December 2, 2001
9:29 AM   Subscribe

More of London's museums are now free to enter. Some museums had already dropped admission charges earlier in the year, but now the Science Museum, Natural History Museum and Imperial War Museum are also free. A good thing? I think so.
posted by jedro (14 comments total)
 
For many years now, in Spain all museums that are funded by the government allow citizens in free; non-citizens pay a fee which compares favorably with museum admissions across the globe. It's great, a good way to encourage people who normally wouldn't think of spending the money to go to the museum.

The Met in NYC has also for a very long time had a policy of 'pay what you can'. You could get in even for a quarter. Of course, the Met is in a unique position since it is very well funded by many corporations and quite a few rich people. I miss the Met...
posted by mmarcos at 10:28 AM on December 2, 2001




I remember, when I was unemployed in San Francisco, making the rounds of the free museum days -- first Tuesday of each month for SFMoMA, Wed. for the Academy of Sciences, Thurs. for the Legion of Honor (I think), and I can't remember what day the Exploratorium was free.

I think resources like museums should be free, as much as possible. Buying access to a cultural resource somehow lessens its value for me -- it makes a stronger impression on me that some institution has invested in me, offering me the opportunity to learn and grow just for its own sake.

An aside -- I'm curious, are library loans free in most countries? (In the U.S., a book loan is free, but you pay a daily late fee if you fail to renew or return on time.)
posted by mattpfeff at 10:38 AM on December 2, 2001


Free is a misnomer. Nothing is free. We've just changed who pays. Rather than people who visit museums paying, people who don't visit museums must also pay. I don't think this makes sense.

While we are at it, why not make movies free? Shouldn't the government foot the bill of everyone seeing Harry Potter? Hey, and ice cream too... we need more ice cream in society, so let's make that free too.

This government thing is really cool. We can use it to fund things that some people claim to like, but aren't willing to pay enough for to sustain them! Heck, why doesn't the government pay for everything? Wouldn't life be better if everything were free?!
posted by hitsman at 11:03 AM on December 2, 2001


Rather than people who visit museums paying, people who don't visit museums must also pay. I don't think this makes sense.

Well of you think you're paying for museums via a different revenue stream (taxes), hitsman, then isn't it up to you to make the most of your forced investment and pay them a visit?

Also, by this logic, you're implying that you should only have to pay for those services you use. Would you agree to paying admission to get into the local park (maintained by the local council) or walk down the street (ditto).

If it's a privately owned tourist attraction, like The Blue Planet chain, by all means charge me. But these new freebee museums arn't just a tourist attraction -- they're a voluntary educational institution -- a place of learning. So are we suggesting that all schools should be paid for by the userbase as well?
posted by feelinglistless at 11:39 AM on December 2, 2001


hitsman, then isn't it up to you to make the most of your forced investment and pay them a visit?

I'm arguing against the forced investment in culture. It's not a public good because it is easy to charge the people who benefit.

I played tennis yesterday at a local park. It was free. Should it have been? I don't think so. It's not fair to the people who weren't using it to play tennis to have to pay for it. The government shouldn't be in the business of providing goods and services that could easily be funded by those who use it.

If it's a privately owned tourist attraction, like The Blue Planet chain, by all means charge me.

What contributes to the decision to take a service out of the private sector and into the public one? There are plenty of educational goods and services that aren't subsidized by the government. Why should museums be any different from movies? Movies can be educational. So can The Learning Channel and The Discovery Channel. Why doesn't the government pay for everyone's extended cable bill?

I trust people voting with their dollars more than I trust the government to allocated funds forced through taxation. The reality that most people don't want to face is that people don't value museums enough to fund them directly by voting with their wallets.
posted by hitsman at 11:50 AM on December 2, 2001


The good part about paying through taxes is that the rich pay more (even if you don't go, you still benefit from a more educated society - just as with public schooling - so I can't say that keeps me awake at nights).

The bad bit is that museums have less control over their finances and are not as acountable (two reasons why some museums weren't that happy about giving them up). How long before we're worrying about whether they're performing as well as they could be and start tring to re-introduce some kind of market competition again?

As for museums not being valued enough - I don't think this move was made to rescue financially vulnerable museums (they seemed quite happy to continue charging people), but as a political gesture.
posted by andrew cooke at 11:59 AM on December 2, 2001


Hah, hah, some people are hilarious!
posted by mmarcos at 3:18 PM on December 2, 2001


I would rather see tax money go to museums than sports arenas.
posted by panopticon at 4:31 PM on December 2, 2001


Hitsman, I hope you've donated to Metafilter. If not, then I hope you're not actually going to ''claim to like'' it. And what's the connection between museums, Harry Potter and ice cream?
posted by jedro at 2:49 AM on December 3, 2001


If you start with the preposition that people going to museums is A Good Thing, then centrally funding them makes sense. I think I paid about £7 to get into the Science Museum in London last time. While I would gladly pay that sort of money once or twice, it's not the sort of trivial sum you would just pay without a thought. By spreading the cost of running these museums over the whole population, you are likely to get far more people going. A population that is educated and informed is important for continued prosperity. There's a correlation between the wealth of a country and what it spends on education.

I also believe sports facilities should be subsidided. (I'm talking about participating in sports, not building shiny new stadia for baseball teams.) Society as a whole benefits if the population are healthier, does it not? That's why your tennis court was free, hitsman. Encourage people to get off their fat asses and exercise, and we all benefit.
posted by salmacis at 3:10 AM on December 3, 2001


If you start with the preposition that people going to museums is A Good Thing, then centrally funding them makes sense.

This logic doesn't carry through. Who decides what is A Good Thing? Are vegetables A Good Thing? Should we centrally fund them? How about greeting cards? It's hard to argue they're not Good? Why should anyone have to pay for them? Why is it fair to subsidize tennis courts but not bowling alleys? What about people that hate tennis and would rather have their tax dollars spent on medication for their ailing parent?

Why don't we centrally fund everything you think is Good? When you centrally fund, you allow the government to choose where to spend money that you rightfully earned.
Central funding through the government implies forcing people to spend money that they would not have spend otherwise. Also, take away individual freedoms by forcing a majority rule or other group-based decision. In my opinion, that is RARELY a good thing and should be reserved for things like national defense (something the government has not been doing a sufficient job of).

I'd argue that society benefits more from freedom than from centrally funding tennis courts.

jedro: Actually, yes I did contribute to metafilter through buying a personal text ad that ran last month. I firmly believe in paying for causes I believe in and consume, and you can count on me to contribute without forcing me through taxes.
posted by hitsman at 9:31 PM on December 3, 2001




Who decides what is A Good Thing?

In a democracy, the people decide, more than any other single influence. hitsman, the government isn't some nameless, faceless power that simply fiats its will upon the hapless masses. Sure, it's not completely efficient, but it's the best thing we've got for keeping large communities from collapsing into anarchy.
posted by mattpfeff at 8:47 PM on December 4, 2001


« Older Arizona want to pay teachers what they are worth   |   Happy Holidays--IN HELL!! Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments