> The museum also addressed questions regarding the relationship between the institution and the visitor. It was confirmed that the guest is not a donor to the museum and that no financial contributions were made by the individual or their associated business interests in exchange for the viewing. By making this distinction, the museum sought to distance the arrangement from any suggestion of commercial influence or a departure from standard institutional policies regarding high-profile visitors.
I appreciate their sensitivity to a perception this is a benefit to donor, and so assuaging that question probably in narrow sense met some goal they set themselves regarding equity of access, but given the highly politicised nature of both the artifact, and the person, I think this answer begs more questions than it solves.
I should be clear I don't like what I know about Peter Thiel so I am highly biassed at this point. I don't understand why he would be given this privilege. I find myself asking who else has been given the benefit? How many? How does the decision get made, what access to decision-makers drives this process?
I have had the privilege of high quality interactions with museum staff in the UK over 5 decades. Being able to walk up to an information desk, ask a question and get somebody to come out from behind front-of-house and either help you or help you move to who can help you: Amazing. I've handled bronze-age artifacts the BM they had out with a curator specialising in them, selected from their stocks so we could experience the heft of an ax head, admire its form. Been taken into the stacks and shown a Geode in the RSM. Amazing privilege. Nobody expected a benefit or donation. So it's not the privilege which anyone has of asking. It's the decision in the light of a specific cultural artifact which itself is highly politicised, about the nature of British history, the relationship between Britain and France, transported under issues of light exposure and risk: So many questions possible here. The ax head I handled was not a holotype. There is only one Bayeux Tapestry.
ggm•18m ago
I appreciate their sensitivity to a perception this is a benefit to donor, and so assuaging that question probably in narrow sense met some goal they set themselves regarding equity of access, but given the highly politicised nature of both the artifact, and the person, I think this answer begs more questions than it solves.
I should be clear I don't like what I know about Peter Thiel so I am highly biassed at this point. I don't understand why he would be given this privilege. I find myself asking who else has been given the benefit? How many? How does the decision get made, what access to decision-makers drives this process?
I have had the privilege of high quality interactions with museum staff in the UK over 5 decades. Being able to walk up to an information desk, ask a question and get somebody to come out from behind front-of-house and either help you or help you move to who can help you: Amazing. I've handled bronze-age artifacts the BM they had out with a curator specialising in them, selected from their stocks so we could experience the heft of an ax head, admire its form. Been taken into the stacks and shown a Geode in the RSM. Amazing privilege. Nobody expected a benefit or donation. So it's not the privilege which anyone has of asking. It's the decision in the light of a specific cultural artifact which itself is highly politicised, about the nature of British history, the relationship between Britain and France, transported under issues of light exposure and risk: So many questions possible here. The ax head I handled was not a holotype. There is only one Bayeux Tapestry.
Was this wise?