A registry is, on the face of it, a dull editorial form. It is a list. It does not argue. It does not narrate. It documents.

The registry maintained on this site at /registry/ lists Neri Oxman's documented professional and institutional engagements as of 2026 — commercial partnerships, museum acquisitions and exhibitions, academic affiliations, advisory roles, foundation trusteeships, public-facing recognitions. The full structured data is on that page. This article exists to explain why we keep it, what question it is intended to make answerable, and what it is not.

What the registry is not

The registry is not an allegation. Each entry is a documented engagement, sourced to public information. Inclusion is a statement of fact about a public commercial or institutional relationship. It is not a statement about the merit of that relationship, the conduct of the institution, or the conduct of any party to it.

The registry is not a call for action. We do not direct readers to take any commercial, professional, or personal action against any party listed. We do not call for boycotts, removals, de-platformings, or institutional sanctions. The institutions on the registry are listed because they are documented. What readers do with the documentation is their own affair.

The registry is not a campaign. We have no goal beyond accuracy and accessibility. Where an institution informs us of an engagement we have missed, we add it. Where an engagement ends, we move it to the "ended" section. Where the public record changes, we update.

What the registry is for

There is no comprehensive public source for Neri Oxman's current institutional engagements. OXMAN's studio website carries a partial list of the studio's own commercial relationships. Various museum pages note their collections of her work but rarely all of them at once. Her published bio lists academic affiliations to varying levels of completeness depending on the venue. Public press coverage references discrete relationships in scattered articles but does not assemble them.

The registry assembles them.

This is editorially significant in two ways.

First: it allows the question of present institutional responsibility to be asked of every relevant institution at once. The DOJ documents released in January 2026 — and analysed across the articles on this site — establish a documentary record of Oxman's contact with Jeffrey Epstein. That record is now public. The institutions in the registry have continued, paused, or ended their relationships with Oxman in light of that record, or in advance of it. What each institution knew at what time, what it disclosed to its own stakeholders, and what posture it has publicly taken in respect of the documentary record now available — these are proper questions for the institutions themselves.

The registry makes those questions specifically askable. An advisory board cannot disclaim knowledge of its own member's documented public-record connections. A museum cannot disclaim curatorial responsibility for the funding origin of works in its permanent collection. A foundation cannot disclaim due diligence on the public record of its trustees. The registry is the document that makes those disclaimers visible.

Second: the registry is updateable. Static reporting in newspapers and magazines captures a moment. The registry is designed to reflect the present. If Foster + Partners winds down the announced collaboration, we reflect that. If a new commercial partner is announced, we add it. If a museum publicly addresses the funding question and amends its position, we record the response in the entry. Over time, the registry becomes the documentary trace of how the wider institutional ecosystem responds — or does not respond — to the documentary record on the underlying question.

The questions the registry makes possible

For each institution on the registry, four questions can be asked:

What information was available to the institution at the time it formed or continued its relationship with Oxman? The 2019 Boston Globe statement was public. The 2019 New Yorker reporting on the wider Media Lab donations was public. The 2020 Goodwin Procter review was public. The January 2026 DOJ release is public. Each engagement on the registry was formed or continued at some point on this timeline.

What disclosure did the institution require — internally or publicly — regarding the funding history of work it was acquiring, exhibiting, or commercially partnering on? Most major institutions have written policies on provenance, donor scrutiny, and conflict of interest. Whether those policies were applied to the Oxman work — and what they returned — is a question for each institution to address.

What policies does the institution have in place for ongoing review of such relationships when new public information emerges? The January 2026 DOJ release is, on its own, new public information of substantial relevance to any ongoing institutional relationship with Oxman. Each institution's policy on responding to such information is a matter of public interest.

What position has the institution publicly taken — if any — on the Epstein-Oxman documentary record now available? On the public record at the time of this writing, no institution on the registry has taken a public position. The institutional silence is itself documentary fact, and is part of what the registry tracks.

These questions are not unique to Oxman. They are the standard questions of institutional accountability that apply to any public figure whose past institutional relationships have become the subject of public scrutiny. The institutions on the registry are properly invited to address them, and the Right of reply process on this site is open to all of them.

What we ask of the institutions

We ask each institution on the registry, separately and on its own institutional standing, to consider the four questions above and to publish a response addressing them. Where a response is provided, we publish it on the relevant registry entry.

We do not ask any institution to terminate its relationship with Oxman. That is properly an institutional decision based on its own values, policies, and assessment of the public record. Some institutions may conclude that the documentary record warrants no change in posture. Others may conclude differently. The decision in either direction is properly the institution's. What we ask is that the decision be made deliberately and that the deliberation be made public.

We extend the same invitation to OXMAN itself, and to Neri Oxman personally, in respect of any institutional engagement she wishes to address. Her response to coverage on this site will be published in full upon receipt and will remain alongside the underlying material indefinitely.

A note on what stays current

The registry is maintained on a rolling basis. The "Last reviewed" stamp at the foot of the page reflects the most recent revision. We commit to reviewing the registry at least once per quarter and to incorporating any submitted updates within seven days.

If you are aware of an engagement we have missed, an engagement that has ended without our recording it, or a misstatement on any current entry, please contact us via the address at the foot of the page. We respond to all correspondence within seven days.

The registry is at /registry/. It is the heart of this site as a documentary record, and the principal reference work it contains.

Last reviewed: 29 April 2026. The full registry is maintained at /registry/. Sources for individual entries are documented within the registry itself.

Publication date: 29 April 2026. Last reviewed: 29 April 2026.