No thank you, Art Institute

July 19, 2010

Ms. Amy Katherine Radick
Membership Director
Art Institute of Chicago
111 S Michigan Ave
Chicago IL 60603

Dear Ms. Radick:

Thank you for your written invitation to join the Art Institute. The letter and accompanying brochure make a very impressive presentation, and the discount certainly makes the offer an attractive one. Unfortunately, I must decline the invitation at this time.

The reason for my refusal is what I consider to be the Art Institute’s outrageous admission price increase last year. The Art Institute no longer allows low- or fixed-income guests to pay what they wish, and special exhibits are now restricted to members during free admission periods. While the Art Institute is cutting itself off from those who can least afford it, it inhales hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayer funding annually. Regardless of whether we visit the Art Institute or not, taxpayers in Chicago, in Illinois, and all across the country are “friends” of the museum.

How much would admission cost if the Art Institute refused public funding? In that case, major donors, members and visitors would be solely responsible for the Art Institute’s revenue—as it should be. In that case, admission prices and the CEO’s salary would not be public issues.

I realizes there is no admission fee on Thursday evenings (thanks to corporate sponsorship), and there is one free week in February. It is still very difficult for most families to visit during these times. Instead of the library admission card program, with its limited availability, I would suggest that each Chicago family be permitted one complimentary visit per calendar year. Sure, you could black out winter and spring break to control crowds. The people who unwittingly underwrite the Art Institute’s budget should have the chance to enjoy it.

Thank you again for your invitation. I will continue to visit the Art Institute on Thursday evenings.

Sincerely,

Edvard Munch at the Art Institute of Chicago

Thanks to generous friends, I was able to see Becoming Edvard Munch, the temporary exhibit at the Art Institute of Chicago yesterday, April 5, without paying. The admission price I avoided was $12 ($7 kids) and $10 for the special exhibit. The museum's admission price is rising to $18 ($12 kids) next month. That means that except for Thursday and Friday nights (no admission charge), a family of four will pay $60 to enter the museum. That doesn't include parking ($20), audio guide ($5), coat check ($1) or souvenirs. Membership is $80 for individuals, which includes children.

I think $60 for a family to attend a publicly-funded museum is outrageous. Instead of making admission such a hardship for families, the Art Institute could cut costs. For example, it could close on Mondays, like most museums outside Chicago. It could also have family specials at more convenient times--maybe the first Sunday of the month is free until noon. It really bothers me that working families support this museum through the taxes they pay to the city, the state and the federal government. So families are paying to support a museum they cannot afford to visit. I wouldn't have a problem with the Art Institute charging whatever it wanted so long as the public funding were pulled. If the Art Institute received no public funding and it remained open six days a week, would admission really increase all that much?

The Art Institute's permanent collection is fantastic. I enjoy it. But I'm not going to spend $18 to see it. The admission fee shouldn't keep away less-fortunate Chicagoans, either, especially since they pay to support the museum anyway.

Art should enjoy support from the people who enjoy art--not from everyone. Some time ago, I would receive annual email pleas from friends and relatives to write my congressmen to ask them to make sure the National Endowment for the Arts and Humanities (art pork) remained in the federal budget. This was U.S. Rep. Sidney R. Yates' obm (D.-Ill.) baby. Throughout his half-century of service in the House to his ultra-liberal North Side/suburban constituency, he raised their taxes numerous times, spent billions of their money with his esteemed position on the House Appropriations Committee (nicknamed the College of Cardinals for its power), never instituted national health care, and never steered federal money into his district. But boy, did he make sure that line item for the arts stayed in the budget!