Museums are a vital part of any nation’s cultural life, and high visitor numbers are a desirable indicator of their health and popularity. However, it seems to me that making museums universally free is unnecessary, and even counter-productive, in our efforts to make them more attractive. For one thing, we should remember that many potential visitors to museums are able to pay an admission charge and would not object to this. For example, in London we see many thousands of wealthy tourists who have paid large sums to travel, and for whom a modest entry charge would be no inconvenience. Indeed, applying a small fee would enable museums to collect revenue which could be used to conserve the exhibits, extend the collections and put on further displays and so on. This would in turn make the institution more attractive, so that more visitors arrive. The Guggenheim museums in the USA and Europe are an interesting example of museums which constantly refresh their contents in this way. Finally, we should remember that not all museums are publicly owned, and indeed there are numerous smaller, private institutions (for example in Russia or the Middle East) which rely on entry fees to survive. Abolishing such fees would be vastly expensive in terms of state subsidies, and would surely have little impact on visitor numbers. Admittedly, I agree with those who say that universally free museums are a symbol of an equal and advanced society, showcasing national heritage and learning for everyone. However, the use of affordable entry fees (certainly with exemptions for children, the unemployed, students and others) may well add to the museums’ effectiveness as such showcases. Overall, I feel that modest charges are justifiable, and indeed useful, in our efforts to broaden access and improve our museums, provided that nobody is excluded on the grounds of cost.
Museums
are a vital part of any nation’s cultural life, and high
visitor
numbers are a desirable indicator of their health and popularity.
However
, it seems to me that making
museums
universally
free is unnecessary, and even counter-productive, in our efforts to
make
them more attractive. For one thing, we should remember that
many
potential
visitors
to
museums
are able to pay an admission charge and would not object to this.
For example
, in London we
see
many
thousands of wealthy tourists who have paid large sums to travel, and for whom a modest entry charge would be no inconvenience.
Indeed
, applying a
small
fee
would enable
museums
to collect revenue which could be
used
to conserve the exhibits, extend the collections and put on
further
displays and
so
on. This would in turn
make
the institution more attractive,
so
that more
visitors
arrive. The Guggenheim
museums
in the USA and Europe are an interesting example of
museums
which
constantly
refresh their contents in this way.
Finally
, we should remember that not all
museums
are
publicly
owned
, and
indeed
there are numerous smaller, private institutions (
for example
in Russia or the Middle East) which rely on entry
fees
to survive. Abolishing such
fees
would be
vastly
expensive in terms of state subsidies, and would
surely
have
little
impact on
visitor
numbers.
Admittedly
, I
agree
with those who say that
universally
free
museums
are a symbol of an equal and advanced society, showcasing national heritage and learning for everyone.
However
, the
use
of affordable entry
fees
(
certainly
with exemptions for children, the unemployed, students
and others
) may well
add
to the
museums’
effectiveness as such showcases.
Overall
, I feel that modest charges are justifiable, and
indeed
useful, in our efforts to broaden access and
improve
our
museums
, provided that nobody
is excluded
on the grounds of cost.