Susan W. wrote:
snipped
>      Is there any chance of compromise?  A meeting of the two parties
> with a goal of "getting to yes" might still be possible.

Thank you for this reply. Indeed a compromise has already been brokered
that is an excellent win-win, with superb publicity being generated for
the exhibition.

However, I am still concerned about the principle.

1. In my 15 years as a museum director I have only twice had an
"exhibition opener" stipulated in a loan contract.(Although a sponsors
mailing list is frequently a contract clause, and sometimes that the
sponsor be "invited" to speak.)

2. I can well envisage a situation where an exhibiton is accepted, all
contractual conditions met, and then it is mercilessly ridiculed by the
accepting institution (I have been tempted to do it myself with some
pretentious biennale type exhibitons).I do not see anything a priori
incorrect about this.

3. Granted that your rental analogy is the case, how does this give any
particular rights to the owner? After all, you may rent a tv, and then
laugh at it, ignore it, or invite friends in to throw soft (non
damging!) fruit at it.You may also invite anyone you wish to speak
about, admire, or criticise the tv and its contents..

One day these issues will arise in a senational fashion, how to guard
against this? or should it be guarded against?

It seems to me that free speech is the real issue -openers should not be
insisted upon, this is a form of censorship or perhaps extended
publicity beyond its proper sphere.

Many a time an institution would like an exhibition, but may be aware
that the lenders pre packaged opener is perceived locally as a boring
old fogey who will drive audiences away.(This may not have been the case
in the owners patch)

Also - my local audience does not want  to hear drivel from sponsors. I
dont mind a couple of discrete signs, but I rarely hear  a single CEO
speech that is not embarrasingly  bad. Giving the lending institution
the right to insist upon this sort of capitalist ego massaging is
capable of destroying the pleasure (and hence  a lot of the "good-will"
word of mouth advertising) of gallery openings.