Free Museums? No thanks

Overlooking Tomaso Montanari ‘s populist-grilling outbursts (“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 maestro Salvatore Settis, a few days ago, to touch on the subject of free museums:

“Open all museums with free admission for all for a few months by strictly contingenting visits. Include large and small, state and non-state, public and private museums in the project. Ensure security measures by hiring hall staff. Cover the costs with the Recovery fund.

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

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

It would be a forward-looking 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 to a new awareness of our fragility: so recognizing museums as a place for sharing memories, thoughts and projects can give us strength, vitality, grace.”

While it makes sense ideologically, it is an argument made more to people’s bellies and not instead by 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 Windows on Art, took apart, through detailed and meticulous analysis, the possible total free museums.

I report a few passages:

• in our country, the museum system is completely different from the English model (dozens of small museums spread throughout the territory, often far from the tourist routes, and no large centralizing pole comparable to realities such as the British, the National Gallery, the Tate, the V&A, the London Science Museum);
• the ability to raise contributions from individuals and the tendency to donate for culture are much less developed than in the UK (the UK also has tax legislation that is much more developed and elderly in this regard than ours),
• the first experiments on subscriptions, memberships and subscriptions in Italy started a few years ago;
• in Italy, revenue from large museums also keeps small museums going;
• many museums already bear a great deal of pressure in spite of ticketing (think of the Uffizi, the Galleria dell’Accademia, the Colosseum, the Galleria Borghese), and the introduction of free admission would cause detrimental effects;
• several museums in Italy are already free.

Also:

“If the Ministry of Culture wanted to follow the model of the British national museums, thus making the opening of all its museums free of charge, it would have to deal with a shortfall of 230 million euros (before the share accruing to service concessionaires), a figure that represents just over 10 percent of its budget.”

Therefore, these funds need to be found elsewhere.

People appreciate what they pay for

Although, according to Istat, the cost of a ticket would be too expensive for only 1 in 10 Italians, the time has not yet come to extend free tickets.

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

Just thinking about the “there’s Recovery fund anyway” reasoning to cover it all gives me hives.

This is because the reasoning is wrong upstream: people in fact value what they pay for. Basic social economy.

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

• you lower the perceived value of what you give away;
• the recipient will not fully appreciate it (in our case, the visitor will have no way to truly “live” the experience).

Charging means providing a valuable service to people who actually want to act. And these will value more what they pay for.

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

Or perhaps it would make more sense to use that money to help museums not be in the exact same situation after a few months “high” on free admission?

Pricing, access and deductibility

With some of the funds that could be allocated to incentivize restarting (but even without actually), pricing and access policies could be revised, similar to museum facilities in other nations:

• family tickets (but without teasing us of the “from the seventh child no charge” type );
• reductions for those entering the museum during the last hours of opening hours;
• Ticket validity for at least two days;
• reduction for those who book tickets in advance (as opposed to now where you pay extra);
• Provide for evening opening hours;
• Free of charge for disadvantaged classes;
• partnerships (and related agreements) with other institutional entities in the city;
• Annual subsidized season tickets for residents.

These pricing and access arrangements would make it possible to quota visits, avoid uncontrolled flows of people on weekends, ensure compliance with health regulations, and provide incentives to return to the museum throughout the year (and not instead daily “hit and run” tourism).

Without calculating all the economic repercussions at the territorial level.

Nothing new honestly. Just using your head better.

Do we want to further stimulate demand?

I welcome with more enthusiasm than gratuitousness the proposal of Giovanna Melandri, President of the MAXXI Foundation, which imposes to act on the tax lever: to make deductible, for the purpose of calculating personal income tax, the costs of access (tickets, subscriptions, etc.) to places where culture is received, produced, and exchanged (see theaters, cinemas, auditoriums, museums, institutions).

However, this cannot be enough to revive the cultural market.

“New audiences and tools impose new skills.”

This was reiterated by Eike Schmidt himself during a recent guest speech by the Feltre City Council (you can review the video within the Discussion Group).

And MiBACT, in the person of Minister Dario Franceschini, has proposed as part of the Next Generation EU funds, a comprehensive plan for the digitization of its cultural institutions but also the related digital training of staff.

In fact, the situation is dramatic:

We are fourth to last in the Digitization of Economy and Society Index(DESI).

Last if we consider digital skills and human capital.

What is not working right now is not just the lack of digital skills needed to guide Italian museums into the future and survival. It is the awareness of the value of digital culture that is of concern.

Chaos reigns when we talk about integrating digitization into the way we work and live. And we are not talking about a digital revolution that arrived yesterday, but has already been in place for quite some time, now an integral part of our lives.

So why not adopt it at work?

What we lack is the will to understand that digital is only the basis for multiplying the possibilities for interaction, participation, and accessibility that the museum system needs.

Understand that it is necessary to find figures who can be a bridge between skills to make the most of them all.

So let’s stop fixating on impossible proposals, “delayed and ideological debates” (Giannini). But let us think seriously about an Italian model of development, before it is too late.