Compared to 2019, the Tate galleries in London are seeing ~2.2 million fewer visitors, representing an approximately 27% decline in patronage. Much of this is coming from a decline in international/European visitors. They're at 61% of pre-COVID levels, whereas domestic visitors are at 95%.

One of the biggest groups to fall off has been young visitors (aged 16-24) from the EU. Between 2019-2020, the Tate Modern alone welcomed 609,000 people from this segment. By 2023-2024, this had dropped to 357,000 and it remains depressed.

So now the Tate is cutting its staff and blaming two macro changes: the pandemic and Brexit. Though some people are arguing that it's really because the programming has been too woke and stuff.

In my mind, the Brexit excuse makes the most sense because it has clearly created additional friction. If you're a school traveller in France and want to visit the UK, you now need to complete a school trip information form (I'm assuming this wasn't the case before).

And if you're a student from any another country, you need a passport. In some cases you may also need a visa. So it makes sense that schools and teachers might say, "yeah, let's make our lives easier and just stay within the EU."

Based on a very cursory review of how other cultural institutions are doing, this possibly checks out. In 2019, the Centre Pompidou in Paris welcomed over 3.2 million visitors and in 2024 it welcomed 3.2 million visitors. In 2019, the musée d'Orsay and the musée de l'Orangerie welcomed over 4.6 million visitors, and by 2023, this number had jumped to over 5.1 million.

Could it simply be better programming? Yes, of course. But it's hard to argue that erecting barriers to become more closed off from the rest of the world, won't, you know, make you more closed off from the rest of the world. Here we're just talking about one cultural institution in the UK. But the lesson scales.

I'm thinking of you right now, America.

Cover photo by Clifford on Unsplash

Last week, the Centre Pompidou -- which is Europe's largest modern art museum -- announced that it has acquired its very first NFTs (18 pieces by 13 artists) and that it will be exhibiting the collection this spring. This makes them the first museum in France to own NFT art and, I'm guessing, one of the first in the world. (The Los Angeles County Museum of Art recently got some as well.)

This is fun for a few reasons. The obviously fun reason is that it's good for NFT collectors and people who generally support this space. Big institutions bring legitimacy. It's one thing to say that these JPEGs are stupid while sitting at home on your computer, but it's an entirely different thing to travel to Paris, visit the Centre Pompidou, look at its white gallery walls, and then say that these JPEGs are stupid!

The other fun thing about this is that it shows a continued openness to new ideas and new technologies. Here are some words from the Pompidou (that have been translated, by Google, from French):

The idea was not to be the first, but to bring together a relevant collection, which could testify to a creative and critical appropriation of a new technology by artists, and how this disrupts and displaces the art ecosystem. From its creation, the Center Pompidou has relied on the idea that contemporary technological creation and creativity should be at the heart of the institution. From 1974-1975, therefore even before the opening of the Center, the National Museum of Modern Art acquired major works and installations by Dan Graham and Bruce Naumann. Video installations using real time, and it was the very first institution to do so.

This wasn't always the case in France. One of my favorite art history classes from university was one that covered Impressionism. Partly because I thought their work was cool, but mostly because Impressionist painters were, in a way, early modernists. They rejected the academic approaches to painting and instead decided to make up their own rules.

At the time, in the 19th century, this was seen as entirely radical. And it meant harsh criticism from the established art world and an inability to meaningfully exhibit at the Salon (which was everything at the time). But history has a way of showing us that if something is inherently a good idea, you can only remain stubborn for so long.

The Impressionist painters began hosting their own exhibitions starting in 1874 and, by 1881, the government had withdrawn its official sponsorship of the annual Salon. The jurors wanted to cling to only traditional painting styles and the world wanted to move on. And here it is doing that again, today.

Compared to 2019, the Tate galleries in London are seeing ~2.2 million fewer visitors, representing an approximately 27% decline in patronage. Much of this is coming from a decline in international/European visitors. They're at 61% of pre-COVID levels, whereas domestic visitors are at 95%.

One of the biggest groups to fall off has been young visitors (aged 16-24) from the EU. Between 2019-2020, the Tate Modern alone welcomed 609,000 people from this segment. By 2023-2024, this had dropped to 357,000 and it remains depressed.

So now the Tate is cutting its staff and blaming two macro changes: the pandemic and Brexit. Though some people are arguing that it's really because the programming has been too woke and stuff.

In my mind, the Brexit excuse makes the most sense because it has clearly created additional friction. If you're a school traveller in France and want to visit the UK, you now need to complete a school trip information form (I'm assuming this wasn't the case before).

And if you're a student from any another country, you need a passport. In some cases you may also need a visa. So it makes sense that schools and teachers might say, "yeah, let's make our lives easier and just stay within the EU."

Based on a very cursory review of how other cultural institutions are doing, this possibly checks out. In 2019, the Centre Pompidou in Paris welcomed over 3.2 million visitors and in 2024 it welcomed 3.2 million visitors. In 2019, the musée d'Orsay and the musée de l'Orangerie welcomed over 4.6 million visitors, and by 2023, this number had jumped to over 5.1 million.

Could it simply be better programming? Yes, of course. But it's hard to argue that erecting barriers to become more closed off from the rest of the world, won't, you know, make you more closed off from the rest of the world. Here we're just talking about one cultural institution in the UK. But the lesson scales.

I'm thinking of you right now, America.

Cover photo by Clifford on Unsplash

Last week, the Centre Pompidou -- which is Europe's largest modern art museum -- announced that it has acquired its very first NFTs (18 pieces by 13 artists) and that it will be exhibiting the collection this spring. This makes them the first museum in France to own NFT art and, I'm guessing, one of the first in the world. (The Los Angeles County Museum of Art recently got some as well.)

This is fun for a few reasons. The obviously fun reason is that it's good for NFT collectors and people who generally support this space. Big institutions bring legitimacy. It's one thing to say that these JPEGs are stupid while sitting at home on your computer, but it's an entirely different thing to travel to Paris, visit the Centre Pompidou, look at its white gallery walls, and then say that these JPEGs are stupid!

The other fun thing about this is that it shows a continued openness to new ideas and new technologies. Here are some words from the Pompidou (that have been translated, by Google, from French):

The idea was not to be the first, but to bring together a relevant collection, which could testify to a creative and critical appropriation of a new technology by artists, and how this disrupts and displaces the art ecosystem. From its creation, the Center Pompidou has relied on the idea that contemporary technological creation and creativity should be at the heart of the institution. From 1974-1975, therefore even before the opening of the Center, the National Museum of Modern Art acquired major works and installations by Dan Graham and Bruce Naumann. Video installations using real time, and it was the very first institution to do so.

This wasn't always the case in France. One of my favorite art history classes from university was one that covered Impressionism. Partly because I thought their work was cool, but mostly because Impressionist painters were, in a way, early modernists. They rejected the academic approaches to painting and instead decided to make up their own rules.

At the time, in the 19th century, this was seen as entirely radical. And it meant harsh criticism from the established art world and an inability to meaningfully exhibit at the Salon (which was everything at the time). But history has a way of showing us that if something is inherently a good idea, you can only remain stubborn for so long.

The Impressionist painters began hosting their own exhibitions starting in 1874 and, by 1881, the government had withdrawn its official sponsorship of the annual Salon. The jurors wanted to cling to only traditional painting styles and the world wanted to move on. And here it is doing that again, today.