This is a tough one I really don't know what to do here but it's obvious that 'tourism' is starting to overwhelm European cities, sites and museums. The Louvre is probably just the worst example...
This is a tough one I really don't know what to do here but it's obvious that 'tourism' is starting to overwhelm European cities, sites and museums. The Louvre is probably just the worst example of 'over-tourism'.
What can be done here? Reduced daily limits? Force people to pre-purchase tickets so there aren't giant lines forming every single day? Increase the cost of tickets to discourage casual visitors? From what I've heard there are a large amount of people... influencers who are only interested in a quick selfy with the Mona Lisa and then they leave. Move the Mona Lisa to a different area, or even a different building all together and charge a separate fee to go and see it. This would eliminate all of these people from the people who are really coming to see The Louvre.
I am a museum and art gallery geek and have always dreamed of visiting The Louvre, probably my #1 destination on earth. My plans involve spending all day every day for a week in that beast (the only possible way to see it all properly, the size of The Louvre is not to be under estimated.) People (especially my partner) look at me like I am crazy when I say this, but I can't see spending less then an entire day or even 2 days in each section of The Louvre to take it all in the way I want to.
Last summer I visited Washington DC to see the Smithsonian Museums and other musuems/galleries. For the most part I spent a whole day in each one and 2 days in the National Gallery of Art. I did this trip solo and it was really great, would even have liked to spend more than a week there as there was still LOTS that I had to skip. You shouldn't be speed running art galleries just to say you've been there... what is the point?
The day after this happens, another token would be used as proof of visiting the Louvre. "I'm not one of those people, I came to see the real art" followed by a quick video with the second most...
influencers who are only interested in a quick selfy with the Mona Lisa and then they leave. Move the Mona Lisa to a different area, or even a different building all together and charge a separate fee to go and see it. This would eliminate all of these people from the people who are really coming to see The Louvre.
The day after this happens, another token would be used as proof of visiting the Louvre. "I'm not one of those people, I came to see the real art" followed by a quick video with the second most popular piece. It's a symptom, not a cause.
You are probably right, it's an unfortunate effect of our modern scroll and swipe lives, experiences are no longer valued, just the bullshit illusion of an experience is valued. Did you take the...
You are probably right, it's an unfortunate effect of our modern scroll and swipe lives, experiences are no longer valued, just the bullshit illusion of an experience is valued. Did you take the 'right' picture in the 'right' spot? I'm even seeing this in my city where we are talking about putting up a giant 'CITY NAME' sign so that influencers can come take a picture in front of it for their whatever it is they do. Concerts have been ruined by this behaviour, fireworks shows, almost all public events. You can find lineups of people on hiking trails waiting so they can stand in that one famous spot and take a selfie.
I think it’s just basic human nature. Modern technology just makes it easier. Much of the draw of travel for all of human history is the prestige and exclusivity of being at famous and fantastic...
I think it’s just basic human nature. Modern technology just makes it easier. Much of the draw of travel for all of human history is the prestige and exclusivity of being at famous and fantastic places. Humans are prestige driven because of our social nature.
I’m sure pilgrims to Constantinople would’ve snapped a selfie in front of the Hagia Sophia if they could. Instead, they bought pilgrim badges from the church which proved they were there.
It's very weird because my instincts run hard the other way: if I've seen a thousand photos of a place, it doesn't seem like a special place to visit or like there's much to get out of seeing it...
It's very weird because my instincts run hard the other way: if I've seen a thousand photos of a place, it doesn't seem like a special place to visit or like there's much to get out of seeing it with my own eyes. If I'm going to go through the trouble of being a tourist, I want to be intrigued and surprised.
I live reasonably close to a major tourist destination in Australia: the Twelve Apostles. One time I was in the area with my in-laws after doing a rainforest walk, and as we were driving past the Twelve Apostles outlook, we decided to stop and go see what all the fuss was about.
It was ... not impressive. The crowds were so thick that it took us a very long time to jostle our way through to actually see the Twelve Apostles, and they weren't nearly interesting enough to justify all the wait and stress.
We left, disappointed. But a little further down the road, we came across some equally scenic sites (more limestone stacks that you can get closer to and see better, a bunch of historical shipwrecks, and a big waterfall) that had no crowds at all, and we had a much better time.
I wish I were extroverted, because as an introvert these people who thrive in crowds completely mystify me. My husband works at Disneyland so I can get in there just about whenever I want. I just...
I wish I were extroverted, because as an introvert these people who thrive in crowds completely mystify me. My husband works at Disneyland so I can get in there just about whenever I want. I just don’t want to because the crowds drive me up the wall. But somehow there are people who spend thousands of dollars a year to go as often as I could.
I've heard some National Parks in the US have started using that as a deliberate strategy. There's the one well-known, popular destination that essentially serves as a sacrificial lamb, taking the...
I've heard some National Parks in the US have started using that as a deliberate strategy. There's the one well-known, popular destination that essentially serves as a sacrificial lamb, taking the brunt of the tourists and all their associated problems. Then the other sites only attract those willing to put a little effort into finding them, which leads to significantly lower wear and tear, and tends to attract a much more respectful crowd.
I have seen this behavior before the advent of digital cameras, but it definitely has gotten a lot worse. Having spent so much time being posed as a child for vacation photos has resulted in me...
I have seen this behavior before the advent of digital cameras, but it definitely has gotten a lot worse.
Having spent so much time being posed as a child for vacation photos has resulted in me valuing candid shots exponentially more, and live in the moment just a little bit more.
It's been a trope since before I was born about being subjected to slideshows from other people's vacations. Virtually nobody actually wants to see other people's vacation photos anyway...excepting creeps trawling for bikini shots.
I was greatly annoyed having to pre-book tickets using broken Japanese, in order to go see Museum Ghibli in Mitaka, Japan (2014). But when I got there, there were no lines, the themed cafe easily...
Force people to pre-purchase tickets so there aren't giant lines forming every single day?
I was greatly annoyed having to pre-book tickets using broken Japanese, in order to go see Museum Ghibli in Mitaka, Japan (2014). But when I got there, there were no lines, the themed cafe easily had room for my disabled mother, the merch line was extremely reasonable, and we all got to see the short film at slotted time and basically had a great visit.
Maybe basic thing like, "book 1yr in advance if you're a tourist, and check in every 2 months if still interested", absolutely no cameras or recording inside, BAM, cut down on influencers.
I'm a big believer in year long memberships, weekday visits during members only hours, and hope to be able to do that again one day. I understood not everyone is local, though, so some kind of balance between locals and visitors need to be negotiated.
It's kind of annoying but then there are resources like Klook which are pretty great at helping tourist book things. We used it for most stuff except booking a series of trains we needed to get...
It's kind of annoying but then there are resources like Klook which are pretty great at helping tourist book things. We used it for most stuff except booking a series of trains we needed to get back to Tokyo from a smaller town. In that case the Osaka train station employed a nice German man to assist the gaijin.
Pre-booking is annoying but really does help with operational planning and over all experience at tourist hot spots.
This is a museum that already has a maximum daily entry cap and is specifically designed to attract tourists. It isn't being overwhelmed by more tourists than they expected to have, they knew...
This is a museum that already has a maximum daily entry cap and is specifically designed to attract tourists. It isn't being overwhelmed by more tourists than they expected to have, they knew exactly how many people would come.
Its just poor management. Maybe there's other places that are being overwhelmed by a massive increase in tourism, but for this specific instance its a different problem.
The articles I've read have described how government funding for the Louvre has been dropping over the past few years, which is almost certainly a factor.
The articles I've read have described how government funding for the Louvre has been dropping over the past few years, which is almost certainly a factor.
This is the bit I didn't really understand: government funding is dropping off but they have more tourists than ever; shouldn't the revenue from tickets fill in for the lack of subsidy? Unless...
This is the bit I didn't really understand: government funding is dropping off but they have more tourists than ever; shouldn't the revenue from tickets fill in for the lack of subsidy? Unless there's a mandated ticket price cap or the like, why is the museum chronically underfunded? If the museum isn't making enough to cover maintainence, they need to up the ticket price, surely?
I don't know enough details to say for certain, but I think it's probably relevant that more guests also increases costs -- particularly in terms of employee time -- whereas government funding...
I don't know enough details to say for certain, but I think it's probably relevant that more guests also increases costs -- particularly in terms of employee time -- whereas government funding does not. The Louvre reportedly is really in need of renovation, and I suspect employees are also worried about understaffing issues.
If the monafluencers are a problem, then you just put it in a solo room with no phones allowed and active security to enforce. Charge 100k to bring your phone in or something and help pay for...
If the monafluencers are a problem, then you just put it in a solo room with no phones allowed and active security to enforce. Charge 100k to bring your phone in or something and help pay for services from the uber wealthy. Donate it to art schools or something.
I doubt that's all it is as it turns out that there's only so much art from various eras and it's unique, so yeah as more people gain the ability to travel, they will go there.
There's not a ton of great solutions that still allow access to larger groups. The simple economic solution is "charge more" since demand is clearly higher than supply, but obviously there's more to it since there's cultural and ethical benefit to allowing these sorts of things to be viewed by more people.
Some American national parks are beginning to struggle with overcrowding and they've come up with a reasonable system. You have to pre-register (which is only $2) - unless you show up early...
Some American national parks are beginning to struggle with overcrowding and they've come up with a reasonable system. You have to pre-register (which is only $2) - unless you show up early enough, in which case you can still walk in. For at least some of them, the most visited places always require preregistration.
It can feel a bit hard to swallow, sometimes, since the parks have historically been extremely open and I often like to do things very last minute. But what other choice do we really have? As you say, there are cultural and ethical benefits to letting these experiences be open to everyone.
I did not expect my first visit to Paradise on Mt. Rainier to involve a 4 hour wait in the car and an overcrowded parking lot. They let one vehicle in when another leaves, you have to drive around...
I did not expect my first visit to Paradise on Mt. Rainier to involve a 4 hour wait in the car and an overcrowded parking lot. They let one vehicle in when another leaves, you have to drive around looking for that single spot.
I would have happily booked some kind of reservation instead.
I know you're saying this is a more complex issue with not a lot of solutions and I definitely agree, so I feel like pointing out is just punishment to every "regular" tourist. Hypothetically, if...
I know you're saying this is a more complex issue with not a lot of solutions and I definitely agree, so I feel like pointing out
If the monafluencers are a problem, then you just put it in a solo room with no phones allowed and active security to enforce. Charge 100k to bring your phone in or something and help pay for services from the uber wealthy. Donate it to art schools or something.
is just punishment to every "regular" tourist. Hypothetically, if I live half way around the world. I arrange and pay for my entire family to see these pieces of art, I cannot take a family pic withoput having an extra 100k? I guess if the goal is to tank tourism overall, job done?
Charging separately is not a solution because if you price it high it punishes "regular" tourists and if you price it low it actually incentivizies influencer behavior and still punishes others.
Sorry but my take is that the NEED for photos, especially with yourself in it, is part of the issue. If you refused to see great art (which the Mona is kinda overrated if still great) because you...
Sorry but my take is that the NEED for photos, especially with yourself in it, is part of the issue. If you refused to see great art (which the Mona is kinda overrated if still great) because you couldn’t get a photo with THAT specific piece, meh.
The 100k in my eyes is the arrogance tax where the cost finally outweighs the damage of someone hogging the experience
You could do even better. Included with the ticket comes a photo of the object made by a professional photographer, better than you'd ever take in those crowded circumstances. You could stamp it...
You could do even better. Included with the ticket comes a photo of the object made by a professional photographer, better than you'd ever take in those crowded circumstances. You could stamp it with the date, for the connection with that specific moment, etc. Add a certificate, I don't know, the options are endless.
But if the fact that you are not in the photo is a dealbreaker, then it immediately follows that you think you are the most important element, and not the art.
Paying for a picture of the Mona Lisa will be underwhelming to almost anyone. You can see a picture of the painting itself anywhere but most people don't really know how it looks as it is hanging...
Paying for a picture of the Mona Lisa will be underwhelming to almost anyone. You can see a picture of the painting itself anywhere but most people don't really know how it looks as it is hanging on the wall.
I don't think taking a photo is what matters, I personally object to walling art off behind greater and greater financial costs to discourage people from viewing it.
"Influencers" who make money off what they're posting will keep showing up and families/"regular people" will be priced out. And then they'll turn to the influencers to get a feel for the experience...
It's ick all the way down
Well to be clear my charge was just for getting to bring a phone into the room, basically subsidizing ticket cost off successful influencers. Although not sure if you’re taking any my random never...
Well to be clear my charge was just for getting to bring a phone into the room, basically subsidizing ticket cost off successful influencers. Although not sure if you’re taking any my random never going to happen idea or just the general issue with ticket prices for art
A general issue with increasing costs, whether for your phone or ticket prices suggested in the broader comments, not just yours. There's a level of sustainability necessary but most museums I'm...
A general issue with increasing costs, whether for your phone or ticket prices suggested in the broader comments, not just yours. There's a level of sustainability necessary but most museums I'm familiar with in the US have cheap/free days or major discounts for people that get food stamps. Idk about the Louvre specifically. A love and appreciation of art should be encouraged not paywalled.
Banning recording devices (like flash photography) entirely makes sense in a way that charging for the camera access doesn't. And selling a professional photo of the Mona Lisa with a ticket will be either a) underwhelming or b) zoomed in far enough to be basically a print, and probably c) missing the goal of a family photo for a memory which is quite different than an influencer shot.
My ADHD works in a way that memories fade very easily, at least in any tangible form ( I feel like i mentally store them in a spreadsheet, not a photo album) and photos have a "bring me back to the moment" effect. So I do see why photos are important for family memories especially as I've had my dad pass away and I'm not very past focused.
I just think I have a pretty strong negative reaction to just increasing the cost as someone who may someday be able to travel to Europe as a family but due to accessibility needs my options will be limited and my budget will be very tight. And big, more modernized attractions are the most likely to be accessible.
It's not a realistic dream for us unless we cruised to Europe in the first place. But it's still there. And while a tax on tourism I think makes some sense, just raising admission fees is less so, but maybe it's just my biased showing
To me, the photo also doesn't matter much, but I acknowledge that people like to have some souvenir from the experience itself. Not just from the object they saw, but from their actual visit. So...
To me, the photo also doesn't matter much, but I acknowledge that people like to have some souvenir from the experience itself. Not just from the object they saw, but from their actual visit.
So the idea is to give some kind of memento that is directly tied to their visit, like a professional photo, but with a time and date stamped on the back. (I am not a marketeer, there are likely better ideas than that) This would be special to you, similar to how some people like to keep tickets to the concerts they visit. But it is not nearly as interesting to show off on social media.
I mean sure you could do it like Disney and have only a professional photographer be available if you want a photo in that room. I would be okay with banning photography, just not okay with...
I mean sure you could do it like Disney and have only a professional photographer be available if you want a photo in that room. I would be okay with banning photography, just not okay with allowing people to pay a special price to bring their phone in. And maybe that is just again my bias towards who museums should be for. Maybe there is still space for the private elite events and parties and whatever. I just dislike the walling off of things
I was just referencing the fact that the Mona Lisa is fairly underwhelming if you take a photo of it that makes it obvious you're in the Louvre versus if you just basically take a photo so close as to be providing a print
I agree with you in the sense that if I wanted a selfie with a piece of art, yea that's very meh. Especially if I chose not to visit at all because I couldn't get that photo. Nothing of value was...
I agree with you in the sense that if I wanted a selfie with a piece of art, yea that's very meh. Especially if I chose not to visit at all because I couldn't get that photo. Nothing of value was lost. It's effectively admitting I'm doing it for social media clout which I hate.
But I also believe that wanting a family picture with the same piece of art is a different situation entirely. Having a family picture and buliding those family memories is just a different situation.
To the points you and others are making, how do you actually classify these and assign value to them. How do you differentiate the dad using his family for social media clout vs the dad that wants the family memory hanging up in their family home. It's impossible.
All of this is just to reiterate it's an incredibly difficult situation to solve and it really feels like there's no solution that doesn't end up with collateral damage.
Personally I sorta don’t. I get where you’re coming from but I despise most photos, especially those that aren’t impromptu. Having one more page in a book you’ll sometimes look at strikes me as...
Personally I sorta don’t. I get where you’re coming from but I despise most photos, especially those that aren’t impromptu. Having one more page in a book you’ll sometimes look at strikes me as rarely worth the overhead.
People have thousands upon thousands of photos these days and will still go massively out of their way to make them “perfect”. I see no real need for this, but I understand I’m in the minority. Humanity did fine with memories for most of human history without the need to over document every single meal and event, and I do expect some level of pushback on it in the coming generations.
I actively avoid being in photos myself, I just don't like to for various reasons that are irrelevant to this particular discussion. I still feel like the 100k proposal is a ham-fisted hard-line...
I actively avoid being in photos myself, I just don't like to for various reasons that are irrelevant to this particular discussion. I still feel like the 100k proposal is a ham-fisted hard-line approach that dismisses most nuance on the subject (aka, no good solution). It's effectively telling people their sense of family memories or nostalgia are invalid.
Humanity did fine with memories for most of human history without the need to over document every single meal and event.
I think this is an unprovable statement. Can anyone prove that we would have been better off with those pictures/documents (obviously not)? If "humanity did fine" means ending up in the situation the world is currently in I imagine a lot of people might have issues with that. I could put forth the [false] argument that maybe humanity would have been better off without anyone bothering to create the art that's creating this problem.
Don't get me wrong I very sincerely hate influencer culture and I really want to see a solution to this problem I just don't see how anything presented in this post (not just our conversation) is a remotely viable solution.
I do want to make a point to say that I appreciate being able to have the discussion without it devolving into angry hateful comments like so many discussions do these days. Thank you for that. :)
There are apparently already future plans to build a new area specifically for the Mona Lisa with timed entry, as well as adding a second museum entrance, both to alleviate the current congestion.
Move the Mona Lisa to a different area
There are apparently already future plans to build a new area specifically for the Mona Lisa with timed entry, as well as adding a second museum entrance, both to alleviate the current congestion.
I hope you get to see your dream come true. Visiting the Louvre was one of the most amazing things I’ve been fortunate enough to experience. I cried at the sheer grandness of it all. Hundreds of...
I hope you get to see your dream come true. Visiting the Louvre was one of the most amazing things I’ve been fortunate enough to experience. I cried at the sheer grandness of it all. Hundreds of years of art, preserved and displayed in such a way that just makes my heart full thinking about it right now. And yes, Mona is so overrated, and it’s a real shame..set behind some glass and whatnot, and crowded by everyone. There’s so much more! I believe in you, and wish you all the best on your art and travel adventures!
That seems like a rather easy solution. Are there any complicated reasons preventing them from doing that? Economic reasons? Maybe they need the money from the crowds? Maybe that.
Reduced daily limits?
That seems like a rather easy solution. Are there any complicated reasons preventing them from doing that? Economic reasons? Maybe they need the money from the crowds?
The full renovation plan is expected to be financed through ticket revenue, private donations, state funds, and licensing fees from the Louvre’s Abu Dhabi branch. Ticket prices for non-EU tourists are expected to rise later this year.
The simplest solution in situations like this is surge pricing. At least then, if overcrowding persists they can better afford to hire additional staff to wrangle the crowds.
The simplest solution in situations like this is surge pricing. At least then, if overcrowding persists they can better afford to hire additional staff to wrangle the crowds.
I went to the British Museum last year and it was an absolutely miserable experience for my wife and I. So crowded, I was literally tripping over people and there was constantly people surrounding...
I went to the British Museum last year and it was an absolutely miserable experience for my wife and I. So crowded, I was literally tripping over people and there was constantly people surrounding anything I wanted to look at; on occasion that I did get to see something, I tried to hurry along, so I wasn't in other peoples way.
I'm not sure what I expected, but I'm used to the Nature and Science Museum in my State, in my City that can get crowded, but is often pretty dead, especially during the middle of the week.
I'm not sure what's to be done about it. Certain places and things just seem to have become so popular with the advent of the internet that it kind of spoils them, while other things (such as my museum or a different museum in the UK that I visited as well) seem to be withering and dying because they're not popular amongst influencers.
I wish I could downvote the suggestion to penalize lower-income people and find new ways to favour the rich. "Due to overtourism, the world's cultural treasures are henceforth only to be...
I wish I could downvote the suggestion to penalize lower-income people and find new ways to favour the rich.
"Due to overtourism, the world's cultural treasures are henceforth only to be appreciated by the wealthy"
People over fixate on “the rich”. You could ban all the “rich” people from going to the louvre and it wouldn’t change anything, because there’s not that many rich people to make a dent in the...
People over fixate on “the rich”. You could ban all the “rich” people from going to the louvre and it wouldn’t change anything, because there’s not that many rich people to make a dent in the numbers.
Price is proxy for desire. If your dream is to see the Mona Lisa or whatever, then an additional $100 is not a big deal, whereas if you’re a college student traveling on break from another Schengen country, well, it’s just a stuffy art museum, you’d rather spend your $100 on more baguettes and beer.
I think that’s a better allocation of who gets to go than “unlucky vs lucky” or “French vs not French” or “who has more free time”.
One group who benefit from low priced museums are art students and working artists who tend to live in penury unless they become extremely successful. In general, I think you underestimate the...
One group who benefit from low priced museums are art students and working artists who tend to live in penury unless they become extremely successful.
In general, I think you underestimate the number of people who work to make rent with nothing left over.
I suppose, but it really sucks being completely priced out of something, like say Broadway shows, simply for the curse of being unable to shell out $500 for a reasonably good seat. Fixed,...
I suppose, but it really sucks being completely priced out of something, like say Broadway shows, simply for the curse of being unable to shell out $500 for a reasonably good seat.
Fixed, reasonably low prices, with lotteries if demand is too high. That is the fair way to account for excessive demand, rather than "wealth makes right."
See also Disney with Microsoft levels of "pay to make the inconveniences go away."
They already have those ideas. Fastpass turned into lightning lanes which cost the big bucks, annual pass has been replaced with multi-tiered Magic Key program, and there are many days that the...
They already have those ideas. Fastpass turned into lightning lanes which cost the big bucks, annual pass has been replaced with multi-tiered Magic Key program, and there are many days that the park will close early because they are having an event that you will have to pay extra money to get into.
So the wealthy just get to do whatever they want regardless of desire, whereas the less privileged have to make agonizing decisions every day based on how much they desire it?
Price is proxy for desire. If your dream is to see the Mona Lisa or whatever, then an additional $100 is not a big deal,
So the wealthy just get to do whatever they want regardless of desire, whereas the less privileged have to make agonizing decisions every day based on how much they desire it?
50% of the world population lives in China and India. The exchange rate on $100 can be extremely prohibitive to someone traveling to Europe that is interested in art.
50% of the world population lives in China and India. The exchange rate on $100 can be extremely prohibitive to someone traveling to Europe that is interested in art.
I don’t think those are the people going to France. Stay at a hostel instead of a hotel. A lottery would be much worse for a potential traveler from China or India. You’d only have one shot at the...
I don’t think those are the people going to France.
Stay at a hostel instead of a hotel. A lottery would be much worse for a potential traveler from China or India. You’d only have one shot at the lottery - it’s not like you’re going to go to France every year. You’re most likely doomed.
Whereas if it’s more expensive, you have the opportunity to cut costs elsewhere in the trip.
And I think there is a place for higher priced entry for those visitors during other hours. But I'm not espousing a lottery. I'd prefer published ticket release schedules, 50% of tickets available...
And I think there is a place for higher priced entry for those visitors during other hours. But I'm not espousing a lottery. I'd prefer published ticket release schedules, 50% of tickets available 6 months in advanced, 25% released 3mo in advance, and the remaining released month of. Measure pre-purchased ticket attendance rate. Suppose 12% of ticket holders no-show. That percent can be re-sold at the counter, maybe reserve 5% to insure that there is flex for busy days.
Further, look at early day operations. It looks like the Louvre is open at 9am... pretty early in my experience. But supposed we looked at 8-11 as "group entry" for school groups, etc. General entry could be 11-6. Then 6-9 could be high priced entry. Obviously this needs to be tested against data but there are solutions in operational research.
Then look at layout. I'm sure they've looked at this before but high traffic stuff needs to be easy to enter and exit. Other entry points should be available for people who don't need to beeline towards the famous pieces. Hell ticket stuff like the Mona Lisa separately with specific times entry periods.
Edit:
I don’t think those are the people going to France.
I mean, tourism has long exclusively been for the very wealthy. Modern tourism traces its origins to the Grand Tour, basically Eurotrip but for young, upper-class Europeans. Today, it's accessible...
henceforth
I mean, tourism has long exclusively been for the very wealthy. Modern tourism traces its origins to the Grand Tour, basically Eurotrip but for young, upper-class Europeans.
Today, it's accessible to the global affluent. Taking an international flight to France and affording any accommodation in Paris places one in the global 10~20% that can afford international trips.
Overtourism is the direct result of travel becoming affordable to the global affluent. Raising prices of attractions will force people to think about what they really want to see and do instead of trying to check everything off some memetic bucket list.
I agree, and I hate that its affordability has ruined certain locations. But I don't think looking to history in this respect should serve as a model for what it should be. Society was very...
I mean, tourism has long exclusively been for the very wealthy.
I agree, and I hate that its affordability has ruined certain locations. But I don't think looking to history in this respect should serve as a model for what it should be. Society was very different back in the days of the Grand Tour.
I have no problem with airline prices being higher the further you travel, and obviously I have no problem with more luxury being available to those who can afford it. So wealth can still be a differentiating factor in tourism. But inflating prices of cultural sights and attractions does not seem the fair thing to do. I don't think they should be the exclusive domain of the wealthy. Someone from Germany should be able to travel to and holiday in France fairly cheaply by virtue of their geographical location, whereas they may not be able to afford a trip to Australia.
On a tangential note, Canada is largely boycotting US tourism due to the Orange Turd effect and our gov has just announced that our national parks, historic sites and marine conservation areas...
On a tangential note, Canada is largely boycotting US tourism due to the Orange Turd effect and our gov has just announced that our national parks, historic sites and marine conservation areas will all be free admission for Canadians this summer. Nice.
I’m probably being naive, but it seems like a decent stepping stone towards e.g. blocking off specific days for outreach programs and as a general fundraising opportunity? Tourists are causing...
I’m probably being naive, but it seems like a decent stepping stone towards e.g. blocking off specific days for outreach programs and as a general fundraising opportunity?
Tourists are causing harm, so we might as well charge them for it. As long as we live in a society where wealth accumulation and disparity is a normal and desirable thing, it’s up to our organizations to redistribute wealth — in this case, cultural wealth, and probably redistributed in the form of some sort of income tested benefit.
I’ll admit to being pretty biased — I don’t particularly care to see plundered artifacts hidden behind bulletproof glass, and it’s hard to empathize with people who’re OK with exacting harm on other regions/cultures for a benefit they feel entitled to — but this the access issue in particular feels like a free market capitalism issue, which is pretty hard to fix independently.
What's wrong with just restricting numbers? I don't see why pricing needs to be used to price people out of it, when you can just allocate X number of tickets per day and ensure there are...
Tourists are causing harm, so we might as well charge them for it.
What's wrong with just restricting numbers? I don't see why pricing needs to be used to price people out of it, when you can just allocate X number of tickets per day and ensure there are designated time slots.
Complete guess, but (1) this will absolutely create a black market for tickets, so rich folks are getting in anyways, and (2) it prevents the Louvre from diversifying its funding sources. If...
What's wrong with just restricting numbers?
Complete guess, but (1) this will absolutely create a black market for tickets, so rich folks are getting in anyways, and (2) it prevents the Louvre from diversifying its funding sources. If you’ve been watching American politics recently (from afar, hopefully), it’s clear that political will to support the arts waxes and wanes, so having backup revenue streams is useful.
Also, as a person living around places that tourists tend to trash, I’d rather have their antics support the local community and limit the damage rather than just the latter. Their money is still useful, at the end of the day, unfortunately.
I don't see why pricing needs to be used to price people out of it, when you can just allocate X number of tickets per day and ensure there are designated time slots.
Depending on how it’d be done, you could reduce the price for everyone else, or eliminate it entirely. That would make things even more accessible, while improving the Louvre’s finances, I think?
Possibly, but I'm sure they can come up with ways to prevent this if they are willing to stamp out corruption. Don't allow reselling, have unique identifying numbers per ticket, don't sell...
(1) this will absolutely create a black market for tickets, so rich folks are getting in anyways,
Possibly, but I'm sure they can come up with ways to prevent this if they are willing to stamp out corruption. Don't allow reselling, have unique identifying numbers per ticket, don't sell wholesale... (not an expert).
Maybe? Most of the ways I can think of seem pretty easy to defeat by e.g. faking an ID, which shouldn’t be that difficult given that the Louvre would see an international audience. Ultimately I’d...
Maybe? Most of the ways I can think of seem pretty easy to defeat by e.g. faking an ID, which shouldn’t be that difficult given that the Louvre would see an international audience.
Ultimately I’d imagine it’d put the organization in a tough spot: they’d have fewer patrons (because that’s the point) providing less ticket revenue, but need to spend more on enforcing ticket distribution fairness. And unless they can expand operations, keeping tickets artificially scarce will probably raise their value up higher and higher over time, probably attracting more attempts at circumvention?
Anyways, these are all hypotheticals. Who knows what they’ll end up doing.
Certainly no easy answers! I'm actually supposed to be going to the Louvre in a few weeks. I'm travelling a long way to get there, so I really hope there won't be a strike!
Certainly no easy answers! I'm actually supposed to be going to the Louvre in a few weeks. I'm travelling a long way to get there, so I really hope there won't be a strike!
That works in a commodity market but cultural artifacts and art have a highly limited supply. I don't think access to art and culture should be a function of economics. That seems to be a...
That works in a commodity market but cultural artifacts and art have a highly limited supply. I don't think access to art and culture should be a function of economics. That seems to be a direction toward art only being within the purview of the elite.
Rather institutions should set reasonable limits that allow visitors to have sufficient time and space. Perhaps some sort of paging system to let patrons know that they are near the limit of their allowed time.
That would help things if the problem is people staying too long at a museum, but I doubt that’s the case. Most visitors in the end, like the article describes, will snap a few pics of...
That would help things if the problem is people staying too long at a museum, but I doubt that’s the case. Most visitors in the end, like the article describes, will snap a few pics of particularly famous pieces and then leave. Big history or art buffs are the minority, in the end.
In the end, the laws of physics dictate that only so many people can see an item with their own eyes at any given moment. Exclusion is inevitable. It’s just a matter of who.
Exclusion is inevitable but the market doesn't need to decide who to exclude. Meter daily visitors appropriately. I'm also not against higher cost, more intimate viewing hours after normal close....
Exclusion is inevitable but the market doesn't need to decide who to exclude. Meter daily visitors appropriately. I'm also not against higher cost, more intimate viewing hours after normal close. But general viewing should be reasonably accessible even if it means scheduling your visit several months in advance.
Right, because making museums less accessible for those with lower incomes is a reasonable solution. Because that is what you are going to achieve by jacking up prices. Wealthy tourists will...
Right, because making museums less accessible for those with lower incomes is a reasonable solution. Because that is what you are going to achieve by jacking up prices. Wealthy tourists will happily pay the prices, people less well of now cannot visit anymore, including locals.
Is what it is. If the goal is for less people to attend the museum, then by definition you’re making it less accessible. As a benefit, more funds means the museum’s non-revenue generating...
Is what it is. If the goal is for less people to attend the museum, then by definition you’re making it less accessible.
As a benefit, more funds means the museum’s non-revenue generating operations like conservation or restoration have more to work with.
There’s always a trade off. Considering how much of the British museums is stolen from other countries, perhaps biasing towards the locals is not the best move.
That's a weird take. How is increasing the price not biasing towards the locals who don't have the travel costs that families from elsewhere would? Much less the insinuation that the average...
There’s always a trade off. Considering how much of the British museums is stolen from other countries, perhaps biasing towards the locals is not the best move.
That's a weird take. How is increasing the price not biasing towards the locals who don't have the travel costs that families from elsewhere would? Much less the insinuation that the average Briton is walking around singing "Rule, Britannia" as they peruse the museum.
For international travelers, what’s important is a guarantee. If it were a lottery, for instance, a local could more or less guarantee getting in eventually by just having infinite opportunities...
For international travelers, what’s important is a guarantee. If it were a lottery, for instance, a local could more or less guarantee getting in eventually by just having infinite opportunities in the lottery.
If you’re planning a trip to the UK from overseas, well, you go when you go, and if you don’t win the lottery then, not much you can do.
Obviously it is not what it is. If it was that simple it would be a solution already in place instead of a hypothetical coined in one line on an internet forum. No shit, it still matters who you...
Is what it is.
Obviously it is not what it is. If it was that simple it would be a solution already in place instead of a hypothetical coined in one line on an internet forum.
If the goal is for less people to attend the museum, then by definition you’re making it less accessible.
No shit, it still matters who you make it more or less accessible to though.
Considering how much of the British museums is stolen from other countries
Great, now you just need to find equally round about reasoning for the myriad of other museums suffering from the same issue. Like, just a random example, the louvre.
It is a solution in place in many areas. Pricing has gone up in general for tourism hotspots. I think it’s an inevitability for many of the museums for which income is important. I don’t think the...
It is a solution in place in many areas. Pricing has gone up in general for tourism hotspots. I think it’s an inevitability for many of the museums for which income is important.
Like, just a random example, the louvre.
I don’t think the Mona Lisa was French.
Moreover, the point is that for any given site, you can mark arguments for and against any population you’re excluding. The louvre is highly international, and government funding has dropped precariously since 2003.
Is it any more fair that you should see the Mona Lisa only if you were born in France?
I know I did specifically bring up the Louvre, given the context of this article. But your point is clearly about museums in general as is what I said. Frankly, these hyper specific arguments you...
Is it any more fair that you should see the Mona Lisa only if you were born in France?
I know I did specifically bring up the Louvre, given the context of this article. But your point is clearly about museums in general as is what I said. Frankly, these hyper specific arguments you keep inject seem disingenuous arguments avoiding the larger point.
Even if what you are saying is said in earnest. It is casual to the point that you are throwing out half-baked examples without polishing them slightly moving the goal post while doing so. It makes for a very flippant tone of conversation and makes it honestly difficult to engage with without feeling that you are just here for the sake of arguing and not a honest conversation.
I would expect a museum to evaluate its options based on its mission and its resources. Personally I prefer a reservation system that doesn't lock out poor people who appreciate culture or want to...
I would expect a museum to evaluate its options based on its mission and its resources.
Personally I prefer a reservation system that doesn't lock out poor people who appreciate culture or want to benefit their children.
I feel like the solution to over tourism is time. I'm at the tail end of the Boomer generation, and nearly 65. There are still millions of us in our retirement years wanting to get in that last...
I feel like the solution to over tourism is time. I'm at the tail end of the Boomer generation, and nearly 65. There are still millions of us in our retirement years wanting to get in that last kick at travelling before our health gives out. But most of us slow down considerably in 5 years, 10 years max and most of us will be dead in 15 years. That takes care of the glut of tourists currently invading every site and there should be a lot more space for the generations behind us.
This is a tough one I really don't know what to do here but it's obvious that 'tourism' is starting to overwhelm European cities, sites and museums. The Louvre is probably just the worst example of 'over-tourism'.
What can be done here? Reduced daily limits? Force people to pre-purchase tickets so there aren't giant lines forming every single day? Increase the cost of tickets to discourage casual visitors? From what I've heard there are a large amount of people... influencers who are only interested in a quick selfy with the Mona Lisa and then they leave. Move the Mona Lisa to a different area, or even a different building all together and charge a separate fee to go and see it. This would eliminate all of these people from the people who are really coming to see The Louvre.
I am a museum and art gallery geek and have always dreamed of visiting The Louvre, probably my #1 destination on earth. My plans involve spending all day every day for a week in that beast (the only possible way to see it all properly, the size of The Louvre is not to be under estimated.) People (especially my partner) look at me like I am crazy when I say this, but I can't see spending less then an entire day or even 2 days in each section of The Louvre to take it all in the way I want to.
Last summer I visited Washington DC to see the Smithsonian Museums and other musuems/galleries. For the most part I spent a whole day in each one and 2 days in the National Gallery of Art. I did this trip solo and it was really great, would even have liked to spend more than a week there as there was still LOTS that I had to skip. You shouldn't be speed running art galleries just to say you've been there... what is the point?
The day after this happens, another token would be used as proof of visiting the Louvre. "I'm not one of those people, I came to see the real art" followed by a quick video with the second most popular piece. It's a symptom, not a cause.
You are probably right, it's an unfortunate effect of our modern scroll and swipe lives, experiences are no longer valued, just the bullshit illusion of an experience is valued. Did you take the 'right' picture in the 'right' spot? I'm even seeing this in my city where we are talking about putting up a giant 'CITY NAME' sign so that influencers can come take a picture in front of it for their whatever it is they do. Concerts have been ruined by this behaviour, fireworks shows, almost all public events. You can find lineups of people on hiking trails waiting so they can stand in that one famous spot and take a selfie.
I think it’s just basic human nature. Modern technology just makes it easier. Much of the draw of travel for all of human history is the prestige and exclusivity of being at famous and fantastic places. Humans are prestige driven because of our social nature.
I’m sure pilgrims to Constantinople would’ve snapped a selfie in front of the Hagia Sophia if they could. Instead, they bought pilgrim badges from the church which proved they were there.
It's very weird because my instincts run hard the other way: if I've seen a thousand photos of a place, it doesn't seem like a special place to visit or like there's much to get out of seeing it with my own eyes. If I'm going to go through the trouble of being a tourist, I want to be intrigued and surprised.
I live reasonably close to a major tourist destination in Australia: the Twelve Apostles. One time I was in the area with my in-laws after doing a rainforest walk, and as we were driving past the Twelve Apostles outlook, we decided to stop and go see what all the fuss was about.
It was ... not impressive. The crowds were so thick that it took us a very long time to jostle our way through to actually see the Twelve Apostles, and they weren't nearly interesting enough to justify all the wait and stress.
We left, disappointed. But a little further down the road, we came across some equally scenic sites (more limestone stacks that you can get closer to and see better, a bunch of historical shipwrecks, and a big waterfall) that had no crowds at all, and we had a much better time.
I wish I were extroverted, because as an introvert these people who thrive in crowds completely mystify me. My husband works at Disneyland so I can get in there just about whenever I want. I just don’t want to because the crowds drive me up the wall. But somehow there are people who spend thousands of dollars a year to go as often as I could.
I've heard some National Parks in the US have started using that as a deliberate strategy. There's the one well-known, popular destination that essentially serves as a sacrificial lamb, taking the brunt of the tourists and all their associated problems. Then the other sites only attract those willing to put a little effort into finding them, which leads to significantly lower wear and tear, and tends to attract a much more respectful crowd.
I have seen this behavior before the advent of digital cameras, but it definitely has gotten a lot worse.
Having spent so much time being posed as a child for vacation photos has resulted in me valuing candid shots exponentially more, and live in the moment just a little bit more.
It's been a trope since before I was born about being subjected to slideshows from other people's vacations. Virtually nobody actually wants to see other people's vacation photos anyway...excepting creeps trawling for bikini shots.
I was greatly annoyed having to pre-book tickets using broken Japanese, in order to go see Museum Ghibli in Mitaka, Japan (2014). But when I got there, there were no lines, the themed cafe easily had room for my disabled mother, the merch line was extremely reasonable, and we all got to see the short film at slotted time and basically had a great visit.
Maybe basic thing like, "book 1yr in advance if you're a tourist, and check in every 2 months if still interested", absolutely no cameras or recording inside, BAM, cut down on influencers.
I'm a big believer in year long memberships, weekday visits during members only hours, and hope to be able to do that again one day. I understood not everyone is local, though, so some kind of balance between locals and visitors need to be negotiated.
It's kind of annoying but then there are resources like Klook which are pretty great at helping tourist book things. We used it for most stuff except booking a series of trains we needed to get back to Tokyo from a smaller town. In that case the Osaka train station employed a nice German man to assist the gaijin.
Pre-booking is annoying but really does help with operational planning and over all experience at tourist hot spots.
Oooh, hopefully I'll remember if I get the chance again to see Japan. And their rail/transport staff are soooooo friendly!!
Start with normal taxes on kerosene to compensate for the pollution it causes?
This is a museum that already has a maximum daily entry cap and is specifically designed to attract tourists. It isn't being overwhelmed by more tourists than they expected to have, they knew exactly how many people would come.
Its just poor management. Maybe there's other places that are being overwhelmed by a massive increase in tourism, but for this specific instance its a different problem.
The articles I've read have described how government funding for the Louvre has been dropping over the past few years, which is almost certainly a factor.
This is the bit I didn't really understand: government funding is dropping off but they have more tourists than ever; shouldn't the revenue from tickets fill in for the lack of subsidy? Unless there's a mandated ticket price cap or the like, why is the museum chronically underfunded? If the museum isn't making enough to cover maintainence, they need to up the ticket price, surely?
I don't know enough details to say for certain, but I think it's probably relevant that more guests also increases costs -- particularly in terms of employee time -- whereas government funding does not. The Louvre reportedly is really in need of renovation, and I suspect employees are also worried about understaffing issues.
Yeah, Disney has already taken all those steps in FL & it doesn't seem to have slowed them down at all.
If the monafluencers are a problem, then you just put it in a solo room with no phones allowed and active security to enforce. Charge 100k to bring your phone in or something and help pay for services from the uber wealthy. Donate it to art schools or something.
I doubt that's all it is as it turns out that there's only so much art from various eras and it's unique, so yeah as more people gain the ability to travel, they will go there.
There's not a ton of great solutions that still allow access to larger groups. The simple economic solution is "charge more" since demand is clearly higher than supply, but obviously there's more to it since there's cultural and ethical benefit to allowing these sorts of things to be viewed by more people.
Some American national parks are beginning to struggle with overcrowding and they've come up with a reasonable system. You have to pre-register (which is only $2) - unless you show up early enough, in which case you can still walk in. For at least some of them, the most visited places always require preregistration.
https://www.nps.gov/romo/planyourvisit/timed-entry-permit-system.htm
It can feel a bit hard to swallow, sometimes, since the parks have historically been extremely open and I often like to do things very last minute. But what other choice do we really have? As you say, there are cultural and ethical benefits to letting these experiences be open to everyone.
I did not expect my first visit to Paradise on Mt. Rainier to involve a 4 hour wait in the car and an overcrowded parking lot. They let one vehicle in when another leaves, you have to drive around looking for that single spot.
I would have happily booked some kind of reservation instead.
I know you're saying this is a more complex issue with not a lot of solutions and I definitely agree, so I feel like pointing out
is just punishment to every "regular" tourist. Hypothetically, if I live half way around the world. I arrange and pay for my entire family to see these pieces of art, I cannot take a family pic withoput having an extra 100k? I guess if the goal is to tank tourism overall, job done?
Charging separately is not a solution because if you price it high it punishes "regular" tourists and if you price it low it actually incentivizies influencer behavior and still punishes others.
Sorry but my take is that the NEED for photos, especially with yourself in it, is part of the issue. If you refused to see great art (which the Mona is kinda overrated if still great) because you couldn’t get a photo with THAT specific piece, meh.
The 100k in my eyes is the arrogance tax where the cost finally outweighs the damage of someone hogging the experience
You could do even better. Included with the ticket comes a photo of the object made by a professional photographer, better than you'd ever take in those crowded circumstances. You could stamp it with the date, for the connection with that specific moment, etc. Add a certificate, I don't know, the options are endless.
But if the fact that you are not in the photo is a dealbreaker, then it immediately follows that you think you are the most important element, and not the art.
Paying for a picture of the Mona Lisa will be underwhelming to almost anyone. You can see a picture of the painting itself anywhere but most people don't really know how it looks as it is hanging on the wall.
I don't think taking a photo is what matters, I personally object to walling art off behind greater and greater financial costs to discourage people from viewing it.
"Influencers" who make money off what they're posting will keep showing up and families/"regular people" will be priced out. And then they'll turn to the influencers to get a feel for the experience...
It's ick all the way down
Well to be clear my charge was just for getting to bring a phone into the room, basically subsidizing ticket cost off successful influencers. Although not sure if you’re taking any my random never going to happen idea or just the general issue with ticket prices for art
A general issue with increasing costs, whether for your phone or ticket prices suggested in the broader comments, not just yours. There's a level of sustainability necessary but most museums I'm familiar with in the US have cheap/free days or major discounts for people that get food stamps. Idk about the Louvre specifically. A love and appreciation of art should be encouraged not paywalled.
Banning recording devices (like flash photography) entirely makes sense in a way that charging for the camera access doesn't. And selling a professional photo of the Mona Lisa with a ticket will be either a) underwhelming or b) zoomed in far enough to be basically a print, and probably c) missing the goal of a family photo for a memory which is quite different than an influencer shot.
My ADHD works in a way that memories fade very easily, at least in any tangible form ( I feel like i mentally store them in a spreadsheet, not a photo album) and photos have a "bring me back to the moment" effect. So I do see why photos are important for family memories especially as I've had my dad pass away and I'm not very past focused.
I just think I have a pretty strong negative reaction to just increasing the cost as someone who may someday be able to travel to Europe as a family but due to accessibility needs my options will be limited and my budget will be very tight. And big, more modernized attractions are the most likely to be accessible.
It's not a realistic dream for us unless we cruised to Europe in the first place. But it's still there. And while a tax on tourism I think makes some sense, just raising admission fees is less so, but maybe it's just my biased showing
To me, the photo also doesn't matter much, but I acknowledge that people like to have some souvenir from the experience itself. Not just from the object they saw, but from their actual visit.
So the idea is to give some kind of memento that is directly tied to their visit, like a professional photo, but with a time and date stamped on the back. (I am not a marketeer, there are likely better ideas than that) This would be special to you, similar to how some people like to keep tickets to the concerts they visit. But it is not nearly as interesting to show off on social media.
I mean sure you could do it like Disney and have only a professional photographer be available if you want a photo in that room. I would be okay with banning photography, just not okay with allowing people to pay a special price to bring their phone in. And maybe that is just again my bias towards who museums should be for. Maybe there is still space for the private elite events and parties and whatever. I just dislike the walling off of things
I was just referencing the fact that the Mona Lisa is fairly underwhelming if you take a photo of it that makes it obvious you're in the Louvre versus if you just basically take a photo so close as to be providing a print
I agree with you in the sense that if I wanted a selfie with a piece of art, yea that's very meh. Especially if I chose not to visit at all because I couldn't get that photo. Nothing of value was lost. It's effectively admitting I'm doing it for social media clout which I hate.
But I also believe that wanting a family picture with the same piece of art is a different situation entirely. Having a family picture and buliding those family memories is just a different situation.
To the points you and others are making, how do you actually classify these and assign value to them. How do you differentiate the dad using his family for social media clout vs the dad that wants the family memory hanging up in their family home. It's impossible.
All of this is just to reiterate it's an incredibly difficult situation to solve and it really feels like there's no solution that doesn't end up with collateral damage.
Personally I sorta don’t. I get where you’re coming from but I despise most photos, especially those that aren’t impromptu. Having one more page in a book you’ll sometimes look at strikes me as rarely worth the overhead.
People have thousands upon thousands of photos these days and will still go massively out of their way to make them “perfect”. I see no real need for this, but I understand I’m in the minority. Humanity did fine with memories for most of human history without the need to over document every single meal and event, and I do expect some level of pushback on it in the coming generations.
I actively avoid being in photos myself, I just don't like to for various reasons that are irrelevant to this particular discussion. I still feel like the 100k proposal is a ham-fisted hard-line approach that dismisses most nuance on the subject (aka, no good solution). It's effectively telling people their sense of family memories or nostalgia are invalid.
I think this is an unprovable statement. Can anyone prove that we would have been better off with those pictures/documents (obviously not)? If "humanity did fine" means ending up in the situation the world is currently in I imagine a lot of people might have issues with that. I could put forth the [false] argument that maybe humanity would have been better off without anyone bothering to create the art that's creating this problem.
Don't get me wrong I very sincerely hate influencer culture and I really want to see a solution to this problem I just don't see how anything presented in this post (not just our conversation) is a remotely viable solution.
I do want to make a point to say that I appreciate being able to have the discussion without it devolving into angry hateful comments like so many discussions do these days. Thank you for that. :)
There are apparently already future plans to build a new area specifically for the Mona Lisa with timed entry, as well as adding a second museum entrance, both to alleviate the current congestion.
I hope you get to see your dream come true. Visiting the Louvre was one of the most amazing things I’ve been fortunate enough to experience. I cried at the sheer grandness of it all. Hundreds of years of art, preserved and displayed in such a way that just makes my heart full thinking about it right now. And yes, Mona is so overrated, and it’s a real shame..set behind some glass and whatnot, and crowded by everyone. There’s so much more! I believe in you, and wish you all the best on your art and travel adventures!
That seems like a rather easy solution. Are there any complicated reasons preventing them from doing that? Economic reasons? Maybe they need the money from the crowds?
Maybe that.
The simplest solution in situations like this is surge pricing. At least then, if overcrowding persists they can better afford to hire additional staff to wrangle the crowds.
I went to the British Museum last year and it was an absolutely miserable experience for my wife and I. So crowded, I was literally tripping over people and there was constantly people surrounding anything I wanted to look at; on occasion that I did get to see something, I tried to hurry along, so I wasn't in other peoples way.
I'm not sure what I expected, but I'm used to the Nature and Science Museum in my State, in my City that can get crowded, but is often pretty dead, especially during the middle of the week.
I'm not sure what's to be done about it. Certain places and things just seem to have become so popular with the advent of the internet that it kind of spoils them, while other things (such as my museum or a different museum in the UK that I visited as well) seem to be withering and dying because they're not popular amongst influencers.
You can always just jack up the price. I’m sure there’ll be a lot less people going if it cost $500 to go to the museum.
I wish I could downvote the suggestion to penalize lower-income people and find new ways to favour the rich.
"Due to overtourism, the world's cultural treasures are henceforth only to be appreciated by the wealthy"
People over fixate on “the rich”. You could ban all the “rich” people from going to the louvre and it wouldn’t change anything, because there’s not that many rich people to make a dent in the numbers.
Price is proxy for desire. If your dream is to see the Mona Lisa or whatever, then an additional $100 is not a big deal, whereas if you’re a college student traveling on break from another Schengen country, well, it’s just a stuffy art museum, you’d rather spend your $100 on more baguettes and beer.
I think that’s a better allocation of who gets to go than “unlucky vs lucky” or “French vs not French” or “who has more free time”.
One group who benefit from low priced museums are art students and working artists who tend to live in penury unless they become extremely successful.
In general, I think you underestimate the number of people who work to make rent with nothing left over.
That’s what student discounts are for.
but not every student is a poor person, and not every poor person is a student.
And not every student is an official enrolled student at a university.
Especially students of art.
I suppose, but it really sucks being completely priced out of something, like say Broadway shows, simply for the curse of being unable to shell out $500 for a reasonably good seat.
Fixed, reasonably low prices, with lotteries if demand is too high. That is the fair way to account for excessive demand, rather than "wealth makes right."
See also Disney with Microsoft levels of "pay to make the inconveniences go away."
Don't give them ideas! Cue "budget entry" which projects ads on the art every 15 minutes.
They already have those ideas. Fastpass turned into lightning lanes which cost the big bucks, annual pass has been replaced with multi-tiered Magic Key program, and there are many days that the park will close early because they are having an event that you will have to pay extra money to get into.
I meant The Louvre, but I was concerned for a moment that art institutions were implementing the "Magic Key" program.
So the wealthy just get to do whatever they want regardless of desire, whereas the less privileged have to make agonizing decisions every day based on how much they desire it?
50% of the world population lives in China and India. The exchange rate on $100 can be extremely prohibitive to someone traveling to Europe that is interested in art.
I don’t think those are the people going to France.
Stay at a hostel instead of a hotel. A lottery would be much worse for a potential traveler from China or India. You’d only have one shot at the lottery - it’s not like you’re going to go to France every year. You’re most likely doomed.
Whereas if it’s more expensive, you have the opportunity to cut costs elsewhere in the trip.
And I think there is a place for higher priced entry for those visitors during other hours. But I'm not espousing a lottery. I'd prefer published ticket release schedules, 50% of tickets available 6 months in advanced, 25% released 3mo in advance, and the remaining released month of. Measure pre-purchased ticket attendance rate. Suppose 12% of ticket holders no-show. That percent can be re-sold at the counter, maybe reserve 5% to insure that there is flex for busy days.
Further, look at early day operations. It looks like the Louvre is open at 9am... pretty early in my experience. But supposed we looked at 8-11 as "group entry" for school groups, etc. General entry could be 11-6. Then 6-9 could be high priced entry. Obviously this needs to be tested against data but there are solutions in operational research.
Then look at layout. I'm sure they've looked at this before but high traffic stuff needs to be easy to enter and exit. Other entry points should be available for people who don't need to beeline towards the famous pieces. Hell ticket stuff like the Mona Lisa separately with specific times entry periods.
Edit:
Why not?
I mean, tourism has long exclusively been for the very wealthy. Modern tourism traces its origins to the Grand Tour, basically Eurotrip but for young, upper-class Europeans.
Today, it's accessible to the global affluent. Taking an international flight to France and affording any accommodation in Paris places one in the global 10~20% that can afford international trips.
Overtourism is the direct result of travel becoming affordable to the global affluent. Raising prices of attractions will force people to think about what they really want to see and do instead of trying to check everything off some memetic bucket list.
I agree, and I hate that its affordability has ruined certain locations. But I don't think looking to history in this respect should serve as a model for what it should be. Society was very different back in the days of the Grand Tour.
I have no problem with airline prices being higher the further you travel, and obviously I have no problem with more luxury being available to those who can afford it. So wealth can still be a differentiating factor in tourism. But inflating prices of cultural sights and attractions does not seem the fair thing to do. I don't think they should be the exclusive domain of the wealthy. Someone from Germany should be able to travel to and holiday in France fairly cheaply by virtue of their geographical location, whereas they may not be able to afford a trip to Australia.
On a tangential note, Canada is largely boycotting US tourism due to the Orange Turd effect and our gov has just announced that our national parks, historic sites and marine conservation areas will all be free admission for Canadians this summer. Nice.
I’m probably being naive, but it seems like a decent stepping stone towards e.g. blocking off specific days for outreach programs and as a general fundraising opportunity?
Tourists are causing harm, so we might as well charge them for it. As long as we live in a society where wealth accumulation and disparity is a normal and desirable thing, it’s up to our organizations to redistribute wealth — in this case, cultural wealth, and probably redistributed in the form of some sort of income tested benefit.
I’ll admit to being pretty biased — I don’t particularly care to see plundered artifacts hidden behind bulletproof glass, and it’s hard to empathize with people who’re OK with exacting harm on other regions/cultures for a benefit they feel entitled to — but this the access issue in particular feels like a free market capitalism issue, which is pretty hard to fix independently.
What's wrong with just restricting numbers? I don't see why pricing needs to be used to price people out of it, when you can just allocate X number of tickets per day and ensure there are designated time slots.
Complete guess, but (1) this will absolutely create a black market for tickets, so rich folks are getting in anyways, and (2) it prevents the Louvre from diversifying its funding sources. If you’ve been watching American politics recently (from afar, hopefully), it’s clear that political will to support the arts waxes and wanes, so having backup revenue streams is useful.
Also, as a person living around places that tourists tend to trash, I’d rather have their antics support the local community and limit the damage rather than just the latter. Their money is still useful, at the end of the day, unfortunately.
Depending on how it’d be done, you could reduce the price for everyone else, or eliminate it entirely. That would make things even more accessible, while improving the Louvre’s finances, I think?
Possibly, but I'm sure they can come up with ways to prevent this if they are willing to stamp out corruption. Don't allow reselling, have unique identifying numbers per ticket, don't sell wholesale... (not an expert).
Maybe? Most of the ways I can think of seem pretty easy to defeat by e.g. faking an ID, which shouldn’t be that difficult given that the Louvre would see an international audience.
Ultimately I’d imagine it’d put the organization in a tough spot: they’d have fewer patrons (because that’s the point) providing less ticket revenue, but need to spend more on enforcing ticket distribution fairness. And unless they can expand operations, keeping tickets artificially scarce will probably raise their value up higher and higher over time, probably attracting more attempts at circumvention?
Anyways, these are all hypotheticals. Who knows what they’ll end up doing.
Certainly no easy answers! I'm actually supposed to be going to the Louvre in a few weeks. I'm travelling a long way to get there, so I really hope there won't be a strike!
Fingers crossed that you have a safe and pleasant trip :) hopefully y’all luck out and crowds aren’t too crazy, either.
They already do private night time tours for $400-800+ per person. Probably even exclusive events that are way more?
That works in a commodity market but cultural artifacts and art have a highly limited supply. I don't think access to art and culture should be a function of economics. That seems to be a direction toward art only being within the purview of the elite.
Rather institutions should set reasonable limits that allow visitors to have sufficient time and space. Perhaps some sort of paging system to let patrons know that they are near the limit of their allowed time.
That would help things if the problem is people staying too long at a museum, but I doubt that’s the case. Most visitors in the end, like the article describes, will snap a few pics of particularly famous pieces and then leave. Big history or art buffs are the minority, in the end.
In the end, the laws of physics dictate that only so many people can see an item with their own eyes at any given moment. Exclusion is inevitable. It’s just a matter of who.
Exclusion is inevitable but the market doesn't need to decide who to exclude. Meter daily visitors appropriately. I'm also not against higher cost, more intimate viewing hours after normal close. But general viewing should be reasonably accessible even if it means scheduling your visit several months in advance.
Right, because making museums less accessible for those with lower incomes is a reasonable solution. Because that is what you are going to achieve by jacking up prices. Wealthy tourists will happily pay the prices, people less well of now cannot visit anymore, including locals.
"Just" does a lot of heavy lifting here.
Is what it is. If the goal is for less people to attend the museum, then by definition you’re making it less accessible.
As a benefit, more funds means the museum’s non-revenue generating operations like conservation or restoration have more to work with.
There’s always a trade off. Considering how much of the British museums is stolen from other countries, perhaps biasing towards the locals is not the best move.
That's a weird take. How is increasing the price not biasing towards the locals who don't have the travel costs that families from elsewhere would? Much less the insinuation that the average Briton is walking around singing "Rule, Britannia" as they peruse the museum.
For international travelers, what’s important is a guarantee. If it were a lottery, for instance, a local could more or less guarantee getting in eventually by just having infinite opportunities in the lottery.
If you’re planning a trip to the UK from overseas, well, you go when you go, and if you don’t win the lottery then, not much you can do.
Obviously it is not what it is. If it was that simple it would be a solution already in place instead of a hypothetical coined in one line on an internet forum.
No shit, it still matters who you make it more or less accessible to though.
Great, now you just need to find equally round about reasoning for the myriad of other museums suffering from the same issue. Like, just a random example, the louvre.
It is a solution in place in many areas. Pricing has gone up in general for tourism hotspots. I think it’s an inevitability for many of the museums for which income is important.
I don’t think the Mona Lisa was French.
Moreover, the point is that for any given site, you can mark arguments for and against any population you’re excluding. The louvre is highly international, and government funding has dropped precariously since 2003.
Is it any more fair that you should see the Mona Lisa only if you were born in France?
It’s sort of French, in that it was partially painted in France.
I know I did specifically bring up the Louvre, given the context of this article. But your point is clearly about museums in general as is what I said. Frankly, these hyper specific arguments you keep inject seem disingenuous arguments avoiding the larger point.
Even if what you are saying is said in earnest. It is casual to the point that you are throwing out half-baked examples without polishing them slightly moving the goal post while doing so. It makes for a very flippant tone of conversation and makes it honestly difficult to engage with without feeling that you are just here for the sake of arguing and not a honest conversation.
I would expect a museum to evaluate its options based on its mission and its resources.
Personally I prefer a reservation system that doesn't lock out poor people who appreciate culture or want to benefit their children.
I feel like the solution to over tourism is time. I'm at the tail end of the Boomer generation, and nearly 65. There are still millions of us in our retirement years wanting to get in that last kick at travelling before our health gives out. But most of us slow down considerably in 5 years, 10 years max and most of us will be dead in 15 years. That takes care of the glut of tourists currently invading every site and there should be a lot more space for the generations behind us.
You accidentally made a new top-level comment instead of replying to @plutonic
One of these days I'll learn how to work a computer.
My first thought is: I wonder why this didn't almost automatically self-regulate by way of increasing admission price.