The entrance fee to America’s museums keeps rising(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
The entrance fee to America’s museums keeps rising
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/01/arts/design/museums-raise-admission-fees-guggenheim.html
68 comments
Free passes from public libraries - together with museum free days - sure look to me like a crutch that may be used to justify these higher prices. The result is very mixed: Yes that are now more free days I can go. But there are now no options to go and just idle and roam at a reasonable price. I used to have a membership to one of the few local world class museums but that's now not renewed. Another local world class museum has a price set so (relatively) high I never go anymore. The outcome seems very polarizing. But then perhaps just the cost of market segmentation resulting in high income and just perhaps, maybe stronger overall services in the end. I kind of doubt it.
Meanwhile we still have a few entirely free outstanding ones.
Meanwhile we still have a few entirely free outstanding ones.
After moving away from walking distance to the National Mall in dc, I realized I had no idea how fortunate people who live in that area are to be able to access a dozen plus world-class museums for free, on their own terms and schedule. I had not moved to that area because of this perk, but it's far and away the one I'm most regret being without now. There's nothing else remotely like it in any major city in the country, maybe in any country.
Possible protip: Working at a FAANG or similar Fortune 500 might also grant you entry. I went to the Deyoung recently with a friend and found out that Genentech employees get access with an employee badge.
Second this! Moreover, most muesum memberships pays for itself after a couple visits. We just took the family to NYC and went to the AMNH twice, and a membership was worthwhile.
The California academy of sciences membership was cheaper for one visit for a family of 5.
I’m not sure what the difference is between something like the Guggenheim in NYC or the Tate Modern in London, but you can walk into the Tate without having to pay anything at all.
Is there lots of government funding in the UK for the museum sector that doesn’t exist in the states?
Is there lots of government funding in the UK for the museum sector that doesn’t exist in the states?
The Guggenheim Director makes $850k.[0]
The Tate Modern Director "earns between £110,000–115,000 ($148,000–155,000)"[1]
They do differ in public funding, but the philosophies between US and European museums are fundamentally different.
[0]https://www.theartnewspaper.com/2021/12/21/guggenheim-direct...
[1]https://news.artnet.com/art-world/tate-denies-gender-pay-ine...
The Tate Modern Director "earns between £110,000–115,000 ($148,000–155,000)"[1]
They do differ in public funding, but the philosophies between US and European museums are fundamentally different.
[0]https://www.theartnewspaper.com/2021/12/21/guggenheim-direct...
[1]https://news.artnet.com/art-world/tate-denies-gender-pay-ine...
Thanks for that.
All US nonprofits have to disclose financial data, and it's public. IRS form 990.
All US nonprofits have to disclose financial data, and it's public. IRS form 990.
In response to my earlier comment, the answer is yes. The Tate is a non-departmental public body sponsored by DCMS (and it seems like other museums such as NHM in London have the same structure).
The Guggenheim is a private museum. Public museums in NYC are pay-as-you-wish, but began charging non-New York residents a mandatory fee in 2018.
So, the epiphany to have here, is that for many countries — but not the US! — historical cultural sites and artefacts (not just museums, but also things like monuments and land features) are a large draw for foreign tourists. People fly to Paris just to visit the Louvre; people visit Egypt just to see the pyramids; etc.
These "historied" cities have built up powerful hospitality industries around foreign visitors there to see historical cultural sites. Insofar as you can think of a municipal government as "a dozen neighbourhood business associations in a trenchcoat", hospitality-focused cities like this have strong incentives to put large amounts of public funding into museums, art galleries, etc. — both just to ensure that these things are very nice to visit and continue to draw tourists; but even more, to reduce the costs to tourists of visiting those sites in particular as much as possible... as a loss leader to draw those tourists into the rest of the city, where the hospitality-focused businesses can then capture their money!
---
But, why doesn't this happen in the US? Well, it's no one single thing.
• The US is big. There's a lot of stuff in the US, but you can't see all of it on one vacation. The "draw power" of any one US city to foreign "cultural tourism" is diluted because you can't just go to one or two cities and see all the cool stuff.
• In fact, many of the most "tourist-driven" sites in the US — Niagra Falls, the Elvis museum, etc — aren't in cities that people have any other reason to visit. All there is there is the site itself, and the hospitality businesses, with no other reason to be there. Because of that, people who e.g. travel for business, can't sneakily justify a vacation to these places by holding a conference or retreat there; there's no "there" there to make that practical, let alone enjoyable. They're just tourist traps, that you have to go a long way out of your way to visit. (The one exception being Las Vegas, a tourist trap so overgrown that you can hold conferences there — but it's hard to justify a "business retreat to Vegas" for other reasons.)
• And a lot of the other well-known stuff — the Grand Canyon, Mt. Rushmore, Yellowstone, etc — are (or are in) national parks, i.e. places excluded from capitalist build-up. Which is good insofar as it prevents a tourist trap; but bad insofar as it prevents these places becoming genuine hospitality-focused cities!
This is all very much unlike most of the rest of the world, where the big cities and the "stuff people want to see" are mostly co-located.
• Also, re: art and museums specifically — some might suggest that the US has nothing that foreign tourists want to see because "it's too young to have culture", but that's not true at all (see: e.g. MoMA; the Smithsonian.) I think the real "problem" with US museums is that they're modern in a way that means that all the coolest stuff can be seen in online catalogues; is well documented in video documentaries; etc. Meanwhile, other galleries and museums are old and crusty and not hip to technology (save for archival-science technology), in a way that means that you have to go there if you want to see it.
These "historied" cities have built up powerful hospitality industries around foreign visitors there to see historical cultural sites. Insofar as you can think of a municipal government as "a dozen neighbourhood business associations in a trenchcoat", hospitality-focused cities like this have strong incentives to put large amounts of public funding into museums, art galleries, etc. — both just to ensure that these things are very nice to visit and continue to draw tourists; but even more, to reduce the costs to tourists of visiting those sites in particular as much as possible... as a loss leader to draw those tourists into the rest of the city, where the hospitality-focused businesses can then capture their money!
---
But, why doesn't this happen in the US? Well, it's no one single thing.
• The US is big. There's a lot of stuff in the US, but you can't see all of it on one vacation. The "draw power" of any one US city to foreign "cultural tourism" is diluted because you can't just go to one or two cities and see all the cool stuff.
• In fact, many of the most "tourist-driven" sites in the US — Niagra Falls, the Elvis museum, etc — aren't in cities that people have any other reason to visit. All there is there is the site itself, and the hospitality businesses, with no other reason to be there. Because of that, people who e.g. travel for business, can't sneakily justify a vacation to these places by holding a conference or retreat there; there's no "there" there to make that practical, let alone enjoyable. They're just tourist traps, that you have to go a long way out of your way to visit. (The one exception being Las Vegas, a tourist trap so overgrown that you can hold conferences there — but it's hard to justify a "business retreat to Vegas" for other reasons.)
• And a lot of the other well-known stuff — the Grand Canyon, Mt. Rushmore, Yellowstone, etc — are (or are in) national parks, i.e. places excluded from capitalist build-up. Which is good insofar as it prevents a tourist trap; but bad insofar as it prevents these places becoming genuine hospitality-focused cities!
This is all very much unlike most of the rest of the world, where the big cities and the "stuff people want to see" are mostly co-located.
• Also, re: art and museums specifically — some might suggest that the US has nothing that foreign tourists want to see because "it's too young to have culture", but that's not true at all (see: e.g. MoMA; the Smithsonian.) I think the real "problem" with US museums is that they're modern in a way that means that all the coolest stuff can be seen in online catalogues; is well documented in video documentaries; etc. Meanwhile, other galleries and museums are old and crusty and not hip to technology (save for archival-science technology), in a way that means that you have to go there if you want to see it.
I kind of disagree with your premise here, at least in some specifics. MoMA and The Met in NYC absolutely do have a draw for foreign tourists, and are full of them. Both require tourists to pay the full ticket price to get in. LA too has serious museums that attract international tourists.
DC similarly has a huge number of museums that draw in foreign tourists, it's just that they're almost all Smithsonian museums, which are free to everyone.
DC similarly has a huge number of museums that draw in foreign tourists, it's just that they're almost all Smithsonian museums, which are free to everyone.
My argument is that the foreign tourists who visit these places would be visiting NYC either way, and are just visiting these sites while they're in NYC, with something else having drawn them there. These sites are serving as part of a portfolio of factors that make NYC an interesting place to visit, but they don't manage to draw tourists all on their own in a way where reducing the ticket price to them would make a foreign tourist more likely to book a flight to America as a whole, just to go to NYC, just to go to that site.
Consider the "gap-year" 20-something who "travels Europe" by just staying in each country a few days to visit the cultural sites while staying at a hostel. To such a person, the equivalent cultural sites in the US are basically inaccessible. (Not that such a person is the sort of high-hospitality-ROI that a city would plan around; but their presence as a "keystone species" indicates that a hospitality-loss-led economy is functioning the way it should.)
Consider the "gap-year" 20-something who "travels Europe" by just staying in each country a few days to visit the cultural sites while staying at a hostel. To such a person, the equivalent cultural sites in the US are basically inaccessible. (Not that such a person is the sort of high-hospitality-ROI that a city would plan around; but their presence as a "keystone species" indicates that a hospitality-loss-led economy is functioning the way it should.)
I see, now, it makes complete sense. I'm sure museums in France are free for French citizen under 25 and the unemployed in order to draw in more tourists which would come and pay anyway. That has absolutely nothing to do with these countries actually seeing access to culture as a public good and valuing education.
You don't seem to be seeing that those are two sides of the same coin. The article cites rising labor costs as the primary factor in needing to increase ticket prices. Well, why would labor costs in an industry rise? Because demand exceeds supply. And why would demand exceed supply? Because people only want to work there "as a job", rather than seeing working there as a cultural mission to educate others — to educate the world! — about their culture and history. (I.e. people working at the MoMA demand higher wages [relative to cost of living] than people working at the Louvre do, for essentially the same work, because the people at the MoMA value the "perks of the job" less.)
The same kind of people who work in the museums, work in the municipal governments of these cities. In Europe, both groups — regardless of political affiliation! — tend to believe in the "city as cultural institution." And so both groups tend to work together to craft a city whose economy is in symbiosis with "global cultural enrichment", rather than in conflict with it.
The US does not do this. Or at least, I have never seen a majority government in any American municipality be aligned in creating a "hospitality-driven city focused around cultural tourism" in the way that municipal governments in Europe are.
Also, re: "I'm sure museums in France are free for French citizen under 25 and the unemployed" — from the article:
> The Guggenheim charges students $19 (children under 12 receive free admission) and the museum maintains a pay-what-you-wish policy for everyone on Saturdays that is expanding by one hour, from 5-8 p.m.
This is not a debate about economic barriers to access. The US is equally considerate of these. This really is just a question of how much to charge the rich foreign tourists who need to get out of town the next day and so don't have time to wait for a lazy Saturday to visit the museum. American cultural sites charge these people more; European cultural sites less. I'm offering an explanation for that, specific phenomenon.
The same kind of people who work in the museums, work in the municipal governments of these cities. In Europe, both groups — regardless of political affiliation! — tend to believe in the "city as cultural institution." And so both groups tend to work together to craft a city whose economy is in symbiosis with "global cultural enrichment", rather than in conflict with it.
The US does not do this. Or at least, I have never seen a majority government in any American municipality be aligned in creating a "hospitality-driven city focused around cultural tourism" in the way that municipal governments in Europe are.
Also, re: "I'm sure museums in France are free for French citizen under 25 and the unemployed" — from the article:
> The Guggenheim charges students $19 (children under 12 receive free admission) and the museum maintains a pay-what-you-wish policy for everyone on Saturdays that is expanding by one hour, from 5-8 p.m.
This is not a debate about economic barriers to access. The US is equally considerate of these. This really is just a question of how much to charge the rich foreign tourists who need to get out of town the next day and so don't have time to wait for a lazy Saturday to visit the museum. American cultural sites charge these people more; European cultural sites less. I'm offering an explanation for that, specific phenomenon.
No, the labor costs are mostly rising because culturally significant cities in the Anglosphere have seen their housing costs blow up to astronomical levels in the last few years.
Supply is hilariously above demand globally, people in the museum space basically make the calculation of what is the minimum I can talk myself into justifying and not live an actively unpleasant life and that minimum bar has simply skyrocketed vs 10 years ago.
Supply is hilariously above demand globally, people in the museum space basically make the calculation of what is the minimum I can talk myself into justifying and not live an actively unpleasant life and that minimum bar has simply skyrocketed vs 10 years ago.
No one in Europe wants to create "hospitality-driven" cities. Who do you take us for? It's not bloody Disneyland.
> Is there lots of government funding in the UK for the museum sector that doesn’t exist in the states?
The Smithsonian museums in Washington DC are free to enter—they are great museums, and there's a lot of them.
The Smithsonian museums in Washington DC are free to enter—they are great museums, and there's a lot of them.
The entrance fee to America's online news articles keeps rising
The paywall is too damn high!
They’re raising the entrance fee from $25 (which was apparently set in 2015) to $30
According to the BLS inflation calculator, $25 in 2015 had the same buying power as $32.64 now
Apparently museums are getting cheaper in real terms! What’s the issue?
According to the BLS inflation calculator, $25 in 2015 had the same buying power as $32.64 now
Apparently museums are getting cheaper in real terms! What’s the issue?
Thanks. I was going to cynically point out that inflation is still positive, tremendously positive, therefore "of course the price is going up".
> Some institutions do say their attendance has fully come back, including the Los Angeles County Museum of Art and the Detroit Institute of Arts. Eric Gewirtz, a spokesman for the Detroit museum, said membership has increased by nearly 2,000 subscriptions. But overall, arts organizations have struggled.
Worth noting that The DIA has free entry for residents of three neighboring counties, which I could imagine is a contributor to attendance to pre-pandemic attendance.
Sometimes we don't even look at the art. Go in for free and hang out in the wonderful Kresge Court for food + drinks. Amble around to a particular section if we feel like it.
Worth noting that The DIA has free entry for residents of three neighboring counties, which I could imagine is a contributor to attendance to pre-pandemic attendance.
Sometimes we don't even look at the art. Go in for free and hang out in the wonderful Kresge Court for food + drinks. Amble around to a particular section if we feel like it.
NYT should do a little better here. A table, graph, or perhaps a map showing this rising trend would be much more interesting. Also, free museums still exist in the DC area. I don't know of other 100% free museums, but I'm sure they exist.
https://washington.org/dc-faqs-for-visitors/which-attraction...
https://washington.org/dc-faqs-for-visitors/which-attraction...
Bank of America offers free admission to museums on the first Saturday of the month. The art museum near me has a special toddler morning that happens on the same day.
Yeah I recently paid nearly $100 for two people to visit the Chicago Field Museum and it was pretty disappointing. I'd guess well over half the exhibits are basically unchanged since I was a kid over 40 years ago, and it showed.
That’s insane. I can remember when you could get in a nice (non-Disney) theme park for $30/head.
To be a bit more fair to the Chicago Field Museum, the base ticket price is $30 for out-of-state adults, only more if you want access to one of the extra ticketed experiences, which are nice, but you can kill a full day on just the base ticket and have a great time. Ticket prices are also cheaper for Illinois and even cheaper for Chicago residents.
That makes sense. Here in NC I don’t really remember the state museums charging for base admissions, other than the zoos. You only had to pay for IMAX and things like that
There are a couple dozen free days a year as well for IL residents. They aren’t at all convenient but we’ve still arranged time off work and taken groups there on school break days.
Museum of Science and Industry pricing is still reasonable (Adult – $25.95, Child ages 3-11 – $14.95).
MSI is one of the best museums - you can often find free or heavily discounted tickets as well. Most employers in Chicago have access to a benefit program where you can get free tickets by scheduling in advance online.
If you haven't been, highly recommend a visit. Especially if you're brining kids - hard not to have a good time when you can walk into a water vapor tornado.
If you haven't been, highly recommend a visit. Especially if you're brining kids - hard not to have a good time when you can walk into a water vapor tornado.
https://www.fieldmuseum.org/visit
Good lord. Yup, $43/head if you want to see all the "ticketed exhibitions". (Is there sales tax too? Sometimes museums don't.)
Beyond just the prices, I really don't like the new spreading trend of charging more for "current exhibitions" separate from the rest of the museum. The Field Museum is "only" $30 for basic admission that excludes those.
Good lord. Yup, $43/head if you want to see all the "ticketed exhibitions". (Is there sales tax too? Sometimes museums don't.)
Beyond just the prices, I really don't like the new spreading trend of charging more for "current exhibitions" separate from the rest of the museum. The Field Museum is "only" $30 for basic admission that excludes those.
The focus of the major American Museum has become the same focus that, unfortunately, has overtaken a lot of other non-profits. It's not to show a collection. It's to make money.
And they dump a lot of resources in the marketing, fundraising and consultants, and blame 'wages' of the people who make 45k with, maybe, 2% yearly increases, when they jack up the prices.
And they dump a lot of resources in the marketing, fundraising and consultants, and blame 'wages' of the people who make 45k with, maybe, 2% yearly increases, when they jack up the prices.
All financial data for a nonprofit in the US is public. IRS form 990.
Well, when in America…
Should be free, with special exhibits for a fee
In London, you can walk right into the V&A
In London, you can walk right into the V&A
Until a few years ago you could walk into the NY public museums and just ask them to give you a ticket for free (or for one dollar), which I think was reasonable. They didn't advertise this "trick" so most people still paid the recommended fee but as someone who visited the museums quite a lot I found it really nice. They recently changed it so that only NY+NJ residents can choose their own ticket price.
I'm not sure how recent this is, but in 2018 the Met price was "how much you feel like giving".
A lot of museums have free or low cost days or are perpetually free or low cost for certain communities. I have to wonder if higher prices for those who “pay retail” price isn’t just subsidizing a lot of free museum experiences for underserved people/children.
I remember the Oregon Museum of Science and Industry being an incredible place in the 1970s. I think it was in the 1990s I was there for some reason and it was pretty much gutted. Maybe the decline in American museums has been going on quite a while.
> Maybe the decline in American museums has been going on quite a while.
It may also be due to large improvements at museums being a very sporadic occurrence. I remember growing up, my local museum (the Buffalo Museum of Science) feeling very dated, and when we visited Toronto, the Ontario Science Centre felt very new and fresh. But now the Buffalo museum has had some recent upgrades and feels new, whereas the last time I was at the Ontario Science Centre, it felt like I was seeing the same exhibits I saw as a kid 30 years earlier. Perhaps when my kids are grown, it will have reversed again.
It may also be due to large improvements at museums being a very sporadic occurrence. I remember growing up, my local museum (the Buffalo Museum of Science) feeling very dated, and when we visited Toronto, the Ontario Science Centre felt very new and fresh. But now the Buffalo museum has had some recent upgrades and feels new, whereas the last time I was at the Ontario Science Centre, it felt like I was seeing the same exhibits I saw as a kid 30 years earlier. Perhaps when my kids are grown, it will have reversed again.
I love omsi! Have only lived here since 2017, though. What was so extra about it in the '70s that's lacking now (or at least was lacking in the '90s)?
The old building next to the zoo was smaller, so it was more cozy and you were just surrounded by fascinating things. And it had a periscope. It might well just be nostalgia that remembers it as a superior experience, however. I share the fond memories, but it's hard to say the new location is objectively worse. It's a lot larger and spread out, for sure, which changes the ambiance significantly. But it accommodates a lot more people. And there's an actual submarine now, instead of just a periscope.
Also, the museum store was not just a gift shop but a real science supply center. You could buy lab supplies and chemicals. I recall it was a lot cheaper than buying from Fisher or Sigma-Aldrich. They even had a branch store down in Eugene.
I am not sure what was special back in the 70's (I only started going int he 80's) but they were in a different building near the zoo back then. When the new building was built they had to pay for it with increased ticket costs.
Most of my best field trips as a kid involved OMSI.
In addition to the other excellent recommendations here, I'll shamelessly plug my local museums, the Smithsonian. They're a world-class collection of over a dozen major museums in D.C., and all free for the benefit of the public. If you haven't been, go.
Facilities like the Udvar-Hazy Center for Air & Space charge for parking, but admission is free. If you're in Downtown D.C., this matters much less of course.
Facilities like the Udvar-Hazy Center for Air & Space charge for parking, but admission is free. If you're in Downtown D.C., this matters much less of course.
The general collection of The Cleveland Museum of Art (https://www.clevelandart.org/) is still free. If you are in the University Circle area of Cleveland, definitely recommend.
From Wikipedia, the Guggenheim can apparently show about 6% of it's collection at any one point. Seems like there's a fairly obvious way to generate more money there. But no, it's the union's fault they have money problems.
Deaccession is controversial and often legally gray due to stipulations by donors that work is never to be sold.
If you're interested, see https://news.artnet.com/art-world/brauer-museum-controversia... for a recent example.
If you're interested, see https://news.artnet.com/art-world/brauer-museum-controversia... for a recent example.
The legal issues I understand, but the controversy seems to be that art directors decided it shouldn't be done.
Every significant museum has vastly more in reserves than what can be shown. They're not art galleries, they also have a scientific and conservancy purpose.
I don't get "conservation" in the terms of art. They should keep art safe so that someday it may be seen? Why not let it be seen now?
I bet they could even lease out a fair amount of it with requirements of maintenance and some amount of public accessibility. That alone would drive down their costs at least.
I bet they could even lease out a fair amount of it with requirements of maintenance and some amount of public accessibility. That alone would drive down their costs at least.
Lease it to whom? All the other museums are in the same scenario.
There's more art of value than there is space to show it, so we rotate stuff in and out with special exhibitions and whatnot.
There's more art of value than there is space to show it, so we rotate stuff in and out with special exhibitions and whatnot.
Offices or galleries. I imagine a fair number of businesses would be willing to pay for Guggenheim approved art, and though making it accessible to the public may be difficult they could allow scheduled viewings.
That sounds like an insurance and preservation nightmare leading to lost and damaged art.
IMO, better a somewhat higher risk of loss or damage actually being used than paying for them to slowly rot in a storehouse.
They're not slowly rotting in a storehouse.
They're restored, conserved, and rotated in and out of the museum's public collection so it's ever-changing, which helps generate repeat business.
(They're often also available for academic purposes.)
They're restored, conserved, and rotated in and out of the museum's public collection so it's ever-changing, which helps generate repeat business.
(They're often also available for academic purposes.)
Conserving them only slows the rate of rot.
There's some truth to helping generate repeat business, but even with a 100% yearly rotation rate that's a 17 year cycle to see everything without counting new additions. I doubt people are going to lose interest because two years prior to the new showing they could have traveled to Oklahoma City to view it.
There's some truth to helping generate repeat business, but even with a 100% yearly rotation rate that's a 17 year cycle to see everything without counting new additions. I doubt people are going to lose interest because two years prior to the new showing they could have traveled to Oklahoma City to view it.
Are you suggesting that they reduce the percentage on display to more typical levels (2-4%)?
The Yale Art Gallery in New Haven is free and amazing - https://artgallery.yale.edu/visit
I think this dependson the region; IIRC NYC museums have always charged a fee. They're still free in DC and NC.
Depends on the museum in DC.
Smithsonian museums and the National Gallery have no admission fee, but private museums like the Spy or Bible museum do charge admission.
Smithsonian museums and the National Gallery have no admission fee, but private museums like the Spy or Bible museum do charge admission.
You recall wrong. Public museums in NYC have always been pay-as-you-wish, but began charging non-New York residents a mandatory fee in 2018.
There are a few networks of museums such that once you join one museum in one network you get member benefits (or discounts) to the other museums in that network.
The networks break down into: Arts [0], Science [1], and Children's museums [2] [3]. Bonus network: Zoos! [4]
These can be a great value - especially for families with kids that like to do these things frequently. Our family travels between the MA, NC, and FL and the memberships have been a big help.
[0] https://narmassociation.org
[1] https://www.astc.org/membership/find-an-astc-member/passport...
[2] https://findachildrensmuseum.org/reciprocal-network/
[3] https://childrensmuseums.org
[4] https://www.aza.org/join?locale=en
Join the local institution you will frequent the most as you sometimes get better discounts/value at your "home" location.
Finally, check your local library - many have free or reduced cost tickets/passes for local museums and other institutions.