The Museum of Contemporary Art Antwerp, known as M HKA, faces permanent dissolution after the Flemish Ministry of Culture ordered its closure and mandated the transfer of its entire collection to the S.M.A.K. in Ghent, effectively ending the institution's 40-year history. The ministry's October 2025 decision also terminated a €130 million new building project that was fully designed and ready to break ground, representing a dramatic reversal of cultural policy in the Flanders region of Belgium. This move has sparked outrage among artists, curators, and cultural workers who view it as a dangerous precedent that threatens the ecosystem of mid-sized contemporary art institutions across Western Europe. The closure reflects broader tensions between political budget priorities and the long-term value of cultural investment in an era of increasing fiscal austerity.
M HKA had established itself as a crucial developmental laboratory for contemporary art, occupying what director Bart de Baere described as the essential middle ground between emerging practices and established institutions. Unlike blockbuster museums focused on spectacle and tourist attendance, M HKA built modest but significant collections emphasizing archival materials and forward-thinking concepts such as Eurasian internationalism that anticipated future cultural shifts rather than reflecting mainstream tastes. The museum organized seminal exhibitions for under-recognized artists including Jimmie Durham, Otobong Nkanga, Laure Prouvost, Dora García, and Nástio Mosquito, providing critical support for practitioners who lacked representation in larger institutions. As a founding member of L'Internationale, a European confederation of museums and universities attempting to shape a transnational cultural vision, M HKA positioned itself as an intellectual hub rather than simply an exhibition venue.
The political decision appears rooted in Culture Minister Caroline Gennez's desire to reallocate the substantial construction budget toward smaller, more politically expedient projects and personal priorities rather than supporting a major cultural institution. By eliminating the new building funding, the ministry gained control of resources that could satisfy various constituent demands while avoiding the long-term commitment required to maintain a world-class contemporary art museum. The existing M HKA facility suffered from inadequate storage depots, limited exhibition spaces, and insufficient resources for proper collection management, problems the new building was specifically designed to solve. Without this infrastructure improvement, the museum's ability to care for its holdings and present meaningful exhibitions would continue to deteriorate, making the closure argument a self-fulfilling prophecy.
In response, local cultural workers launched the Museum at Risk campaign, occupying the museum entrance for 24 hours and successfully pressuring Antwerp city councilors to oppose the Flemish government's decision. International artists including Emilia Kabakov and the estate of Christian Boltanski have demanded the return of their works or removal from the museum's collection website, arguing they donated pieces specifically to benefit Antwerp citizens, not to be transferred to Ghent. These actions demonstrate a powerful community recognition of the museum's value that transcends political calculations. However, activists acknowledge that simply preserving the inadequate status quo fails to address the fundamental institutional weaknesses that made M HKA vulnerable to political attack in the first place.
The crisis at M HKA reflects broader dissolution of post-1960 Western European cultural principles that valued supporting culture without demanding immediate social or economic accountability. Contemporary political leaders increasingly view cultural institutions through neoliberal frameworks that require quantifiable returns on investment, frequent spectacle to generate media attention, and alignment with short-term political agendas. This populist approach fails to recognize that art's value often emerges gradually through sustained engagement and that collections must find their resonance over time rather than delivering instant metrics. The Flemish government's actions suggest a fundamental misunderstanding of how cultural ecosystems function, treating museums as interchangeable rather than recognizing each institution's unique contribution to the regional and international art landscape.
Unless the closure decision is reversed, M HKA's fate will likely embolden similar cultural cuts across Europe, particularly affecting mid-sized institutions that lack the tourist draw of major metropolitan museums but provide essential support for artistic innovation. The case demonstrates how quickly decades of careful institutional building can be dismantled when political will evaporates, serving as a cautionary tale for cultural workers everywhere. Success for the Museum at Risk campaign requires not just preserving the existing museum but securing the resources and autonomy necessary for meaningful long-term operation. Without such a comprehensive victory, Antwerp risks losing a vital cultural asset and Europe risks normalizing the elimination of institutions that prioritize artistic development over commercial success.
