The Swedish Ministry of Culture’s proposal to merge the Moderna Museet (Museum of Modern Art), ArkDes (Swedish Centre for Architecture and Design), and Statens Konstråd (Public Art Agency Sweden) has sparked controversy due to its seemingly undemocratic process and potentially detrimental impact on the arts. The proposal’s release, much like the initial announcement of the investigation, was strategically timed to minimize public discussion, released late in the afternoon and without the customary press conference. Furthermore, the typical consultation process is being bypassed in favor of a hearing, raising concerns about transparency and democratic involvement, especially given that a similar merger proposal in 2015 was rejected after a majority of consulted parties voiced their opposition. This circumvention of established procedures suggests a predetermined outcome, further fueled by the fact that the investigation’s premise wasn’t whether a merger should occur, but how it should be implemented.
The investigation, led by Thomas Pålsson, was tasked with determining whether incorporating Statens Konstråd into Moderna Museet was “appropriate,” not if it was the optimal solution. Pålsson, while likely a competent civil servant, lacks a background in art and museum management, mirroring the current government’s perceived de-prioritization of culture, as evidenced by budget cuts and the appointment of a relatively unknown municipal politician as Minister of Culture. The predetermined nature of the investigation’s outcome is further highlighted by Pålsson’s claim that he could not identify a more suitable institution for the merger than Moderna Museet, suggesting a lack of genuine exploration of alternative solutions. This approach undermines the credibility of the process and raises concerns about whether the proposed merger is truly in the best interests of the involved institutions and the Swedish cultural landscape.
While merging smaller government agencies can offer benefits such as cost savings, improved coordination of administrative functions, and potential synergies, the current proposal lacks a convincing argument for its benefits specifically in this case. The report emphasizes the proximity of the institutions, with Moderna Museet and ArkDes sharing a building and Statens Konstråd situated nearby. However, this ignores the fundamental differences in their functions: Statens Konstråd is not a museum but a commissioning body for public art. Furthermore, the report overlooks ArkDes’ recent year-long closure for renovations, culminating in the establishment of a separate entrance to distinguish itself from Moderna Museet, a clear sign of ArkDes’ desire for independent identity. The report glosses over these crucial details and potentially plays up other arguments as reasoning behind the merger.
The parallels drawn by the report to international mega-institutions like MoMA in New York, where art, architecture, and design coexist, fall short. MoMA does not encompass the functions of a public art commissioning body like Statens Konstråd. Similarly, while the new Nasjonalmuseet in Oslo merged several art institutions, the Norwegian equivalent of Statens Konstråd remains independent. These international comparisons, therefore, do not provide a compelling justification for the proposed merger. Concerns regarding the potential concentration of power and the dilution of the smaller institutions’ unique identities and missions, especially the risk of visual arts overshadowing design, have been raised by experts but downplayed in the report. The report’s assurances that the institutions will retain "as much artistic freedom as possible" ring hollow in light of past experiences like the integration of Fotografiska Museet into Moderna Museet in 1998, which resulted in a diminished focus on photography.
The proposed structure of the new "Moderna" entity further fuels these anxieties. The planned hierarchy, featuring a superintendent, a nine-member board, and three department heads, raises concerns about top-heavy management and the potential for bureaucratic inefficiencies. The report’s assertion that this structure will simultaneously enhance cost-effectiveness and artistic strength appears dubious, particularly given the history of organizational and financial challenges faced by institutions like Statens museer för världskultur, which employs a similar organizational model. The lack of a convincing argument for such a drastic restructuring raises serious questions about the motivation behind the proposal and if potential benefits outweigh the potential detrimental impact.
In conclusion, the proposed merger of Moderna Museet, ArkDes, and Statens Konstråd appears driven more by a predetermined outcome and a desire for streamlining rather than a genuine effort to enhance the Swedish art scene. The lack of transparency in the process, the bypassing of established consultation procedures, and the downplaying of legitimate concerns raised by experts all point to a potentially damaging outcome for the involved institutions and the wider cultural landscape. While cost savings and administrative efficiencies are laudable goals, they should not come at the expense of artistic freedom, institutional identity, and the unique contributions of each individual entity. The current proposal, as it stands, fails to convincingly demonstrate how this merger will benefit the arts in Sweden and instead raises serious doubts about its long-term implications.
