Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
...is a question I've just read.
great british public - quotes
Let's nip this in the bud by answering it.
(I'm not totally sure what the answer is though.)
Even subsidised council-run sports centres aren't wildly cheap if you want to go the recommended three-to-five times a week whereas you're only going to go to each museum once and hence use it much less regularly.
Labour made some progress on that front with free swimming for under 16s and over 60s, while there are plenty of ways of keeping active without ever stepping over the threshold of a Sports Centre.
i.e. the question is too broad brush to be a fundamentally truthful starting point.
Everything gets paid for at some point by someone and it's a case of whether focussed freebies (like free swimming) outweigh universally equal access (be that free or paid for).
So perhaps the real question is what kind of public money spend goes on sport vs art, all told.
You'd also have to do some kind of cost benefit analysis of how much museum visits contribute to increased school performance and resultant economic activity of graduates etc, and also factor in the monetary costs of poor health costs to the NHS and society.
It's pretty difficult to do it without considering things in isolation.
It should also be noted that very unhealthy people are often given free access to council run sports halls and facilities as par of their treatment.
And then of course the cost-benefit analysis would still be flawed, because the stated benefits of art aren't limited to tangible things like school performance and economic activity.
But I'm not?
^Alt+0160. Drop one in before the first quotemark.
but you can't (generally) see art in a museum.
but yeah, fair question.
eh? Eh? EH?
but yes ^this
Especially if, on a strictly utilitarian basis, you think about their benefit to their immediate community.
both should probably be free in an ideal world. Not sure you can really compare the two directly though and not really convinced both aren't just as important as each other in very different ways.
but I think if it came to black and white your town can have or the other which will it be I'd have to pick leisure centre.
I know galleries and museums, in terms of employment, tourism, ancillary benefits like education etc are all important and it warms my heart that so many are free and accessible to all, but with rising obesity and whatever else, maybe resources should be allocated differently. Private galleries like the Courtauld are a great success. People who want to experience that are generally willing to pay for it. Go round the Tate and the main bulk of people will still be French school parties. But I suppose you could argue private gyms do very well too. I dunno.
Why on earth are museums free?
a nominal charge would boost their popularity, and generally people's respect for them, also would solve funding issues.
You do realise how much better it's been since most museums were made free - 'by making them free we imply they have no value' - that's nonsense, how'd you make that extrapolation.
What I'm saying is if people had to make a financial sacrifice, however small, they would be placing a value on it. If you give something a price, it must be worth something, if you give it away for free, maybe not...
Price of everything, value of nothing....
(You were right yesterday when you said you'll be back in action properly when parliament returns. I guess this is just a pre-season warm-up.)
And wouldn't a nominal charge do so?
TBF, I'm playing with ideas on this one, I know you're missing CG.
I guess the whole thing underlying the badly/bluntly put question could quickly boil down to a pretty partisan level pretty quickly. But I'm betting that there are many subtelties that need to be taken into account that would undermine any attempt to treat this as an example of a fundamental 'state provided, and free at the point of entry' vs 'market driven, at no cost to the state' type thing.
In short: dunno.
he seemed pretty interested in British Military Fitness a while back.
Mind you, in troll persona, he'd be anti free sport and anti free museums.
it can only be intentional.
and they're usually pretty full. It's like letting the visitor decide the value for themselves once they've been in and seen it all. From outside many will just think "Pfft, a fiver to get in there? Fuck that."
and that's not exactly short of visitors.
The rest of us will enjoy having free ones here
And when I visit museums here I make sure I always give a donation, so I've given something in return for the experience.
I did think about him when I typed that.
There's no problem.
My point is we have enough anti-intellectualism in this country, if we make a stand and say *no, no matter how small an amount, you have to pay to see this, because it is awesome, and brilliant and something to be proud of* maybe just maybe people would start to believe that museums are awesome and worth what we spend on them
then surely museums being free encourages more people to go who wouldn't normally go/would be unwilling to pay. Even if none of them give any money, who knows, some of them may take something from it.
Just as long as that something isn't an original Van Gogh.
In a culture where the muses have very literally been evicted, you have to start the fight back on the the current situation's terms. We live in a time when everything has a price, and we assume that anything that doesn't is worthless (look at the middle classes opinions on the average state school), lets at least try it for a year, the free publicicty for public buildings would be worth it alone. You might even get some angry rich socialists offering to pay people's admissions. Lets just try something, eh?
Less than ten years ago in fact (1st December 2001 was when they were opened up for free). In the following five years, the number of visits rose by 83% compared to the previous five years.
I leave you to draw your own conclusions.
Increased London's cultural tourism over this period? And that museums became the default for school trips?
Had been on an upward tend for a while.
(it's not entirely, because regional museums have benefited just as much as the likes of the V&A), then that's still got to be of net benefit to the UK. A moderate increase in subsidy leads to a big upswing in tourism.
As for the BM - irrelevant - it never charged in the first place. Figures for somewhere like the V&A, or National Portrait Gallery would be more relevant.
"Since the introduction of universal free access in December 2001, visits to the national museums in England that used to charge for entrance have increased by 151%."
"Visits to national museums which have always been free - such as the British Museum, National Gallery and Tate - rose by 22% over the same period."
...or the same people going more often?
If it was £15 then my argument stands, if it was £1 a go then I'm wrong about altering attendance (but I stand by my point that we should try and express to the wrld that these places have*value*).
I would never want to go to a model where public museums were trying to be anything like self sustaining. But a nominal charge, as well as being a small source of extra funding, would hopefully get people thinking about these things.
But I suspect you know that and are just bullshitting.
To me, the only way this would wake people up would be all the publicity after the year is over and they become free again.
people thinking "Well I better go and see it before the government start making me pay for it. FUCKING TORIES etc."
Or maybe the idea that there's something elitist and exclusionary about culture and the arts would become more firmly entrenched.
When the first entirely free libraries were opened in the UK there were overnight queues to enter, people had a respect for learning and knowledge (or maybe they just didn;t have television). Why did I have an apprciation for these things when my school peers don't? I don;t know what has changed, but something has.
I blame the 60s (not really).
but that's often the perception.
Maybe there were queues because they didn't have TV, or there was less on TV, or because the people queuing didn't have the same kind of disposable income as we do today so it seemed like a better idea to borrow books than to buy them I dunno.
Maybe they just wanted to get into the library and go FIRST!
just wanting to be the first to try something new - perhaps a modern equivilent would be queueing overnight for iPads etc.
then less people will go.
I'm thinking like a pound, I don't think museum demand is that elastic. If it is this country is more fucked than I thought.
Many people won't pay but some will pay significantly more than £1.
Visitors were roughly 5 million people, donations were 3 million. I wish it wasn;t the case but it is :-(
They did this in Paris once, but the other way round. They used to charge people to go to museums. Then they opened them for free because they wanted more poor uncultured people to go to museums. There was a negligible impact on museum attendance.
As Bourdieu observed – the decision to go to a museum is a cultural one; not a financial one.
when they introduced the free entry thing.
The early 2000s increase In attendance came at the advent of cheap flights across Europe/looser border control.
The 1.6m extra visits by children once admission was made free came from immigrants.
All I'm saying is there were other factors at work. But it is pretty clear you want me to be arguing for something different to what I'm actualy arguing. I can pretend if you like, just pick a daily mail article and I'll copy and paste it so you can argue against it.
was more that you made your point initially in a very glib manner, so I responded in kind. You'll see I responded to your more reasoned post further up.
Will respond properly later. However, my point has at no point been that we should charge an amount that prevents people from attending, but that we should charge a nominal fee to make it clear these operations have value. I genuinely don't believe demand is that elastic or thatfigurative single mother cannot afford £2 to take herself and her child to the NPG.
Gotta head off now anyway, but I'll take a look tomorrow if I remember.
just put .mobile at the end of any normal thread URL
To be somewhat facetious... that's exactly the argument used to support tuition fees. There's the issue of scale that makes the comparioson potentially questionable, obviously. But the idea that "it's a totally manageable charge" is the basis underlying both examples.
Just a thought.
I think the issue of scale is a big one here though. I accept that £2 means more to some than it does to me for example, but I don't think it is enough to put anyone off or put it out of anyone's reach, in a way that a headline grabbing £9k is. Also I think that anargument (rarely used alas) about tuition fees is that it makes people think if it is right for them - in this example you twist it around the other way, charging a small fee may make people think *hmm maybe we should be going*
...I think the more pressing issue is that students are excluded on account of their parents being unable to support them through university (which the system relies on); rather than the future burden of debt said student faces...
...or were they children who had never been to museums before?
Although it cost me close to a fiver the other day when I went at a non-free time :-/
Can also use the pools and gyms in Stoke for free, think that might be for students (and pensioners, unemployed, etc) only mind you, rather than everyone.
and participation in sport went up quite a lot after they introduced it
But it costs to buy a book or see a film?
MAKES YOU THINK......???????
What's your point exactly? That it's somehow unreasonable to ask questions about why certain services of personal/public interest are free and others aren't?
I just wanted to play.
we pay council tax for the park. And library books are FREE*!
*Ignore the bit about them not being free.
Seriously, though. If it's a daft question (which I'm undecided on) what's the simple answer? I'm not totally sure.
it is me who is the dip :(
Whilst povvos like sport
Big society all exercisin in the street
Rather pay to go pump iron than look at some pansy picture for nowt, tbh.
In the Natural History Museum we had to PAY to see the robot dinosaurs. Only the crap like bones and bits of rock were free.
The dinosaurs stuff in the Natural History Museum is all free these days I thought
we had to pay for that.
that swamp one became a bit of a slog.
it proves nothing
unless Robot Commando gets it on with the T Rex later in the book. "Robot Commando! My office, now! You weren't supposed to interfere with history! We discussed it at length! So why am I getting reports that you impregnated a T Rex?!"
*Robot Commando weeps electro-tears*
I thought you said Robots AND dinosaurs, fighting each other.
...are you suggesting that Zoids just invented themselves?!?
Kids these days...
take your revisionist bullshit elsewhere
If you'd rather shoot the dinosaur in the head with a laser, turn to 317
You fire at the T Rex, but he's wearing mirrored head armour. The laser beam reflects back and burns a hole right through you.
Did anyone ever actually bother dying in any of those books?
Or did you just throw the die again and again until you didn't die?
when I realised I'd made some bad choices
Actually, I still find solace in that collection to this day.
Needless to say, that is NOT a euphemism.
And if they started a business ever. I wonder if it's still deemed viable what with the rise of online et cetera
You try to shoot the T Rex but the humidity of the cretaceous period causes a malfunction in your circuits that results in your reproduction matrix being re-routed through your laser cannon.
As you calculate the possibility of your robo-gametes successfully impregnating the T Rex, your system diagnostics report the impossible: you are experiencing an emotion...fear.
you shoot the T Rex in the head with your laser. Right in the head. It's dead. You are promoted to a level 4 Robot Commando.
I wonder if the night watchman at the natural history museum is ever tempted to slip it to one of the dinosaurs.
I don't think I should post this reply.
definitely should have kept that in my head.
actually, that does sound pretty erotic.
Old school fusty museums with things in glass cabinets >>> modern museums with interactive exhibits.
I give you Newcastles Hancock Museum* circa 1983 versus it's modern day incarnation.
* plenty others I'm sure.
of playful education and interactive fun. i have many fond memories of being a lad in cotton pants frolicking throughout its many smooth corridors.
ago and half the stuff was broken.
By you probably.
Rows and rows of rocks. Nice. Truly.
BRITISH ATTRACTIONS FOR BRITISH TOURISTS.
(ps: that's probably fair point)
How much does it cost to go to the national sports museum?
It can't hear you.
Because its all part of a massive conspiracy to make me late for work every day/ make me angrier and angrier till that day I snap and kill every single person in the South Kensington subway underpass
Slick work, DiS. Please return to the chat about vom and piss at your leisure.
Nice mini-campaign for free safaris, too.
Museums probably shouldn't either.
we called it his house lol
Bus passes for old people
Health care that I don't personally need
Motorways (unless someone's giving me a lift)
Seems like everyone's been creaming themselves over it. I'm not sure I think much of it. Maybe it was too busy. Dunno. But it seems like it's gone from being a transport museum of repute (loads of transport stuff on display) to some sort of lime green playground mashup of a few transport things along with a few peoples' palace (museum of glasgow life) things. And it just felt like it was pretty lightweight in terms of actual things to look at.
It didn't feel "deceptively big inside" either. And my idea of "an amazing structural engineering feat" isn't to cram fuckloads of steel into a the wavy roof structure (which seemed to be the tactic, as far as I could tell from watching it go up from my train in the mornings).
I'll have to go back for a second review when it's a bit quieter.
Sir Humphrey: Bernard, subsidy is for art, for culture. It is not to be given to what the people want! It is for what the people don't want but ought to have!
CHORTLE CHORTLE CHORTLE
SCOFF SCOFF SCOFF
schnarf schnarf schnarf!
THE JOKE IS ON YOU SCHNARF! I DO NOT HAVE TO PAY FOR MY GYM OR MY MUSEUM. HA HA HA HA HA!
Sports facilities are primarily recreational (promoting health too). 'Leisure for all' isn't something public money should be spent on because encouraging wealthy people to have a nice time isn't a legitimate aim of a good society. But, because of the health benefits, sports and leisure should be made affordable and accessible to everyone. Never struggled with this one.
with the idea that 'Leisure for all' isn't something public money should be spent on?
- new years eve events are a waste of public money. Stop them now.
- Some parks charge entry fees. Charging for most parks would be impractical. There's pretty much no "service" or interface involved in going to a park and it uses up negligible resources. Parks are also a "public space" which adds another set of considerations.
but on the point about other events and stuff I think you can distinguish something if it's celebratory
so I'm not really coming at it from any particular angle.
But I'm not sure I properly follow what you've said. If NYE events are a waste, what 'other events' are justifiable under the 'celebratory' banner? The upkeep cost of parks is likely to be less than that for, say, a galleries, but is it really negligible? What's the difference between an indoor public space and an outdoor one?
if you can afford to go private and there's a private option you will do that, and effectively waive your right to use it, notwithstanding that you've contributed to its cost via your taxes? I don't think 'leisure for all' is really encouraging wealthy people to have a nice time. Most wealthy people will go to a gym whatever it costs. I think I'm missing the point, it's been a long day.
cause yeah like you said wealthy people are gonna do that anyway.
and how many people can use the museum at once?
Plus to be beneficial, you need to visit the same leisure centre/service over and over again. Not so with a Museum.
you dont ACTUALLY need to have a sports centre to stay fit and healthy, museums on the other hand are seen as a common focal point of nd a definition of what the socity might consider to be significant and worthwhile.....representatiive of .societies longer term values and provide a central focus of interest.
it also gives the whole of society the idea of owning the past....otherwise the rich nobs and leaders would own ALL the great artifacts from the past and thus their self import would go up (and probably their kudos amongst many.
OK you may need swimming baths, but you can do sport almost anywhere