We're been duped by the DIA!

**Scottathew** · December-07-12, 02:44 PM

Originally Posted by southen

you get access to the art that the museum owns. a special exhibit is not museum property, it is on loan from another museum or group. look at it as visiting another venue and it might make more sense and cause less outrage.

Isn't that true of many of the things that are available for "General" admission as well?

**southen** · December-07-12, 02:51 PM

Originally Posted by 48091

Isn't that true of many of the things that are available for "General" admission as well?

unless im mistaken, which i dont believe i am, the art in the public galleries is owned by the DIA. it is their property and thus is free for us to enjoy. traveling exhibits and special exhibits are not the property of the DIA and there are costs involved in bringing them to detroit. if you dont want to pop for 8 bucks to see the fabrege exhibit you are free to enjoy the rest of the museum. painting it as you only get to see "some" of the art is disingenuous when you get to see the entire collection of art that the museum owns. you miss out on something that they didnt have to bring to detroit. its not that crazy of a concept.

**webband1** · December-07-12, 02:58 PM

On the youtube video of the DIA ad: the voice-over says "unlimited free admission" [[@0:20 mark), while the text on screen says "free unlimited admission". I'm sure the DIA will argue that "unlimited" here means "no limit to the number of times you get free admission".

The ballot language holds no water here, because it is simply a summary of what is being voted on. The amendments we voted on in November were much longer than the paragraph on the ballot.

In fact, I'd assume all that matters here is what the millage that was passed says. The DIA can say that the millage will allow them to bring golden unicorns to every home, does that mean they have to if it passes? My guess would be no.

**MikeM** · December-07-12, 03:12 PM

Originally Posted by Novine

The claims have already been debunked here. The DIA never promised unlimited admission to everything. No one has any basis to claim otherwise.

Well a judge may decide that now.

**MikeM** · December-07-12, 03:26 PM

The contract between the MCAIA and the DIA:

http://www.macombcountymi.gov/Corpor...ct_withDIA.pdf

I assume section I, paragraph 2.4[[A) will be the point of contention.

**Novine** · December-07-12, 05:07 PM

The contract specifically excludes the ability for anyone other than the Art Authority to enforce the terms of the contract. Based on that, it doesn't seem that those suing have standing to do so.

**EastsideAl** · December-07-12, 05:35 PM

I'm not sure I understand the argument here. Every museum in the country [[save for the heavy-hitters with near bottomless funding, like the Metropolitan in NYC and the National Gallery in DC) charges extra admission for special exhibits. That's because, as stated above, the art involved does not belong to the museum and they have to pay [[a lot) for the traveling exhibition. There is nothing about what the DIA does for these exhibits that is in any way different from what almost any other museum does.

However, the DIA has a very fine permanent collection, with many important pieces. Certainly no one getting free admission to a collection of that magnitude can seriously argue that they're getting duped or gypped - unless they have some sort of political axe to grind.

**Scottathew** · December-07-12, 06:06 PM

Originally Posted by MikeM

I assume section I, paragraph 2.4[[A) will be the point of contention.

Both sides have a leg to stand on. In the contract it does say "unlimited", but it also says "museum admission", which could be interpreted as something less the full access to all exhibits.

However, where the DIA lacks is that I can't find anywhere in the contract that mentions how special exhibits are to be treated.

Originally Posted by MikeM

Well a judge may decide that now.

I most certainly agree.