Museums are a vital part of any nation’s cultural life, and high visitor numbers are a desirable indicator of their health and popularity. However, it seems to me that making museums universally free is unnecessary, and even counter-productive, in our efforts to make them more attractive.
For one thing, we should remember that many potential visitors to museums are able to pay an admission charge and would not object to this. For example, in London, we see many thousands of wealthy tourists who have paid large sums to travel, and for whom a modest entry charge would be no inconvenience. Indeed, applying a small fee would enable museums to collect revenue which could be used to conserve the exhibits, extend the collections and put on further displays and so on. This would in turn make the institution more attractive, so that more visitors arrive. The Guggenheim museums in the USA and Europe are an interesting example of museums which constantly refresh their contents in this way. Finally, we should remember that not all museums are publicly owned, and indeed there are numerous smaller, private institutions (for example in Russia or the Middle East) which rely on entry fees to survive. Abolishing such fees would be vastly expensive in terms of state subsidies, and would surely have little impact on visitor numbers.
Admittedly, I agree with those who say that universally free museums are a symbol of an equal and advanced society, showcasing national heritage and learning for everyone. However, the use of affordable entry fees (certainly with exemptions for children, the unemployed, students and others) may well add to the museums’ effectiveness as such showcases.
Overall, I feel that modest charges are justifiable, and indeed useful, in our efforts to broaden access and improve our museums, provided that nobody is excluded on the grounds of cost.