Haydain Neale, 1970–2009
Transit City and Transit Cities
Newsstand: November 23, 2009
The Making of a Medley
Rebuilding a Child's Paradise
Ever since the Art Gallery of Ontario reopened its doors in November, its free Wednesday nights have been a big hit. The cultural access initiative has been a popular smash (gallery users line up in droves for the evening and crowd the museum’s spaces with a palpable enthusiasm) and a media slam-dunk (Toronto’s other big renovated museum, the Royal Ontario Museum, did away with their free Fridays upon reopening and came off more elitist as a result).
But as of this month, free Wednesday nights at the AGO come with some fine print and potential fees attached. Its new blockbuster exhibition "Surreal Things," which opened May 9, charges for entry each and every day, including Wednesday nights.
The admission fee for "Surreal Things" is, at least, discounted on Wednesday nights. According to AGO publicist Antonietta Mirabelli, the discount “is about thirty percent.” This means that on Wednesdays adults pay $12.50 for "Surreal Things" versus $18 during the week, seniors pay $10.50 rather than $15, and students pay $7 versus $10. The value pack for families who want to see "Surreal Things" costs $30 on Wednesday nights, instead of $45. Museum passes obtained through the library’s popular Museum and Arts Pass program cannot be used for "Surreal Things," only for the permanent collection. (At press time, this information about Wednesday night fees for "Surreal Things" was not yet up on the AGO website. Mirabelli says she expects it to be up soon.)
While it’s true that many other museums charge for special exhibitions on their “open access” days, one wonders if the AGO's discount couldn’t be a little more generous. At the Montreal Museum of Fine Arts, special exhibitions are fifty percent off for adults on Wednesday nights, going from a regular fee of $15 to a discounted admission of $7.50. At the Museum of Modern Art, special exhibitions are free on Friday nights along with general admission to the permanent collection.
While the AGO is at least trying (some museums, like the National Gallery of Canada, charge full price for special exhibitions on their “free” evening, and other museums, as pointed out above, have done away with free access altogether), it’s worth considering how many of these types of fine-print fees Torontonians will have to expect in the future—even with the $18 million the AGO recently received from the province.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
There's a part of me that's disappointed about people not being able to access such a great exhibit for free (and it is a nice one). Costs for special exhibits are nothing new, as I suspect there's some kind of cost recuperation that is taking place here.
The cost of seeing this particular exhibit is no more than heading out to your local Cineplex for a movie. It's just a matter of choosing.
I am proud that Leah's advocacy for museum and gallery accessibility is now appearing on Torontoist.
As for "Surreal Things"... it's interesting but certainly not worth $12.50, let alone $18. Especially considering that it costs, I think, another $5 for the audio tour. Screw that. (I was fortunate enough to see it during the member's preview... I got a very good deal on a membership.)
You're right Jonathan... the exhibit isn't worth the $12.50 or $18. I also saw the preview on the Wednesday night and I think the AGO should be as accessible as possible to all. There are some fantastic pieces.
As for the $12.50.. there are more than a few times where I bought a ticket to a movie, enjoyed it but didn't quite feel that I got all I paid for. That's the unfortunate reality in this case perhaps. The AGO is competing against so many other "entertainment options". It's all in the perceived value.
Hey guys,
Thanks for your comments.
Just FYI debates around admissions fees have recently heated up in Chicago around the reopening of one of their museum's designer renos. The TIME mag art critic here talks with a museum head about bringing admissions down from $20 back to permanent movie-fee-or-less prices -- yes, even perhaps free.
http://lookingaround.blogs.time.com/2009/05/21/more-talk-with-jim-cuno/
We should ask the same questions of our museum heads, no?
it kills me that the same people who advocate to "support art" are the same people advocating to not support it.
seeing art ≠ support
paying to see art or artists = support
your like those people that never want to pay to see your favorite band and demand free guestlist/admission.
ttg: anyone with half a brain will always try to get something for nothing. I guess you're too principled for that.
Not too sure about that. If you support something you'll have no problem supporting it, rather than leaching.
I guess I'm far to principled to expect "free" for something I "apparently" am supportive of.
torontothegreat: Don't our tax dollars already pay to support institutions—aren't we all already, to some extent, "paying to see art or artists" at places like the AGO? Isn't, then, any admission fee at an institution like the AGO basically paying twice? Isn't that the whole idea behind it, and how it works in other countries where galleries are free? (I may be totally wrong about this, but if I am, hopefully someone can explain to me where the Ontario government's getting all its money from to help support the arts institutions.)
Firstly, only SOME people's tax money pays to support institutions. It depends on the individual and the sorts of taxes they pay. Sort of irrelevant though, but worth mentioning.
These figures are old (circa 2000), but to give you an idea
Earned 21%
Private 26%
Other 4%
Government 49%
So as you can see, yes a large portion comes from tax dollars, but there is also a substantial amount that comes from ticket prices.
There is a price to have great shows/exhibits. To do renovations, etc. Otherwise it's a stale gallery, which are in great numbers in this country.
I don't mind paying a mere 20 dollars (3 pints) to see exhibits that many people in the rest of Canada do not have access to, usually for lack of funding, not interest (hey that's what happens when you depend entirely on government funding).
Now don't get me wrong, I do in fact feel that (especially) the AGO should be accessible to virtually everybody. Welfare, EI recipients should get free access (always), students, should get either a huge discount or free access as well. People like you or I, should pony up and pay the 20 bucks (assuming you're not any of the above lol).
Also I feel that free admission and 100% dependence puts the gallery in a very bad business position. Entertain the idea that one day a new Harris government will come in and your free gallery will have it's funding cut. Having 100% reliance on public funding would make it very hard for the gallery to survive in this scenario.
>Isn't that the whole idea behind it, and how it works in other countries where galleries are free?
Sorry hit send to quickly. Most of the 'free' galleries in the world such as London England are funded by the lottery. So gamblers are essentially paying the door price for you.
I'm totally fine with this model too, as long as the incoming money from the OLG is future proofed to never go away.
Dear Toronto the Great,
Since the thought never seems to have occurred to you, I'll state it baldly: Asking institutions to make sure their admission is accessible and affordable to all IS a way of supporting the arts.
Why? Because it means saying "You know what? The visual arts are important enough that everyone should have access to them, just like we want everyone to have access to reading and text literacy resources through the library."
Speaking of which, do you have a problem with the library being free too? Or is that an insult to writers and publishers everywhere? I'd like to see you make the same case in that instance.
Supporting the arts also means saying "Please fundraise, boards of directors, not only for new buildings, but also to make sure the people who actually *own these collections and buildings* (ie the public) can have access to them."
ToG, you presume that asking museums to make admission accessible means I'm asking them to cut staff and hours--or not pay artists. Far from it.
I'm just asking museum boards and CEOs to do their jobs--which is to at once preserve the collections and protect exhibitions that they hold in the public trust, as well as to make those collections available to the public (not just the wealthy public) in engaging and important ways.
Further, demanding "support of the arts" through improved admission access is also important in another way. It helps ensure that the arts do not become, as they have been so criticized by our current federal government, an elitist-only interest.
The money's out there, Toronto the Great, and some specialized sponsors, like the Meighen Foundation, who help support the AGO's Wednesday's programs are to be saluted. But tell me there's hundreds of millions for a building, no problem, and not a couple million for accessible admission? Give me a break.
Leah Sandals: libraries have always been free. Museums and Provincial art galleries haven't. It's hyperbole Leah Sandals and I'm not a fan of red herring, it stinks as much as your pompous attitude, Leah Sandals.
I covered "accessible for all" in my post, Leah Sandals. If you failed to comprehend it, Leah Sandals you should probably spend more time at one of our free libraries around the city, Leah Sandals.
>Supporting the arts also means saying "Please fundraise, boards of directors, not only for new buildings, but also to make sure the people who actually *own these collections and buildings* (ie the public) can have access to them."
You mean like charging for admission to those that can afford it? Seems a bit like fund-raising to me. Also, as I previously pointed out with my older stats, fund-raising is a huge part of how museums and galleries get money.
>ToG, you presume that asking museums to make admission accessible means I'm asking them to cut staff and hours--or not pay artists. Far from it.
Please quote me. Otherwise, stop being so presumptuous, Leah Sandals. What I'm saying is that museums and galleries already DO fundraising, they already GET funding from private and public sources, Leah Sandals. Having people PAY for art and exihibitions creates an ADDITIONAL revenue stream of income for the art community, Leah Sandals, thus solidifying it's future AND opening up more doors. Relying soley on government funding is a: "put all our eggs in one basket" mentality, Leah Sandals and the government isn't exactly the most reliable source of revenue. If you want to become critical of business practices and proposals Leah Sandals, you should probably become a professional first.
>Further, demanding "support of the arts" through improved admission access is also important in another way. It helps ensure that the arts do not become, as they have been so criticized by our current federal government, an elitist-only interest.
Actually I would argue that it causes dependency. My proposal would actually offer much more autonomy for these galleries and museums. I think you'll have to explain your logic on this one as I find it to be completely illogical from a business perspective.
>I'm just asking museum boards and CEOs to do their jobs
They are by raising enough money to create a new gallery/museum. They are by bringing in special attractions. They also are by charging for admission. I'm sure the list could go on. These are a few glaring examples to me.
>make those collections available to the public (not just the wealthy public)
20 dollars a head is what you consider as a starting point for "not just the wealthy public"? A tad more hyberbole for your cheerios this morning?
>But tell me there's hundreds of millions for a building, no problem, and not a couple million for accessible admission? Give me a break.
It's a very short sighted comment IMHO. It's much easier to raise funds for something NEW then it is for something related to operational costs. I agree, the Meighen Foundation should be commended, but it's unwise to look at this as a fool proof business model. Most private investors aren't interested in non-PR-related "giving". Furthermore, there aren't exactly thousands of Lords or Barons throwing money around.
ps. Repeating one's username is a tad obnoxious isn't it? It's clear your talking to me, you don't have to keep repeating yourself, Leah.
Dear Toronto the Great --
It's too bad we're locked in conflict here, as it's clear that both of us value museums, and want them to succeed. We probably have more in common than we think. But it's also clear we seem to differ on how museums should operate.
There are many museums and art galleries worldwide, both in the past and in the present, that operate on various principles of accessible admission. Some have full admission charges during the daytime, and none at night, like the Prado. Some have full admission during the week, with one night free, like the MoMA. Some have free access to the permanent collection with paid admission to temporary exhibitions, as at the Montreal Museum of Fine Arts. So there are many practical examples, historical and otherwise, of ensuring more equitable admissions to public collections.
I would also argue that history (which you point to) needn't set the standard for what is correct and fair in our current moment. Or maybe you think women shouldn't be allowed to go to art school, just as it was in the good old days? Or that museums shouldn't create online exhibitions for those who can't attend in person, just as it also was in the good old days?
I'm quite aware that museums already do a lot of fundraising. And I'm happy that they are willing to seek funds from many sources, government, corporate and otherwise. So we agree on the point that multiple sources of funding are likely better than fewer sources.
But museums also *spend* a lot of money and they *make key decisions* about what sectors to spend that money in. I'm suggesting that they take a long hard look at prioritizing, rather than downplaying, access within their budgets. The reasons are the ones I've outlined -- fairness and decency, as well as a healthy self-interest. In terms of the former, all monies the museum obtains are subsidized by the public either through taxpayer funding or through tax receipt. So it's only fair that the public has access. In terms of the latter, government funding for museums is bound to drop even more if taxpayers/voters don't get broad access. Lack of access = lack of popular support.
As for the question of whether $20 is affordable as an admission rate, well... I guess you're in a much more fortunate financial position than most Torontonians. Much of my thinking around issues of affordability is driven by a 2007 report that indicated 30% of Toronto families are living in poverty. (You can find a related article here: http://www.thestar.com/article/279839) Do you really think $20 is affordable to them? And to the other 21% of Toronto families that make up the majority? I strongly doubt it, though I would welcome more studies to clarify these what constitues affordability.
Bottom line: We may not have many lords or barons rolling around, as you say, but museums are still raising many many millions of dollars from government, corporations and private donors—millions all given in the name of a public trust.
So it's only right (as well as doable, given appropriate management skill) to prioritize and organize museum budgets so that that trusting public has decent--rather than decreasing--levels of access.
Leah Sandals out.
Dear Toronto the Great --
It's too bad we're locked in conflict here, as it's clear that both of us value museums, and want them to succeed. We probably have more in common than we think. But it's also clear we seem to differ on how museums should operate.
There are many museums and art galleries worldwide, both in the past and in the present, that operate on various principles of accessible admission. Some have full admission charges during the daytime, and none at night, like the Prado. Some have full admission during the week, with one night free, like the MoMA. Some have free access to the permanent collection with paid admission to temporary exhibitions, as at the Montreal Museum of Fine Arts. So there are many practical examples, historical and otherwise, of ensuring more equitable admissions to public collections.
I would also argue that history (which you point to) needn't set the standard for what is correct and fair in our current moment. Or maybe you think women shouldn't be allowed to go to art school, just as it was in the good old days? Or that museums shouldn't create online exhibitions for those who can't attend in person, just as it also was in the good old days?
I'm quite aware that museums already do a lot of fundraising. And I'm happy that they are willing to seek funds from many sources, government, corporate and otherwise. So we agree on the point that multiple sources of funding are likely better than fewer sources.
But museums also *spend* a lot of money and they *make key decisions* about what sectors to spend that money in. I'm suggesting that they take a long hard look at prioritizing, rather than downplaying, access within their budgets. The reasons are the ones I've outlined -- fairness and decency, as well as a healthy self-interest. In terms of the former, all monies the museum obtains are subsidized by the public either through taxpayer funding or through tax receipt. So it's only fair that the public has access. In terms of the latter, government funding for museums is bound to drop even more if taxpayers/voters don't get broad access. Lack of access = lack of popular support.
As for the question of whether $20 is affordable as an admission rate, well... I guess you're in a much more fortunate financial position than most Torontonians. Much of my thinking around issues of affordability is driven by a 2007 report that indicated 30% of Toronto families are living in poverty. (You can find a related article here: http://www.thestar.com/article/279839) Do you really think $20 is affordable to them? And to the other 21% of Toronto families that make up the majority? I strongly doubt it, though I would welcome more studies to clarify these what constitues affordability.
Bottom line: We may not have many lords or barons rolling around, as you say, but museums are still raising many many millions of dollars from government, corporations and private donors—millions all given in the name of a public trust.
So it's only right (as well as doable, given appropriate management skill) to prioritize and organize museum budgets so that that trusting public has decent--rather than decreasing--levels of access.
Leah Sandals out.
Oops, sorry to hit "submit" twice there. I must really like the sound of my own voice.
The ROM has free admission on Wednesdays between 4.30 and 5.30, and half-price admission on Fridays between 4.30 and 9.30, which includes admission to the permanent collection and special exhibitions (but not the separately ticketed ones, like the Dead Sea Scrolls exhibit).
I'm surprised that no one has mentioned the MAP program run by Sun-Life and the Toronto Public Library (http://www.torontopubliclibrary.ca/spe_ser_museum_arts_pass.jsp) . Short story - every Saturday morning, every library in the city gives out free family passes to most museums/galleries in the city on a first come, first serve basis - 3 or 5 for each venue. No, special collections are not included, but it's a great chance not only to see the classics at the AGO, but to also check out lesser known places like the Bata Show museum and the Museum of Inuit Art. It's underwritten by Sun-life Financial, which means a corporate sponsor is supporting ACCESS to the arts, not just the housing of it. By teaming up with the library system, they have put the passes in front of people who are most likely to be interested in them. Sounds like someone on some board of directors was doing their job - and whoever it was, I'd like to thank them!
@Beingclear - I'm aware the ROM is half-price Fridays, but would also point out that it used to be completely free. Progression or digression on their part?
@SusanAdsett - Thanks for pointing out the MAP program. I did mention it in the original post. And I got nothing against more access -- but as I have pointed out here and elsewhere in the past, a library program should act as a supplement to existing free hours at museums -- not a substitution, as has been the case at the ROM and the Gardiner. In the end, I wish galleries would act more like libraries rather than simply making libraries the gatekeepers. Also, the Sun Life funding is only temporary for the next year or so -- can we rely on it in the future? If not, what shall we do?
why was leah sandals response to beingclear removed?
okay that was wierd, as soon as I submitted this comment her reply appeared, but I was unable to view it previously from 3 different computers :/
It's a problem on our end right now; some saved comments don't show up on the entry themselves, but do show up in the sidebar and saved on our server's backend—but aren't published on the individual entry until the page is resaved or a new comment added after it. It's being fixed now; we usually don't unpublish comments without some kind of note.