NYC museums will be able to charge admission now
 

Saw it in the news this morning. The Met and the Musuem of Natural History renewed their leases with the current mayor Bloomberg. He modified the agreement so that they can enforce a ticket price.

Boo....

My daugther and I visited the Met and Coisters on two separate days in March. We paid $10 for a morning at the met and $10 for an hour at Cloisters. (Nearly the recommended ticket price of one day admission to both.) I know we would have skipped the Cloisters if we had been required to pay $25 again.

This summer our church took 30 youth participating in a summer camp to the MoNH. There is no way we could have paid the full cost.

I support museums. Heck I'm on the board of one. I also think that public treasures are for the public to enjoy. When learning of the NY trip I tried to join a museum association with reciprocal memberships so I could support the arts and get in without a wait at the ticket line, but the Met is not part of such a group.

NY won't miss my money. I do wonder however how many school groups will start going to DC rather than NY for field trips?

PS. If anyone reads this who can change a tag, please change to NY rather than NC. Mouse problems.

It seems they have formally clarified the museum's right to charge admission as it sees fit, and to charge for special exhibitions.

"While the amended lease does not give the Met any new fee powers, it now formally states that the museum (with the city’s approval) could charge extra for special exhibitions, group tours and other programs “as the museum shall from time to time prescribe,” and could even make its admission fee mandatory."

But: "But Harold Holzer, the museum’s senior vice president for public affairs, who oversees admissions and visitor services, said that “we have no plans to institute either of the above, and no plans to make plans.”'

So for now the policy remains unchanged.

Personally, I think $25 is cheap, especially considering that the tourist in question will very likely be spending over a hundred dollars later that evening to watch some goofy song and dance routine on Broadway. Different strokes, as they say.

What I don;t get is people who will wiling pay $12 or $14 for a Hollywood extravaganza that will be forgotten the next day but don;t want to pay for a couple of the greatest cultureal institutions in the world.

Why support trash when you can support treasures?

Caveat: I grew up in NYC adn these were the special places our parents took us to on weekends - not just these - but often these. I know some people think museums are boring - and granted some are not very good - but these are magnificent.

"$12 or $14 for a Hollywood extravaganza that will be forgotten the next day"

Plus popcorn, etc.

More to the point, the "Hollywood Extravaganza" is entertainment, and no-one pretends it's anything else. Museums are cultural treasures, not theme parks, and they should be accessible to the public. Yes, many of the tourists who flock to NYC can afford the suggested price, but some cannot easily, and there are many local or localish visitors who can't. High admission prices reinforce the idea that cultural destinations aren't for "regular" people.

This deb agrees with the deb above, 100%. Being able to go into a museum should be a right, not a privilege, for the residents as well as the visitors.

"Museums are cultural treasures, not theme parks, and they should be accessible to the public."

They are also extremely expensive to operate. How are we to reconcile this?

I may be the eternal optimist [actually far from it] but I think that people are still willing to pay something WHEN they can; and surprisingly many pay more than what admission would be.

How about getting some of the hotel tax that the city collects to go to the museums??

They are expensive, and I know many museums are stuck between a rock and a hard place vis a vis operating costs/reasonable admissions, but the Met is solvent. And I believe it gets substantial chunks of city money.

<i>And I believe it gets substantial chunks of city money.</i>

That's the reason why the amount paid was at the discretion of the visitor; unlike MOMA.

I have no problem paying admission to museums.

For a glimpse at how complicated this is, take a look at the CFO's report from 2012.

http://www.metmuseum.org/about-the-m...%20Officer.pdf

Unfortunately our federal government - unlike that of every other developed nation - does not support most of the wonderful museums around the country. Granted the Smithsonian is free - but most museums are supported very little - if at all - by federal funding.

I look at it like school taxes. If you want what I consider basic services you simply have to pay for them.

And why a museums that is much more enjoyable should be free - and a hollywood bash and crash and shoot em up with no redeeming value whatsoever is worth so much - is beyond me.

I think museums should be free and that federal and state governments should subsidize them to make them so because they are edifying. They are good for us. They should not be reserved for people who can afford them, unlike the vast majority of movies, which are not particularly elevating for the culture as a whole. So I feel ambivalent about this change. Of course museums need to find a way to fund themselves, and I personally am happy to pay admission, but I feel very sorry for anyone who feels priced out of visiting.

>>Unfortunately our federal government - unlike that of every other developed nation - does not support most of the wonderful museums around the country. <<

huh? Just how many museums in Paris are free? Or Italy? Or the netherlands? Most of the free museums in the UK have only been free for about 13 years and there is continual debate about reinstating charges.

Thin agrees with the two Debs.

And he does not mean debutants.

Some of you are just plain daft.

Many New Yorkers see art and foreign films at
Angelika, Film Forum, Lincoln Plaza.

Not everyone spends $14 to see some Hollywood trash.

I have many friends in Manhattan who can only afford to go to see a film twice a month and that is a hardship.

Not everyone in Manhattan lives in a doorman building on CPW like you heiresses.


Thin

<i>Just how many museums in Paris are free? </i>

All of the museums under the direct control of the City of Paris. I know of two: the Petit Palais and the Carnavalet.

Palmettoporincess, this amendment does not mean that the museum is going to start charging admission. Read more about it here: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/25/ny...-met.html?_r=0

I did not say all museums around the world are free - but that they are supported by the government at least in part = so those visiting don't have to pay the full price. Also - in some places locals pay much less than foreign visitors - which I think is fair.

And in the US most museums do have a strict pay policy - unlike the 2 mentioned - which have for years had a pay what you wish policy. (The problem is that most people - not just those who can't afford to - don't WISH to pay. IMHO students, seniors and those with low incomes should take advantage of the pay what you wish. But people who are shelling out money for broadway shows and foo foo dinners and SHOPPING and then don;t want to pay museum entries are just greedy little piggies.)

And don't ask if we pay - we;re members of both - and several other museums - and I personally have been a member of both since I was about 25 - since it is cheaper than paying multiple admissions and I am not agreedy little piggy.)

...Being able to go into a museum should be a right, not a privilege, for the residents as well as the visitors......

Fine, and the operating expenses are paid by .... ??? If you cannot answer the question, then the first statement is meaningless (could have said stupid but that would be insulting).

Michael: ONLY the Paris owned museums are free. The vast majority are not city museums and charge high entrance fees.

How about giving a discount (or even free on certain days) to locals and a charge to tourists? Locals pay taxes and the poor can't travel but can still take advantages of these cultural venues.

For years I have honored my father, who is described here as a greedy little piggy, for his principled opposition to the imposition of an admission charge at the Met. At the time there were signs at the entrances that said "Pay what you wish, but you must pay something." He always said,"Fine, I wish to pay a nickel". I think of this and smile every time I go to the Met (although I have upped the ante).

This was a man who brought me along on volunteer brigades to pick up trash in Central Park.

When you make assumptions about people's motivations, especially to assume that their behavior is less ethical than yours, you tread on unsteady ground.

And also keep in mind that it was originally intended to be free, and was so for about a hundred years. I can just remember when they started charging, and it was at a time when both the city and the museum (and pretty much everyone else) was absolutely strapped. As museums go, the Met is fairly well funded, and I believe continues to make significant acquisitions.

The last couple of years I've been mostly able to accompany my father under his "family" membership, but when visiting by myself I pay what I wish (usually five dollars) because I really cannot spare $25 easily, especially if it's not just me, but my son as well. We have planned special days where it's a nice lunch and a museum, but if we had to pay full freight, there would be no lunch (which means really, that there'd be no museum, because art is nice, but food is more important). It's a public museum, I believe it has a stated mission to make art accessible to the people of New York, and pricing itself out of the pockets of casual visitors is not compatible with that goal. It's not a movie, or a theme park, or a tourist attraction. I do not like what movie theaters and amusement parks charge, and I can seldom afford to pay it, but you won't hear me complaining about their right to charge as they wish. Museums are fundamentally different, particularly large ones funded even partially with public money.

Lots of things were originally intended that do not make sense a hundred years later. As I have mentioned elsewhere, the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum in Boston had the most major theft in art history (a Rembrandt among other greats) in large part because rules made 100 years ago did not allow for modern security updates.

In 1878, conservation, humidity and temperature controls, security cameras and sensors, etc., did not exist. Is that what we want to do with some of the most priceless treasures in the world?

I do think there are MANY ways to help locals access the Met affordably.

It was a Vermeer stolen at the Gardner, even worse!

Should be, a Vermeer in addition to the Rembrandt!

Nothing's free, folks. If you're not charged admission to the museum you can expect hotel taxes and fees to rise to cover the cost of the 'free' museum visits, for example.

This was sent to me by someone who peeks into Fodors once in a while...asking me to post it for her. I have no personal interest in the topic.


<i>"The Met Museum is one on NYC's largest attractions, partially because it appeals to both NY'ers and visitors. One of the problems with museums, is other museums. For the past thirty years other cities have turned their derelict downtown and industrial areas into "mixed" use arenas which often includes a museum. Thus competition and the price for art has risen. Also there is an increase of worldwide billionaire philistines who want trophies. A number of genres have become more expensive, especially what is condescendingly called Art 101 art. In order for a museum to maintain its status, it must compete not only for exhibitions but for the permanent collection.

There is another aspect. Although people intrinsically value art, for some reason they always think they can beat artists down on price. Artists would be happy to get any anything simply because it is a form of recognition. This goes for all types of art, where people expect books and music for free. There was a restaurant that advertised for a band and they would not pay them because they thought the publicity would be sufficient. A band took out an ad saying they were doing a gig and were looking for a restaurant for free catering because the publicity would be sufficient. This mentality effects how people view admission for museums as well.

Finally the cost of maintaining a museum is substantial especially in this age terrorism where the Met, one of the world's great museums, must protect its priceless collection.

And if you are going to pay hundreds of dollars for a low to middling brow entertainment on Broadway, why are you complaining about seeing works that will outlasts 99% of Broadway for centuries in terms of beauty, intellect, and influence? "</i>

"Should be, a Vermeer in addition to the Rembrandt!" AND don't forget my childhood favorite Degas sketch of a jockey, whose loss I still feel every time I go to the Gardner !

If museums of cultural treasures do not have a 'pay what you want' policy in place, certainly they should have a free day/night/weekend each week so all who wish to experience the holdings potentially have access.

Isabela, I did initially say "Rembrandt among other greats." I did not know the Degas was of a jockey. I am a bit jealous of you for seeing them all, and it sounds like many times.

Why do people assume that visitors to New York are going to pay high prices for Broadway theater? I have visited New York several times, and the only time I went to the theater (for a play, not a blockbuster musical) was on a Groupon deal with a New Yorker I was visiting. I save my theater going for when I visit London, where it is cheaper - and where the museums are free.

I don't mind paying something to visit a museum, and am a member of my state Art Museum, but $25 is too high for me, especially if I just want to pop in and see a specific section. Perhaps if I were spending the whole day there, but how many people do that more than once?

A judge has ruled in favor of the museum on most of the complaints in the lawsuit.



http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/20...ef=todayspaper

" . . . Judge Kornreich ruled that the intent of an 1893 law giving state support to the museum — but also specifying that admission be free five days a week — was to secure the broadest possible access to the Met. And since 1971, under an agreement with the city during lean financial times, the museum has charged a suggested admission fee to be able to fund its operations to provide such access, she added.

“For those without means, or those who do not wish to express their gratitude financially, a de minimis contribution of a penny is accepted,” the judge wrote. “Admission to the Met is de facto free for all.”

. . .

"Under the ruling, another part of both cases, alleging that the museum misrepresents itself, misleading visitors — through signage and website information — into thinking they must pay the full $25 fee, will proceed before the court."