In January, I wanted to explore a specific exhibition regarding an Indian empire. Though I was eager, I stopped with hesitation when I discovered that there was a queue — to purchase tickets? I found it almost ridiculous that I, an Indian, would have to actually pay to see relics of my own ethnicity. This leads me to question: why do we even have paid exhibitions in the first place, and should we even have them? It is almost preposterous to imagine that these items that we pay to see were easily accessible to people of that civilization without having to spend a single penny.

A prominent issue, particularly in countries such as the United Kingdom, are ethical dilemmas when it comes to ticketed exhibitions. Though British museums have free entry to permanent exhibitions, we cannot ignore the fact that the acquisition of these artifacts was not voluntary, but forced.

But here’s the thing — paid exhibitions tend to be temporary, which means that they are not authorised to become a permanently integrated part of the museums, meaning we actually may be supporting an ‘ethical’ exhibition.

During a mostly limited period of time, museums tend to host special exhibitions where they parade a curated collection of artifacts that cannot be accessed easily and require a hefty investment. This collection can range from a selection of paintings from a renowned artist to unique historical artifacts that are often not accessible to the average person. It is undeniable that to students, enthusiasts and experts, this access is invaluable.

The preservation of cultures, artifacts, and heritage is one of the many reasons museums remain imperative to modern society. The stories of countless civilisations are packed tightly in glass containers for us to gawk at, a humble reminder that the remnants of our own civilisations will, eventually, be represented by relics. The bite-sized insights we receive from museums tend to be free to access.

However, unlike general museum exhibitions, those special exhibitions are not free of entry, meaning that there are numerous individuals who would not be able to attend due to financial issues.

Generally, museum visits are seen as a luxury or privilege, not just because they are not free, but because other factors, such as the cost of transportation have to be considered, and sometimes, necessities trump paying to look at artifacts. It can be argued that by putting a price on special exhibitions, museums become saturated by the perspectives of a specific audience that has the luxury to pay for exhibitions, risking becoming segregated elitist spaces.

But more importantly, where does that money go?

From 2023 until 2024, the UK’s National Gallery reported a generated income of £5.6m from admissions. Though this is a significantly high amount, it does not compare to the income that was generated from fundraising, which ended up being £66 m. While the report does not indicate specifically what this money is invested in, the account highlights that the revenue is invested back into exhibitions, staff, physical facilities, and far more.

Additionally, this money is used for the conservation of the artifacts themselves. The report explains that part of the expenditure (which includes paid ticketed exhibitions) is allocated to “preserve, enhance and develop the potential of our collections.” The most important purpose of a museum is to take special care of the artifacts they have been allowed to host, (or sometimes, stole), ensuring they remain intact and are treated with the utmost respect for future generations to admire. Preservation and conservation is an undoubtedly expensive process, one which requires profound expertise and hefty investments. In the event, however, that paid exhibitions host stolen artifacts, there remains a strong argument that they should be scrapped.

It would be utopian if we could live in a society where even paid exhibitions could be free — but it seems unlikely. Therefore, possible solutions could be reducing the fee for those that belong to certain socioeconomic brackets, for example, in the UK, if you come from a specific postcode which generally indicates your wealth, then you could enter at a discounted price. Though there are undertones of classism, it could be argued that paid exhibitions are more ethical than the free permanent ones that display stolen artifacts. However, if paid exhibitions include stolen artifacts, does this mean museums are profiting off of stolen heritage?

As a society that is always looking for innovations and advancements, history museums in specific keep us rooted, marking the balance between profit and accessibility as a continuing debate.