5 ms·

This is an extreme violation of the Chapel's no photography rule. I hope they catch whoever did this.

by bostonpete 12y ago

radley 12y ago
It's the Vatican's own web site...
- jacquesm 12y ago
  I'm assuming you wrote that comment before your morning coffee...
- adambenayoun 12y ago
  I always wondered why there's a no photography rule. Is it because of copyright or because it's a sacred site? (Although the mere fact that we're watching a 360 photo on the site means that it's probably copyright).
  - jacquesm 12y ago
    Copyright was a good chunk of the reason, but there is a much better one: lots of flashing from cameras will fade the pigments just like sunlight fades outdoor advertising.
    - adambenayoun 12y ago
      That makes sense
    - pbhjpbhj 12y ago
      There's a better one still IMO. It's a place of worship, you're supposed to look at the images and ponder your relationship with, and position before, the Almighty Creator. If you're messing around with your camera, or others are, then you're invariably far to distracted to meditate on higher things.
      - gnaritas 12y ago
        That's a terrible reason, it's a tourist attraction, not a place of worship;even if it still were many don't care about your superstitions and don't need or want your superstitions imposed upon them. We don't all walk around with delusions of a creator in our minds.
        jacquesm 12y ago
        True, but 1000 flash bulbs going off every minute is also not helping to see anything at all.
        gnaritas 12y ago
        Never said it was.
        pbhjpbhj 12y ago
        >not a place of worship // Your contention is that the Sistine Chapel¹ is not a place dedicated by Christians to the glorification of God? Like it's not, say, a chapel? And they don't have art work depicting the lives of important people in the Christian faith, or imagery that Christians might use as part of their worship. When the Sistine Chapel choir sings the Miserere, say, to assembled members of the Roman Catholic church, you don't think that maybe, just maybe that means that the people who own the building consider it to be - perhaps - just a tiny bit of a building for religious devotion ... now what's that word, oh yeah, perhaps they consider it to be a chapel. Would you go to a Mosque, perhaps the Great Mosque in Istanbul, and say "people shouldn't be imposing their religion on me, like, just because I came to a mosque". "Why should I respect your beliefs as a Christian when I choose to visit a Christian chapel" is that really your considered opinion? TBH if it weren't for your long standing on this site I'd have dismissed your comment as an obvious troll. Now if I go picking apart your need to hide from God, your desire to run from the truth, your imposition of your beliefs on others in an affront to the truth ... I'm guessing you're going to consider that this isn't really the appropriate forum for such a conversation, that I'm being crass and troll-like, no? Perhaps you'll start by telling me you're only interested in the truth despite your "not a place of worship" claim being the most obvious of falsehoods and putting the lie to such a notion ... - - - ¹ - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUQyLXKdF_M http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUQyLXKdF_M Roman Catholic mass being celebrated in the Sistine Chapel, March 2013.
  - antoinec 12y ago
    "In return for funding the renovation, Nippon TV received the exclusive rights to photography and video of the restored art, as well as photos and recordings of the restoration process" http://mentalfloss.com/article/54641/reason-why-no-photography-allowed-sistine-chapel http://mentalfloss.com/article/54641/reason-why-no-photograp...
  - chrismcb 12y ago
    It is kind of difficult to copyright a 500 year old piece of art. BUT you can control access to it.
- bostonpete 12y ago
  Oh come on. I know HN hates humor but this was obviously said in jest. Not only is it on the Vatican website, but the entire room was obviously cleared out to get this shot.
morkfromork 12y ago
Probably some glasshole.

This is an extreme violation of the Chapel's no photography rule. I hope they catch whoever did this.

radley 12y ago

It's the Vatican's own web site...

jacquesm 12y ago
I'm assuming you wrote that comment before your morning coffee...
adambenayoun 12y ago
I always wondered why there's a no photography rule. Is it because of copyright or because it's a sacred site? (Although the mere fact that we're watching a 360 photo on the site means that it's probably copyright).
- jacquesm 12y ago
  Copyright was a good chunk of the reason, but there is a much better one: lots of flashing from cameras will fade the pigments just like sunlight fades outdoor advertising.
  - adambenayoun 12y ago
    That makes sense
  - pbhjpbhj 12y ago
    There's a better one still IMO. It's a place of worship, you're supposed to look at the images and ponder your relationship with, and position before, the Almighty Creator. If you're messing around with your camera, or others are, then you're invariably far to distracted to meditate on higher things.
    - gnaritas 12y ago
      That's a terrible reason, it's a tourist attraction, not a place of worship;even if it still were many don't care about your superstitions and don't need or want your superstitions imposed upon them. We don't all walk around with delusions of a creator in our minds.
      - jacquesm 12y ago
        True, but 1000 flash bulbs going off every minute is also not helping to see anything at all.
        gnaritas 12y ago
        Never said it was.
      - pbhjpbhj 12y ago
        >not a place of worship // Your contention is that the Sistine Chapel¹ is not a place dedicated by Christians to the glorification of God? Like it's not, say, a chapel? And they don't have art work depicting the lives of important people in the Christian faith, or imagery that Christians might use as part of their worship. When the Sistine Chapel choir sings the Miserere, say, to assembled members of the Roman Catholic church, you don't think that maybe, just maybe that means that the people who own the building consider it to be - perhaps - just a tiny bit of a building for religious devotion ... now what's that word, oh yeah, perhaps they consider it to be a chapel. Would you go to a Mosque, perhaps the Great Mosque in Istanbul, and say "people shouldn't be imposing their religion on me, like, just because I came to a mosque". "Why should I respect your beliefs as a Christian when I choose to visit a Christian chapel" is that really your considered opinion? TBH if it weren't for your long standing on this site I'd have dismissed your comment as an obvious troll. Now if I go picking apart your need to hide from God, your desire to run from the truth, your imposition of your beliefs on others in an affront to the truth ... I'm guessing you're going to consider that this isn't really the appropriate forum for such a conversation, that I'm being crass and troll-like, no? Perhaps you'll start by telling me you're only interested in the truth despite your "not a place of worship" claim being the most obvious of falsehoods and putting the lie to such a notion ... - - - ¹ - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUQyLXKdF_M http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUQyLXKdF_M Roman Catholic mass being celebrated in the Sistine Chapel, March 2013.
- antoinec 12y ago
  "In return for funding the renovation, Nippon TV received the exclusive rights to photography and video of the restored art, as well as photos and recordings of the restoration process" http://mentalfloss.com/article/54641/reason-why-no-photography-allowed-sistine-chapel http://mentalfloss.com/article/54641/reason-why-no-photograp...
- chrismcb 12y ago
  It is kind of difficult to copyright a 500 year old piece of art. BUT you can control access to it.
bostonpete 12y ago
Oh come on. I know HN hates humor but this was obviously said in jest. Not only is it on the Vatican website, but the entire room was obviously cleared out to get this shot.

morkfromork 12y ago

Probably some glasshole.