The Double-Edged Sword of Free vs. Paid Admission
Debate is ongoing regarding the implementation of admission fees at national museums and galleries, including the National Museum of Korea and the National Museum of Modern and Contemporary Art. However, before discussing fees, it is crucial to consider the philosophy and values guiding museum operations, particularly the principles of non-profit and public service, as well as a thorough analysis of sustainable financial environments beyond mere income and expenditure. Currently, discussions often focus on the need for admission fees due to overcrowding, rather than deeper considerations of governance and operational principles, leading to concerns about hasty or politically motivated decisions.So, what should be the primary concern regarding the collection of admission fees? Proponents of free admission argue that it lowers barriers for many, allowing broader access to culture and education. Conversely, others contend that free admission threatens financial stability, potentially leading to closures that would ultimately harm the community. These advocates emphasize the necessity for museums to maintain financial health, asserting that admission fees are essential for covering operational costs.
Daniel H. Weiss, former director of the Metropolitan Museum of Art (2015-2023) and current president and CEO of the Philadelphia Museum of Art, concluded that "the increase in visitors at museums that eliminated admission fees has been minimal or nonexistent nationwide." He emphasized that while museums have an ethical obligation to be accessible, they also have a duty to maintain financial health, arguing that these two obligations often conflict.
The Relationship Between Profitability and Accessibility
John E. Silvia, a prominent macroeconomist and former chief economist at Wells Fargo, argues that free admission does not benefit actual visitors and is "not a financially wise decision" for institutions. However, Gerald Friedman, a progressive economist and professor at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, counters that "those who would normally pay admission are not the ones who take advantage of free entry."The pandemic has complicated the analysis of the relationship between admission fees and visitor numbers, as many museums and cultural institutions reliant on visitor attendance and membership fees were severely impacted. During the height of COVID-19, frequent visitors stopped attending, and many institutions struggled to recover visitor numbers to pre-pandemic levels from 2019. This confirmed that for those who rarely visited museums, the absence of admission fees did not significantly influence their willingness to attend.
Generally, the effectiveness of attracting the public to museums is believed to depend more on the quality and content of exhibitions and educational programs than on the presence or absence of admission fees. The Walters Art Museum's collection, featuring ancient artifacts and European art prior to the 20th century, may not appeal to a diverse audience, particularly in Baltimore, where the population has decreased by one-third since 1950 and African Americans make up about 63% of the community. Thus, social and environmental changes may be more significant factors in attracting visitors than admission fees.
However, Christopher Bedford, former director of the Baltimore Museum of Art and now director of the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art, recognized changes in the audience demographic and reflected this in the museum's collection policy and programming. This led to controversy when he sold works by white artists like Franz Kline, Robert Rauschenberg, and Andy Warhol to acquire pieces by underrepresented non-white and African American artists. Nonetheless, this move was seen as an effort to embrace broader agendas of equity and diversity.
Advocates for free admission emphasize the importance of expanding educational opportunities and achieving cultural democracy. They argue that everyone should have access to art without financial burden, and that free admission enhances accessibility for minority groups and socially disadvantaged individuals. Maxwell L. Anderson, former director of major museums such as the Whitney, Dallas, and Indianapolis, argues that museums operate as charitable organizations funded by donations rather than ticket sales, asserting that high admission fees reduce local accessibility.
Consequently, museums that have implemented free admission are experimenting with various methods to overcome financial burdens. The Detroit Institute of Arts, which houses over 65,000 works, offers free admission to residents of three nearby counties in exchange for a small percentage of property tax revenue. The museum has diversified its exhibitions and programs to enhance visitor engagement, establishing an African American art department and adding interactive tools to improve the visitor experience.
The most effective way to offset lost revenue from eliminating admission fees is to find donors. The Dallas Museum of Art and the Museum of Contemporary Art in Los Angeles have maintained free admission based on substantial donations. Notably, contemporary artist Julie Mehretu donated $2 million to the Whitney Museum to cover admission fees for all visitors under 25. Similarly, collector and advisor Sonya Yu donated $900,000 to MoMA PS1, ensuring free admission for all visitors worldwide for three years, which had previously been limited to New York residents. Many museums are thus finding ways to fulfill their ethical obligation to find donors while also meeting their financial responsibilities. Ultimately, it is essential to recognize that "we all have a duty to support the museums we own and benefit from."
Museum Finances and Admission Fees
The collection of admission fees does not always yield the desired outcomes. Results can vary significantly based on factors such as city size, tourist volume, visit purpose, and the financial independence of the city. The failure to consider these differences when advocating for or against admission fees is problematic.Since 1970, the Metropolitan Museum of Art has implemented a "pay what you want" policy, which initially increased visitor numbers. However, as more visitors began to pay less, admission revenue continued to decline. By 2004, 63% of visitors contributed the suggested donation, but by 2017, this figure plummeted to 17%, leading to a significant financial deficit for the museum. Consequently, the real value of admission revenue in 2016 was much lower than in 2004, highlighting the unsustainability of this model despite its social responsibility implications. As a result, starting in 2018, the museum began charging a $25 admission fee for adult visitors outside New York, while maintaining the pay-what-you-want policy for New York residents and students from New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut. In July 2022, the base admission fee was raised to $30, where it remains today.
The proportion of admission fees contributing to museum operations varies between large cities and smaller towns. In many cases, government support plays a minimal role in financial contributions from admission fees. For institutions heavily reliant on government funding, such as the National Museum of Korea and the National Museum of Modern and Contemporary Art, admission fees are returned to the government, making statistical tracking difficult. Despite this, the sudden consideration of implementing admission fees raises questions.
Tourists visiting cities like New York or Los Angeles, where they spend thousands of dollars, are unlikely to avoid museums due to a $30 admission fee. In contrast, in smaller towns with fewer tourists, local residents are the primary audience, making them more sensitive to pricing, where free admission can be effective in attracting visitors. Many museums in Midwestern cities like Detroit, St. Louis, Cleveland, Minneapolis, Cincinnati, and Toledo, which see fewer tourists, do not charge admission fees.
Moreover, the proportion of admission fees in total revenue varies significantly among U.S. museums, impacting their operations differently. At the Walters Art Museum, admission fees accounted for only 2% of total revenue, while at the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum in Boston, it reached 29%. SFMOMA expects to generate $8 million, about 12.3%, from admission fees out of a total revenue of $65.1 million in 2024. Conversely, the Speed Art Museum in Louisville, Kentucky, reported only $261,991 in admission revenue, or 1.5%, from an annual revenue of $17.1 million.
This highlights that while admission fees significantly impact finances in large cities, they have a relatively minor effect in smaller towns where local residents are the primary audience. For reference, the National Museum of Modern and Contemporary Art reported that in 2024, its total expenditure budget was 70.1 billion won, with self-generated revenue accounting for only 3.4 billion won, or about 5%. Thus, the impact of admission fees on museum operations varies widely based on governance, environment, and conditions.
In the U.K., where free admission has traditionally been upheld, discussions are underway to charge fees to foreign visitors due to chronic financial deficits. Although the free admission policy introduced by the Labour government in 2001 increased visitor numbers by 40%, the current government is considering charging fees to non-citizens as public financial burdens have increased. However, the lack of mandatory identification in the U.K. complicates the differentiation between citizens and foreigners, potentially leading to costs and inconveniences. Additionally, while financially stable institutions may maintain free admission, smaller institutions with weaker financial bases risk losing visitors if they implement fees, exacerbating financial difficulties.
Admission fee revenue varies significantly based on a country's cultural policy and whether institutions operate primarily on government subsidies or self-generated revenue. In European national museums, ticket revenue typically accounts for 10% to 50% of total finances, with U.K. museums that offer free permanent exhibitions generating less than 5%.
In the U.K., the principle is to not charge admission fees for permanent exhibitions funded by public budgets. Consequently, ticket revenue at institutions like Tate Britain, Tate Modern, and the National Gallery accounts for less than 3% to 8% of total revenue. This low percentage is due to the sale of tickets only for specific exhibitions. U.K. museums cover about 40% to 50% of their operating costs through government grants from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the National Lottery Fund, with the remainder supplemented by gift shop and café sales, as well as strong membership and donations.
France's major national museums attract the highest number of visitors globally, making ticket revenue substantial. Including government subsidies, brand licensing, and donations, ticket revenue accounts for about 30% to 50% of total income. The Louvre generates significant ticket revenue, but government budget support, large corporate sponsorships, and substantial brand licensing fees from sources like "Louvre Abu Dhabi" contribute to its overall income, making ticket revenue a smaller proportion of total revenue.
At the Musée d'Orsay, ticket sales account for about 70% of the museum's self-generated revenue, as it has less external licensing income compared to the Louvre. The museum's charter mandates that 16% of revenue from permanent exhibition admission fees be used annually for acquiring new artworks. Institutions like the Pompidou Center and Palais de Tokyo, which receive about 69% of their total budgets from public funding, see ticket revenue contributing around 15% to 25% of total income. These contemporary art institutions tend to rely more on government support, with lower proportions of income from membership, rentals, and educational program revenues compared to traditional museums.
The Netherlands is one of the countries that most strongly demands financial independence from government subsidies for museums. Consequently, ticket revenue accounts for a high percentage, approximately 35% to 50%. National museums like the Rijksmuseum and Van Gogh Museum have slightly higher ticket revenue percentages, around 40% to 50%, based on high admission fees of about 20 to 25 euros per person. The Stedelijk Museum, a municipal museum in Amsterdam, generates about 30% of its total revenue from ticket sales, reflecting a slightly higher proportion of municipal support and donations from contemporary art organizations compared to national museums.
Germany's national museums and cultural institutions benefit from a stable financial system centered on public subsidies, with federal and state government support accounting for 70% to 80% of total funding. As a result, ticket revenue typically represents a lower percentage, around 10% to 20%. Cultural institutions in Germany are managed under the Prussian Cultural Heritage Foundation, the world's largest cultural foundation, which oversees 17 museums and cultural institutions in Berlin, maintaining a cooperative relationship between centralized administrative support and individual brand and academic autonomy. The total revenue from institutions like the Berlin State Museums, including the Gemäldegalerie Berlin and the Alte Nationalgalerie, sees ticket revenue contributing about 10% to 15%, with most of their budgets funded by government taxes. Germany's governance model resembles France's public institutions with commercial and industrial characteristics.
In contrast, Japan's national and public cultural facilities are undergoing a financial independence policy that aims to increase self-generated revenue from 50% to over 65% by 2030, a challenging goal that reflects a strong restructuring approach.
Japan transitioned to an independent administrative institution (IAI) system in 2001, during a period of administrative reform, receiving annual operational grants from the government. However, since the establishment of this system, budgets have been cut by about 1% each year. Following the 2003 revision of the Local Autonomy Law, a designated management system was introduced, allowing local governments to outsource museum operations to private companies, non-profit organizations, or cultural foundations through bidding.
The government is under pressure to significantly reduce reliance on national subsidies. The Japanese Agency for Cultural Affairs has set medium-term goals for independent administrative institutions, stating that if they fail to cover at least 40% of their expenses with self-generated revenue within four years, they may face reorganization or closure. Additionally, a dual pricing system that charges higher admission fees for foreign tourists is expected to be implemented within five years, along with overall admission fee increases.
Evaluations of this policy are mixed. Critics express concerns that cultural access may become polarized, as significant fee increases could reduce opportunities for low-income individuals, students, seniors, and people with disabilities to engage with the arts, exacerbating cultural inequality. Furthermore, to meet revenue targets, museums may focus on blockbuster exhibitions that attract large audiences, potentially sidelining academically valuable research or niche art exhibitions. There are also concerns that cost-cutting measures could lead to a reduction in professional curators, jeopardizing the long-term preservation and research capabilities of cultural heritage. Moreover, Japan's cultural budget is only about 0.02% of GDP, significantly lower than in France or South Korea, raising criticisms that the government is shifting its responsibilities onto public institutions.
Conversely, the government argues that the aim is to reduce chronic national financial burdens and enhance the efficiency of public budgets. By strengthening the independent accounting system for museums, they seek to establish a self-sustaining cultural industry ecosystem and increase revenue through a dual pricing system for foreign tourists visiting Japan.
Ultimately, these policies highlight the conflict between viewing cultural facilities solely as revenue-generating entities and the need to uphold the public nature of culture. While emphasizing financial independence may reduce short-term national financial burdens, it poses significant risks to the intrinsic value of culture and social inclusivity in the long term. Therefore, Japan's policy raises fundamental questions about how to balance financial efficiency with cultural democracy, testing the philosophical direction of cultural policy beyond mere management issues. This has led to criticism that such policies are akin to violence against the cultural rights of citizens. Regardless, research indicates that the impact of admission fees on operations varies widely by country, region, and governance structure.
Governance That Allows for Sustainable Revenue
The issue of admission fees at the National Museum of Korea and other major national cultural institutions has gained attention as the government, specifically the Ministry of Economy and Finance, aims to reduce national financial burdens and improve asset management efficiency. The government has proposed guidelines to "realize the fees for national facilities that have long been frozen or are excessively low compared to market prices," suggesting that free admission could diminish the institution's prestige and perceived value. Consequently, discussions about implementing admission fees seem to focus more on reducing congestion due to high visitor numbers rather than on broader cultural policy considerations.Moreover, even the U.K., which has maintained a policy of free admission for national museums, is now considering charging fees for foreign tourists due to chronic financial deficits. This shift in international policy has prompted the South Korean government to reevaluate the financial independence and revenue models of public cultural institutions. The emotional aspect of why foreigners can visit for free while locals pay high admission fees has also fueled discussions, although these have recently stalled, possibly due to election-related factors.
However, the issue of admission fees is not simply a matter of emotion or a straightforward calculation of income and expenses. Ultimately, finding a balance between profitability and accessibility requires a nuanced approach rather than a blanket elimination or imposition of fees. Options may include designated free admission days, discounts for specific groups, tax-based support for local residents, attracting donors, and diversifying exhibitions and programs.
Museums must fulfill both their ethical obligation to be accessible to all and their duty to remain financially sound. Tailored policies that reflect the unique characteristics of each city and institution should aim to pursue both cultural democracy and sustainability.
This is an opportunity to reflect on the goals the government seeks to achieve through cultural policy and how to approach and manage key cultural institutions that embody the publicness, professionalism, and symbolism of South Korean culture. Decisions regarding admission fees should not be made hastily but should be the result of careful consideration.
In fact, before discussing admission fees, it is essential to reassess the governance of national cultural institutions in South Korea. The priority should be to establish a system that reflects the nation's cultural identity and philosophy, rather than merely focusing on economic efficiency or administrative convenience. Given the unclear relationship between museum revenue and admission fees, a thorough examination of the rationale for implementing fees is necessary. How will the collected fees be utilized? How will they be managed? What cultural and sociological implications do admission fees carry? These questions must be deeply considered rather than being discussed in a superficial manner.
Currently, South Korea's national museums and cultural institutions are fundamentally restricted from engaging in revenue-generating activities, sponsorships, or fundraising. Any income generated, including admission fees, is returned to the national treasury, leaving institutions without the ability to allocate funds independently. Their operational budgets rely solely on taxpayer funding from the government. In this context, what is the significance of implementing admission fees? The government calls for financial independence for cultural institutions while simultaneously maintaining a conservative system that prevents them from achieving that independence.
In the U.K., the "arm's length principle" allows the government to provide support without interference, maximizing autonomy and expertise through an independent "Arts Council" that distributes national and lottery funds while minimizing political influence. However, during economic downturns, institutions may face pressure to generate their own revenue.
France and Germany adopt a cultural state model, where the government provides extensive support and enshrines "cultural rights" in their constitutions, prioritizing publicness and equity to ensure that all citizens can enjoy high-quality culture. However, this approach raises concerns about bureaucratic administration and potential insensitivity to rapid social changes or public demands.
The Netherlands employs a social partnership model, where the government and private sector collaborate equally to make policy decisions, ensuring accountability and transparency while achieving high levels of financial independence. The U.S. follows a market facilitator model, minimizing direct support and focusing on indirect support through donations and tax incentives, promoting operational efficiency and marketing capabilities, but facing concerns about commercialization and the marginalization of basic arts.
In contrast, South Korea's cultural policy often lacks consistent principles, applying different standards at different times. National cultural institutions, even under the Ministry of Culture, operate under various governance structures, including general administrative agencies, responsible management institutions, and special corporations. This inconsistency leads to confusion, tension, and potential crises.
Institutions like the National Museum of Korea and the National Library are classified as general administrative agencies, resulting in diminished expertise due to the civil service rotation system. The National Museum of Modern and Contemporary Art and the National Theater operate as responsible management institutions, facing pressures for efficiency and profitability. The National Museum of World Writing is not a government agency but operates as a special corporation. This fragmented governance structure has led to discussions focusing solely on technical and financial measures, such as whether to incorporate or charge admission fees, while neglecting the essential values of symbolism and expertise. Discussing admission fees in this context is akin to scratching an itch without addressing the underlying issue.
Therefore, before considering the implementation of admission fees, it is crucial to establish foundational principles. These principles should guide discussions about admission fees and other related matters. To unify the governance of national cultural institutions, it is essential to first establish a philosophy that combines the Korean cultural state and arm's length principles. Given the challenges of population decline, regional extinction, and cultural polarization, the government must take responsibility for basic publicness while protecting the independence and expertise of institutions in appointing leaders and planning programs free from political influences or bureaucratic interference.
Secondly, legal and institutional statuses should be rationally unified. Enacting a National Cultural Institutions Act could group key institutions like the National Museum of Korea, the National Museum of Modern and Contemporary Art, and the National Library by their characteristics, similar to the U.K.'s non-departmental public bodies (NDPB) or France's independent institutions with artistic autonomy supported by a unified system for marketing, commercialization, and infrastructure. Establishing clear guidelines for publicness and operational efficiency could help overcome the drawbacks of the responsible management institution model. Thirdly, admission fees should be redefined in terms of cultural rights. The question of how citizens can enjoy cultural rights in spaces funded by their taxes should be approached by maintaining free admission for permanent exhibitions while establishing clear criteria for reasonable fees for special exhibitions.
Ultimately, the governance of national cultural institutions is not merely an issue of administrative efficiency but a question of what cultural philosophy the state chooses to adopt. It is a process of finding balance between publicness and expertise, efficiency and democracy, and establishing a rational and unified system is urgent. Admission fees are merely the roof; the priority should be determining how to construct the pillars before discussing the roof's design.
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.