26
votes
The Museum of Science and Industry abruptly closed for a day last week to allow it to move “military artifacts from archival storage”
Link information
This data is scraped automatically and may be incorrect.
- Title
- Museum of Science and Industry closed for mysterious reasons last week; here's why
- Authors
- Neil Steinberg
- Published
- Apr 9 2024
- Word count
- 794 words
This is such a painful remark because I hate that it's accurate. This article is less about the museum, and more about information transparency from 'public' institutions becoming more corporate and more secretive because of it.
For what it's worth, although the museum is a non profit organization, it is privately owned.
This got my attention. It's one of those comments that I find of questionable value and brings up a whole host of questions and complexities. The reason I find it questionable is because I don't know exactly what "ownership" of a museum means. Does it still have some kind of charter that ensures it's a public good? What governing body makes operational decisions? Your comment just kind of sounds like it's asserting the museum has some kind of "right" to wall off decisions from the public, and the truth is most likely way more complicated.
And I haven't even gotten to the part about how it sure looks like the frigging supervillan that is Ken Griffin seems to have (clandestinely?) bought the museum in 2019?
Sorry, I didn't mean to make it sound that way, just felt like it was worth distinguishing between something like the Smithsonian museums, which I would consider public, vs the museum of science and industry, which is technically not. As far as I'm aware, no tax money is used by the state of Illinois to keep it operational.
I grew up going to the museum of science and industry, and it always gave weird corporate vibes to me. I haven't been there in years though so I can't really comment on the atmosphere now.
Absolutely weird corporate vibes. Fully agree. No worries- and sorry if I got snippy. I wasn’t happy to learn that that guy owns it and is the reason it’s such a great museum. So annoying. Public spaces don’t have to suck, unless you’re in the US.
edit: okay - I take that back. Not all our public spaces, just most that involve humans in numbers doing things. Our national parks rule. Best in the world if I'm not mistaken.
I think it's just a donation with a naming rights aspect, not a purchase, unless I misunderstood that article.
Here’s hoping. I noticed that entry didn’t mention who or what entity owned it though, so I went with what was most dramatic.
They aren't externally owned
https://www.msichicago.org/explore/about-us/leadership/
Just worth not going with the "dramatic" but not accurate information. I don't love it being named for him either but that does seem to be a slow roll out.
Yeah, it was an unjustified reach on my part, readily admitted. That said, maybe I’m an idiot (some might say likely) but I didn’t see on that link where ownership is explained. I see trustees, a president’s board, but no real overview of the structure of the org or ownership? I’m not trying to attack anybody- just seems like there should be some clear explanation somewhere of who owns what.
I guess I don't understand why you assume someone external owns it rather than it being its own entity? They have a President and CEO and a board and trustees.
And from their page about donating:
The Museum of Science and Industry, Chicago is a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization.
I guess my institutional skepticism antenna started quivering when Ken Griffin’s name came up. This, and the long history of land shenanigans that the city of Chicago has been known to pull- consuming suburbs, redistricting, certain aldermens’ and general financial shenanigans… coupled with the historic nature (being the last structure of the World’s Fair)…
I was wondering specifically if the land and building are actually owned by the museum or not?
I was kind of just expecting something about foundation support, benefactor or partnership with the city or some sort of complexity. It’s really this absence of detail/disclaimer/explanation that made me suspicious. In essence all this is just cynical speculation and laziness and not really looking into it myself. There’s probably nothing there.
They do publish financial reports, may be worth poking at to suit your curiosity.
Thanks for adding this to the conversation. I struggle to understand what the purpose of the silence is. I presume it's a "better safe than sorry" attitude from their lawyers but it is truly disappointing that they didn't feel like being open with information was the best course of action.
Not a fan of the clickbait title but the piece is actually interesting. In the days following the news of the closure I was trying to find any information about why and it was strangely impossible. The lack of information, frankly, had me filling in the blanks with conspiracy theories. Alas, the real world is much more boring.