Hacker News Reader

Comment by snayan | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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.

Pricing things high is an easy and effective way of limiting demand. I wish more people understood it's not always greed.

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.

None of the exhibits is in its original context/location and the crowds really degrade the experience. I much rather view capella sistina in VR than trying to experience the religious exaltation while being pushed in a crowd.

Sorry but why should people be entitled to visit the Louvre for cheap?

Some of the same people who don’t want to spend $300 for a Louvre ticket will happily blow thousands on visiting Disneyworld and put themselves in debt. Get outta here.

It seems your belief structure has been corrupted by social media and god knows what else. Might I suggest questioning your priors. Carrying this much rage towards Boogeymen can't possibly serve you.

The Louvre is a public institution. as stated by their endowment fund: The Louvre is heir to a universal cultural legacy. Its duty is to bring that legacy to the widest possible audience, and pass it down enriched to future generations.

People should be entitled to visit the Louvre for cheap because that is literally their mission.

But the Louvre is available online for free

Reply on news.ycombinator.com