MONA

[Miss Chicken]

I want to ask people's opinion on a certain aspect of Tasmania's most popular tourist attraction, It is

Mona - the Museum of Old and New Art - is Australia's largest privately owned museum. It showcases owner David Walsh's collection, which includes more than 2000 artworks, antiquities and ethnographic pieces. The collection ranges from Egyptian funerary objects to some of the world's most infamous and thought-provoking contemporary art. reviews and visitors' photos here

When David Walsh decided to share his collection he built a very impressive building to house it in and then opened it up to the public. Last time I visited besides hearing the constant complaint "This isn't art" from the friend who was accompanying me, I also overheard several complaints from people not happy with the fact that Walsh, in his 'wisdom', has decided to let Tasmanians into his museum for free but all other adults have to pay $20 (or $15 with a Australian concession card). Under 18 year olds get in for free.

So I am asking people would you be annoyed if you went to a tourist attraction and found out locals could get in for free but you had to pay?

 

[Mary Ann]

I don't know if I'd truly be annoyed, but I'd find it odd. Around here most of the museums are free, so I'd balk at paying $20 for admission unless there was an exhibition I really wanted to see.

The cathedral in my city does do something similar, though only recently. People living within certain postcodes can get a free pass to enter the cathedral as often as they wish during regular open hours. For visitors from outside the city limits the entry fee is £6 or £8 if you want to go up the north tower. The exception to the fee is for those who wish to enter the cathedral only to pray or attend a service. I love visiting the cathedral so I'm glad I'll no longer have to pay to get in.

 

[Miss Chicken]

I think that the difference between MONA and most other museums is that MONA is not state funded, and it isn't a charity or a non-government organisation, nor is it a philanthropic organisation either.It is totally a private collection, Walsh owns all the art, the building and he pays the staff.

 

[1001001]

So I am asking people would you be annoyed if you went to a tourist attraction and found out locals could get in for free but you had to pay?

Not really.

Las Vegas has things like that.

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

It would not annoy me at all.

I'm also dying to go there and if I get to Tasmania I definitely will.

 

[Melakon]

It's Walsh's building, art, and staff. Seems to me he can charge whatever he wants and set the conditions however he wants. If people don't like his terms, they don't have to go in.

 

[Tora Ziyal]

I'd only be irritated if I'd been led to believe it was free for everyone and then found out I, as a foreigner, had to pay.

I checked out the reviews and pics -- looks like someplace I'd love to go!

 

[Mary Ann]

I think that the difference between MONA and most other museums is that MONA is not state funded, and it isn't a charity or a non-government organisation, nor is it a philanthropic organisation either.It is totally a private collection, Walsh owns all the art, the building and he pays the staff.

Ah, I see. In that case the unusual setup isn't something that bothers me.

 

[Greylock Crescent]

No, the setup doesn't bother me at all. I actually kind of like the idea, to be honest. It seems like a nice way to give back to the community (in addition to the tourist money the museum also likely brings in).

 

[thestrangequark]

I like the arrangement too. At the very least it's honest. I love the Met and AMNH, but I can't really get behind the way they try too fool people into paying so much for tickets. The ticket prices are prohibitive, and everyone deserves to see those museums. I don't even think most New Yorkers know that they are in actuality free, let alone the tourists who end up paying $20-40 a piece.

 

[mari]

Around here we charge tourists more to visit the beach than we locals pay (nobody gets in for free unless it's off-season) so it seems entirely fair to me. Looks like he's got a restaurant in there, so possibly he's making more money off locals eating there by letting them into the museum overall for free.

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

You have to PAY to go to the beach?!

 

[Roger Wilco]

I think that the difference between MONA and most other museums is that MONA is not state funded, and it isn't a charity or a non-government organisation, nor is it a philanthropic organisation either.It is totally a private collection, Walsh owns all the art, the building and he pays the staff.

That sounds quite philantropic actually, since I really doubt you can make a profit with an art museum (or even pay for expenses), especially without charging locals, except if the main purpose is to sell the artworks.

 

[Miss Chicken]

I gather he isn't considered a philantropist for the following reasons

Moreover, MONA is not a philanthropic organisation. When rich individuals give artworks to a public gallery or institution, they derive an entirely legitimate tax deduction for it. MONA is not a public gallery, and the art remains owned by Walsh. He hasn’t given it away.

SOURCE

The Australian Tax Office said that Walsh owed them $37 million dollars in taxes, but Walsh disagreed because he insists he made all his money gambling and gambling wins are not taxable in Australia. In the end he and the ATO reached a secret deal after he used MONA as a bargaining tool.

 

[Mary Ann]

You have to PAY to go to the beach?!

I'm thinking it may be a privately owned beach.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Charging for foreign tourists seems fair enough. Plus, it's a private museum, so who is anyone else to judge?

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I don't even think most New Yorkers know that they are in actuality free, let alone the tourists who end up paying $20-40 a piece.

Explain???

 

[thestrangequark]

^The steep ticket prices are "suggested donations." You pay what you can, if you can. I used to visit the Met almost weekly and AMNH several times a year, but I was poor, so I paid a buck most days, sometimes as little as a quarter. They're public museums on public property -- if you can afford to pay $25 a pop then by all means do so, but I worry that not making the actually policy more transparent discourages poor people from visiting the museums, which is in total opposition to the spirit of their founding as museums for the American people.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^The steep ticket prices are "suggested donations." You pay what you can, if you can.

Then they should be more clear on that. I've been to that museum a hundred times (side note: I am SO glad the plane'arium space show is no longer the one with Whoopi Goldberg, who is without a doubt the WORST narrator in the entire world), and they always have the ticket prices posted without any apparent room for negotiation. Either I pay what they say, or I don't get in. There's never any indication that they will let people pay anything other than what they want you to.

If this is supposed to be some kind of secret, they're doing a damn good job keeping it that way...

Then again: I suck at haggling, so even if they did make it flat-out clear that you can negotiate an admission, I'd fail.

 

[thestrangequark]

^You don't haggle, you just hand them a buck, or a five, or whatever and they hand you your ticket. Bear in mind, this doesn't apply to planetarium shows and special exhibits at either museum, those do have set prices.