> 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.
5 comments
[ 0.28 ms ] story [ 12.0 ms ] threadI 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.