I doubt it was just him, there'll have been a group. I am not surprised that some VIPs got given access. It's quite common for museums to do such things after hours.
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 live in Washington, DC and VIPs routinely view exhibits after-hours, in private; many years ago I arranged such an occasion. I think it depends on the situation and what is best for the museum and the exhibit. This article seems to be making much to do about nothing, or in some way wants something negative to print about Thiel.
I think there is a more important why he would want to see that particiular piece: The Bayeux Tapestry is an embroidered cloth nearly 70 metres long and 50 centimetres tall that depicts the events leading up to the Norman Conquest of England in 1066, led by William, Duke of Normandy, challenging Harold II, King of England, and culminating in the Battle of Hastings. It is thought to date to the 11th century, within a few years of the battle. Now widely accepted to have been made in England, perhaps as a gift for William, it tells the story from the point of view of the conquering Normans and for centuries has been preserved in Bayeux, Normandy,
> Thiel is not a donor to the museum and no money has been received via him or his businesses.
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.
And can you book a private viewing of the bayoux tapestry on the ground of "I don't like the public" or are you just being flippant linking the general venue hire page.
On the Bayeux Tapestry page [1] you can see that "there are no restrictions on dates or time slots for groups" and "For premium tours out-of-hours please contact traveltradebookings@britishmuseum.org"
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.
...so what's the benefit of letting him see it in a private viewing?
>>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.
...how? How do you not see a problem with the limited hours being effectively given to a billionaire for....what reason exactly?
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.
> The exhibition gallery is still under construction, and only limited viewings of the tapestry have been possible across a range of stakeholders.
The general public cannot even see it yet.
> ...how? How do you not see a problem with the limited hours being effectively given to a billionaire for....what reason exactly?
I don't have a problem with it because I am not naive to the way the world operates. The thing that is important to rich people is being able to have experiences that are rare and hard to obtain with money alone. If the museum wants something from Thiel that they need (his money, his resources, whatever) then giving him something rare up front (without actually losing anything I might add!) seems like a good deal that might make a future donation more likely to happen.
And, if it is possible to obtain a private viewing of the tapestry with money alone, like another commenter pointed out could be the case, then there's no story here, because Thiel surely paid.
Disclaimer: I am an American, so my money makes the world go round bias may be showing
I doubt it was just him, there'll have been a group. I am not surprised that some VIPs got given access. It's quite common for museums to do such things after hours.
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.
"Stakeholder" is a dogwhistle term.
For what in this case?
I live in Washington, DC and VIPs routinely view exhibits after-hours, in private; many years ago I arranged such an occasion. I think it depends on the situation and what is best for the museum and the exhibit. This article seems to be making much to do about nothing, or in some way wants something negative to print about Thiel.
The amount of time its on display is limited due to damage from light.
He's not a major donor to the museum, so why did he get special treatment?
He has the possibility to become one? Maybe they were trying to draw donations.
>Guests at One Aldwych hotel, where rooms cost more than £1,000 a night, are also able to get tickets without joining the online queues.
He certainly could've booked a room at that price
I think there is a more important why he would want to see that particiular piece: The Bayeux Tapestry is an embroidered cloth nearly 70 metres long and 50 centimetres tall that depicts the events leading up to the Norman Conquest of England in 1066, led by William, Duke of Normandy, challenging Harold II, King of England, and culminating in the Battle of Hastings. It is thought to date to the 11th century, within a few years of the battle. Now widely accepted to have been made in England, perhaps as a gift for William, it tells the story from the point of view of the conquering Normans and for centuries has been preserved in Bayeux, Normandy,
I saw it last year. It was fascinating. But, I mean, it was behind glass in a dark corridor-type room. We were not allowed to take photos of it.
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.
I don't understand the point of this. Why a private viewing when it has been available for everyone at Bayeux for years ?
> Thiel is not a donor to the museum and no money has been received via him or his businesses.
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.
It's fine, of course, but unwillingness to view with the general public should not constitute grounds for a private viewing.
I don't like the general public either, can I have a private viewing?
Sure, here's the link to the page to do so: https://www.britishmuseum.org/commercial/venue-hire
And can you book a private viewing of the bayoux tapestry on the ground of "I don't like the public" or are you just being flippant linking the general venue hire page.
On the Bayeux Tapestry page [1] you can see that "there are no restrictions on dates or time slots for groups" and "For premium tours out-of-hours please contact traveltradebookings@britishmuseum.org"
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...
No you book it on the grounds of "I have too much money" and then they don't ask questions.
...why would they do that? British Museum is a public insitution, is the director corrupt?
...so what's the benefit of letting him see it in a private viewing?
>>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.
I did not miss that. I still see nothing amiss here.
...how? How do you not see a problem with the limited hours being effectively given to a billionaire for....what reason exactly?
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.
> The exhibition gallery is still under construction, and only limited viewings of the tapestry have been possible across a range of stakeholders.
The general public cannot even see it yet.
> ...how? How do you not see a problem with the limited hours being effectively given to a billionaire for....what reason exactly?
I don't have a problem with it because I am not naive to the way the world operates. The thing that is important to rich people is being able to have experiences that are rare and hard to obtain with money alone. If the museum wants something from Thiel that they need (his money, his resources, whatever) then giving him something rare up front (without actually losing anything I might add!) seems like a good deal that might make a future donation more likely to happen.
And, if it is possible to obtain a private viewing of the tapestry with money alone, like another commenter pointed out could be the case, then there's no story here, because Thiel surely paid.
Disclaimer: I am an American, so my money makes the world go round bias may be showing