RE: Galleries & Museums in New York City - Photography
Yes, but this is an article from a newspaper? As such, it is always clearly vague. Of course they cannot say what I said in my email (that they want to charge but they don't want to call it admission fee). It says part of city-owned institution, that probably is just a way of saying their on-profit status. I mean, it could still be because it's owned by the city, but the thing is, if you go to other museums, you see the same thing too. If you go to the Museum of Arts of the University of Michigan, which is clearly owned by the University and not by the city of Ann Arbor, you see the same sign for "suggested donation" instead of "admission fee." I think it is for the same reason, if you charge admission fee, it is no longer a donation. Dave > -----Original Message----- > From: Thom Mitchell [mailto:tjmitch@ix.netcom.com] > Sent: Friday, August 17, 2007 5:06 PM > To: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca > Subject: Re: Galleries & Museums in New York City - Photography > > Here's why the it's a donation versus a fee. > > http://www.nysun.com/article/35947 > > ...snip.... > The suggested-donation policy is a requirement of being part > of what is called the Cultural Institutions Group, a group of > 34 New York City-owned institutions that also includes the > American Museum of Natural History, the Brooklyn Academy of > Music, the Brooklyn Museum, and the Bronx Zoo. As part of the > same deal, the city provides 11% of the Met's total budget, > according the Department of Cultural Affairs. In the last > fiscal year, this came to about $24,598,000, an amount that > contributed to general operating costs, as well as paying for > heat, light, and power. > ....snip... > > > > > Judy Seigel wrote: > > > > What Dave Soemarko says about "donation," etc., seems quite > plausible > > -- given the kind of "logic" we can expect from gummint, > though these > > things can also reshape themselves over time. Maybe some day a > > journalism professor will assign a project to dig out the > definitive > > answer(s)... > > > > Meanwhile, Doug's comment below starts another train of thought -- > > maybe the optional part for the Met and the Brooklyn Museum > is because > > they are recipients of city funds that the others are not. > (Remember > > when Mayor Rudy Giuliani tried to cut off funding for the Brooklyn > > Museum because its show of enfants terribles from England included > > Chris Offili's Virgin Mary supported on feet of > gold-wrapped "elephant > > dung" ? ... [can I say I hope he gets the Republican nomination > > without getting put off the list? OK, probably not, > fuggedaboud it]).... > > > > Maybe the "optional" entry fee is so, with all that public > money, they > > wouldn't be called elitist? (And/or the folks I heard from > about their > > admission experience were suffering from liberal guilt.) > > > > I will add, BTW, lest I discourage folks from joining the Met, that > > "membership" includes 4 issues/year of the Metropolitan > Museum of Art > > Bulletin (about new acquisitions, & other special themes), > beautifully > > illustrated in color, with essays by the curators et al, -- > worth the > > membership price on their own (assuming one has time to read them). > > > > cheers, > > > > Judy > > > > > > On Wed, 15 Aug 2007, Doug Wade wrote: > >> > >> When I was there about a year ago the suggested donation had just > >> gone up to $20. I guess since it's owned by the city they can't > >> charge an explicit admission. We arrived rather late in > the day and > >> knew we wouldn't be able to see a great deal, handed them > a $20 and > >> said "two, please" and got zero guff from the ticket lady. > >> > >> Doug > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > >
|