Interesting point Peter and having not been back too long from Italy wonder why the UK hasn't more widely introduced a tourist tax. I calculated I paid over €100 in such taxes for Sarah and my 7 nights stay. And of course we still paid to go into galleries etc. Not sure how the likes of the NG would operate a tourist charge (UK resident s offering proof of residence / nationality - passport, driving licence - not so straight forward in a country that doesn't universally have photo ID) and as a general point I think charging everyone in the UK to access 'national' art would deny those of lower income (as I once was) a chance to appreciate great art. I see theatre and concert going, becoming more and more art forms for those of wealth (especially in London). I'd hate to think painting and sculpture going the same way, but you make a valid argument re tourist charges that is worth exploration.
The practical issues re how this would actually work were the first thing that came to my mind too. I don't drive so don't have photo ID on me as a matter of course.
Yep, I no longer drive but kept my driving licence as proof of ID (easier than carrying my passport - although I suppose I could use my old age bus pass 😉). I'm a bit behind the times but something tells me you can now apply for a photographic ID card in the UK as you now need something with your photograph to vote?
Yep. It's not free though so one way or another you have to pay to have photo ID. It'd have to be freely available to convince me that any tourist only payment scheme would be workable and fair.
Yep, and Peter is not quite correct re the IWM. Entry is free for all for the main museums but they do charge everyone for HMS Belfast, Churchill War Rooms etc. Guess they couldn't come up with a selective scheme that worked.
That's the model used by most major museums now - charge for temporary exhibitions and keep a core of permanent stuff free. That feels reasonable to me.
Thanks for your comment, Josie. Like you I believe it's perfectly OK (even our duty) to challenge the status quo. It would be wonderful if some fountain of philanthropy was discovered which would mean every gallery or collection could open it's doors for free. In this world, however, we have to prioritise - and how we do that is a legitimate discussion!
There’s a brilliant book by a guy called Hans Abbing called ‘Why Are Artists Poor’ that touches on some of these points (and other very interesting ones), in particular the fact that some countries want to make their public collections free (even to foreigners) because it says something about the nation’s values. I absolutely love the question of what should be done/could be done differently and can’t stand the idea that we shouldn’t contest the status quo.
I agree in general, Peter, but many artworks have been donated by their former owners on the understanding that the public will be entitled to free enjoyment of them, so I think the rationale should not be to top up the coffers of the Treasury (let Rachel Reeves do that with a straightforward one-off tourist tax for foreign visitors on entry to the country), but to justify entry charges to museums and galleries on the basis of meeting the costs of running them.
Not everybody wants the income tax they pay to be used to subsidise ‘the arts’, whether visual, musical or theatrical, so native Britons who are not interested in those features of our culture would be mollified to know that the maintenance and staffing costs of the great museums and galleries were being paid for at least partly by entry fees, as they are by seat prices at the opera or theatre, not just by Arts Council grants or other government subsidies.
In addition to running expenses, a higher entry price could be justified as contributing to the cost of making 3-D copies for our museums of some of the many cultural items acquired by Britain in dubious circumstances, so that they could be returned to their rightful owners. I’m sure most people would consider it fair to pay £10 for entry to the British Museum, plus a further £5 ‘tax’ as a ring-fenced contribution to the costs of copying and then returning the Elgin marbles, Australian aboriginal artefacts and other items whose ownership is actively disputed by the countries of their origin.
Mostly I agree with you Rollo and I didn't intend for entry fees to go to the Treasury but to then museums themselves (perhaps with a proportion donated into a central fund which would subsidise regional venues which don't enjoy this this massive aid). The benefit for the Govt would be keeping the cash it currently provides for re-allocation to other urgent projects. All I am seeking is a debate - can we, should we, continue the current policy?
Interesting point Peter and having not been back too long from Italy wonder why the UK hasn't more widely introduced a tourist tax. I calculated I paid over €100 in such taxes for Sarah and my 7 nights stay. And of course we still paid to go into galleries etc. Not sure how the likes of the NG would operate a tourist charge (UK resident s offering proof of residence / nationality - passport, driving licence - not so straight forward in a country that doesn't universally have photo ID) and as a general point I think charging everyone in the UK to access 'national' art would deny those of lower income (as I once was) a chance to appreciate great art. I see theatre and concert going, becoming more and more art forms for those of wealth (especially in London). I'd hate to think painting and sculpture going the same way, but you make a valid argument re tourist charges that is worth exploration.
The practical issues re how this would actually work were the first thing that came to my mind too. I don't drive so don't have photo ID on me as a matter of course.
Yep, I no longer drive but kept my driving licence as proof of ID (easier than carrying my passport - although I suppose I could use my old age bus pass 😉). I'm a bit behind the times but something tells me you can now apply for a photographic ID card in the UK as you now need something with your photograph to vote?
Yep. It's not free though so one way or another you have to pay to have photo ID. It'd have to be freely available to convince me that any tourist only payment scheme would be workable and fair.
Yep, and Peter is not quite correct re the IWM. Entry is free for all for the main museums but they do charge everyone for HMS Belfast, Churchill War Rooms etc. Guess they couldn't come up with a selective scheme that worked.
That's the model used by most major museums now - charge for temporary exhibitions and keep a core of permanent stuff free. That feels reasonable to me.
👍
Thanks for your comment, Josie. Like you I believe it's perfectly OK (even our duty) to challenge the status quo. It would be wonderful if some fountain of philanthropy was discovered which would mean every gallery or collection could open it's doors for free. In this world, however, we have to prioritise - and how we do that is a legitimate discussion!
There’s a brilliant book by a guy called Hans Abbing called ‘Why Are Artists Poor’ that touches on some of these points (and other very interesting ones), in particular the fact that some countries want to make their public collections free (even to foreigners) because it says something about the nation’s values. I absolutely love the question of what should be done/could be done differently and can’t stand the idea that we shouldn’t contest the status quo.
I agree in general, Peter, but many artworks have been donated by their former owners on the understanding that the public will be entitled to free enjoyment of them, so I think the rationale should not be to top up the coffers of the Treasury (let Rachel Reeves do that with a straightforward one-off tourist tax for foreign visitors on entry to the country), but to justify entry charges to museums and galleries on the basis of meeting the costs of running them.
Not everybody wants the income tax they pay to be used to subsidise ‘the arts’, whether visual, musical or theatrical, so native Britons who are not interested in those features of our culture would be mollified to know that the maintenance and staffing costs of the great museums and galleries were being paid for at least partly by entry fees, as they are by seat prices at the opera or theatre, not just by Arts Council grants or other government subsidies.
In addition to running expenses, a higher entry price could be justified as contributing to the cost of making 3-D copies for our museums of some of the many cultural items acquired by Britain in dubious circumstances, so that they could be returned to their rightful owners. I’m sure most people would consider it fair to pay £10 for entry to the British Museum, plus a further £5 ‘tax’ as a ring-fenced contribution to the costs of copying and then returning the Elgin marbles, Australian aboriginal artefacts and other items whose ownership is actively disputed by the countries of their origin.
Rollo Desoutter
Mostly I agree with you Rollo and I didn't intend for entry fees to go to the Treasury but to then museums themselves (perhaps with a proportion donated into a central fund which would subsidise regional venues which don't enjoy this this massive aid). The benefit for the Govt would be keeping the cash it currently provides for re-allocation to other urgent projects. All I am seeking is a debate - can we, should we, continue the current policy?