In an article in The Art Newspaper Online that was posted
yesterday, a New York Supreme Court judge ruled that the Metropolitan Museum of
Art’s suggested admission fee does not violate the original lease with the city
which “seeks to make the museum accessible to a broad public.” Judge Kornreich ruled in favor of the museum,
stating that the “admission to the Met is de facto free for all” because “a de
minimus contribution of a penny is accepted.” Despite the Judge’s ruling and
the dismissal of the “majority” of two lawsuits filed against the museum, what
will still proceed for further review in court is the claim that the “museum
misleads visitors into believing they must pay the full admission fee to gain
access to the museum.” And this is something I couldn’t agree with more having
been one of the many unaware of the admission fee as a “suggested donation.”
The deceptive approach of the Metropolitan is off putting to
say the least. Although the Met is primarily about the objects it contains,
evident in their envious and overwhelmingly extensive collection of art from
around the world, the deceptive nature of the Met has frayed the trust of the
public. Everywhere one turns, admission fees are posted. With a hefty $25 a
head for admission, it is no surprise the upset experienced by visitors who
were given the runaround when they asked the tellers if the admission fee was
in fact, just a “suggested donation.” And even more upsetting for the majority
of the public who were unaware that this admission fee was, in fact, a “suggested”
admission fee. As a public institution, Cuno states, “museums are expected to
act and behave in a way that is in keeping with the perceived values they
embody,” that of integrity and benefit to the public. By misleading visitors
into believing they must pay the full admission fee violates public trust in
the museum.
But with little to define what constitutes acting within the
public trust, it is no surprise that many museums, including the Met, have
failed in one aspect or another, the public and themselves. The success and
popularity of art museums have forced museums to change in keeping with the times.
As such, they compete intensely with one another, “as well as with other
cultural venues and forms of entertainment for funding, attention and prestige.”
This transformation of the museum is a point made strongly by Albert Ten Eyck
Gardner, a curator at the Met:
“[The museum] is in fact a modern hybrid with the mingled
characteristics of the cathedral, the royal palace, the theater, the school,
the library, and according to some critics, the department store. As the
emphasis or activity shifts, the character of the organization changes. Thus
when the Museum serves a s place of entertainment it takes on the dramatic
quality of the theater, when it is used for scholarly purposes it can become an
ivory tower, when its educational activities are stressed it becomes a school.
In the family of social institutions invented by man, the place of the museum
is not fixed. It is pliant and develops in many directions, or sometimes moves
simultaneously in several directions.”
What is clear here is that the evolution of the museum to
one of consumerism, commercialization and entertainment will inevitably raise
questions among the public as the museum continues to fall under scrutiny.
Competition and funding, among others, will surely create times of questionable
action as they fight to remain at top. And as such, the public trust will continue
to be tested as they watch the museum take its course.
Lowry, Glenn D. “A Deontological Approach to Art Museums and
the Public Trust.”
Halperin, Julia. “Judge Upholds Met’s Suggested Admission Fees.” The
Art Newspaper. 30 October 2013.
No comments:
Post a Comment