The Institute for Primary Facts has compiled more than 3.5 million pages of the Epstein files for public display at the newly opened Donald J. Trump and Jeffrey Epstein Memorial Reading Room.
Uhhhh… I was ready to stand up and clap, but the more you read the lamer it gets! A) It’s an art exhibit that doesn’t sound even remotely permanent. B) Only members of government and law enforcement are permitted access to the files — so, the folks who already did fuck all. C) All of this information was already released publicly and is widely available, albeit not in hard copy… unless, you know, you want to; buy a laser printer, visit a Kinko’s… which feels like the most appropriate place to get something like this printed.
If they were honestly interested in disseminating this information to the public without exposing the identities of people that are unredacted they could’ve done something useful like redact the documents themselves.
Hard disagree. The fact it’s an art exhibit is the point, not a defect. The article summarizes it better than I could:
The library—essentially, the Epstein files in analog—is intended to represent the staggering scale of Epstein’s crimes, as well as the impunity with which he carried them out. More than 17,000 pounds [7700 kg] of evidence is on display at the library, says David Garrett, the main organizer of the exhibit at the Institute for Primary Facts, a nonprofit intended to promote transparency and accountability in the US government.
If you went into this expecting it to be about accessibility, that’s not the library’s fault. The fact that it’s giving these a physical form is the point, because it’s 1) giving a visceral representation of how immense the scale of these crimes were and 2) showing that this is 100% out in the open despite essentially fuck-all being done about it. It is a monument to injustice.
It’s a statement. Art exhibits make statements. And honestly, reading about this one shook me a little, reminding me after half a decade how profoundly abnormal all of this really is. It’s a way for the audience to ground themselves, and it achieves that magnificently – I’m sure even better in person.
While the exhibit is open to the public, the article specifies that the files contain unredacted names and are not available to be viewed by the general public.
Though the installation will be open to the public, only journalists and members of law enforcement are permitted to actually read through the files; others will still be able to view the timeline and the tribute to survivors.
I hope they have two walls, labeled “upsetting” and “disturbing”, I haven’t looked though the files myself because I really want to avoid disturbing without any warning.
Uhhhh… I was ready to stand up and clap, but the more you read the lamer it gets! A) It’s an art exhibit that doesn’t sound even remotely permanent. B) Only members of government and law enforcement are permitted access to the files — so, the folks who already did fuck all. C) All of this information was already released publicly and is widely available, albeit not in hard copy… unless, you know, you want to; buy a laser printer, visit a Kinko’s… which feels like the most appropriate place to get something like this printed.
If they were honestly interested in disseminating this information to the public without exposing the identities of people that are unredacted they could’ve done something useful like redact the documents themselves.
Hard disagree. The fact it’s an art exhibit is the point, not a defect. The article summarizes it better than I could:
If you went into this expecting it to be about accessibility, that’s not the library’s fault. The fact that it’s giving these a physical form is the point, because it’s 1) giving a visceral representation of how immense the scale of these crimes were and 2) showing that this is 100% out in the open despite essentially fuck-all being done about it. It is a monument to injustice.
It’s a statement. Art exhibits make statements. And honestly, reading about this one shook me a little, reminding me after half a decade how profoundly abnormal all of this really is. It’s a way for the audience to ground themselves, and it achieves that magnificently – I’m sure even better in person.
To be clear, everyone can see the exhibit, it’s showing the huge amount of the files and how crazy it is. I’m not sure you looked into it.
While the exhibit is open to the public, the article specifies that the files contain unredacted names and are not available to be viewed by the general public.
That’s not to say the exhibit won’t be impactful.
I hope they have two walls, labeled “upsetting” and “disturbing”, I haven’t looked though the files myself because I really want to avoid disturbing without any warning.