In August, Pete Daniel, the first public historian to be president of the Organization of American Historians, wrote an article in the OAH newsletter on his worrying experience of the growing influence of donors on exhibit concepts, design and content at the NMAH. (Thomas blogged this at the time.) This month’s OAH newsletter features a number of unreasonably harsh responses, many of them ad hominem, and Daniel’s reply. Considering the current, future and desired roles of donors in developing exhibits is an important subject, and not one to be dismissed by shooting the messenger.
%d bloggers like this: