thought I’d read the words “I did it for the lulz” in the New York Times.

Posted by Adam Rakunas on 12 August 2008 @ 8am

I think the question Derek is asking is how much Hawk was in the mindset to have a fight going into it. The other examples he links to support that idea.

Could a troll be someone who goes around inciting situations to make points and blog about it?

Posted by Richard on 12 August 2008 @ 10am

Somewhat off topic. I have to quote one of the comments posted to the Inquisitr article:

“We need to give the real world a chance to live their lives without forcing them to go virtual.”

While we all spend far too much time in this life online, I think we forget that for the majority, it’s pretty much the same as Neverland:

“…second to the right, and straight on till morning…”

Posted by heather on 12 August 2008 @ 12pm

i believe the folk of /b/ need hugs.

Posted by cc on 12 August 2008 @ 2pm

I’m also a member of the SFMOMA and, whether it concerns photography or standing in the wrong spot, their staff is indeed very assertive, sometimes to the point of being rude.

But there’s a difference between the exterior of a corporate office building and the museum. The staff at the museum have an incredible challenge: protect and preserve art that’s worth hundreds of millions of dollars, while at the same time allowing the public to mingle with it. They are currently dealing with a blockbuster exhibit, Frida Kahlo, meaning a lot of the art is not even theirs.

Whether it’s unattended children, people standing too close to paintings, people wandering aimlessly on cell phones, people flashing fragile art or men with their DSLRS and accoutrements standing in the stairwell blocking the path of traffic, sometimes the staff’s decision to tell a visitor what to do is going to seem stupid and unnecessary. But if you are reasonable and actually care about the art, you realize that they are probably trying to do their jobs the best they can.

Posted by Wayne on 12 August 2008 @ 7pm

I agree Wayne. It’s like TSA: they can be rough but if you flow with them things work better, for you as well as them.

If I were in a museum taking pictures and was told to stop by a docent or a guard or any employee I’d stop. Doesn’t matter what the stated rules are or should be.

By the way, not all museums have policies like this: The Norton Simon allows DSLRs, just no flash and no packs. But, you can have a 1Ds and a 70-200 f/2.8 L IS around your neck, no problem (your neck will suffer but it’s all for art, right).

The Getty Center also allows photography, just no flash or tripods.

Here is NY MOMA’s policy on photography:

Still photography for personal use is permitted in collection galleries only. No flash or tripods allowed. Videotaping is permitted in the lobby only. No photographs or videotapes may be reproduced, distributed, or sold without permission from the Museum.

The question I would have for MOMA would be, could I blog an image I took there without asking them? And, Hawk’s image was not in a collection gallery so if SF MOMA had that policy about “where” they’d have reason to stop him.

SF Moma is a bit more lenient:

Photography is allowed for personal, noncommercial use, except where noted. Flash photography and videography are not allowed in the galleries. Tripods are not allowed.

One might argue that Hawk’s blog generates ad revenue but he’s not selling the images… Still, if asked to stop, stop. Simple.

Posted by Richard on 13 August 2008 @ 2am

It’s a shame, but Hawk has proven yet again that common sense truly isn’t.

3. That I would be blogging my forcible eviction from the MOMA.

Talk about power-trippy.

Posted by Joel Etherton on 13 August 2008 @ 6am

Glad to see SFMOMA’s response to “Thomas Hawk”. Andrew Peterson gives photographers (& bloggers) a bad name, pseudonymically…

http://tinyurl.com/59edsy

Posted by MDM on 14 August 2008 @ 3am

Hawk should heed a piece of advice (courtesy of Warren Ellis.) “Old English proverb: if you keep on being their cunt, they’ll keep fucking you.”

Posted by Bryce on 15 August 2008 @ 12pm