Protips: Museum networks with reciprocal memberships and passes from local libraries
There are a few networks of museums such that once you join one museum in one network you get member benefits (or discounts) to the other museums in that network.
The networks break down into: Arts [0], Science [1], and Children's museums [2] [3]. Bonus network: Zoos! [4]
These can be a great value - especially for families with kids that like to do these things frequently. Our family travels between the MA, NC, and FL and the memberships have been a big help.
Free passes from public libraries - together with museum free days - sure look to me like a crutch that may be used to justify these higher prices. The result is very mixed: Yes that are now more free days I can go. But there are now no options to go and just idle and roam at a reasonable price. I used to have a membership to one of the few local world class museums but that's now not renewed. Another local world class museum has a price set so (relatively) high I never go anymore. The outcome seems very polarizing. But then perhaps just the cost of market segmentation resulting in high income and just perhaps, maybe stronger overall services in the end. I kind of doubt it.
Meanwhile we still have a few entirely free outstanding ones.
After moving away from walking distance to the National Mall in dc, I realized I had no idea how fortunate people who live in that area are to be able to access a dozen plus world-class museums for free, on their own terms and schedule. I had not moved to that area because of this perk, but it's far and away the one I'm most regret being without now. There's nothing else remotely like it in any major city in the country, maybe in any country.
Second this! Moreover, most muesum memberships pays for itself after a couple visits. We just took the family to NYC and went to the AMNH twice, and a membership was worthwhile.
Possible protip: Working at a FAANG or similar Fortune 500 might also grant you entry. I went to the Deyoung recently with a friend and found out that Genentech employees get access with an employee badge.
I’m not sure what the difference is between something like the Guggenheim in NYC or the Tate Modern in London, but you can walk into the Tate without having to pay anything at all.
Is there lots of government funding in the UK for the museum sector that doesn’t exist in the states?
In response to my earlier comment, the answer is yes. The Tate is a non-departmental public body sponsored by DCMS (and it seems like other museums such as NHM in London have the same structure).
So, the epiphany to have here, is that for many countries — but not the US! — historical cultural sites and artefacts (not just museums, but also things like monuments and land features) are a large draw for foreign tourists. People fly to Paris just to visit the Louvre; people visit Egypt just to see the pyramids; etc.
These "historied" cities have built up powerful hospitality industries around foreign visitors there to see historical cultural sites. Insofar as you can think of a municipal government as "a dozen neighbourhood business associations in a trenchcoat", hospitality-focused cities like this have strong incentives to put large amounts of public funding into museums, art galleries, etc. — both just to ensure that these things are very nice to visit and continue to draw tourists; but even more, to reduce the costs to tourists of visiting those sites in particular as much as possible... as a loss leader to draw those tourists into the rest of the city, where the hospitality-focused businesses can then capture their money!
---
But, why doesn't this happen in the US? Well, it's no one single thing.
• The US is big. There's a lot of stuff in the US, but you can't see all of it on one vacation. The "draw power" of any one US city to foreign "cultural tourism" is diluted because you can't just go to one or two cities and see all the cool stuff.
• In fact, many of the most "tourist-driven" sites in the US — Niagra Falls, the Elvis museum, etc — aren't in cities that people have any other reason to visit. All there is there is the site itself, and the hospitality businesses, with no other reason to be there. Because of that, people who e.g. travel for business, can't sneakily justify a vacation to these places by holding a conference or retreat there; there's no "there" there to make that practical, let alone enjoyable. They're just tourist traps, that you have to go a long way out of your way to visit. (The one exception being Las Vegas, a tourist trap so overgrown that you can hold conferences there — but it's hard to justify a "business retreat to Vegas" for other reasons.)
• And a lot of the other well-known stuff — the Grand Canyon, Mt. Rushmore, Yellowstone, etc — are (or are in) national parks, i.e. places excluded from capitalist build-up. Which is good insofar as it prevents a tourist trap; but bad insofar as it prevents these places becoming genuine hospitality-focused cities!
This is all very much unlike most of the rest of the world, where the big cities and the "stuff people want to see" are mostly co-located.
• Also, re: art and museums specifically — some might suggest that the US has nothing that foreign tourists want to see because "it's too young to have culture", but that's not true at all (see: e.g. MoMA; the Smithsonian.) I think the real "problem" with US museums is that they're modern in a way that means that all the coolest stuff can be seen in online catalogues; is well documented in video documentaries; etc. Meanwhile, other galleries and museums are old and crusty and not hip to technology (save for archival-science technology), in a way that means that you have to go there if you want to see it.
I kind of disagree with your premise here, at least in some specifics. MoMA and The Met in NYC absolutely do have a draw for foreign tourists, and are full of them. Both require tourists to pay the full ticket price to get in. LA too has serious museums that attract international tourists.
DC similarly has a huge number of museums that draw in foreign tourists, it's just that they're almost all Smithsonian museums, which are free to everyone.
I see, now, it makes complete sense. I'm sure museums in France are free for French citizen under 25 and the unemployed in order to draw in more tourists which would come and pay anyway. That has absolutely nothing to do with these countries actually seeing access to culture as a public good and valuing education.
> Some institutions do say their attendance has fully come back, including the Los Angeles County Museum of Art and the Detroit Institute of Arts. Eric Gewirtz, a spokesman for the Detroit museum, said membership has increased by nearly 2,000 subscriptions. But overall, arts organizations have struggled.
Worth noting that The DIA has free entry for residents of three neighboring counties, which I could imagine is a contributor to attendance to pre-pandemic attendance.
Sometimes we don't even look at the art. Go in for free and hang out in the wonderful Kresge Court for food + drinks. Amble around to a particular section if we feel like it.
NYT should do a little better here. A table, graph, or perhaps a map showing this rising trend would be much more interesting. Also, free museums still exist in the DC area. I don't know of other 100% free museums, but I'm sure they exist.
Bank of America offers free admission to museums on the first Saturday of the month. The art museum near me has a special toddler morning that happens on the same day.
Yeah I recently paid nearly $100 for two people to visit the Chicago Field Museum and it was pretty disappointing. I'd guess well over half the exhibits are basically unchanged since I was a kid over 40 years ago, and it showed.
To be a bit more fair to the Chicago Field Museum, the base ticket price is $30 for out-of-state adults, only more if you want access to one of the extra ticketed experiences, which are nice, but you can kill a full day on just the base ticket and have a great time. Ticket prices are also cheaper for Illinois and even cheaper for Chicago residents.
Good lord. Yup, $43/head if you want to see all the "ticketed exhibitions". (Is there sales tax too? Sometimes museums don't.)
Beyond just the prices, I really don't like the new spreading trend of charging more for "current exhibitions" separate from the rest of the museum. The Field Museum is "only" $30 for basic admission that excludes those.
Readit News
There are a few networks of museums such that once you join one museum in one network you get member benefits (or discounts) to the other museums in that network.
The networks break down into: Arts [0], Science [1], and Children's museums [2] [3]. Bonus network: Zoos! [4]
These can be a great value - especially for families with kids that like to do these things frequently. Our family travels between the MA, NC, and FL and the memberships have been a big help.
[0] https://narmassociation.org
[1] https://www.astc.org/membership/find-an-astc-member/passport...
[2] https://findachildrensmuseum.org/reciprocal-network/
[3] https://childrensmuseums.org
[4] https://www.aza.org/join?locale=en
Join the local institution you will frequent the most as you sometimes get better discounts/value at your "home" location.
Finally, check your local library - many have free or reduced cost tickets/passes for local museums and other institutions.
Meanwhile we still have a few entirely free outstanding ones.
Is there lots of government funding in the UK for the museum sector that doesn’t exist in the states?
The Tate Modern Director "earns between £110,000–115,000 ($148,000–155,000)"[1]
They do differ in public funding, but the philosophies between US and European museums are fundamentally different.
[0]https://www.theartnewspaper.com/2021/12/21/guggenheim-direct...
[1]https://news.artnet.com/art-world/tate-denies-gender-pay-ine...
All US nonprofits have to disclose financial data, and it's public. IRS form 990.
These "historied" cities have built up powerful hospitality industries around foreign visitors there to see historical cultural sites. Insofar as you can think of a municipal government as "a dozen neighbourhood business associations in a trenchcoat", hospitality-focused cities like this have strong incentives to put large amounts of public funding into museums, art galleries, etc. — both just to ensure that these things are very nice to visit and continue to draw tourists; but even more, to reduce the costs to tourists of visiting those sites in particular as much as possible... as a loss leader to draw those tourists into the rest of the city, where the hospitality-focused businesses can then capture their money!
---
But, why doesn't this happen in the US? Well, it's no one single thing.
• The US is big. There's a lot of stuff in the US, but you can't see all of it on one vacation. The "draw power" of any one US city to foreign "cultural tourism" is diluted because you can't just go to one or two cities and see all the cool stuff.
• In fact, many of the most "tourist-driven" sites in the US — Niagra Falls, the Elvis museum, etc — aren't in cities that people have any other reason to visit. All there is there is the site itself, and the hospitality businesses, with no other reason to be there. Because of that, people who e.g. travel for business, can't sneakily justify a vacation to these places by holding a conference or retreat there; there's no "there" there to make that practical, let alone enjoyable. They're just tourist traps, that you have to go a long way out of your way to visit. (The one exception being Las Vegas, a tourist trap so overgrown that you can hold conferences there — but it's hard to justify a "business retreat to Vegas" for other reasons.)
• And a lot of the other well-known stuff — the Grand Canyon, Mt. Rushmore, Yellowstone, etc — are (or are in) national parks, i.e. places excluded from capitalist build-up. Which is good insofar as it prevents a tourist trap; but bad insofar as it prevents these places becoming genuine hospitality-focused cities!
This is all very much unlike most of the rest of the world, where the big cities and the "stuff people want to see" are mostly co-located.
• Also, re: art and museums specifically — some might suggest that the US has nothing that foreign tourists want to see because "it's too young to have culture", but that's not true at all (see: e.g. MoMA; the Smithsonian.) I think the real "problem" with US museums is that they're modern in a way that means that all the coolest stuff can be seen in online catalogues; is well documented in video documentaries; etc. Meanwhile, other galleries and museums are old and crusty and not hip to technology (save for archival-science technology), in a way that means that you have to go there if you want to see it.
DC similarly has a huge number of museums that draw in foreign tourists, it's just that they're almost all Smithsonian museums, which are free to everyone.
The Smithsonian museums in Washington DC are free to enter—they are great museums, and there's a lot of them.
According to the BLS inflation calculator, $25 in 2015 had the same buying power as $32.64 now
Apparently museums are getting cheaper in real terms! What’s the issue?
Dead Comment
Worth noting that The DIA has free entry for residents of three neighboring counties, which I could imagine is a contributor to attendance to pre-pandemic attendance.
Sometimes we don't even look at the art. Go in for free and hang out in the wonderful Kresge Court for food + drinks. Amble around to a particular section if we feel like it.
https://washington.org/dc-faqs-for-visitors/which-attraction...
Good lord. Yup, $43/head if you want to see all the "ticketed exhibitions". (Is there sales tax too? Sometimes museums don't.)
Beyond just the prices, I really don't like the new spreading trend of charging more for "current exhibitions" separate from the rest of the museum. The Field Museum is "only" $30 for basic admission that excludes those.