Comments on: Is Thomas Hawk a First-Rate Jerk?

By: daleypics

daleypics — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 00:00:13 +0000

[...] Hawk has had his share of controversy. And some may say that he is over-promoted on Google+ (my God, over a million people circling [...]

By: torbakhopper

torbakhopper — Tue, 18 Oct 2011 22:18:15 +0000

gotta love stumbling on these comments and reading what people who were never present for an event have to say about things. my favorite part is how certain you all are, regardless of your side, about what happened. totally laughable. especially the comments made by people who don’t like hawk. you’re the funniest and most misguided of all.

anyway, i had the distinctly unpleasant advantage of being there and witnessing the strange unfolding of things. blint behaved as though he were an obnoxious little boy with too much power and not enough mature intelligence to understand his own behavior. he was literally bordering on spiritual obscenity. i think that’s why hawk originally blogged about it calling him an asshole before changing it to first class jerk.

oh, and for someone to say that hawk is completely talentless as a photographer is one of the funniest misperceptions a genuine person could possibly lodge. you’d have to be a mentally and visually impaired idiot to think that thomas hawk’s photography sucks. his range is hands down amazing and his skills are something anyone who shoots a lot would be envious of possessing. and, further, he has kick ass equipment and carries it with him at all times.

torbakhopper

By: HBU Troll

HBU Troll — Sun, 05 Jun 2011 22:49:01 +0000

“Thomas Hawk” is a fake name he uses, his real name is Andrew Peterson.

By: rob

rob — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 18:22:19 +0000

forsure! Thomas Hawk is completely talentless has the worst photo composition and lighting techniques i have ever viewed. (does this guy concider himself a pro?)

By: Lane

Lane — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 04:10:52 +0000

Thomas Hawk is a talentless douchebag. He could use a good ass-kicking.

By: Tomorrow Museum » Archive » Commercial vs. Artistic: Can Jill Greenberg Have it Both Ways?

Tue, 16 Sep 2008 23:01:42 +0000

[...] children candy and snatched it away while snapping an image. Thomas Hawk, who is better known for blogging about museums that forbid indoor photography, wrote she is a “Sick Woman Who Should Be [...]

By: Jaz

Jaz — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 07:46:36 +0000

“Hawk hasn’t even tried to open up a broader debate by directly contacting SFMOMA.”

Well from the attitude he allegedly received from Blint, who didn’t want to discuss or see the photo’s why would Tom think he would receive any different attitude from the other management.

It’s like the police investigating the police, it simply doesn’t work. And from the official MOMA response it’s quite clear they simply have closed ranks and espoused that Blint was right because they say so. I doubt they reven reviewed the situation.

How about some CCTV footage from MOMA to clear it up.. probably wouldn’t be favorable for them so they wont release that.

By: Zaphod

Zaphod — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 02:37:46 +0000

I’m a photographer and don’t like the sensationalist way thay thos incident has been reported on Toms blog.

I think the biggest issue is that “Thomas” (ironically not his real name) chooses to name people that he feels are in the wrong. Trial without jury.

If he really wanted to further the cause of photographers the article would have been about the Museum’s policy being unclear or something along those lines… and may have resulted in a less guarded response from the SFMOMA.

I hope the SFMOMA continue to allow photography – but wouldn’t be surprised if they didn’t… people like Tom don’t know where to draw the line.

By: C-MONSTER.net. » Blog Archive » The Digest. 08.13.08. Exploding coffee maker edition.

Wed, 13 Aug 2008 14:33:27 +0000

[...] Thomas Hawk for taking pix, even though the museum has an open photo policy. It’s a story of he said, he said, so it’s difficult to know what, exactly, went down. (See Hawk’s follow-up here.) For the [...]

By: Suzanne

Suzanne — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 05:05:13 +0000

I think this kind of thing he does (posting pictures of people who ask him to stop taking pictures) will do absolutely nothing to further his cause, and may in fact lead to the opposite. Inviting the wrath of the internet down on someone’s head is a really immature and obnoxious thing to do. Especially because you have no idea who is going to go out and do really awful annoying things in the name of “justice”.

Thank you for posting on this, Ed. Since you are a guy who doesn’t mince words and sometimes pisses people off, I was curious to see where you would come down on this.

By: Zoe

Zoe — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 21:24:50 +0000

Big Cry BABY!

By: Jeremy Hatch

Jeremy Hatch — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 16:13:17 +0000

Just to clarify: I think you’re right about the implications here. Hawks’ response to his perceived mistreatment — to blog about it and cause a huge public stink without first approaching museum management with a regular complaint — is clearly immature and attention-seeking, and it does give bloggers a bad name. These are not the standards to which we aspire.

By: Jeremy Hatch

Jeremy Hatch — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 15:44:05 +0000

Actually, Mr. Hawks’ account of this incident has the ring of truth. I’ve had one interaction with Mr. Blint (not as a photographer) and it was not pleasant. It was a small thing: I had a complaint about a guard, who had treated me rudely in one of the galleries above, and Mr. Blint just blew me off in the most blatant and condescending way. It actually made me feel worse than the interaction I was complaining about. He was just arrogant. It was plain he didn’t take me seriously and wanted me to leave, which to me seems like pretty lame manners, not to mention poor customer service. The net effect was to make me avoid him on subsequent visits. My experience was small, and consists of one brief incident, but for me it’s perfectly believable that Mr. Blint might lose it in spectacular fashion were his authority challenged.