7 ms·

How Much Should the Met Cost?

39 points by diodorus 8y ago

Jun8 8y ago
"To be ideological is to preconceive reality." Indeed! In his fervor to picture the Met as a racist, elitist, outdated bastion of high art the author does not care to spend any verbiage on the real problem: the Met's inaptitude for money. While mentioning a constant beat about money troubles he doesn't really talk about what is causing these, except mentioning number of visitors has doubled. Leaving that aside, as one data point I wanted to compare Met's membership rates for two adults with those of Chicago's Art Institute, of which we are members: $105 for the Art Institute, $100 for the Met. And the Institute, while great, is no Met!
ulysses 8y ago
Very interesting article. I recently visited New York and spent a day at the Met. As a tech-employed American who can afford to do things like fly to New York for a week, $25 dollars seemed like an amazing deal. An unbelievable deal, really. $25 there and $25 at MOMA didn't really register against the overall expense of the trip. They still have pay-what-you-can for people who live in New York or within a certain distance thereof.
- teachrdan 8y ago
  I visited the Met a number of times as a broke college student from Ohio, and a number of times after graduating when I lived in the SF Bay Area but was still broke. The fact that I could go up to the ticket counter, pay a nominal $1 donation, and get the same metal tab button to get in as everyone else was a godsend. I love New York City, but every time I go back to visit it feels more like a playground for the wealthy.
abrowne 8y ago
The Minneapolis Institute of Art is free (except special exhibits). I'm a paying member, but it's great that it's free, both for those who can't pay, but also because it means you don't have to spend a huge amount of time there to feel like it justifies the ticket price. I used to live nearby and would sometimes walk over to look at one piece for 5 minutes.
ghaff 8y ago
I actually find the new policy more honest in some ways. Because of the way admission was set up (you had to go up to the cashier and get a little clip-on thingie), it always felt like the donation was optional but not really. And the museum certainly didn't go out of its way to advertise that you didn't have to pay the printed amount. London museums are also a bit guilty of trumpeting "Free" and then expecting a donation. But the suggested amount is more modest and the collection is just a box/globe so it's very low-key.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
syphilis2 8y ago
In my experience the impact from mandatory museum fees is that people will not make short museum visits. A single new exhibit is not worth $25, nor is a 1 hour visit after lunch or before dinner. When there's a large cost visiting the museum becomes an event, something that gets planned into the day's schedule for many hours. I'm curious to see if the fees have any impact on the number of out of town visitors.
- mimiflynn 8y ago
  With the lines at NYC museums, making a short one hour visit is almost impossible. To be able to make a donation less that $25 suggested fee, one has to stand in those lines. People that make the short visits tend to pay for a membership that allow them to bypass the line.
- _ph_ 8y ago
  A good solution would be affordable long time tickets. Why not a yearlong ticket for $50? I don’t think the revenue would be less than with single tickets but take away all pressure of making the best out of the ticket.
  - doron 8y ago
    Its called a membership and most museums offer them. In most cases it is about 3 times the price of a regular one time ticket and gives you unlimited access to the museum as well as discounts in the stores, early access to exhibitions etc...
thesimon 8y ago
>or they charge a king’s ransom to see the work on their walls, like the Louvre (seventeen euros) Partially true, European visitors under 25 years get free access. As a not-so-rich-student this is what made me visit the Louvre. I'm not an arts student and didn't really know what to expect from an art museum, so this is what made me visit the Louvre on a recent layover. If I had to pay, I probably wouldn't have visited it, as I expected to not get the money worth in the 2-3 hours I had. I'm guessing others feel this way as well. $25 seems like a good filter for very interested visitors though.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
stevewillows 8y ago
Even charging tourists at a mere $5 would exceed their $10m needs. To contrast the pricing, The Vancouver Art Gallery charges $24 (membership for $90.) More often than not, I leave disappointed with the overall experience. That being said, they have expenses, and its not like I'm going several times per month. If we could have the quality of the Met in Vancouver, I'd gladly pay $25+ per visit.
JBReefer 8y ago
I live near the Met, and go frequently. Other articles, but not this one, mention another huge reason: the fact that the Met is effectively free has lead to crazy overcrowding. Tour buses line up on 5th Ave, people are pushy, lines are hours long, etc. It's an incredible place, but sometimes it feels like the fact that it's free means that people treat it like it's cheap. It turns into the default thing to do, which to me feels like it devalues one of the greatest institutions on the planet. I'm a member at MoMA, and it's a totally different situation - it's quieter, people are more respectful, and it's a lot less crowded. I'm sure the fact that MoMA is non-negotiably $25. Pro-tip: If you're in New York, on your first day buy a MoMA membership, and the next morning go to Member Hours (you can't buy a membership during Member Hours). Being in the Warhol room alone is a remarkable experience.
thoughtexprmnt 8y ago
I was visiting Baltimore's Inner Harbor recently with my wife and our two kids. With a couple of hours available, we thought we'd checkout the aquarium. Then we learned our 4 tickets would cost $130 ($40/adult, $25/child), so we found something else to do instead. I know an aquarium is not an art museum, but still...
- ghaff 8y ago
  Aquariums tend to be pretty expensive. Those types of rates are about par for the course. I assume that operating costs are high.
tomcam 8y ago
The Met is one of the world’s great museums. It is easily worth $25. As a student of art history in Southern California I simply did not understand the appeal of certain artworks until I saw them at the Met, where I was moved to tears several times. It turned out that I simply hadn’t been able to experience first-rate collections where I lived.

39 points by diodorus 8y ago

Jun8 8y ago

"To be ideological is to preconceive reality." Indeed! In his fervor to picture the Met as a racist, elitist, outdated bastion of high art the author does not care to spend any verbiage on the real problem: the Met's inaptitude for money. While mentioning a constant beat about money troubles he doesn't really talk about what is causing these, except mentioning number of visitors has doubled. Leaving that aside, as one data point I wanted to compare Met's membership rates for two adults with those of Chicago's Art Institute, of which we are members: $105 for the Art Institute, $100 for the Met. And the Institute, while great, is no Met!

ulysses 8y ago

Very interesting article. I recently visited New York and spent a day at the Met. As a tech-employed American who can afford to do things like fly to New York for a week, $25 dollars seemed like an amazing deal. An unbelievable deal, really. $25 there and $25 at MOMA didn't really register against the overall expense of the trip. They still have pay-what-you-can for people who live in New York or within a certain distance thereof.

teachrdan 8y ago
I visited the Met a number of times as a broke college student from Ohio, and a number of times after graduating when I lived in the SF Bay Area but was still broke. The fact that I could go up to the ticket counter, pay a nominal $1 donation, and get the same metal tab button to get in as everyone else was a godsend. I love New York City, but every time I go back to visit it feels more like a playground for the wealthy.

abrowne 8y ago

The Minneapolis Institute of Art is free (except special exhibits). I'm a paying member, but it's great that it's free, both for those who can't pay, but also because it means you don't have to spend a huge amount of time there to feel like it justifies the ticket price. I used to live nearby and would sometimes walk over to look at one piece for 5 minutes.

ghaff 8y ago

I actually find the new policy more honest in some ways. Because of the way admission was set up (you had to go up to the cashier and get a little clip-on thingie), it always felt like the donation was optional but not really. And the museum certainly didn't go out of its way to advertise that you didn't have to pay the printed amount. London museums are also a bit guilty of trumpeting "Free" and then expecting a donation. But the suggested amount is more modest and the collection is just a box/globe so it's very low-key.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

syphilis2 8y ago

In my experience the impact from mandatory museum fees is that people will not make short museum visits. A single new exhibit is not worth $25, nor is a 1 hour visit after lunch or before dinner. When there's a large cost visiting the museum becomes an event, something that gets planned into the day's schedule for many hours. I'm curious to see if the fees have any impact on the number of out of town visitors.

mimiflynn 8y ago
With the lines at NYC museums, making a short one hour visit is almost impossible. To be able to make a donation less that $25 suggested fee, one has to stand in those lines. People that make the short visits tend to pay for a membership that allow them to bypass the line.
_ph_ 8y ago
A good solution would be affordable long time tickets. Why not a yearlong ticket for $50? I don’t think the revenue would be less than with single tickets but take away all pressure of making the best out of the ticket.
- doron 8y ago
  Its called a membership and most museums offer them. In most cases it is about 3 times the price of a regular one time ticket and gives you unlimited access to the museum as well as discounts in the stores, early access to exhibitions etc...

thesimon 8y ago

>or they charge a king’s ransom to see the work on their walls, like the Louvre (seventeen euros) Partially true, European visitors under 25 years get free access. As a not-so-rich-student this is what made me visit the Louvre. I'm not an arts student and didn't really know what to expect from an art museum, so this is what made me visit the Louvre on a recent layover. If I had to pay, I probably wouldn't have visited it, as I expected to not get the money worth in the 2-3 hours I had. I'm guessing others feel this way as well. $25 seems like a good filter for very interested visitors though.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

stevewillows 8y ago

Even charging tourists at a mere $5 would exceed their $10m needs. To contrast the pricing, The Vancouver Art Gallery charges $24 (membership for $90.) More often than not, I leave disappointed with the overall experience. That being said, they have expenses, and its not like I'm going several times per month. If we could have the quality of the Met in Vancouver, I'd gladly pay $25+ per visit.

JBReefer 8y ago

I live near the Met, and go frequently. Other articles, but not this one, mention another huge reason: the fact that the Met is effectively free has lead to crazy overcrowding. Tour buses line up on 5th Ave, people are pushy, lines are hours long, etc. It's an incredible place, but sometimes it feels like the fact that it's free means that people treat it like it's cheap. It turns into the default thing to do, which to me feels like it devalues one of the greatest institutions on the planet. I'm a member at MoMA, and it's a totally different situation - it's quieter, people are more respectful, and it's a lot less crowded. I'm sure the fact that MoMA is non-negotiably $25. Pro-tip: If you're in New York, on your first day buy a MoMA membership, and the next morning go to Member Hours (you can't buy a membership during Member Hours). Being in the Warhol room alone is a remarkable experience.

thoughtexprmnt 8y ago

I was visiting Baltimore's Inner Harbor recently with my wife and our two kids. With a couple of hours available, we thought we'd checkout the aquarium. Then we learned our 4 tickets would cost $130 ($40/adult, $25/child), so we found something else to do instead. I know an aquarium is not an art museum, but still...

ghaff 8y ago
Aquariums tend to be pretty expensive. Those types of rates are about par for the course. I assume that operating costs are high.

tomcam 8y ago

The Met is one of the world’s great museums. It is easily worth $25. As a student of art history in Southern California I simply did not understand the appeal of certain artworks until I saw them at the Met, where I was moved to tears several times. It turned out that I simply hadn’t been able to experience first-rate collections where I lived.