One of my ink sketches from the Greek and Roman Collection.

Art-cessibility: How Can Art Change The Public Domain?

Arismendy Feliz, November 25, 2013

Two weeks, while catching up with current events, I came across an article about Mayor Michael Bloomberg amending the lease to The Metropolitan Museum of Art, as a result of two lawsuits that challenge the museum’s admission policy. The first part of the lawsuit (which a judge ruled in favor of the museum) claimed that the Met was in violation of a 1863 law that essentially required it to open its doors to the public for five days and at least two nights per week. The New York State Supreme Court ruled that the Met was not in violation of that law and their current admissions policy of “pay what you can” was in fact still essentially free. The other part of the lawsuit deals with the Met’s signage and wording regarding its admission, as the plaintiffs argue it’s misleading and promotes the suggested admission as a set admission. The verdict is pending on that lawsuit.

Read Full News Story Here. 

This case brings an underlying issue to the surface regarding art and it’s accessibility, and also the sustainability of organizations and institutions that try to promote that accessibility. One can argue that art is accessible since it can be seen in every facet of our lives through design. But is design enough? I can’t say that I see a pair of scissors the same way I see a sculpture. Institutions like the Met hold a vast collection of work from all over the world, and throughout history, which puts that sculpture into perspective of time and place. It forces many to ask, “How was that done?”, or “How long did that take to complete?”, which can not be said of many scissors. These works engage their audience in a dialogue that causes the wheels of human curiosity to turn. In many ways, it is the same curiosity that fuels the artist in their craft, and can lead to inspiration depending on how the work resonates with audiences.

The Met provided me with many experiences of inspiration and was my place of refuge as an adolescent. It became a place in which I worked on my craft by studying those who worked on their craft. The accessibility is what made that possible for me, so when I heard of the case and the amendment Mayor Bloomberg made to the Met’s lease, my heart sank thinking that now to visit my place of refuge may cost me $25 each visit. Although the Met is currently going to keep the “pay as you can” system, the possibility of that being eliminated is very much real, as is the realm of art once again catering and belonging to the elite. Rising costs in New York City, and across the country, make the argument for having an admission fee is a legitimate one. As more and more art programs and institutions continue to lose funding, art is becoming a luxury. A luxury governments cannot afford, and limited to those who need it most, the poor. Art is known to be very healing, not only in its creation, but also in experiencing it. So why not promote healing thru this medium? We cannot be complacent with the Met keeping its current admissions policy, but to want to create more accessibility to art and more opportunities to create art. We have a tool that has documented, interrupted and changed history-let’s use it.