The Met’s decision to scrap their pay-what-you-wish policy is limited to non-residents of New York state (students from New Jersey and Connecticut will also be spared) but the ID requirement could potentially exclude some New Yorkers without proper documentation. Beyond the specifics of enforcement, though, is the wider implication: It tells us that wide access to art is not only unsustainable, but that it’s not a civic priority, either.

While the piecemeal approach to arts funding in the US is a world away from the UK’s top-down approach, it is true that there are plenty of museums and institutions in New York City which offer pay as you wish time windows (some are sponsored by companies, such as Uniqlo’s partnership with MoMA), as well as museums that never charge. And indeed, the Met contends it went which its policy change to avoid charging for special exhibitions, a practice that British institutions are known (and often loathed) for. But while the method for keeping the doors of museums open may differ, the top-down idea that access to arts and culture is not just an urban perk but a government-sponsored right does something, I think, to the way we think about culture as a society.

And indeed, the data from the UK’s experiment backs that up. Ten years after the museums that formerly charged became free, admission rose at those institutions by 150%. But interestingly, admission rates at museums that were already free pre-2001—The Tate, British Museum, and National gallery—rose too. Making museums free, it seems, makes people think of museums as something to do.

It should be said that while visitors have undeniably increased in the UK since 2001, data about just who has visited the UK’s free art museums has not been as socio-economically diverse as idealistic policy-makers might’ve hoped. Data has been mixed. Some regional museums have seen growth in attendance from lower socio-economic groups, which was the policy’s goal. However critics point to examples like the year 2011/12, where visitor numbers grew in terms of tourists, but fell among lower socio-economic groups in the UK population.

While efforts to invite a broader swath of the population to visit the museums that house publicly-owned art should continue, I would argue that even when they don’t, there is public benefit (even beyond the “existence value” argument). After all, today’s hungry artists, writers, and creators are tomorrow’s Jean-Michel Basquiats, Lin-Manuel Mirandas, or Tracy Emins. These are people who shape the culture by creating new culture that’s more inclusive, expansive, and imaginative than what our (admittedly imperfect) cultural institutions already house.

Whether they are visiting museums as a kid with their parents, a tourist on their first visit to a city, or a broke waitress on a break, the reminder that artists and creators of history have done that too, matters hugely. It’s a reason and reminder to keep going.

📬 Sign up for the Daily Brief

Our free, fast, and fun briefing on the global economy, delivered every weekday morning.