Sydney’s Museum of Contemporary Art is now charging for entry. It’s a sign our cultural sector needs help
- Written by The Conversation
From January 31, Sydney’s Museum of Contemporary Art (MCA) will reintroduce ticketed entry, charging adults $20 for general admission and $35 for combined special exhibitions and museum entry. Entry will remain free for Australian students and people under 18.
This decision, which reverses 24 years of free general entry to the museum, reflects broader challenges faced by museums globally.
Driven by philanthropy
The MCA was opened in 1991, established through the bequest of Australian expatriate artist John Power. As an independent, not-for-profit organisation, its administrative and financial structure is different from major cultural institutions in Sydney.
Unlike the Art Gallery of New South Wales and Australian Museum, which are statutory bodies of the NSW government, the MCA receives a far smaller proportion of state funding.
For 2023-2024, the NSW government delivered A$46.2 million in recurrent funding to the Art Gallery of NSW and $47.4 million to the Australian Museum. The MCA received $4.2 million, which represented just 16% of its total revenue.
This funding disparity has always required the MCA to secure the bulk of its budget through other revenue streams. Corporate and philanthropic partnerships have been vital.
In 2000, financial support from Telstra allowed the museum to offer free admission. In 2012, philanthropists including Simon and Catriona Mordant contributed greatly to fund the museum’s expansion.
The MCA has also been proactive in leveraging its venue to maximise income. In 2023, 41% of revenue was earned through commercial services including venue hire, retail and commercial leases.
Why there’s no more free entry
Despite reducing its opening hours to six days a week post-COVID and scaling back audience engagement, the MCA’s financial pressures continued. According to director Suzanne Cotter, the museum “didn’t have any choice” but to implement an admission fee.
While ticketed admission creates a financial barrier, it also provides visitors a way to invest directly in the museum’s future and sustainability.
The MCA has consistently demonstrated its value, generating impressive visitor numbers. In 2019, attendance surpassed one million visitors, setting the museum ahead of many international peers.
But the effects of the COVID pandemic have lingered. In 2022-23, the museum attracted 859,386 visitors – a 15% decline compared to 2019.
In comparison, the Art Gallery of NSW welcomed almost two million visitors to its expanded campus in 2023, representing a 51% increase from pre-COVID figures.
The MCA isn’t struggling alone
Internationally, there are clear signs of an industry under immense pressure.
Major US institutions such as The Metropolitan Museum of Art (The Met), The Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) and the Guggenheim and Whitney have all increased general adult admission fees to US$30.
The Met’s shift away from a pay-what-you-can model to fixed admission for most visitors in 2018 was driven by speculation of a US$40 million deficit. However, New York state residents and students, as well as New Jersey and Connecticut students, can still pay what they wish – even as little as one cent.
Similarly, at the Whitney, a US$2 million donation last year by Trustee and artist Julie Mehretu has helped enable free entry for under-25s.
These examples show how paying visitors can support a museum’s sustainability while preserving subsidised access for priority groups.
Across Europe, major museums including the Louvre and Uffizi are also increasing prices, though many retain periodic free days to ensure accessibility.
In the UK, smaller regional museums are resorting to admission charges for the first time in their histories.
Meanwhile, commentators such as cultural historian Ben Lewis argue major institutions such as the British Museum should start charging general admission fees to supplement stagnant government funding and decrease dependence on potentially unethical corporate donors.
This would allow the museums to pay competitive wages and fund essential work, Lewis argues.
Lewis’s concerns about corporate donations accord with debates taking place internationally and in Australia around the role of big oil, mining and pharmaceutical companies that use the arts to “greenwash” their public brand.
Can accessiblity be prioritised in Australia?
The MCA’s situation, which reflects international trends, raises questions about arts funding and access.
Both the NSW and federal governments’ arts policies recognise the value of providing access to the arts. As the NSW government’s Creative Communities policy notes, “the right to participate in arts, cultural and creative activities is a fundamental human right.”
The MCA excelled in this regard under its free admission policy, attracting a diverse audience that other museums often struggled to reach. In 2023, about half of the museums on-site visitors were under 35, and 45% were from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds.
The NSW government’s policy – along with its national counterpart Revive – also emphasises the importance of telling Australian stories. This is another area the MCA has excelled in.
The question then is: if the state and federal governments value equitable access to the arts and appreciates the platforming of Australian stories, will they commit to a more sustainable funding arrangement for organisations like the MCA?
Without such a commitment, the gap between those who can afford to attend museums and those who can’t will continue to widen – compromising the democratic ideal of an accessible cultural sector.
