[AK View] The Dilemma of the National Museum of Korea in the Era of 6.5 Million Visitors

Reservation System and Paid Admission Debated Amid Surge in Visitors
Rational Design Needed for Long-Term Sustainability

Kwangho Lee, Head of Culture and Sports Team

The cumulative number of visitors to the National Museum of Korea in 2025 has surpassed 6.5 million. This figure is 1.7 times higher than in 2024 and more than four times greater than in 2005, the first year after relocating to Yongsan. Considering that, as of 2024, only a handful of museums such as the Louvre, the Vatican Museums, and the British Museum attracted more than 6 million annual visitors, the National Museum of Korea can now be considered among the world’s leading museums based on numbers alone.

As achievements grow, so do the questions. The main concern is whether the current operating model can accommodate this scale. This is the context in which discussions about introducing admission fees have resurfaced alongside the surge in visitors. The government plans to implement a reservation system this year and, as early as 2027, move toward charging admission. Yoo Hongjun, Director of the National Museum of Korea, has also officially announced a review of the timing and method for introducing admission fees.

Free admission to the permanent exhibitions at the National Museum of Korea has long been regarded as a symbol of cultural welfare. However, this has been more of a policy choice than an absolute principle. Until 2008, admission to the permanent exhibitions cost 2,000 won, but it was made free under the banner of expanding cultural enjoyment. The problem lies in what followed. For more than 15 years after admission became free, there has been insufficient discussion and investment in redesigning both the visitor experience and the operating structure. The principle remained, but the system to support it became fragile.

Whenever the idea of charging admission is raised, criticisms about the “commodification of culture” and a “retreat from public interest” are repeated. However, the current issue is less about putting a price on culture and more about creating a sustainable operating structure. Simply increasing visitor numbers on the premise of free admission diminishes both the quality of exhibitions and the visitor experience. Becoming a “popular museum” and becoming a “museum where visitors linger” are not the same thing.

The operating models of major museums overseas are relatively clear. Paid admission is the norm, not the exception, with separate fees for permanent and special exhibitions. They also combine donations, sponsorships, and commercial revenue to ensure operational autonomy. While some museums do offer free access to their permanent exhibitions, this is a special model only possible with substantial government funding and a mature culture of philanthropy. It is difficult to argue that Korean society has fully met these conditions yet.

However, pushing ahead with paid admission as a matter of speed is not the answer. The National Museum of Korea is a public cultural infrastructure that cannot be run solely on market principles. For students, the elderly, and marginalized groups, the museum is almost the only place where they can encounter history and culture without financial burden. Introducing fees that undermine accessibility could threaten the very public nature of the museum.

Therefore, the focus of the debate should be on the design, not on whether to charge admission. The permanent exhibitions should remain free or at a very low cost to serve as a safeguard for public access. In contrast, it is reasonable to charge clear and differentiated fees for special exhibitions and premium content. A structure where visitors pay a fair price for in-depth exhibitions and services can also foster a more mature museum culture. Always-free admission for youth and vulnerable groups, free access on certain days or during specific hours, and the introduction of annual memberships are not secondary options but core elements of the design. Adjusting admission fees for foreign visitors should not be taboo either, as long as it is explained as a matter of “contribution” rather than discrimination. Social acceptance can be achieved if it is clear that additional revenue will be reinvested in improving exhibitions and expanding public services.

Ultimately, introducing admission fees at the National Museum of Korea may be an unavoidable choice. What matters is not the speed but the direction, not the conclusion but the process. Moving forward without sufficient discussion and careful planning will only provoke backlash. The more rushed the policy, the more unstable it becomes. For the National Museum of Korea to remain the “people’s museum” in the future, what is needed is not a declaration but a thoughtful design.