Natural History Museum...Why is it free?
Discussion
Sam_68 said:
Yes, and I don't dispute the sense in this... I'm merely pointing out the flaws in your 'everybody has equal access' theory: people don't have equal access, for whatever reason, and so it is much fairer to bias the costs toward the people who actually use museums most, by charging a small fee, is all I'm saying.
It's not a flaw in the system. You have the freedom to move, as do I. If I am unfortunate enough to have to visit London a quick pop into a free attraction would help make the experience be more pleasant. Free at point of use, not free per some percentage number of times used, that's how we class things as free in the UK.Sam_68 said:
My point exactly. And I assume you have no particular problem with having to pay this small fee to use it?
When I made use of the facilities, not an issue. For the swimming pool or the fitness classes. Sam_68 said:
But there's only one National Shakespeare Theatre, and only one National Opera and the costs of each, even after paying for performers, etc., are fairly small compared to those for running a major museum likle the NHM.
Surely it's just as culturally and educationally important (if not more so?) to allow everyone the opportunity to see a play by our greatest national playwright, performed properly live on stage once in a lifetime, than to allow free access to view cabinet after cabinet of guns, swords and armour at the Royal Armouries?
But even if not, you see the inconsistencies in the 'free admission' argument?
I would suppose both these institutions have the best (Gambon, Gandalf, Holm), top rate isn't cheap). I do not see how the two could be comparable. Schools get to go to plays as part of the curricula now, do they have to go to the best one? There should be a charge for that. The best actors in the country are a limited resource, the museum is not. The museum is there 24/7, you would have to have actors (and all the rest) running multiples shows, so multiple casts for the 'free' criteria to come up to the museums standards, it's not practical or feasible. That is why I think there are no inconsistencies.Surely it's just as culturally and educationally important (if not more so?) to allow everyone the opportunity to see a play by our greatest national playwright, performed properly live on stage once in a lifetime, than to allow free access to view cabinet after cabinet of guns, swords and armour at the Royal Armouries?
But even if not, you see the inconsistencies in the 'free admission' argument?
The reason we pay for the likes of theatre and music is that they are in every way, entertainment.
The difference between this as opposed to a Museum is that they are not at any point showing you a unique emodiment of collective knowledge.
That is: a museum that demonstrates a train is teaching its users the mechanics and engineering required to build one.
A dolls museum will even demonstrate to us the way how children played.
a play or music event thogh merely shows us the skills of one individual or collective. It may or may not be educational and this is not its main aim. It is cultural in its broadest sense but doesn't teach us anything about our culture, depsite what David Hare would like to think.
Sports facilities I actually think should be more available on a free basis. The victorians thought so too. This is why they passed a law in 1855 I think to create swimming baths for the community. They started out as free, they also created parks for people to get fresh air and to walk (which they believed good exercise)Even gyms in local areas were for a very long time, heavily subsidised
This all came to a crashing end when the private companies were invited in to run the "unprofitable" gyms and pools. Now we pay 50 to join and 50 a month to not go.
The US, a model for many on how to run a country on the capitalist ideal do not believe in this paying system for children, that is why ALL of their schools have very fine sports facilities. We sold many of our school ones for more cash.
The difference between this as opposed to a Museum is that they are not at any point showing you a unique emodiment of collective knowledge.
That is: a museum that demonstrates a train is teaching its users the mechanics and engineering required to build one.
A dolls museum will even demonstrate to us the way how children played.
a play or music event thogh merely shows us the skills of one individual or collective. It may or may not be educational and this is not its main aim. It is cultural in its broadest sense but doesn't teach us anything about our culture, depsite what David Hare would like to think.
Sports facilities I actually think should be more available on a free basis. The victorians thought so too. This is why they passed a law in 1855 I think to create swimming baths for the community. They started out as free, they also created parks for people to get fresh air and to walk (which they believed good exercise)Even gyms in local areas were for a very long time, heavily subsidised
This all came to a crashing end when the private companies were invited in to run the "unprofitable" gyms and pools. Now we pay 50 to join and 50 a month to not go.
The US, a model for many on how to run a country on the capitalist ideal do not believe in this paying system for children, that is why ALL of their schools have very fine sports facilities. We sold many of our school ones for more cash.
Mikeyboy said:
The reason we pay for the likes of theatre and music is that they are in every way, entertainment.
Did you not study Shakespeare at your school, then?Mikeyboy said:
The US, a model for many on how to run a country on the capitalist ideal do not believe in this paying system for children...
Though, on the other hand, they believe that if you can't afford to pay your hospital bills, you get to die free of charge, too.And before you get too carried away with ideas of Victorian philanthropy, remember that the working class the provided with free museums and swimming baths earned an absolute pittance, and were thrown in a workhouse of they couldn't get a job, instead of being provided with state handouts and housing benefit.
Sam, you don't really get it. The US and the Victorian societies are neither society that I would want to live in if my life went slightly wrong, but both see/saw the advantage of providing for free some aspects of life that will benefit society overall.
Yes Shakespeare is taught in schools and there are companies that put it on for free for schools. He didn't write it though as an educational resource or a lesson to be learnt. Example stands.
Theatre is a part of our culture and not a scientific or educational resource.
Like it or not thats what is the difference in a museum, its exhibits are the presentable some say entertainment face of a body that preserves and seeks to understand its collection.
For children to see a dinosaur bone it could teach them what the role of a paleontologist is, that life is varied thing in all its conotations and that there is more to the world than they see on their way to the chip shop. Then if they want to know more they can read about it somewhere else, and if that doesn't satisfy them then they can go on and study it at University. The possible endings for that child are endless.
Name a play or band/orchestra that can do that and I'll go along with your simile.
Thats only though if they can afford to get in and go to University though. After all, they may be genius level but how dare they blight your world by their presence. They might be dirty or uncouth.
Yes Shakespeare is taught in schools and there are companies that put it on for free for schools. He didn't write it though as an educational resource or a lesson to be learnt. Example stands.
Theatre is a part of our culture and not a scientific or educational resource.
Like it or not thats what is the difference in a museum, its exhibits are the presentable some say entertainment face of a body that preserves and seeks to understand its collection.
For children to see a dinosaur bone it could teach them what the role of a paleontologist is, that life is varied thing in all its conotations and that there is more to the world than they see on their way to the chip shop. Then if they want to know more they can read about it somewhere else, and if that doesn't satisfy them then they can go on and study it at University. The possible endings for that child are endless.
Name a play or band/orchestra that can do that and I'll go along with your simile.
Thats only though if they can afford to get in and go to University though. After all, they may be genius level but how dare they blight your world by their presence. They might be dirty or uncouth.
And again, in English, please? Would punctuation be too much to ask (too many museums and not enough Shakespeare?)
From the bit I can comprehend (I think):
As it happens, I had a very keen interest in natural history as a child (and still do), yet developed it without visiting the NHM until I was in my 20's. Mind you, we had some actual ecology where I lived. I guess as a Londoner, the best you're gonna get is rats and pigeons?
From the bit I can comprehend (I think):
Mikeyboy said:
For children to see a dinosaur bone it could teach them what the role of a paleontologist is, that life is varied thing in all its conotations and that there is more to the world than they see on their way to the chip shop. Then if they want to know more they can read about it somewhere else, and if that doesn't satisfy them then they can go on and study it at University. The possible endings for that child are endless.
I think you'll find that more people are employed in the media and music business than are employed as paleontologists or naturalists, and that they these businesses generate more revenue for the UK economy.As it happens, I had a very keen interest in natural history as a child (and still do), yet developed it without visiting the NHM until I was in my 20's. Mind you, we had some actual ecology where I lived. I guess as a Londoner, the best you're gonna get is rats and pigeons?
Edited by Sam_68 on Friday 24th February 12:57
More people are employed in making rubber tyres in Clermont Ferrand than work in all of our museums I suspect, does that mean that the French government should give tyres free to the population?
Again though you seem to want to find a finite economic benefit to every activity undertaken, which is gloriously missing the point of society in general and education in particular.
This will never be possible. And neither it seems will it be possible for you to understand that society is not made up of those that should know their place. It is made up of diverse people of differing ablities and ambitions who should be given the benefit of largesse by those around them in one way or another to improve their lot, should they want.
As for punctuation. Its an internet forum, I'm currently also working and writing emails that are of far more importance in regards to my efforts at punctuation and spelling than here. I did read Shakespeare at school I also studied Latin and Spanish literature, did you? I watched the plays of Aritophanes and Sophocles too, and while the British Museum was just around the corner from me when I went to University I didn't actually visit it, I was too busy getting the degree that led me into a banking career that ultimately benefited no-one but myself.
I did however manage to learn more in two hours of visiting the British Library for free last week than I've learnt in the last 11 years in my present job. So which has brought more benfit to society? Me for having paid some silly amount in taxes or the person who put together a free exhibition in which I learnt more about where I live and its values than I think you will ever comprehend?
Not everything in the world is about money. Learn that, make yourself happier and go back under your bridge.
Mikeyboy said:
Again though you seem to want to find a finite economic benefit to every activity undertaken
No, I'm merely demonstrating the inconsistencies of your argument.You suggested that free access to museums could be justified because of the potential future opportunities they could lead to, whereas free access to theatre and music is 'different' (the definition of 'different' in this instance being 'it doesn't fit my flawed argument'
) and would not.You appear to be saying that a knowlege and appreciation of paleontology is valuable, whereas knowlegde and appreciation of Shakespearian theatre (and thereby the development and structure of our language) and classical music is not?
You have some interesting value judgements that you see fit to impose upon us.
I thought I'd resurrect this thread after reading this story.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17374869
Should the tax purse support tours of (a distinct part of) the Palace of Westminster? The Palace now thinks not and wishes to charge a not for profit levy of £15 to visit the (Big Ben housing) Clock Tower. Thin end of the wedge?
Sounds darn expensive to me!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17374869
Should the tax purse support tours of (a distinct part of) the Palace of Westminster? The Palace now thinks not and wishes to charge a not for profit levy of £15 to visit the (Big Ben housing) Clock Tower. Thin end of the wedge?
Sounds darn expensive to me!
scenario8 said:
Should the tax purse support tours of (a distinct part of) the Palace of Westminster?
No (but then you knew I'd say that, didn't you? 
)Members of the public should have free access to the public gallery of the house of commons, however, in order that they can witness what we laughingly refer to as our 'democracy' in action, but I see no reason why taxpayers should have to pay for all the staff and security necessary for guided tours, just so that Japanese and American tourists can see how quaint and backward we are.
mph1977 said:
dickymint said:
^^^ Note that they want to charge just in time for the Olympics. I don't have a problem myself it's hardly a National Museum.
I thought it was the replacement for the chimps' tea party at London Zoo since johnny Morris gave up Zoo keeping ... 
dickymint said:
mph1977 said:
dickymint said:
^^^ Note that they want to charge just in time for the Olympics. I don't have a problem myself it's hardly a National Museum.
I thought it was the replacement for the chimps' tea party at London Zoo since johnny Morris gave up Zoo keeping ... Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff