Free Museums? No Thanks

Setting aside the populist rhetoric of Tomaso Montanari (“We could afford to open all state museums to everyone for free for 365 days a year simply by deciding not to spend on weapons for at least two days a year”), it was the turn of the master Salvatore Settis, a few days ago, to address the topic of free museum admission:

“Open all museums with free admission for everyone for a few months, strictly limiting visitor numbers. Include both large and small museums in the plan, state and non-state, public and private. Ensure safety measures by hiring gallery staff. Cover the costs with the Recovery Fund.

It would be a sign of life, of hope, of vision. A strong statement that art and culture are necessary. The awareness that creativity and productivity require an imagination nourished by cultural memory, by history, by beauty.

That the museum is a machine for thinking, the sign and symbol of a society that does not merely survive itself, but visits the past to create the new.

It would be a farsighted move to prepare us for the world to come.

A new world that will be better or worse than yesterday's world, but no longer the same. The pandemic forces us into a new awareness of our fragility: recognizing museums as places for sharing memories, thoughts and plans can therefore give us strength, vitality, grace”.

However ideologically sound, this is an argument aimed more at people's gut feelings rather than at analyzing the whole context.

We can't afford it

Only a few months ago, at the end of December, Federico Giannini, in the pages of Finestre sull'Arte, dismantled, through detailed and meticulous analysis, the possibility of total free admission to museums.

Here are a few excerpts:

• in our country, the museum system is completely different from the English model (dozens of small museums spread across the country, often far from tourist routes, and no major central hub comparable to institutions like the British Museum, the National Gallery, the Tate, the V&A, the London Science Museum);
• the ability to raise private contributions and the tendency to donate to culture are far less developed than in the United Kingdom (the UK also has tax legislation on the matter that is far more advanced and long-established than ours),
• the first experiments with subscriptions, membership and season passes in Italy only began a few years ago;
• in Italy, the revenues of large museums also support small museums;
• many museums already bear great pressure despite paid admission (think of the Uffizi, the Accademia Gallery, the Colosseum, the Borghese Gallery) and introducing free admission would have harmful effects;
• several museums in Italy are already free.

And further:

“If the Ministry of Cultural Heritage wanted to follow the model of the British national museums, thereby making admission free at all its museums, it would have to reckon with a shortfall of 230 million euros (gross of the share due to service concessionaires), a figure that represents just over 10% of its budget”.

These funds therefore need to be found elsewhere.

People value what they pay for

Even though, according to Istat, the cost of a ticket is too expensive for only 1 in 10 Italians, the time has not yet come to extend free admission.

Unfortunately, we cannot guarantee it for everyone (even if only for a couple of months) because, as mentioned, we can't afford it.

Just thinking about the reasoning that “there's always the Recovery Fund” to cover everything gives me hives.

This is because the reasoning is flawed from the start: people, in fact, value what they pay for. Basic social economics.

In fact, free products are almost all automatically inefficient because:

• the perceived value of what is given away decreases;
• whoever receives it will not fully appreciate it (in our case, the visitor won't truly get to “live” the experience).

Charging means providing a valuable service to people who genuinely want to act. And they will appreciate more what they pay for.

Do we want to give away admissions because we have money to burn?

Or maybe it would make more sense to use that money to help museums avoid finding themselves in the exact same situation after a few months “stuffed” with free admission?

Pricing, access and tax deductibility

With part of the funds that could be allocated to encourage the restart (though this could also be done without them), pricing and access policies could be reviewed, similar to museum institutions in other countries:

• tickets for families (but without gimmicks like “from the seventh child on, it's free”);
• discounts for those entering the museum in the last hours before closing;
• ticket validity for at least two days;
• a discount for those who book their ticket in advance (unlike what happens now, where an extra fee is charged);
• introduce evening opening hours;
• free admission for disadvantaged groups;
• partnerships (and related agreements) with other institutional bodies in the city;
• season passes at discounted rates for residents.

These pricing and access models would make it possible to limit visitor numbers, avoid uncontrolled crowds on weekends, ensure compliance with health regulations, and encourage repeat visits to the museum throughout the year (rather than daily “hit-and-run” tourism).

Without even factoring in all the economic repercussions at the local level.

Honestly, nothing new. Just using our heads a bit better.

Do we want to further stimulate demand?

I welcome, with more enthusiasm than the free-admission idea, the proposal by Giovanna Melandri, President of the MAXXI Foundation, which calls for acting on the tax lever: making admission expenses tax-deductible for personal income tax purposes (tickets, subscriptions, etc.) for places where culture is received, produced, exchanged (think theatres, cinemas, auditoriums, museums, institutions).

However, this alone cannot be enough to relaunch the cultural market.

"New audiences and tools demand new skills"

This was reaffirmed by Eike Schmidt during a recent guest appearance for the Comune di Feltre (you can rewatch the video inside the Discussion Group).

And MiBACT, in the person of Minister Dario Franceschini, proposed, within the framework of the Next Generation EU funds, a comprehensive plan for digitizing its cultural institutions as well as the related digital training of staff.

The situation is in fact dire:

We rank fourth from last in the Digital Economy and Society Index (DESI).

Last if we consider digital skills and human capital.

What isn't working right now is not just the lack of digital skills needed to guide Italian museums toward the future and their survival. It's the awareness of the value of digital culture that is the real concern.

Chaos reigns when it comes to integrating digitalization into the way we work and live. And we're not talking about a digital revolution that arrived yesterday, but one that has already been underway for some time, now an integral part of our lives.

So why not adopt it at work?

What we're missing is the willingness to understand that digital is only the starting point for multiplying the opportunities for interaction, participation and accessibility that the museum system needs.

Understanding that it is necessary to find people capable of bridging different skill sets in order to make the most of all of them.

Let's stop fixating on impossible proposals, "backward and ideological debates" (Giannini). Instead, let's think seriously about an Italian development model, before it's too late.