At the moment, the proposed reform of the Flemish museum landscape remains unconvincing. Why is that?

The reform is quite ambitious, involving six parallel transition processes across different institutions. Yet there is no clear strategy to ensure succes. Without transparent communication, the process risks stranding in confusion, resistance, and failure to achieve its intended goals.

The decision-making process excludes key stakeholders: artists, art workers, curators, researchers, the public, and the broader society. Their participation is essential to ensure legitimacy, feasibility, and alignment with the interests of those most affected. Without a well-designed collective approach, the reform risks excluding precisely those it impacts the most.

The plans focus on reforming governance structures and leadership roles. While we consider this necessary and urgent, it is also extremely challenging, especially when political interests are deeply embedded within and around the institutions. If these dynamics are not addressed, the reform risks perpetuating existing power imbalances.

Furthermore, the strategy assumes that transformations can be applied uniformly across all institutions, without regard for their specific mission, history, and audience. There is no guarantee that the unique identity and legacy of each institution will be preserved.

The plan presents a new role for M HKA: a transformation into a center for contemporary art with experimental spaces for artists, residencies, lectures, and interdisciplinary experimentation. This proposal has caused significant unrest within M HKA itself, in the Antwerp art world, and among the city’s broader public. Who decided this, and who was involved in the decision-making process?

Like other institutions, M HKA faces numerous challenges, many of which are known and acknowledged. Most concerning is that, while the core of the problem has been identified, there appears to be insufficient courage to address it directly: the need for a strong leadership team that can resiliently carry and guide this renewal and change.

Additionally, the Department has not demonstrated that alternative scenarios were seriously considered, explored, or evaluated. This raises the question of whether the current proposal is indeed the most effective solution.