To find out where we might go from here, ArtReview asked several professionals close to institutions for a diagnosis
Frankly, thinking about museums brings bitterness to me. My contexts and biographies made them the realms where I felt the least agency. If my experience with [the Jakarta-based art collective] ruangrupa brought me certain possibilities to imagine the artworld differently and make these imaginaries through eventand place-making, [the educational platform] Gudskul afforded me to build ways of working for ekosistems based on our values through collective knowledge-production and dissemination. Theoretically, we could assume, museums should be (at least) valuable partners if not constituencies themselves in these attempts, following British academic John Byrne’s ‘useful art’ arguments. It is just unfortunately not the case in our realities.
In our direct ekosistem, museums are either state-run or exclusively private. The private ones follow white colonialist mentalities. They’re built to benefit their respective benefactors, accumulating capitals – social, financial, political, whatchamacallits. This model has not surprised me one bit so far. On the other hand, the state-run ones are subjects to fickle, unsustained direction by our official cultural leaderships. The politics of museums should be strong enough to be independent from politicians. There was a time several years back that the Indonesian cultural government could serve as another constituent in our ekosistem, in conversation with, and in turn contributing significantly to, many working on the ground of Indonesian cultural sectors. Today, that possibility feels like a mere dream that most of us have violently woken up from. Worse still is when these two available logics intertwine: applying revenue- and growth-based approaches to our national museums, combining the worst parts of the two models into one.
In the last few years, I consider myself fortunate to be able to learn from different museum workers (not exclusively in the arts) through their global networks of associations and organisations. Many questions, challenges and realisations instilled some hope in me during these encounters. To name one: that what speaks louder are those objects (therefore stories) made invisible, compared to those that are already visible. Or how the act (and mandate) to collect could be useful to the direct ekosistems museums are physically operating in, compared to the abstract global constellations of tastemakers. But still, there is one existential question not really addressed: why should we be the custodians of these museum models to begin with? As a result, more, not less, is often the default answer. Enlarging walls, instead of dismantling them. More departments, more initiatives. More inclusive. Not confronting the exclusive.
Most of the time, in my opinion, industry turns discipline into a rat race: the ‘art world’ to the arts, or the construction industry to architecture and design. Unlike these examples, nevertheless, museums are just one apparatus trying to capture culture, alongside many more. They are not necessarily the industrial complex itself. Therefore they still are able to flee, escape, disguise. Drop their names, even mandates, if needed.
To close with some positive remarks: reflecting back, the only memorable museumlike institutions I have experienced are the ones accepting their local roles and that have stopped caring about their global postures. When the pop-merchandise collection of a factory worker from the neighbourhood can be displayed and narrated, adjacent to and receiving the same care as a big artist exhibiting their latest series, clearly for sale, next door. They emanate. They re-present. They are, in turn, present.
farid rakun is an artist, writer and teacher, and a member of the art collective ruangrupa. He lives in Jakarta
Explore the full ArtReview feature, The Museum in Crisis
From the March 2026 issue of ArtReview – get your copy.
