The Met has about 2 million square feet of Museum to maintain.
There are millions of visitors every year coming through it.
They are always acquiring new pieces or art.
They have to maintain the collections they have.
The endowment has to be added to, every year everything is more expensive, even their endowment will not cover this huge amazing museum indefinitely.
$5.00 or $10-..whatever a person can afford is the right thing to contribute, when you think of what you are seeing, for as long as you care to spend seeing it.
Why in the world would anyone think that they are entitled to enjoy one of the worlds best museums for nothing?

Scarlett, in many countries, the federal government provides substantial subsidies for the arts. In London, for instance, most of the museums are free, including the British Museum, the National Gallery, Victoria & Albert, the Natural History Museum etc. etc. A bit more like visiting Washington DC where all those Smithsonian museums are free.

I find adisim's comments ludicrous. He/she is only willing to pay $2 (at most) to visit the Met, while the Frick "is well worth the full price." Nothing against Frick, but c'mon!

Although just to clarify Anonymous' point a bit, free admission to the museums in London is a relatively recent event (2 years) and not terribly popular idea with the museums. This was published recently in the Guardian:

http://www.politics.guardian.co.uk/a...090787,00.html

For adisim - and do you also pay $2 to go to the movies? Or do you think the average movie is five times better than the Met? Stop being so cheap and pay your share. Why should everyone else have to carry you?