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 methat making museums universally free is unnecessary,
and even counter-productive, in our efforts to make them more attractive.
For onething, weshould remember that many potential visitors to museums are ableto pay an admission charge and would not object to this. Forexample, 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, weshould
remember that not all museums are publicly owned, and indeed there are numerous smaller, private
institutions (for examplei n 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 foreveryone. 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
methat
making
museums
universally
free is unnecessary,
and even counter-productive, in our efforts to
make
them more attractive.
For
onething
,
weshould
remember that
many
potential
visitors
to
museums
are
ableto
pay an admission charge and would not object to this.
Forexample
, 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
,
weshould
remember that not all
museums
are
publicly
owned
, and
indeed
there are numerous smaller, private
institutions (for
examplei
n 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
foreveryone
.
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.