Thanks for putting front-and-center what I earlier treated aa a side-show. As you know, I've taken the position that the Metropolitan Museum is, by its own charter, required to offer free admission to ALL; even the web page for the Met, which you reference, does not specifically state that a fee is required. At the same time the Met, again by its charter, has a clear mandate toward the people of New York. As you've indicated yourself, there is a conflict in many a museum's mission, between encouraging tourism on the one side and promoting education on the other and the Met appears to be trying to do both, despite the fact that the two missions work at cross-purposes. That's why I see the latest move, dividing visitors into two camps (those "entitled" to free admission and those not), as a product of conflicts within the Board of Trustees--conflicts between divergent ways of protecting and growing "their" investment. And yes, to the Trustees "education," too, is an economic investment, a fact noted by Henry James over a hundred years ago. The Met, willy-nilly, is encouraging the redistribution of cultural capital downwards, to the underserved urban populations--in effect it's investing in those populations for its own benefit. It's unfortunate, of course, that out-of-town visitors are made to bear the brunt of this redistribution. America, as you know, is on the verge of a civil war. The Cultural Civil War is already well underway, and this two-pronged system of admissions is only going to exacerbate resentment. Am I too fatalistic if I see this resentment as inevitable?
Your research is very valuable in that it brings to the forefront the issue of the "quasi" free access to the Met collections intended by the museum's founders.
Not to mention a significant amount of public funding – both direct (through support from the City and the State of New York) and indirect (through tax support to the non-profit sector).
The second point is that neither the trustees of the Metropolitan Museum of Art nor President Weiss understand the (civic) mission of the museum (the same could be said of the Louvre Museum, whose mission is not explicitly defined).
The third point concerns the murky game played by the sorcerer's apprentices who have ended up convincing museum managers that “new business models” for financing museums exist, encouraging them to increase the amount of earned income; whereas everyone considers it normal – and rightly so – that libraries are free and financed by the citizens.
The last point is that the situation of museums – and of the cultural sector in general – is a good tool for observing the evolution of society and the conflicts that run through it.
In the end, the last word should be with the citizens...
Incidentally, European museums grant free admission to educators, as a rule. The Met does not. Gives you a sense of what's meant by "Education" at the Met.
Dear Jean- Michel:
Thanks for putting front-and-center what I earlier treated aa a side-show. As you know, I've taken the position that the Metropolitan Museum is, by its own charter, required to offer free admission to ALL; even the web page for the Met, which you reference, does not specifically state that a fee is required. At the same time the Met, again by its charter, has a clear mandate toward the people of New York. As you've indicated yourself, there is a conflict in many a museum's mission, between encouraging tourism on the one side and promoting education on the other and the Met appears to be trying to do both, despite the fact that the two missions work at cross-purposes. That's why I see the latest move, dividing visitors into two camps (those "entitled" to free admission and those not), as a product of conflicts within the Board of Trustees--conflicts between divergent ways of protecting and growing "their" investment. And yes, to the Trustees "education," too, is an economic investment, a fact noted by Henry James over a hundred years ago. The Met, willy-nilly, is encouraging the redistribution of cultural capital downwards, to the underserved urban populations--in effect it's investing in those populations for its own benefit. It's unfortunate, of course, that out-of-town visitors are made to bear the brunt of this redistribution. America, as you know, is on the verge of a civil war. The Cultural Civil War is already well underway, and this two-pronged system of admissions is only going to exacerbate resentment. Am I too fatalistic if I see this resentment as inevitable?
Dear Paul,
Your research is very valuable in that it brings to the forefront the issue of the "quasi" free access to the Met collections intended by the museum's founders.
Not to mention a significant amount of public funding – both direct (through support from the City and the State of New York) and indirect (through tax support to the non-profit sector).
The second point is that neither the trustees of the Metropolitan Museum of Art nor President Weiss understand the (civic) mission of the museum (the same could be said of the Louvre Museum, whose mission is not explicitly defined).
The third point concerns the murky game played by the sorcerer's apprentices who have ended up convincing museum managers that “new business models” for financing museums exist, encouraging them to increase the amount of earned income; whereas everyone considers it normal – and rightly so – that libraries are free and financed by the citizens.
The last point is that the situation of museums – and of the cultural sector in general – is a good tool for observing the evolution of society and the conflicts that run through it.
In the end, the last word should be with the citizens...
Incidentally, European museums grant free admission to educators, as a rule. The Met does not. Gives you a sense of what's meant by "Education" at the Met.