fbpx

The Met raises its rates for out-of-state visitors

The trouble with high admission fees to museums is that artists canā€™t afford them.

The Fortune Teller, 1630, Georges de La Tour, courtesy Metropolitan Museum of Art

The most loosely-held secret in the city of New York was that the admission fee of $25 to the Metropolitan Museum of Art was ā€œsuggested.ā€ Visitors could, in fact, pay whatever they wanted. That policy will end on March 1, when out-of-state visitors will be required to fork over the full amount. (Schoolkids from neighboring Connecticut and New Jersey will be exempt.)

There wonā€™t be separate lines for visiting and local residentsā€”at least for now. ā€œWe can always make the rules more strict,ā€ Daniel Weiss, the Metā€™s CEO, told the New York Times, ā€œbut Iā€™m hoping we donā€™t have to.ā€
The Met sees an average of seven million visitors a year. Of these, only 17% pay the full fee. Thatā€™s down from 2004, when 63% paid the whole thing. A highly-publicized lawsuit, brought by two Czech tourists and a disgruntled tourist, brought the museumā€™s admission policy into the public eye in 2016. They claimed the museum was bamboozling patrons into thinking the admission was mandatory. The people at the desk wereā€”I thinkā€”trained to scowl bitterly whenever someoneā€™s ā€˜suggestedā€™ donation was less than the full amount.

Heart of the Andes, 1859, Frederic Edwin Church, courtesy Metropolitan Museum of Art

If youā€™re old enough, you remember when the Met was free (before 1971).

Currently the Met takes in about $43 million a year. Thatā€™s expected to increase to $49 million, or by $6 million per year. In other words, in ten years or so, the new policy will bring in a little less than the $65 million David Koch spent to build the new fountains at the buildingā€™s faƧade.
Of course, those numbers are a guess, since nobody currently counts whoā€™s from New York and whoā€™s from Maine.

Boaters, 1874, Ɖdouard Manet, courtesy Metropolitan Museum of Art

The Met is in financial trouble right now. The City of New York owns its building and provides $26 million a year in funding support. That amount has been static or falling in recent years. To close the gap, the Met is considering selling its executive co-op at 993 Fifth Avenue. Thatā€™s currently occupied by the former director, Thomas Campbell, who resigned eleven months ago and hasnā€™t yet been replaced. Nobody can say for sure how much that sale would net, but itā€™s likely to be in the tens of millions.

Then thereā€™s the Met Breuer, a satellite museum of contemporary art, in the former Whitney Museum. That opened in 2016 as part of the Metā€™s $600 million renovation plan. The lease costs the Met $17 million a year.

Garden at Sainte-Adresse, 1867, Claude Monet, courtesy Metropolitan Museum of Art

Protecting the cultural resources of western civilization adds up, especially when itā€™s done in a white-glove manner. I love the Met; it’s one of the world’s cultural jewels. Iā€™ll go see the Michelangelo drawings before they close, and Iā€™ll pony up their $25 fee to do so. But Iā€™ll no longer be stopping by to draw on a rainy day, and Iā€™ll visit less often.

Most working artists are not wealthy, but they need access to great art to learn about their craft. For us, the Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) has a far friendlier scheme. There you can pay $35 a year for a membership, if you can prove (with a postcard or other literature) that youā€™re a currently working artist.