Pay as You Wish, But You Must Pay

            Imagine a foreign visitor, with excitement and expectation, visits New York City. Certainly, he does not want to miss one of the landmarks in the center of world, the Metropolitan Museum of Art (the Met). At the entrance of the Met, he sees the prices of the admission fee (he does not understand what the word “price” means, but he recognizes the number “25” and the dollar sign “$”). He pays the full admission without a second of thought and unfortunately misses the asterik leading “suggested fee.” Would you think the visitor has been cheated?

The hypothetical anecdote might not be true. However, the scenario could turn into reality when the foreign or even Non-New-Yorker American visitor to the Met are bewildered by the admission policy of the world-class museum. Admission to the Met was free until the early 1970s, when the museum instituted a “voluntary ‘pay-what-you-wish-but -pay-something’ admission policy,” a 1993 museum bond offering prospectus said. The new policy requires visitors to pay at least a nominal amount; a penny is acceptable.

The Met has since drawn criticism over its confusing fee policy. Many visitors are baffled by the pay-what-you-wish policy; some are not even aware of it. On the admission page of museum’s official website, a bolded “recommended” comes before the price list and then at the end of the list, a small typed italicized sentence states “to help cover the costs of exhibitions, we ask that you please pay the full recommended amount.” Based on the website information, is the price “recommended”? If so, why do the visitors have to pay the full amount? The confusion not only stays on the website.

“I just asked for one adult general admissions and he just said, ‘$25,’” says Richard Johns, a high school math teacher from Little Rock, Ark., who paid the full price at the museum. “It should be made clear that it is a donation you are required to make. Especially for foreign tourists who don’t understand, they don’t know it.” The statement implies that there exist flaws in the customer service levels of the Met, which also contribute to the confusion of the policy.

“I think that’s a problem,” said Debra Caplan, a theater professor from Baruch College, “whatever they [the Met] are doing should be very clear and right now it is not. Not making it [the policy] clear just seems sort of disingenuous to me because people will get confused.”

There is an associated lawsuit brought up that alleges the world-class museum has deceived patrons over the years. “Under a clause in its original 1876 lease for the space, and according to an 1893 state law,” the suits contend, “the museum is required to allow visitors to be admitted free on most days of the week.”

The plaintiffs asked the court to order the museum to stop charging admission on free days, to inform the public that free days are available, and to make changes to signs and promotional materials to prevent visitors from being misled about the policy. A museum spokesman called the suit an “insupportable nuisance.” He added that the museum’s policy of asking people to pay at least something has been in place for more than forty years.

“The agreement with the city specifies that there has to be some minimal contribution,” said Harold Holzer, the Met’s senior vice president for public affairs. “There are people who express their own interpretation of the policy by paying very little. But something is required.”

According to the Met’s modified lease with New York City in 1893, the Met was required to offer free admission two evenings and five days a week in exchange with the free use of city-owned land. Rent today would cost the museum about $368 million per year. Yet, the power to charge hasn’t been added into the lease; however, it has been re-affirmed by Bloomberg administration recently.

The case is suspended. It is possible that if the Met failed, other museums in the city carrying out a similar policy of “suggested fee” would also be affected, such as the Brooklyn Museum and the American Museum of Natural History.

“The museum was designed to be open to everyone, without regard to their financial circumstances,” said Arnold Weiss, one of two attorneys who filed the lawsuit on behalf of three museum-goers, a New Yorker and two tourists from the Czech Republic. “But instead, the museum has been converted into an elite tourist attraction.”

What Arnold Weiss stated points to another question: is the Met even authorized to charge people? Is it fulfilling the responsibility of trying to make more people aware of art and improve their appreciation for art? Or is it just taking advantage of the policy to gain profits? Who make the rules?

Due to insufficient municipal funding in 1970, the Met and the City established the current pay-what-you-wish policy even though it has never been officially written into the lease. The Met claimed that it charges people to achieve a balanced budget.

Noticeably, according to the Museum’s Annual Report of 2012, the admission fee only counts for fifteen percent of the total revenue of the institution while the museum’s endowment is from two to three billion dollars and provides much more of the income for operations about thirty-four percent. The admission fee relieves, but not eliminates, the high expense of the museum.

The confusion over the legitimacy of the charge also necessitates the examination of the history of the Met and the purpose of a public art institution. The statement of purpose of the Met clarifies that the institution existed to “furnish popular instruction and recreation.” The Trustees of The Metropolitan Museum of Art reaffirmed the statement by adding the statement of mission, which supplemented the original statement with “in the service of the public and in accordance with the highest professional standards.” Serving the public becomes one of the focuses of the Met.

“It is important to make clear as we sign this amendment that we remain very much committed to maintaining—and further widening—public access to the Museum,” Thomas P. Campbell, Director and CEO of the Metropolitan, said at the time of the lease amendment’s signing on October 21, 2013.

The purpose of the Met was written, but the power to charge changed elastically. It is challenging to draw a line between the purpose of a public art institution and the intention to charge people. The Met wants people to pay but it also needs more public access by providing free admission. The conflict is challenging to solve but what the Met can do is to clarify the policy and make people less confused.

 

Works Cited

Kennedy, Randy. “New York City Amends Fee Policy for a Visit to the Met.” The New York Times 24 Oct. 2013. Web. 19 Nov. 2013.

Lyall, Sarah. “Seeking Clarity on Fees at the Metropolitan Museum.” The New York Times 7 Oct. 2013. Web. 19 Nov. 2013.

Peralta, Eyder. “New York’s Met Museum Is Sued Over ‘Deceptive’ Entrance Fees.”National Public Ratio 25 Mar. 2013. Web. 19 Nov. 2013.