Many museums charge for admission while others are free. Do you think the advantages of charging people for admission to museums outweigh the disadvantages?

Many are of the belief that

museums

should be free to the public because of their enormous potential to educate

while

others feel charging money helps ensure the quality of the

art

therein. I concede the benefits of the latter argument but would still side with those who advocate free admissions. The main reason that many are in support of charging money is that it sustains both the maintenance and quality of exhibitions. A good example of

this

would be the

Museum

of Modern

Art

(

MoMA

) in New York City.

MoMA

is generally regarded as one of the finest

museums

in the world and is famous not only for its well-maintained facade but

also

for the ever-rotating artworks on display. They charge a nominal entrance fee in the neighbourhood of $20 a ticket and invest that money wisely to ensure a memorable experience for all

museum

-goers. Despite the advantages of a private

museum

such

as

MoMA

, I think making all

museums

free would encourage more people to appreciate

art

. A contrasting example with

MoMA

would be a

museum

just a few blocks away: The Metropolitan

Museum

of

Art

. The MET has educated and uplifted millions of citizens regardless of their socioeconomic status. The wealthy who can afford

museum

admission are likely to already have a deep appreciation of the arts

as well as

the leisure time to enjoy their practice. People, and children especially, from poorer backgrounds have fewer opportunities and free

museums

are the best way to support appreciation of the arts en masse. In conclusion, the benefits of free

museum

admissions, particularly for lower-income families, outweigh the benefits of charging. The bigger issue is how governments and other organisations can budget for free or relatively inexpensive

museums

.