A museum cannot have a half-identity
By Yolande Avontroodt,
acting chair of the Governing Body of M HKA
Over the past few weeks, in conversations with people across the sector, I have been asked the same question with striking frequency: what, exactly, will M HKA still be in the years ahead? Not in terms of bricks, square metres or organisational charts, but in its essence: will we remain a museum, or become something else?
Too often, the debate about M HKA’s future is reduced to the mechanics of implementing a project plan. That sounds businesslike, manageable, almost reassuring: there is a plan, we will deliver it, and we will evaluate afterwards. But anyone taking this debate seriously must go back further. A project plan is not a neutral document. It is the practical execution of a concept note. And it is precisely that concept note – the starting point of policy – that raises fundamental concerns for M HKA.
The heart of our objection is simple, but far from minor: the concept note is built on a vision in which M HKA loses its status as a museum and is reduced to an arts centre. We fundamentally disagree with that premise.
The policy note appears to set up a false opposition between the “museum” as static and heritage-bound, and the “arts centre” as dynamic and future-facing. As if the museum is where things stand still, and the arts centre is where things come alive. But that distinction is not only outdated; it also fails to reflect what contemporary museums are today. Museums are not mausoleums. They are places where heritage is not frozen but activated – where collections are not an endpoint, but the beginning of new questions, new connections and new forms of public engagement. Anyone who has followed M HKA in recent years knows this is not theory. It is the lived reality of the institution.
That is precisely why it is so troubling to see museum status treated as something that can be diluted at will: a little museum, so long as it meets the conditions; a little collection, so long as it does not become too heavy; a little history, so long as it primarily serves the future.
A museum is not a checklist of loosely connected functions. You cannot decide that an institution may continue to perform certain museological tasks while hollowing out its status and purpose. As the art historian Johan Vansteenkiste recently put it:
“The museum and its collection are one entity, inseparably connected. The collection forms the core of a museum, grows into it, and both reinforce each other. The collection tells the particular story of a museum. The museum gives context and meaning to the collection. The collection is the soul and the reason the museum exists.”
That is why it is not enough for M HKA to retain one or more museum functions, as Flemish minister Caroline Gennez suggested in the Culture Committee (8 January 2025). This is not a solution; it is a false compromise. It creates the impression of meeting the institution and the sector halfway while, in reality, undermining what makes a museum a museum. However uncomfortable it may sound, it is an attempt to placate the sector with an empty gesture.
Let me add this, because it matters. We are not arguing for preservation for preservation’s sake. This is not a defensive reflex rooted in fear of change. On the contrary: we argue for continuity in the service of renewal. Precisely because we believe museums today are not merely repositories, but active civic actors.
M HKA aims to be an exemplary institution that embodies a new Flemish understanding of what a museum can be: firmly anchored in heritage, yet open, collaborative and socially engaged. A museum where care, knowledge and creation come together. Not as a buzzword, but as daily practice. Where artists, researchers and audiences meet. Where the collection is not a burden, but a responsibility.
That responsibility demands courage: the courage to commit to long-term work. Too often this is brushed aside, as if “international” were simply an attractive label. But in contemporary art, international legitimacy is not window-dressing: it is built on trust, on relationships, on consistency. A museum becomes recognisable because it carries a story. And that story is inseparable from the collection and the place where that collection is interpreted, researched and made meaningful.
Chris Dercon, director of the Fondation Cartier in Paris, has rightly warned of the consequences of detaching collections from their institutional context:
“You cannot simply transfer a collection from one city to another. The collection then loses its identity and narrative. Those elements are precisely what guarantee the added value of a collection. Such interventions also do a disservice to our public museums, because donors lose trust. And it is precisely those donations that secure the future of public museums.” (Pompidou, Klara, 7 January 2026)
What is too often overlooked in this debate is that museum status is not only about the past. It is also about tomorrow’s public. A fully-fledged contemporary art museum is a beginning: a place where new generations encounter contemporary art for the first time in a way that matters. That engagement does not happen by itself. It takes time.
It also takes proximity, both physical and mental: a museum that remains present in young people’s lives, accessible and approachable, inviting them to step inside without prior knowledge.
Mathieu Pauwels, chair and driving force behind the renewal of M HKA’s Friends organisation, put it like this:
“For many young people, contemporary art is not naturally present in their upbringing or education. For many, M HKA is a low-threshold first encounter. No prior knowledge is required, only curiosity. In that sense, M HKA matters to young people because it not only shows them art, but teaches them how to look, how to think, and how to relate to the world today. For me, my first visit to M HKA as a young adult was an aha moment: something is happening here that you do not see elsewhere.”
The government, of course, has the right to reshape the cultural landscape. That is its responsibility, particularly when it allocates resources and defines policy priorities. But that right has limits. Ann Demeester, director of Kunsthaus Zürich, put it bluntly:
“The government has the right to reorganise the landscape, but it cannot assume that the actors involved will cooperate with the slow implosion of their own institutions, or commit spontaneous harakiri.”
It is vital to understand that this debate is not only about M HKA. It is also about Antwerp’s place in the history and future of contemporary art. Antwerp has helped write – and continues to write – that story. Not as a backdrop, but as an engine: through artist collectives and initiatives, institutions, academies and a university of international standing. And through a broad community of artists and art lovers who do not see a fully-fledged contemporary art museum as a luxury, but as a necessity.
Ernest Van Buynder, honorary chair of M HKA and chair of the Advisory Council for Art on Campus at the University of Antwerp, recently summed up that reality:
“M HKA must retain its museum functions. Antwerp has written and continues to write history in contemporary art, with artist groups such as G58 Hessenhuis and the New Flemish School, the Vrije Actie Groep Antwerpen (V.A.G.A.), institutions such as the International Cultural Centre (ICC), a dynamic gallery scene, patronage, a series of complementary museums, two art academies at master’s level, the University of Antwerp with a unique collection, and a broad community of artists and art lovers who urgently need a fully-fledged museum of contemporary art.”
Concerns are also being voiced from a historical perspective. The curator Marianne Hoet recently said in the Flemish press:
“I don’t think my father, Jan Hoet, would be triumphant because S.M.A.K., which he founded, becomes the leading museum for contemporary art while M HKA loses its museum function.”
What is at stake here is not institutional prestige. This is not about rivalry, nor about a manufactured opposition between cities. What is at stake is a profound weakening of the Flemish visual arts landscape if a fully-fledged museum of contemporary art is hollowed out.
Goedele Bartolomeeussen, director of Museum Dhondt-Dhaenens, captured the distinction clearly:
“The difference between a museum and an art hall is like the difference between a book and a magazine. Both are valuable, but only the book carries a continuous story, memory and cohesion. By detaching the collection from its place, Antwerp loses not only an institution, but also a horizon for artists who live and work here.”
What worries me most is that the concept note has already caused tangible harm, even before any broad consultation has taken place. Distrust and uncertainty are creeping into the field. International partners are asking questions. Artists and staff feel left in the dark. And this runs counter to the stated ambition of the reform, which is supposed to create greater cohesion, clarity and trust.
That is why I am calling, on behalf of M HKA’s Governing Body, M HKA’s Art Circle and the Friends of M HKA, for the conversation to take place where it belongs: around the future of a contemporary art museum in Antwerp – a museum where heritage and artistic practice strengthen one another; where a long-term vision is taken seriously; where a museum is understood as both a local institution and an international network.
As always, we are ready to engage constructively and in dialogue. But one point cannot be up for negotiation: a museum cannot have a half-identity. Without full museum status, there is no institutional clarity, no international legitimacy and no sustainable future. Not for M HKA, and not for Flemish visual arts policy as a whole.
