Too Expensive
$20 for admission to the Museum of Modern Art when it re-opens in November. Ouch! I wonder if you actually have to pay the $20 or that's a suggested donation that you can shirk if you have the guts to try. But it doesn't matter. Art is something that should be readily accessible to the public and not cost $20 to see. It dramatically underscores the need for better public funding.
Thankfully, there are other options, such as P.S.1 in Long Island City - are they going to make that $20 since it's affiliated with MoMA? - and tons of galleries if you’re willing to venture off the beaten path to Brooklyn, Chelsea, SoHo, etc.
Comments
I totally agree with you about the $20.00 admission fee. I think it's outrageous and furthers the view of MOMA having become an elitist organization. It wasn't always so, not when I was an art student in New York. Imagine a family of four starting out with a $80.00 tab and then add parking, tolls, food! (Maybe they have discounts for kids?) On the other hand, public funding comes with its own problems - the major one being that it too often comes with strings attached about what is appropriate in art. No easy solutions, I'm afraid.
Posted by: SS | September 26, 2004 12:43 PM
modern art is like neo conservatives.
Posted by: Scooter | September 26, 2004 03:17 PM
While I certainly agree that $20 is alot for admission, I feel it should be noted that admission prices are going up everywhere. I agree that the public should have easy access to the arts, but your Dad is correct about Public funding..Government and taxes should stay out of it.
Posted by: Randy | September 26, 2004 08:03 PM
"dramatically underscores the need for better public funding."
How? Something like 98% of art is privatly funded. What does the other 2% do? Why don't they get off their collective a$$'s and earn their own wages rather than lobby for them. Maybe they could make a self protrait of their welfare butt's and sell that. Make a series of it. Interperet it from a Warhol to a Picasso style. Add in a Moore cut-n-paste hack job, maybe even add in a "clothing malfunction" from a live exhibition (pun intended) and you've got a few more tickets. Why should I be taxed so that a handful of superior feeling New Yorkers can bypass the price of admission?
Posted by: Justin | September 30, 2004 04:26 PM
What do you mean superior feeling?
Posted by: Lesley | September 30, 2004 05:59 PM
ahem any superior 'feelings' are strictly reserved for New Yorkers. New Jersey residents may take a seat at the back of the bus.
;)
Posted by: Randy | September 30, 2004 06:45 PM
Look, you can take the girl out of New York, but you cannot take New York out of the girl.
Besides, it's not like Hoboken is much different from NYC. It isn't referred to as the Far West Side for nothing.
Posted by: Lesley | September 30, 2004 11:47 PM
Hold it. The Far West Side is where the new Jets stadium is proposed. Can't be two Far West Sides. Sorry. Either the Jets stadium is planned for the Almost Far West Side or you live in the Really Far West Side.
Posted by: Jon | October 1, 2004 08:02 AM
Sorry for the improper slight Lesley, but technically you aren't a New Yorker anymore, so I figured I didn't need to qualify that with something like "with the exception of the leader of the VCWC."
Posted by: Justin | October 1, 2004 01:23 PM
You misunderstand. I wasn't taking it as a slight against myself. I was implying that New Yorkers are, in fact, superior.
;-)
Posted by: Lesley | October 1, 2004 01:59 PM
If New Yorkers are superior, then why do they need the tax money from us inferior folks in the hinterlands to support their art fetishes?
Posted by: Justin | October 1, 2004 02:37 PM
Not thatI have anything against fetishes, I just don't like being forced to support someone elses.
Oh wait that statement needs some qualifiers too ... but I suppose I better leave that for leathercladnunsridingchopperswieldingridingcrops.com
Posted by: Justin | October 1, 2004 02:40 PM
I just hope that the people at leathercladnunsridingchopperswieldingridingcrops.com aren't seeking public funding to pay for their fetishes. If we superior New Yorkers have to pay for our fetishes, then the people at leathercladnunsridingchopperswieldingridingcrops.com should have to pay for them, too.
Now to be serious for one second, which I kind of regret b/c the thread is amusing. I wasn't only advocating for public funding so people in NYC can enjoy cheap art. I was thinking wherever there are important but expensive museums. People who don't have the dough to pay high admission fees should still have access to art, esp. kids.
Posted by: Jon | October 1, 2004 05:25 PM