This is strange language in the article, even for the Graun:
> and only limited viewings of the tapestry have been possible across a range of stakeholders
Weird, nonsensical corpospeak, copied from some PR drone's email perhaps.
I saw the tapestry on an exchange trip to France in the '90s. It's a deeply impressive thing, even for a teenager vastly more interested in flirting with the French girls hosting us than medieval art. Perhaps its grandeur will inspire a glimmer of humanity in the creature.
I liked the town quite a bit too. Some great food and drink, I love how seedy the bar/tabacs feel there. Their Notre Dame is lovely.
As much as I'm no fan of Thiel, it is an artifact worth preserving. Thiel hopefully donates and that's the last we ever think about this.
He's not a major donor to the museum, so why did he get special treatment?
novia•55m ago
Yet? Seems like a pretty good way to get him to start donating?
I kinda hate this article. Yes, wealthy and powerful individuals will get special treatment over the general public. No, people who require a shit ton of private security will not be entering with the general public to see your cool tapestry, sorry to say.
jstanley•52m ago
I don't like the general public either, can I have a private viewing?
Integer•49m ago
gambiting•44m ago
Integer•20m ago
It may have been arrranged by a business associate or a personal assistant, but I bet Thiel spent less time thinking about getting access to this tapestry than you reading through the article.
[1]https://www.britishmuseum.org/exhibitions/bayeux-tapestry#ti...
gambiting•49m ago
>>No, people who require a shit ton of private security will not be entering with the general public to see your cool tapestry, sorry to say.
Then...they don't have to see it? Like if Beyonce wanted to come in with her 20 bodyguards, should she be given an exclusive VIP viewing just because?
Like, the entire point this article tried to convey(and which I guess you missed), is that this artifact has a limited number of hours it can be displayed for, because every lux hour damages it further. It's not like opening the Louvre at night so you can come in and look at the mona Lisa for a few hours without the public. Him seeing it for an hour means it can be displayed for an hour less.
In general I'm just like....why. Why him. If he at least made a significant donation to the museum....we could argue that the financial benefit is worth it. Right now it begs the question - is it just a favour from someone to him? Like what's going on? That's exactly what journalism should be focusing on.
novia•28m ago
gambiting•18m ago
That's what I mean by saying this is what journalism is for - to ask these kinds of questions. British Museum is a public institution funded by us taxpayers(all museums in England are free to visit!) and they have an artifact that can only be shown for X number of hours and they are deciding to give some of these hours to an American billionaire? Like, is the director taking bribes? Is someone else?
How do you look at it and go - meh, I don't see a problem here.