you know, it’s funny, I was just talking to someone about this last night who said that while the Mendel is considering instituting fees, other places which had them–heavyweights like the Moma, Met, and so on–are considering the elimination of fees. What is curious to me about this is that if you go to, say, the Met, there isn’t actually a fee, and there never has been; there is only a “suggested donation,” and while it’s clear to anyone who tries to get in free that this is a rare occurrance, it is nevertheless possible and built into their system.

The question of affordability is problematic as well, because we can talk about financial affordability or temporal affordability. Are the people who cannot afford a few bucks to get into a gallery able to afford the couple of hours of leisure time that a thorough visit requires? If we’re going to be strictly capitalistic about it–here’s where I get a bit Swiftian–then people are already paying at least 16$ in wages for a 2-hour gallery visit, and that doesn’t include travel time (for instance a big hurdle that the MacKenzie in Regina has had to overcome is their location in the south end of the city, generally a fairly affluent section, and their subsequent distance from potential audiences who may be without cars or the luxury of walking time). If we’re talking about accessability, perhaps geographic accessibility can fit into that discussion somewhere.

On the other hand, charging admission or a suggested donation may become a more symbolic gesture, with the connotation that “this stuff in here is worth paying to see,” although whether that is how it will play out or not is obviously subject to debate.

I don’t have any answers, either. :)

-Lee