Claiming Space for Critical Thinking
In conversation with Nadia Bijl, Dora Brams and Vedran Kopljar
Museum at Risk:
www.museumatrisk.be
office@savethemuseum.be
Instagram @museumatrisk_mhka
museumatrisk.be/en/help-us
November 23: 11 a.m. to 6 p.m. lectures in the M HKA reading room, 1:30 p.m.: Hands Against the Wall, based on a performance by Ben Benaouisse
Listen to the marathon again: https://open.spotify.com/episode/0xqfPEAMk3fMFFMC5VVweY
What does it mean when a democratic government takes up the unwarranted, undiscussed and misinformed plan to cancel a museum for contemporary art? On October 6th, Flemish minister of Culture Caroline Gennez announced her restructuring of the Flemish ‘museum landscape’. Several museums will merge in a plan that divides visual arts into three categories, each connected to one major city and museum: fine art will be represented by KMSKA in Antwerp, modern art by Mu.ZEE in Ostend and contemporary art by S.M.AK. in Ghent. Based on a negative evaluation of its policy plans by a committee of museum experts, the minister decided not only to cancel the planned construction of a new building for the Museum of Contemporary Art (M HKA) in Antwerp, but also to divest it of its museum function and transform it into an art centre, with exhibitions, studios and residencies.
Growing from, among others, the arts organization ICC and its connection to the Gordon Matta-Clark Foundation, M HKA’s history is deeply rooted in the arts community for which Antwerp is still internationally known. For the past decade, the museum’s management and internal operation have often been questioned. The museum has struggled with a discrepancy between international ambitions on the one hand, and limited funding and outdated infrastructure on the other hand.
Now that the minister announces the end of the museum – making S.M.A.K. the only contemporary art museum under the governance of Flanders – the Flemish art scene finds itself in a crisis. How should we react to a democratic government making radical top-down plans without consulting experts in the field? What do we expect of cultural policy? Or of a museum, for that matter? What follows is a conversation between four art professionals, committed to protesting this decision.
Nadia Bijl is one of the founders and directors of Lichtekooi Artspace, a non-profit exhibition space in Antwerp. Dora Brams is an upcoming artist, who just had their first solo show at this same place. The starting point of their work is in the grey area between the accessibility and inaccessibility of official institutions. Vedran Kopljar’s work, analysing the generation of meaning, has been internationally well received in the past years. He had a solo exhibition at M HKA in 2024 and is currently taking part in the residency program at WIELS in Brussels.
TB: (Tamara Beheydt) How do we position ourselves against this institution, “the museum”, or more specifically M HKA? As soon as I knew I wanted to be an art critic, I often visited both temporary exhibitions and the collection (both at M HKA and S.M.A.K., but also M Leuven for example). Seeing major avant-garde works in real life was crucial for my education. Today, exhibitions at M HKA try to react to contemporary concerns, often referencing the collections housed at the museum.
NB: (Nadia Bijl) Lichtekooi Artspace was founded because we experienced a lack of spaces showing young and upcoming artists in Antwerp. This isn’t what I would otherwise expect of a museum, but of course you relate to it – as well as to other art spaces and galleries. That being said, I feel like M HKA’s infrastructural and financial conditions (which have been similar for at least a decade) never really allowed it to grow to a full international standard. For example, major traveling exhibitions don’t go to Antwerp: they go to Amsterdam or Paris. At the same time, the museum was unable to connect enough with the local art scene. We were left with an institution that fulfilled neither aspects in my opinion.
DB: (Dora Brams) My generation doesn’t necessarily want a museum to show our own work. We want them to grant us access to the great artists of recent years so that we can learn from them to develop our own practices.
VK: (Vedran Kopljar) When I started out, I was part of a dedicated underground community that opposed institutions. Even so, I did have many formative moments in the museum. Now, as a professor, I realise how important it is for students to visit museums, where they can encounter contemporary art history and get acquainted with conceptual and contextual strategies that are still in play and are formative for current contemporary practices.
NB: Perhaps a museum for contemporary art is a contradiction in terms, but therefore all the more interesting. Museums deal with the past, while contemporary art happens in the now. A museum builds something in the long run, bridging historical consciousness with today, valuing and collecting contemporary art towards the future. This is the main difference between a contemporary art museum and an art centre, which is project-based, reacting to immediate situations.
TB: Flanders has policies for cultural heritage (Erfgoeddecreet) on the one hand, and the arts (Kunstendecreet) on the other hand, but a museum for contemporary art is a bit of both: caring for a collection of artists who are often still alive. Compared to other museums, it works under different conditions. Policies should take this into account.
DB: It’s also about the general perception of contemporary art. A democratic government should acknowledge and defend its societal and cultural significance, by investing in it and writing adequate policies for it. Erasing a museum for contemporary art brings it back to the margins, thus denying its historical value.
Fear of loss
TB: We are all part of Museum at Risk, a large spontaneous collective of artists and art workers who oppose the current plans. One of the things we strive for, besides a museum for contemporary art, is genuine participation in the processes that shape our cultural policies.
VK: I believe that since the financial crisis of 2008 and the subsequent funding cuts, artists and organisations have adopted a kind of self-censorship in constant fear of losing more funding. This has led us to lose an open and public dialogue on the functioning of institutions and on the field itself. This is an enormous issue, which has been structurally induced by political decisions. Many of my generation have lost faith in institutions as we have experienced continuous status quo in the field. When it comes from an earnest concern, criticism is one of the most generous acts and crucial for reflection and improvement. But instead of criticism, there has been conformism out of fear of loss. This is a generational waste of potential, for artists, the field as a whole and the government.
TB: I would even go as far as to say that criticism in the cultural field should be considered good practice. What is happening now, with the government silencing any public dialogue even before it arises, is deadly to democracy. The very policy makers who value contemporary art value the people who think critically about the world today. Limiting contemporary art limits the critical conversation. Museum at Risk believes there needs to be an open public conversation about the societal position of museums and contemporary art. Even within the group, we have divergent opinions. During a phone call, one of the minister’s advisors mentioned thinking about the museum as ‘a conservative concept’.
NB: That can only mean that they don’t understand the importance of a museum in society, of a collection and a purchasing policy. In the proposed plan of the minister, there would be only one Flemish museum for contemporary art, which means a larger, centralised power base, and less diversification for the entire field. Polyphony is key! Imagine the library would be eliminated, and you would have to go to Ghent whenever you want to find a book – even if you got a bookshop in return, it wouldn’t be the same. Eliminating a museum cannot be understood as anything other than a loss. What we really need, is a future museum for contemporary art in Antwerp and Ghent, enriching a field with diversity, good governance, and a mandate for the directors’ functions.
DB: Let’s not disparage the idea of an art centre - there is nothing wrong with that. What is wrong, is that we already have Kunsthal Extra City in Antwerp. We also have a residency organization, Morpho. Both are struggling to find enough funding to keep existing. By placing a new, government-initiated art centre next to them, it will become even harder.
NB: Most likely, these existing places would then disappear through time. I think this new, top-down initiated art centre will never work. Things like these need to grow from underneath and find a response on a governmental level, but not be planted in a thriving ecosystem where every element reacts to each other and which would have just suffered an amputation.
TB: Isn’t that why government funding exists? So that when an organization grows, bottom-up, and has the ambition to grow further, it can apply for government support. As economizations progress, don’t we collectively fear ending up in a system that doesn’t offer cultural funding at all? There is something to be said for independent artists and spaces who choose to work outside of any funding system. But wouldn’t you rather live in a society that values art, and therefore supports it? This is something to fight for.
VK: I come from self-organizing and a focus on independence. But the romanticization of this attitude can be a bit problematic. Because you do everything yourself, you create your own island(s). The beautiful thing about a governmental funding system is that there are certain criteria institutions must adhere to. They are being evaluated by how they function in and for the community with whom they collaborate and in which ways they innovate their field, etc. It stimulates community consciousness.
NB: Gennez’s proposal suggests that a collaboration between the private and the public sector is a possible path. We do not really have this tradition in Belgium. What we do have in Belgium are excellent private collectors who are known worldwide. Too often, they donate their contemporary art collections to international institutions with a professional infrastructure. By the way, the minister’s plan does not guarantee any budget for new infrastructure, for example a new museum in Ghent or storage facilities.
DB: We should worry about setting a precedent where contemporary artists and institutions are left to fend for themselves. I expect a government to invest in what is important. If we normalise private funding for culture, what is next? Education? Health care?
VK: And there is so much proof that culture creates a massive return on investment.
TB: That’s true, but should culture be evaluated by economic criteria? At some point in recent history, cultural policy makers started using economic arguments to find more funding for their projects. But while we are defending the economic value of art, we are in danger of forgetting that it has, in the very first place, a fundamental intrinsic value, which cannot be quantified.
Voices
TB: Museum at Risk organised a 25-hour marathon protest at M HKA, bringing together more than 120 voices (Nadia, Dora and Dennis Tyfus took up most of the organization. Vedran played a major role on the day itself, along with many other helping hands). There have been petitions and open letters, from artists, curators and the international museum community – yet the minister and her advisors remain silent and choose not to react to our call for participation. Where do we go from here?
VK: It is important to mention that participants and visitors came from all over Belgium and even abroad to discuss and protest the idea of eliminating a museum. The solidarity that is created in a crisis such as this is a good example of how beautifully the tight-knit Antwerp arts community can catalyse a momentum. But the problem reaches far beyond Antwerp. What does it mean when a democratic government chooses to abolish a museum without a clear reason and without consulting the field? How can we accept this precedent being set?
DB: Actions will continue – we are organizing lectures, debates and artistic actions, which will all be communicated on our website and social media.
NB: We must continue to demand a conversation with our policy makers. There will be other actions and voices, I’m sure. We are not the only representatives of Antwerp’s diverse art scene. In fact, we are very eager to have conversations with voices that have yet to be heard.
VK: Museum at Risk is a fluid group, a hub for discussion and information exchange, which also needs more critical voices. This is a good opportunity to call out to keep the debate going. Anyone who wants to add their voice and arguments, who wishes to be heard in this conversation should contact Museum at Risk
