Through the logic of economic rationalisation, political administrations can dictate radical overhauls of the cultural landscape with unimaginable damaging effects for the local arts ecosystem. In the face of a populist economic discourse that increasingly pits investment in the arts and culture sector against the funding of other fundamental social services, how do we defend the vital value that a museum of contemporary art such as M HKA plays in its situated context?
Anne-Mie Van Kerckhoven: When the government invests money in a museum to enable a new initiative or a challenging project, it does so in the belief that developing new infrastructure meets a need. That need may be imposed from above (to support an ideology or political agenda) or arise from below (for example, from a number of people who have already put their shoulders to the wheel of an initiative that has organically grown into something bigger).
In Belgium, it is common for a group of art lovers and collectors to come together to exhibit new types of art. They organise lectures and go on joint trips at home and abroad, often supported by an enthusiastic art historian or advisor. They purchase works and set their sights on an existing museum, where, under the expert guidance of an enthusiastic curator, a consistent operation is gradually developed. They support groundbreaking initiatives and achieve national and international success together with the museum. After that, the next logical step is to have a separate new location for contemporary art.
When the government decides to provide substantial subsidies for a certain time, the beneficiary (in this case, a museum of contemporary art) is guaranteed to generate attention, enthusiasm and money. Yet, certain expectations of how a museum should profile itself internationally cannot be assessed in advance. What artists create in their studios, what curators pick up on, what the art world in general embraces, what becomes a trend for a while – these things are impossible to predict in advance. A museum of contemporary art must constantly adapt to what is emerging as innovation and see it as its task to be a platform for what is important and groundbreaking in the here and now.
The museum can use its own collection to emphasise certain aspects, thereby broadening support for the intrinsic importance of what was collected in the past as valuable and significant. By presenting the contemporary and the historical in dialogue on an art-historical basis, the museum can fulfil its educational task in unique and challenging ways, different each time, depending on what the ever-changing world community is concerned with at the time; continuing to push boundaries in a positive way despite all the surrounding negativity.
Tamara Beheydt: Another important point is that it is valuable to have several museums of contemporary art in Flanders, each with their own vision, emphases and local roots. This means they can complement each other and collaborate where their interests overlap.
The meaning and value of a collection is inextricably connected to its context and its history. What are the implications and costs of dismantling and relocating a site-specific and long-standing museum collection – in cultural, social, legal, political and economic terms? What intangible and not easily measurable values are lost in this process? And how do we surface and make visible such a loss in a language that is plain and understood by both political interlocutors and the public at large?
AMVK: Originally, a museum was created to permanently display a classified collection of artefacts to the public – for education, for entertainment, and for the pleasure of encountering a beautiful and interesting collection presented in an attractive and effective manner. At best, this is done professionally: according to a logical order and accompanied by explanations and interpretations, including contextual ones. Such contextualisation is shaped in a way that aligns with the museum’s nature and mission.
Cultural tourism that centres on the physical experience of a historical or contemporary artwork generates income – not only for the museum in question, but also for the city or place where the work is located, and even for the country to which one must travel. In this way, cultural biotopes can be sustained: ecosystems with broad reach that can indirectly appeal to all sections of the population. When visiting a country and wanting to understand its character, one can learn a great deal by visiting its museums. Their content and nature reveal much about the politics and social dynamics that shape – and have shaped – the country. (I realised this when I visited the Museum of Fine Arts in Buenos Aires in 2002.)
TB: The economic arguments for art museums are, of course, important. Contemporary art generates income, and M HKA is a perfect example of how a museum can revitalise an entire neighbourhood and enable it to benefit from the resulting economic return. To put it more explicitly: if the museum of contemporary art were to disappear, the neighbourhood and the city would undoubtedly suffer in areas not directly related to art.
But the greater value of art is intrinsic and often partly invisible. The disappearance of a museum – and possibly its collection – would impoverish the entire art landscape. Other actors relate to the museum and its collection; artists, art students and the public have direct access here to recent heritage. That access would disappear as well.
M KHA’s collection is both internationally oriented and firmly rooted in the local art scene, particularly in post-war avant-garde art in Antwerp and Flanders. While contemporary art is often mistakenly seen as globalist, it is arguably the interplay between the local and the global in collections such as M HKA’s that enables one to make sense of an increasingly multipolar world. How do we articulate the importance of maintaining this dialogue between the here and the elsewhere within a museum collection? And what specific instances from M HKA’s collection or other museums can help us to support this case?
TB: As I see it, three strands can be identified within the M HKA collection: artists who are important to Belgium – particularly Antwerp and its surroundings – including young artists whose work M HKA has acquired in order to support them (which is another key role of a museum of contemporary art); internationally relevant artists who have a special connection to Antwerp; and artists who are internationally relevant.
I am thinking, also, of the Gordon Matta-Clark Foundation, which is intertwined with the creation of M HKA, but also of significant works in the collection by artists such as Marcel Broodthaers, Joseph Beuys and James Lee Byars (all of whom found their way into the international art world via Antwerp), and, naturally, Panamarenko. Every day, the collection team researches how the collection was – and continues to be – connected to its environment and its time. This is precisely its relevance: historical research into the collection and its works, and into their relationship to the spirit of the age and the geographical context. Do we view that relationship differently today?
A museum of contemporary art must, on the one hand, undertake historical research, and on the other, facilitate dialogue between the works in its collection and contemporary issues through temporary exhibitions. In recent years, M HKA has invested substantial resources and energy in making its collections accessible via ensembles.org, a platform that is far from perfect but nevertheless aspires to offer a model for digital accessibility.
AMVK: For me, the best example of this is the presence of my work in the collection of Museum Abteiberg in Mönchengladbach, Germany. The permanent collection there is breathtaking from my perspective. All my reference points are present in it; they complement and precede what I have been creating for fifty years – what has already proved important, and what I am still searching for. In addition to a purchase, I have also been able to donate a number of large works that can continue to live on in this way.
A similar process is unfolding with Muzeum Sztuki in Łódź, Poland, which has owned several of my drawings for some time. Last year they contacted me to acquire my computer animation Maybe This Time I Win (1989), after which they requested an installation or larger work as a donation. I gave them the installation Divide and Rule (The 5th Force), of which the film is a part. They will also acquire more recent works of mine. I can hardly imagine a better environment for the future reception of my work – historically and conceptually. It is extremely meaningful when such developments arise naturally.
M HKA also holds several of my works, which I have already supplemented with a donation, and more will follow. It is very important to me that my work remains permanently present in my own city. The DNA of the city is in me and, in turn. together with my husband Danny Devos, I have contributed to shaping its contemporary artistic DNA. Many works were created directly from our life here, while also building on what has happened historically in the artistic field.
Collections are established through relationships of mutual trust and responsibility. A museum has a duty of care towards its collections and donors, towards the artists – dead or alive – whose work it preserves, and towards the diverse publics and local communities it caters for. How do we defend the will of donors who entrusted a collection to a particular institution when that collection is at risk of being dismantled and relocated? What legal instruments and ethical protocols can we appeal to?
TB: In the specific case of M HKA, the museum houses several distinct collections: part of the collection of the Flemish Community, the collection of the City of Antwerp, the collection of M HKA, as well as various donations, archives and long-term loans. Under the current circumstances, many artists and donors have already requested the return of their works or have indicated that they will withdraw planned donations. There is justified concern about the future care of these artworks, as no policy vision has been formulated regarding what should happen to the collections if M HKA were to cease functioning as a collection-managing institution – that is, as a museum.
Legally, determining what is and is not possible is extremely complex. In principle, the Flemish government has no authority over artworks it does not own, but this does not mean it cannot exert influence in other ways. Artists and collectors who sell or donate a work to an institution would therefore be wise to include, from the outset, a clause in the transaction documents stipulating the conditions under which their work must be preserved and, if necessary, what should happen if these conditions are not met.