Before closing down a museum. 15 (+1) questions that deserve an answer
By Manu Claeys, board member at Morpho vzw and chairperson of stRaten-generaal.
The Flemish Government is considering withdrawing the museum status of the M HKA (Museum of Contemporary Art Antwerp). This would not only jeopardise an institution, but also an artistic ecosystem that has contributed to Flanders’ international standing for decades. Growing concerns are being voiced across the cultural field: what exactly does it mean when a museum loses its status? And who stands to win or lose in this process?
Manu Claeys has formulated fifteen (+1) pointed questions that politicians, policymakers and art lovers cannot ignore. His message is clear: before a museum is closed, there must be accountability.
15 (+1) questions that deserve an answer
1. How does the Flemish Government intend to “make the collections of two museums more accessible” by closing one of them down?
2. Why is there said to be room for only one museum of contemporary art in Flanders, when virtually every major city in Flanders still hosts its own museum of fine or modern art?
3. Why did the decision go in favour of that one museum in Ghent — which in many respects, from collection size and visitor numbers to its network of galleries and artists, is smaller than Antwerp?
4. Has there ever been a case anywhere in Europe where the DNA of fifty years of local avant-garde has been relocated to another city by ministerial decree?
5. How can an internationally renowned museum be closed on the basis of an administrative concept note that has never been made public?
6. Has the planned relocation of the M HKA collection been properly assessed from a legal perspective, given the many loans and donations that often carry specific conditions?
7. Will the fine arts collection of Ghent then also be moved, for the sake of “efficiency gains,” to Antwerp, which, according to the Flemish Government, is to become the ‘beacon’ for the fine arts?
8. How does Mu.ZEE in Ostend serve as a ‘hinge’ between Ghent (contemporary art) and Antwerp (fine arts)? And how will it avoid becoming an institution that falls between two stools?
9. Why is a museum with a statutory ambition to achieve international excellence assessed according to national heritage-sector expectations?
10. How can an assessment committee’s recommendation to “draw up a new policy plan” be invoked as grounds for closing a museum, when the same committee commends the M HKA team’s potential and expertise and explicitly advocates for a higher subsidy?
11. Why is an institution that, according to the same committee, “is doing pioneering work at the international level” being closed, rather than having its operations or management adjusted?
12. How relevant is the assessment of plans by a director who is about to retire after 22 years of service, given that the design of the new museum has already been finalised and budgeted, and that the selection procedure for a new director has been fully prepared?
13. Why did the Antwerp city council let a promised investment budget of 130 million euros for a new museum of contemporary art pass it by?
14. What is the true construction cost of the planned museum, despite rumours of escalating expenses that have been denied by the management and the architects?
15. Why is a new arts centre being proposed on the current M HKA site, when there is already one in the Kievitwijk neighbourhood, supported by both Flanders and the City of Antwerp (with Extra City, Morpho and Antwerp Art)? Is it the intention to also close the existing site “in the name of efficiency”?
(+1) Do we agree that downgrading a museum is such a far-reaching decision that it deserves a public debate — one conducted without personal insinuations and focused on arguments rather than individuals?
Closing or reorienting a museum is not a mere technical measure — it is a cultural rupture. The answers to these questions reach beyond a single institution: they touch on how Flanders relates to its contemporary art, its artists, and its urban future.
“As a citizen and as a committed board member of Morpho, an organisation that supports artists in Antwerp, I have serious questions about this. Before a museum is closed, the public deserves at least honest answers to some fundamental policy questions.”
Manu Claeys
Manu Claeys is an author, board member of Morpho vzw (a studio and residency programme for visual artists in Antwerp), and chair of stRaten-generaal, the citizens’ movement known for its substantive interventions in the Oosterweel dossier. Claeys is an experienced voice in the public debate on urban development, cultural policy, and citizen participation.
