• Home
  • About
    • For What it’s Worth
    • Michael Rushton
    • Contact
  • AJBlogs
  • ArtsJournal

For What It's Worth

Michael Rushton on pricing the arts

Why does the Indianapolis Museum of Art have Free Admission?

March 4, 2013 by Michael Rushton 3 Comments

free lovePreamble: I know what I don’t know. Specifically, when looking at any arts organization and its menu of prices, I do not have insider knowledge of its current or potential audience, its donors, or its costs. So when I comment on the price structure of any specific museum or other arts firm, I do so only by asking questions, not by advising what it should or should not change. And with that cleared up …

Why does the Indianapolis Museum of Art have free admission? In her neighboring blog, Judith Dobrzynski describes the fiscal troubles at the IMA, with layoffs to come. She quotes IMA director Charles Venable as stating there needs to be an increased emphasis on “earned revenue”, and less reliance on endowment. I’ll have to confess that I’ve never understood the free admission policy in the first place. Yes, there are admission fees for special exhibitions, but at the moment all exhibitions are free as well.

Furthermore, Indianapolis residents are accustomed to paying admission fees. The Indiana State Museum is not free, the Eiteljorg Museum is not free, the Children’s Museum is emphatically not free. So it is not as if competition has driven the IMA to free admission.

Also, the IMA is not in a location to which one walks. You drive there. Visitors have enough of an investment in wanting to see the art that they are willing to make a journey of it. Which suggests to me that a moderate admission fee would not deter many visitors, given they are already willing to pay a cost in travel time.

And if the goal is an intended benefit to lower-income people interested in art, I can only direct to my earlier post on whether this is the best means of targeting benefits to such folk.

Again, I don’t know the details of the IMA’s visitors, or other potential sources of revenue. But from the outside at least, the policy is something of a mystery.

Share:

  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to print (Opens in new window)

Related

Filed Under: issues Tagged With: free, museums

Comments

  1. BobG says

    March 4, 2013 at 8:59 pm

    According to Wikipedia, the IMA had a history of free admissions until 2006, when a $7 entrance fee was instituted. The entrance fee lasted only about a year. It was dropped when attendance fell off. Reinstituting the free policy doubled the attendance numbers in the ensuing years. Interestingly, the IMA received a National Medal for Museum and Library Service in 2009 and one of the reasons cited was the free admissions policy.

    Reply
  2. Jay says

    March 5, 2013 at 7:04 am

    I am an arts educator, and I can say that an admission fee is a serious barrier to getting my students to view art in person. If the goal of the museum is to interest more, and a wider variety of, people in visual art, then an admissions fee is counterproductive. Major museums (cough–Art Institute of Chicago–cough) can get away with it but not the IMA. Frankly it’s not in that league and never will be despite their ambitions.

    Reply
  3. Sydney burden says

    December 12, 2014 at 9:46 pm

    Since the announced price increase to 18 dollars from “free” by the IMA, I can agree with both the necessity and it’s shortcoming. As a former BSAM grad, I would theorize that a more level cross marketing plan might have helped with the sticker shock seen by the public. Possibly by lowering the price of special exhibits (20 to 10 dollars) and increasing general admission to only 10 dollars. Or including the price of parking in admission, alleviating the need for a parking attendant (if so, or related costs). Of course, special exhibitions like (George O’Keefe) are planned years in advance and require large budgets, and interest the most to attend. The price seems reasonable in comparison to many other museums. But, by not protecting the barrier for art and income, a trend arises (I.e. Disposable income/predominately Elitist consuming/influencing art). Very many factors for the board to consider. I do believe art consumption should come with an admission fee that’s reasonable at defining the value to the customer, without deterring their investment (easier said than done).

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Michael Rushton

Michael Rushton teaches in the Arts Administration programs at Indiana University in Bloomington. An economist by training, he has published widely on such topics as public funding of the arts, copyright, nonprofit organizations and tax policy, and served as Co-Editor of the Journal of Cultural Economics. At IU he teaches Read More…

About For What It’s Worth

What’s the price? Everything has one; admission, subscriptions, memberships, special exhibitions, box seats, refreshments, souvenirs, and on and on – a full menu. What the price is matters. Generally, nonprofit arts organizations in the US receive about half of their revenue as “earned income,” and … [Read More...]

Archives

Recent Comments

  • Heather Beasley on Artists’ guaranteed income, and how to do arts policy analysis: “The difficult part will be assessing “better art” – post-modernism basically destroyed generally-agreed-upon critical standards for artistic merit. “More art”…” Mar 25, 07:51
  • Antonio C. Cuyler on Does arts’ share of GDP matter?: “Comparing the U. S. funding scheme to other countries’ seems like comparing apples to pears because folx typically compare direct…” Mar 20, 07:39
  • Paul Kassel on Does arts’ share of GDP matter?: “I also chafe at justifying the arts via economic indicators, but in a capitalist society it’s the lingua Franca and…” Mar 20, 05:05
  • Chris on Really, it is OK for a college to sell art: “Not okay, ever, for a museum to sell works that were given expressly to be shown, cared for and used…” Mar 19, 06:51
  • Antonio C. Cuyler on Does arts’ share of GDP matter?: “As always, Michael, I also appreciate you posing the question. It’s very important, especially in juxtaposition with politicians, i. e.…” Mar 18, 07:25
Return to top of page

an ArtsJournal blog

This blog published under a Creative Commons license

Copyright © 2023 · Magazine Pro Theme on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in