The fact that the price is being dramatically raised to the grand total of $37 says more about how fantastically cheap it is to visit the Louvre currently. They could easily double that and not see any noticeable decrease in ticket sales from tourists.
Funny line-- but I think it's important to highlight how the Brits were able to find value and unlock a history in objects that other cultures stopped caring about.
While people like to say they "stole" things, there's no evidence they ever took something that others actually cared about or took the least interest in protecting. The Elgin marbles were just flopped around a field and no locals seemed to care at all. Some of the items were purchased directly from their owner at a price negotiated with a willing seller.
I think the British museum is proof of how scholarship and gentle care can preserve our past and create something that people love to visit and learn about.
Such a kind British museum offering to maintain these artifacts to the point of denying return to the origin countries when requested. Clearly this is for the preservation of our past and the benefit of humanity.
Absent any proof that the objects were truly stolen, I don't feel any need to return something to someone in some country who suddenly finds an interest in getting something back. What does ownership mean to you?
Let's say you come to my country and buy a souvenir. Can I decide, hundreds of years later, that you must be forced to give it back?
And why do borders matter? The argument seems to be that housing an object on one side of an arbitrary political line is morally superior to putting it on display on the other side of some invisible line. Somehow someone born to the right parents is a morally superior curator compared to someone born into the wrong parents.
> Funny line-- but I think it's important to highlight how the Brits were able to find value and unlock a history in objects that other cultures stopped caring about.
Do you really think they stopped caring about? Bold claim to say this applies for every culture and artifact over there.
Or is it maybe that pillaging, which destroys what's left behind, and then having no good way to take things back other than defeating the British Naval Empire makes maintaining your own history hard?
I don't think that's true for European tourists, $37 per person is a lot and there are so many other cultural sites to see that paying twice that could definitely drop this off the list during a visit to Paris.
Makes total sense from a US point of view though, you are already committing to spend so much to get there.
Louvre get sort of boring, since the time period they cover stops at the time when art gets more and more interesting (mid 1800s). Before that every painting is basically Jesus or boobs.
This year they made a brilliant thing: they put haute couture one-off fashion items on display throughout the royal wing.
Who knew Loubutin and Alexander MacQueen shoes or Dior and Gucci handbags would feel so absolutely natural among the dresses and tapestries and jewellery :)
I dunno... I really enjoyed walking through the Hall of Mirrors. Obviously that experience alone is no where near the entirety of the Louvre, and I wouldn't suggest heading out to Versailles if you're only in Paris for say a 5 day trip, but I'm glad I went on my 11 day trip a couple years back.
We somehow managed to get to it with relatively few people. The rest was 100 people per square centimeter, multiple tourist groups fighting for the same spots, more crowded than a Tokyo subway in peak hour.
Though I've heard it's much better if you manage to get there at opening time.
I had idea that was a 'thing' in the Louvre when a went a couple years back. Was wild competing for space at the front of the line with a half dozen kids taking selfies.
Yeah I made that mistake when visiting Paris for the first time: budgeted half a day for the Louvre and an entire day for Versailles. Should the other way around or as you say, skip the Versailles.
Botswana vs Kenya is an interesting example of this that I've experienced first hand. Kenya is overcrowded with safari tourists, which ruins the experience and very much effects the wildlife dynamic. Botswana has many fewer tourists on safari and so protects the natural environment better, but it does this by pricing themselves such that only rich people can afford it.
Interesting, I think you have to consider the system as a whole and the impacted stakeholders when considering pricing.
In your example, if we consider the environment a stakeholder, and the fact that increased safari impact has a negative impact on the ecosystem, there's a stronger argument for higher price.
In the case of the Louvre, the paintings and sculptures aren't going to be harmed by having more eyeballs on them, so, there's a stronger case to maximize access.
Unless those eyeballs come attached to an idle thinking brain with a pair of hands attached that happen to be carrying soup where the brain’s idle thinking suggests improving the art with the soup is a good idea.
Being priced out doesn't mean you can't appreciate the culture, you just can't visit it in person. It still can be possible to experience remotely via computers.
I don't really think that is a similar experience, there's something about seeing paintings in the flesh that simply can't be recreated digitally. The texture, the scale, the colours...
Maybe one day if VR becomes commoditized and freely available.
> I’d wager that you could 10x for non-EU tourists
Except for normal people, where $400 a ticket is absolutely prohibitive. I can't imagine being able to take a family there at that sort of price. (To be honest, even at $40 that could add up quickly.)
I firmly believe institutions like museums should be accessible by everyone. I understand higher prices for non-EU people, on the logic that they need more income somehow and tourists are more likely to be able to afford it -- so long as they keep student prices, family/children prices etc.
I have a similar line of thought every time I go to a national park. I dont really like hanging out around a bunch of strangers’ kids, but this would prevent a lot of families from being able to afford to go do things like this, and it’s good to let kids be exposed to things like really amazing art and national parks. Poor people should be able to enjoy them too.
Assuming you're American you may be missing just how strong the USD is and how expensive $37 is for much of Europe. -You- consider it cheap and that's the whole point of the price rise.
Compared to the price of a round-trip plane ticket to Paris, hotel, and food for the whole trip, this ticket increase is immaterial for anyone who's already well-off enough to be a tourist. And the whole point of the article is that the price increase is only for non-EU citizens.
The article does not comment on it, but the non-EEA scoping here is almost certainly because of EU law outlawing discrimination between EU member states (and which is extended to the EEA also). They probably would have made it discriminate against non-French tourists if that were not illegal.
> ...expected to raise millions of euros annually to fund an overhaul of the famous gallery.
Jokes aside (eg, 'guess they have to be able to buy back those stolen jewels somehow!') they have been strongly criticized ('inadequate security systems and ageing infrastructure') and it sounds like an overhaul is well past due. Honestly, $40 to enter the Louvre is not too bad. Expensive, but it is the _Louvre_ and is probably the most amazing museum in the world.
I'd expect to see this type of fee for non-citizens a lot more. The US is saying a $100 fee for non-citizens to enter national parks will start next year. For the Louvre, I'd be willing to give benefit of the doubt that it's a budgetary decision. For the US though with the current administration, there's always a bit of question if the budgetary reason isn't just a mask for the true intention
Non-residents not non-citizens. See, the administration still cares about the green card holders and H1B workers, who can still visit the national parks at the lower price.
This was pretty common in Central Asia, and I don't object. It keeps things affordable for locals and available for visitors. I don't mind paying for free museums in other countries, since I'm not subsidising them with my taxes.
I actually keep the museum tickets and city passes as a trip souvenir. I have them for the Louvre, Musee D'Orsay, RijksMuseum, Mauritshuis, the MC Escher house, Vatican Museum, Uffizi Galleria, the Museums' Pass from Vienna, the Guggenheim in Venice, Vasa and Swedish History Museum, ...
Much like the egalitarian individualism of other western cultures, the idea applies to “our culture” not “the entire world”. This system falls apart otherwise because bad faith participants can easily exploit it. And I’ll add, your argument omitting that key point is one of the common ways people exploit it.
The Declaration of Rights of Man and of the Citizen was unusual at the time specifically because it was _universalist_; it was _not_ just about French people.
Now, granted, they didn't get around to banning slavery until five years after, so, y'know, this was always more an ideal than anything else.
The fact that the price is being dramatically raised to the grand total of $37 says more about how fantastically cheap it is to visit the Louvre currently. They could easily double that and not see any noticeable decrease in ticket sales from tourists.
Depends on your point of comparison - the British Museum is free.
Well, they got their exhibits for free, didn't they?
Louvre's content was mostly acquired fairly at market prices?
GP is likely referring to the British Museum, which is famous for having stolen goods.
Go back far enough and everything was stolen from someone
France was a colonial power and an attempted empire too...
I know, hence my question
Absurd, anti-colonialist rhetoric.
Pretty sure the same is true of the Louvre: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department_of_Egyptian_Antiqui...
Funny line-- but I think it's important to highlight how the Brits were able to find value and unlock a history in objects that other cultures stopped caring about.
While people like to say they "stole" things, there's no evidence they ever took something that others actually cared about or took the least interest in protecting. The Elgin marbles were just flopped around a field and no locals seemed to care at all. Some of the items were purchased directly from their owner at a price negotiated with a willing seller.
I think the British museum is proof of how scholarship and gentle care can preserve our past and create something that people love to visit and learn about.
Such a kind British museum offering to maintain these artifacts to the point of denying return to the origin countries when requested. Clearly this is for the preservation of our past and the benefit of humanity.
Absent any proof that the objects were truly stolen, I don't feel any need to return something to someone in some country who suddenly finds an interest in getting something back. What does ownership mean to you?
Let's say you come to my country and buy a souvenir. Can I decide, hundreds of years later, that you must be forced to give it back?
And why do borders matter? The argument seems to be that housing an object on one side of an arbitrary political line is morally superior to putting it on display on the other side of some invisible line. Somehow someone born to the right parents is a morally superior curator compared to someone born into the wrong parents.
> Funny line-- but I think it's important to highlight how the Brits were able to find value and unlock a history in objects that other cultures stopped caring about.
Do you really think they stopped caring about? Bold claim to say this applies for every culture and artifact over there.
Or is it maybe that pillaging, which destroys what's left behind, and then having no good way to take things back other than defeating the British Naval Empire makes maintaining your own history hard?
If conquest was easy, or "free", everyone would do it. But it is actually a skill issue.
Maybe the skill issue is not being a savage and instead desiring a more civil way of restoring things.
I paid to see the rosetta stone ...
In January 2024, I saw it for free at the British Museum and all indications are it is still in the same spot free to view
The permanent exhibition is free, special exhibitions often have an entry charge.
The Rosetta Stone has always been in the permanent exhibition, was it moved?
You probably understand museum business model wrong.
They had to do the work of looting them
I don't think that's true for European tourists, $37 per person is a lot and there are so many other cultural sites to see that paying twice that could definitely drop this off the list during a visit to Paris.
Makes total sense from a US point of view though, you are already committing to spend so much to get there.
Maybe that’s why it says non-EU tourists right there in the title so you don’t even need to read the TFA, but not reading the title is a but much
It's impossible to overstate how cheap this is, but I think you have to actually go The Louvre to understand that. It's enormous.
(In comparison Versaille is absolute bullshit that everyone should just skip. IMO).
I really enjoyed the garden there - we spent hours happily. And we don't have a lot of palaces where I'm from.
And I didn't really enjoy the Louvre, especially compared to Musée d'Orsay and Centre Pompidou.
Louvre get sort of boring, since the time period they cover stops at the time when art gets more and more interesting (mid 1800s). Before that every painting is basically Jesus or boobs.
Still well worth a visit definitely.
But then you have all the Egyptian wing no?
Yep, lots of stuff from different periods until the 1800s. Interesting, but surprisingly kind of repetitive.
This year they made a brilliant thing: they put haute couture one-off fashion items on display throughout the royal wing.
Who knew Loubutin and Alexander MacQueen shoes or Dior and Gucci handbags would feel so absolutely natural among the dresses and tapestries and jewellery :)
> especially compared to Musée d'Orsay and Centre Pompidou.
Next time on my list, definitely.
I dunno... I really enjoyed walking through the Hall of Mirrors. Obviously that experience alone is no where near the entirety of the Louvre, and I wouldn't suggest heading out to Versailles if you're only in Paris for say a 5 day trip, but I'm glad I went on my 11 day trip a couple years back.
We somehow managed to get to it with relatively few people. The rest was 100 people per square centimeter, multiple tourist groups fighting for the same spots, more crowded than a Tokyo subway in peak hour.
Though I've heard it's much better if you manage to get there at opening time.
As far as French palaces go, I liked Fontainebleau way more.
TBH the most interesting thing in Louvre is that crowd in front of Mona Lisa, which is an art performance by itself.
I had idea that was a 'thing' in the Louvre when a went a couple years back. Was wild competing for space at the front of the line with a half dozen kids taking selfies.
And best thing is? It's interactive! You can be a part of the performance, too :)
Yeah I made that mistake when visiting Paris for the first time: budgeted half a day for the Louvre and an entire day for Versailles. Should the other way around or as you say, skip the Versailles.
I’d wager that you could 10x for non-EU tourists and still make more money and have way less crowds leading to a better experience for all.
Lol, I mean, if we ignore the experience of all the people who are priced out, then sure? Appreciation of culture shouldn't be reserved for the rich.
Botswana vs Kenya is an interesting example of this that I've experienced first hand. Kenya is overcrowded with safari tourists, which ruins the experience and very much effects the wildlife dynamic. Botswana has many fewer tourists on safari and so protects the natural environment better, but it does this by pricing themselves such that only rich people can afford it.
Interesting, I think you have to consider the system as a whole and the impacted stakeholders when considering pricing.
In your example, if we consider the environment a stakeholder, and the fact that increased safari impact has a negative impact on the ecosystem, there's a stronger argument for higher price.
In the case of the Louvre, the paintings and sculptures aren't going to be harmed by having more eyeballs on them, so, there's a stronger case to maximize access.
Unless those eyeballs come attached to an idle thinking brain with a pair of hands attached that happen to be carrying soup where the brain’s idle thinking suggests improving the art with the soup is a good idea.
Pricing things high is an easy and effective way of limiting demand. I wish more people understood it's not always greed.
Being priced out doesn't mean you can't appreciate the culture, you just can't visit it in person. It still can be possible to experience remotely via computers.
I don't really think that is a similar experience, there's something about seeing paintings in the flesh that simply can't be recreated digitally. The texture, the scale, the colours...
Maybe one day if VR becomes commoditized and freely available.
> better experience for all
for the well-off*
> I’d wager that you could 10x for non-EU tourists
Except for normal people, where $400 a ticket is absolutely prohibitive. I can't imagine being able to take a family there at that sort of price. (To be honest, even at $40 that could add up quickly.)
I firmly believe institutions like museums should be accessible by everyone. I understand higher prices for non-EU people, on the logic that they need more income somehow and tourists are more likely to be able to afford it -- so long as they keep student prices, family/children prices etc.
I have a similar line of thought every time I go to a national park. I dont really like hanging out around a bunch of strangers’ kids, but this would prevent a lot of families from being able to afford to go do things like this, and it’s good to let kids be exposed to things like really amazing art and national parks. Poor people should be able to enjoy them too.
Didn’t they just drastically increase the price for non US citizens? I think it almost went up by 10x
Assuming you're American you may be missing just how strong the USD is and how expensive $37 is for much of Europe. -You- consider it cheap and that's the whole point of the price rise.
Compared to the price of a round-trip plane ticket to Paris, hotel, and food for the whole trip, this ticket increase is immaterial for anyone who's already well-off enough to be a tourist. And the whole point of the article is that the price increase is only for non-EU citizens.
It's at 1.16, that's fairly typical I believe, a bit low even?
The article does not comment on it, but the non-EEA scoping here is almost certainly because of EU law outlawing discrimination between EU member states (and which is extended to the EEA also). They probably would have made it discriminate against non-French tourists if that were not illegal.
> ...expected to raise millions of euros annually to fund an overhaul of the famous gallery.
Jokes aside (eg, 'guess they have to be able to buy back those stolen jewels somehow!') they have been strongly criticized ('inadequate security systems and ageing infrastructure') and it sounds like an overhaul is well past due. Honestly, $40 to enter the Louvre is not too bad. Expensive, but it is the _Louvre_ and is probably the most amazing museum in the world.
I'd expect to see this type of fee for non-citizens a lot more. The US is saying a $100 fee for non-citizens to enter national parks will start next year. For the Louvre, I'd be willing to give benefit of the doubt that it's a budgetary decision. For the US though with the current administration, there's always a bit of question if the budgetary reason isn't just a mask for the true intention
Non-residents not non-citizens. See, the administration still cares about the green card holders and H1B workers, who can still visit the national parks at the lower price.
> green card holders and H1B workers, who can still visit the national parks at the lower price
But only until ICE detain them, right?
This was pretty common in Central Asia, and I don't object. It keeps things affordable for locals and available for visitors. I don't mind paying for free museums in other countries, since I'm not subsidising them with my taxes.
For parks I expect the best approach is to charge for parking. Charging actual entry is tedious.
I would gladly pay 40 bucks to enter, but I think student tickets etc. must exist to ensure people can afford to go to learn.
Good, now they can afford an enterprise license for 1Password:
“Password to Louvre’s video surveillance system was 'Louvre', according to employee” [1]
1. https://abcnews.go.com/amp/International/password-louvres-vi...
Must be to pay for all the stolen treasures.
As a non-EU tourist, I say this is good.
I actually keep the museum tickets and city passes as a trip souvenir. I have them for the Louvre, Musee D'Orsay, RijksMuseum, Mauritshuis, the MC Escher house, Vatican Museum, Uffizi Galleria, the Museums' Pass from Vienna, the Guggenheim in Venice, Vasa and Swedish History Museum, ...
Trying to recoup their recent losses? Doesn't feel right though to make a distinction based on country of origin. What about "égalité"?
> What about "égalité"?
Much like the egalitarian individualism of other western cultures, the idea applies to “our culture” not “the entire world”. This system falls apart otherwise because bad faith participants can easily exploit it. And I’ll add, your argument omitting that key point is one of the common ways people exploit it.
The Declaration of Rights of Man and of the Citizen was unusual at the time specifically because it was _universalist_; it was _not_ just about French people.
Now, granted, they didn't get around to banning slavery until five years after, so, y'know, this was always more an ideal than anything else.