Birbla

Join the discussion

Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.

Sign in
  • Hacker News
  • this is very "data centres using all the water" coded. the guardian used to be above running this kind of nonsense, now every single issue has pages of prickly "ooh, not a good look!" stilletto-ing.

    what does "no known interest" mean?

    by mhh__
  • I don't understand the point of this. Why a private viewing when it has been available for everyone at Bayeux for years ?
    by cthe
  • The moving AND the exposition of this tapestry in the UK were and still are an unpredictable desire of Macron.

    This decision (moving the tapestry from France to UK for a while) was heavily criticized by literally all the experts in France.

    Most the news about this were covering this decision negatively.

    by mrjay42
  • > 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.

    by novia
  • ...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.

    by gambiting
  • 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?

    by jstanley
  • 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.
    by ajay-b
  • 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?

    by Symbiote
  • 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,
    by downrightmike
  • 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.

    by scrumper
  • "Stakeholder" is a dogwhistle term.
    by nephihaha