If you have been following the Museum of Contemporary Art’s (MCA) program for a while, its recent announcement that it will start charging $20 general admission fees from 31 January 2025 is not a huge surprise.
Since COVID’s initial lockdown periods in 2020, the Museum has reduced its opening hours to six days a week and, since 2023, its exhibition program has included two paid ticketed exhibitions instead of one – all signs of cost saving and revenue generating measures.
Also, unlike MCA’s larger gallery ‘cousins’ like the Art Gallery of New South Wales (AGNSW) and the National Gallery of Victoria (NGV), the Museum is not a majority taxpayer-funded institution.
Since opening in 1991, it has never received a significant level of state or federal funding, and now it receives only 15% of its funding from government sources. This compares to AGNSW, which, in 2024, received 31% of its revenue from recurrent government funding and a further 11% from government for capital works.
MCA is therefore more reliant on commercial income and philanthropy than other large arts institutions and, in shaky economic times, this leaves it more vulnerable to revenue declines.
Yet the idea that MCA will no longer be a free public space that is accessible to all has filled many with dismay. As one person recently put it on social media, “The museum will struggle to live up to [the values on which it] was founded, using a Power Bequest… with a discouraging entry fee.”
But what else can MCA do if its core costs have shot up 20% from 2022 to 2023, and its revenue has not increased at the same rate?
Read: When you need to change to get it right (interview with MCA Director, May 2024)
Looking back on MCA’s 35-year history reveals things have not always been this way for the Museum.
Until recently, MCA had actually managed to grow its non-government revenue streams while covering its annual core costs very well. So, how and when did things change?
What’s changed for MCA finances?
Looking broadly at MCA’s financial position from over the past decade shows it hasn’t shifted a great deal over that time (yet there have been some shortfalls in the past few years).
Ten years ago, MCA was attracting healthy levels of annual revenue – around $21.7 million in 2013 – and incurring about the same level of costs – around $21.1 million in 2013.
But as MCA Director Suzanne Cotter notes, back then, government funding accounted for around 35% of the Museum’s revenue, while it is a much smaller proportion of the organisation’s operating income now.
“In 2008, government funding represented 35% of the Museum’s annual budget,” Cotter tells ArtsHub.
“Today, government funding of the Museum represents around 14% of our total operating costs.”
However, a decreasing proportion of government funding is only one part of this picture.
In 2022, the Museum recorded an operating loss of $170,209, and a loss of $2.6 million in 2023 with its costs outweighing its revenue for the first time in many years (as shown in the data table below).
These losses are attributable to the Museum’s significantly increased operating costs, which went from $18 million in 2021 to $22.54 million in 2022 and $27.1 million in 2023. (MCA’s 2024 annual report is yet to be published, so its 2024 spending levels are as yet unknown.)
As Cotter confirms, these increased costs are part of what has led the Museum to start charging an admission fee.
Read: Insider conversation with MCA’s Director (from 2022)
Cotter explains, “While the MCA has been hugely successful in generating income from philanthropy and commercial operations, operational costs have, however, increased exponentially. The cost of maintaining a cultural asset – the Museum’s Heritage building – that attracts close to one million visitors a year, is also considerable.”
Yet the question of why MCA is the only significant Australian arts institution currently forced to impose a general entry fee on account of increased costs burdens remains hanging in the air. (That said, in the international context, MCA is not the only major arts museum currently in financial trouble, as evidenced by the National Gallery of Scotland’s current financial woes, as just one example).
Read: Could paid entry become the new norm for galleries and museums? (from June 2020)
Cotter tells ArtsHub that, apart from its incrementally decreased level of government funding and “exponentially increased” operating costs, there have been no significant changes to the Museum’s business model.
This does raise the question of whether there may be other reasons, beyond money troubles, that are affecting the Museum’s prospects.
Murmurings from some sections of the Australian visual arts community suggest that this may indeed be so.
What role does programming play?
According to a long-time Sydney-based visual artist, MCA’s move to charge for general admission comes on the back of a sustained period of narrow arts programming, which has included a run of paid exhibitions that haven’t resonated so well with wide audiences.
As the artist tells ArtsHub, “I think MCA has been suffering from curatorial blandness for some time.”
They continue, “There is a lack of diversity in the programming, and its ticketed blockbuster exhibitions have shown artists whose work is excellent, but who have little known profile with general public audiences.
“These [blockbuster exhibition] artists’ work is also difficult work to engage with – even for someone like me who has been deeply embedded in the arts for many years.”
The artist also wonders how this approach to its paid exhibition program has been affecting visitation.
“It begs the question of who is seeing these shows?” they say. “Is anyone actually going to MCA to see these artists’ work?
“You need people to love the Museum and love its shows, and it makes you wonder whether that is the case at the moment.”
Read: Suzanne Cotter appointed new MCA Director (from 2021)
MCA’s most recent visitation figures indicate it has in fact had healthy numbers through its doors in recent years recording on-site visitation of 859,386 in 2023.
But if its ticketed shows are the least well-attended parts of its program, what will a general admission fee do to the Museum’s overall attendance?
“I think it will be a disaster for them in terms of attracting economically disadvantaged and socially diverse audiences,” the artist tells ArtsHub.
“I’m actually working with a young artist at the moment who is in their twenties, and they told me point blank that they won’t be able to afford to go to MCA with the new entry fee.”
The artist is also surprised by the lack of interest shown thus far by prominent philanthropic donors to step in and help the Museum.
“I do find it intriguing that there is currently no one in Sydney who can put their hand in their pockets to help MCA survive without having to introduce general admission fees,” they say.
“Why is there no one around to do that?”
Whether MCA will secure one or more such philanthropic partner or donor is yet to be seen, but in the meantime, its Director says the Museum will be working hard to keep the space as accessible as they can.
As Cotter tells ArtsHub, “MCA Australia hopes that, by providing free entry for under 18s, Australian students as well as Members, alongside our engaging exhibitions and programs, we will be able to limit any potential reduction in visitors.
“We will also work with existing and new partners to support the introduction of free access initiatives in the future,” she concludes.
