Do Art Galleries reject photographers?

An Art Gallery won't allow me to take pictures of some pieces of art I'd like to add to my scrapbook. Is this normal? Originally, when I went to the Art Gallery and was taking pictures of the art pieces, they were wholly comfortable with me doing so. I asked if this was okay and their response was almost as though I was silly for asking. I recall them asking if I was a blogger and I said that I wasn't, I just like the art. Whilst I was there, one of the Art Gallery staff was informative about the artwork but he was always insistent that these pieces are selling. I could see he was trying to induce a scarcity mindset but I felt bad because he's just doing his job meanwhile, I don't even intend to buy the art. "He's wasting his time on me" is what I thought to myself. I took pictures of some pieces but there were two that I liked and for some reason, I had the thought of "Oh I don't have to go through the hassle of photographing the picture, I can just photograph the name of the piece. I'll surely find it online!" When I came home and looked online for those pieces, I found that they were nowhere to be seen. Not on the artist's website, not on any website exhibiting his work and not on his Twitter. I was upset about this and so I called the Art Gallery and asked them if I could come to see those pieces and photograph them and they said sure and they also said that a guy from a rich town (people say I have an accent, mind you) was very interested in these pieces and so you'll have to act quickly (scarcity mindset again) and I said I'm on my way. I imagined they meant me but I didn't want to correct and embarrass him. When I arrived, they were surprised to see that I was the rich guy and I laughed it off and they asked if I lived locally and I confirmed it (I felt bad confirming it because I thought I just confirmed I was poor and thus, unable to buy the pieces) but nonetheless, even though they were 3 hours away from closing, they were packing up all of the art. This was very unusual because my first visit was at a much later time, closer to closing time and they still had the paintings available for viewing. I can't remember what reason they gave for closing up so soon. They offered that if I leave my email address, they could email me pictures of the art. They asked what I wanted the pictures for (again) and I stated that this was for scrapbooking. I provided my email address and they never contacted me. After a week, I contacted them, asking about the art and they said that they were sorry they couldn't have gotten back to me sooner as they were busy with exhibitions and that they cannot share pictures of those paintings and so I cannot share them on my blog (Rest assured, I'm not a blogger. At this stage in my life, I don't even have a social life, let alone any strong social media presence). This struck me as odd because the very first time I went there in person, they definitely said that, due to corona, they haven't been able to host exhibitions. Not only that but even on their website, you can see that their last exhibition was in June. Nonetheless, I reassured them that I'm not a blogger and I asked if I could have the pictures just for my own personal scrapbooking usage and they claimed that they had spoken with the artist (my entire email exchange with the Art Gallery staff was within an hour) and that the artist had stated that he does not wish for these pictures to be shared as their spread could interfere with the debut of his newer works. I gave up after that. TL;DR >Art Gallery allow me to take pictures >Art Gallery staff pack up all their pictures after I announce that I'm on my way >Art Gallery staff lie whilst also telling me that I can't take photos There's something fishy about the fact that they starting packing up so soon on the day I called and said I'd be there. I mean, they didn't know I was the "rich guy" but something about photography potentially spooked them. Then, they start outright lying in their excuses for why I was never contacted. Can anyone offer any kind of insight into this incident? Does anyone here know anything about how Art Galleries are run?

>>19858 Depends on the artwork some may be flash-sensitive.

>Is this normal? One artist referred to it as "theft". With the ubiquity of digital cameras and social media, they assume you're going to put it online for your own e-cred.

>>19858 The no photographs thing started out because camera flashes deteriorated the paintings (as does all light). I'm not sure if this is still an issue with phone LEDs but it's difficult enough to stop people from being assholes without further distinctions. But I guess that it probably has to do with legal stuff as well e.g. people taking photos of otherwise unpublished artwork and putting prints for sale. They might have been wary of you because you thought you were doing something like that esp. if you have a nice camera setup, and maybe they were holding out on closing shop because they thought you were interested in buying. When they figured out you were nobody interesting they just packed up. My two cents.

Just walk with hidden bodycam, take candid pics and publish them on i2p torrents so the glowniggers won't find you. fuarrrk copyright and fuarrrk """artists""".

>>19888 No one gives a soykaf for a soykafty quality camera just take the art.

At the Getty, you can't use flash or a tripod, and it's pretty dim, so unless you have a superhumanly steady hand for long exposures, you're probably going to get blurry photos.

>>19897 Instead you should probably look into high-speed cameras and digitally recompose the original art-piece.

tl;dr don't ask for permission next time. take the camera out, take a picture, put the camera away, repeat. the only thing enforcing the wishes of that entertainment industry picture maker is the money their paintings bring anyway.

>>19901 Just be careful doing this, some art galleries will have security guards in each gallery chamber who will watch for this kind of behaviour and boot you out if they see you do it.