Landscape Sketch of the Arts 2025: Visual arts

People working in the visual arts have a variety of roles, which they sometimes combine: from creators and curators to gallery owners, critics, conservators, and public mediators. They are active in commercial, non-commercial, academic, and amateur circles. They create autonomous but also context-bound or socially engaged art, as well as commissioned art. Traditionally, the visual arts field has mainly consisted of individual creators, but artists also organise themselves into collectives. In what follows, we review the most important insights into the visual arts ecosystem, gathered during the sessions in preparation for this Landscape Drawing. They concern the position of visual artists and art workers, organisations in the field, artistic development and production, the role of private actors, the handling of visual arts heritage, and the audience for visual arts.

The visual artist

Socio-economic position

According to the survey ‘Loont passie?’ [‘Does passion pay?’] (Ferwerda et al. 2022), around 15% of visual artists are able to make a living from their visual art practice alone, or more precisely: from making and exhibiting art, and from giving lectures and publications (the findings relate to the pre-corona situation). The rest combine their practice with other art-related work (such as teaching or giving workshops), non-artistic work, or – less commonly – work in other artistic disciplines.

The net median annual income of visual artists is 18,000 euros (this means: one half of the artists earn less, the other half more; De Corte 2022). That amount does not differ much from that of artists in disciplines such as the performing arts, music or literature. For a large proportion of visual artists, the net annual income is lower than that of the average Belgian or Flemish worker. More often than in most other disciplines, a visual artist in Flanders works as an independent contractor. Visual arts organisations sometimes also offer temporary employment to artists. This can be done through Social Bureaus for Artists (SBKs), 1-bis contracts, or as paid employment. Working as an employee or through a temp agency is relatively rare (around 14%). On average, sources of income outside of creative work represent two-thirds of the total income of visual artists. About 35% of total income comes from ‘core artistic’ activities, 25% from other art-related work, and 25% from non-artistic work. The remaining 15% comes from a replacement income, such as unemployment benefits or an art sector work allowance. The professional costs of visual artists are often high compared to other disciplines, for example due to the cost of materials and the rental of studio space. A family member’s income or assets sometime forms a safety net.

Combining core artistic activities with other work often requires on long search on the part of artists for a sustainable way to remain financially healthy. This is partly related to the question of how they feel about para- or non-artistic work. For some this is an enrichment, others experience it as a necessary evil (Van Winkel, Gielen, Zwaan 2012).

An important part of the creative process is unpredictable and difficult to control. It can conflict with the time creators have to devote to other commitments, such as deadlines or fixed schedules.

Careers

In the thematic section of this Landscape Sketch, we discuss ingrained societal expectations surrounding the life and career of ‘the artist’. These kinds of stereotypes also have an important impact in the visual arts (Bowness 1989). For example, ‘one should purchase the work of young artists before they become unaffordable’. The reasoning is that work that is ‘worthwhile’ first becomes known among a limited group of peers, then receives recognition from experts, grows in the art market, and ultimately reaches a broad and even international audience. It’s a simple narrative, but it doesn’t correspond well to reality. All these aspects occur, but not in everyone and certainly not in a fixed order in a linear growth path. Artists have complex relationships with the context in which they operate and with the other actors who are part of it.

Nor do these assumptions take into account the visual artists’ own wishes and ambitions. Anna Vyazemskaya Snauwaert (2024) interviewed visual artists in Belgium about their trajectories. Some creators place a high value on personal satisfaction and autonomy. They tend to be more frugal with networking opportunities and give priority to their artistic work, sometimes in combination with other activities (Snauwaert speaks here of a “withdrawal trajectory”). Others choose to invest in a network with peers and non-profit players such as studio organisations, project locations, residency locations and art halls (the “selective independent trajectory”). Still others deliberately connect with commercial networks and players: galleries, collectors, art fairs (the “selective commercial trajectory”). Creators who follow the “active participation trajectory” seek contact with both worlds (profit and non-profit), in order to continually keep the ball rolling. Artists therefore have different relationships with the art market, society, non-profit players, public institutions and the government. These relationships can change over time.

A similar observation can be made for working internationally in the visual arts. There may be various motivations behind this (artistic, social, business; Janssens 2018a; Janssens and Boogaarts 2024), which differ between artists and depend on the point in their career. In addition, the careers of visual artists are highly path-dependent: the network of peers and organisations they collaborate with at the beginning of their careers is often very decisive for later opportunities, both in Flanders and internationally (Fraiberger et al. 2018).

Well-being

In a professional work environment, well-being is determined by the interaction between sources of motivation, sources of stress and personal factors (such as sensitivity to stress or major life events; De Meyer 2022a, 5-6). For artists it is a crucial source of motivation to devote themselves to their creative work. This often also compensates for dissatisfaction with their pay.

Research shows that satisfaction is higher among artists who have live contact with their audience during their work (Ferwerda et al. 2022, 94). Peers and other professionals also play a role: their support or feedback is an important source of motivation. Conversely, their criticism can be harsh, because for many creators their artistic work is linked to their lives and identity. Work pressure is a source of stress, as are ambiguities or contradictions about the roles of different parties in collaborations. Too exclusive a focus on autonomous artistic work can come at the expense of the coordination and organisation needed to realise an exhibition or other project. A structure and way of working that is too strict can limit the space for the artist’s autonomous creativity. Creativity cannot simply be fitted into working hours and is therefore not easy to combine with a private life.

For visual artists who create work that can be exhibited or sold, working conditions related to distribution, sales, or presentation also impact their work experience. They are less often satisfied with negotiations about this than creators in other disciplines. Many indicate that they have insufficient room for negotiation (Ferwerda et al. 2022, 98-99). Moreover, a lot of visual work is created without payment or is underpaid. This is also the case in other disciplines, but visual artists are rarely properly compensated even for the presentation of their work. In a recent study, only 8% of the visual artists surveyed indicated that their exhibition work was fully remunerated (Ferwerda et al. 2022, 35-36).

Via Juist is Juist – [What’s Right is Right] the knowledge platform and toolbox for fair practices in the arts – curators, artists and critics can find a calculator or guideline to translate their work into fair compensation. But the negotiation is also about the status under which one wants to work, the accrual of social rights, the work-life balance, childcare, the safety of the work environment, the physical accessibility of the institution and facilities, legal liabilities or what to do if something goes wrong, to name just a few examples.

The often-individual position of visual artists and art workers can pose an additional barrier. Due to a somewhat more isolated position, people sometimes find it more difficult to find shared agreement frameworks and tools, and are less able to rely on others as a critical sounding board to assess correct working conditions. In addition, as individuals, they often have a subordinate negotiating position compared to the organisations with which they want to collaborate.

Professional power imbalances can also work the other way around. If the artist’s creative work is formally or implicitly prioritised over that of the supporting art worker, this can lead to problematic (leadership) behaviour and an unsafe context. Therefore, it is important that all parties involved bear a responsibility in implementing fair practices: from patrons to residency locations and supporting organisations.

The supporting public authorities expect a certain level of professionalism from subsidised organisations. These expectations are partly anchored in regulations for each employer, such as collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) and legislation on safety and well-being at work (such as the Social Welfare Act). Under the Arts Decree, Juist is Juist (which includes the ‘guideline for fair remuneration in the visual arts’) and the Culture Governance Code are mandatory. Many organisations are already taking steps to transition towards fairer practices. Sometimes organisations or partners may be convinced of the need for fair practices, but find it difficult to actually implement this, for example due to limited financial capacity and personnel. Implicit norms and unwritten rules can also sometimes hinder change. Enough administrators, managers and employees must be convinced of the necessity, and they must be able to devote part of their time to it. The more people who are involved, the more care a supported change process requires.

In a non-subsidised context (such as collaborations between artists without support from the Arts Decree, a commission from a private individual, or sales on the art market), the principles of fair practices are not a mandatory part of a negotiation. Sometimes other rules and legislation apply: commercial law, legal frameworks for contracts, or ethical codes within specific sectors. These are not always tailored to the context of the arts. Things then can go wrong if the collaboration leaves too little room for the artist’s autonomous artistic work.

So there is still work to be done in the areas of well-being, care and fair practices. Consider, for example, the problematic leadership in museums that has received press attention in recent years. Since its establishment (autumn 2023), the Flemish Reporting Centre for Transgressive Behaviour has received 89 reports from the cultural sector, of which 2 concerned physical violence, 47 psychological violence, 17 bullying and 42 unwanted sexual behaviour (Meeting of the Committee for Culture, Youth, Sport and Media 2025). The nature of the work of artists and art workers can pose risk factors here, and the risk of transgressive behaviour is a source of stress: strong intrinsic motivation, complex work situations and statuses, unbalanced employment relationships, and high competition for scarce opportunities and resources (Ferwerda et al. 2022, 139-142). Any sound organisational policy that takes fair practices and integrity in the arts seriously, must acknowledge these risks. Transgressive behaviour is not unique to the visual arts (SERV 2024), but due to a lack of studies, we are unable to make a comparison with other disciplines. Research into sexually transgressive behaviour has been conducted in the broader domain of culture and media (Willekens, Siongers and Lievens 2018). This measured criminal behaviour, and statements and actions that were perceived as inappropriate, hurtful or shocking. Artists as well as art workers were interviewed: 39% of respondents from the visual arts indicated that they had experienced such behaviour at least once within a year. That percentage was as high as that for film, and slightly higher than for other disciplines (except dance). In the visual arts, it was noticeable that inappropriate physical or sexual advances (22% of respondents) and coercion into sexual contact (4%) occurred more frequently than in other disciplines, with the exception of film. Across all disciplines, women experienced more sexually transgressive behaviour than men. In addition, young people (at the start of their careers), people with an artistic function (including artists) and flexible workers appeared to be more vulnerable to sexually transgressive behaviour.

In the arts, there is a range of training courses on well-being and dealing with transgressive behaviour. However, such a programme specifically aimed at the visual arts sector does not exist. Within the social profit sector, which includes the visual arts (Joint Industrial Council 329), ICOBA and VIVO offer training courses, but because the sector is very broad and diverse, they are not very recognisable for people from the visual arts. In addition, there is a range of funds aimed at other disciplines (the Performing Arts Social Fund, mediarte for the audiovisual sector and film). These are only accessible free of charge or at a reduced rate to people in the visual arts if they can demonstrate (current or past) employment in these sectors. Self-employed persons can also register, but pay the full price. We have little insight into the effective application of frameworks around fair practices. Research is needed to determine whether and how the guidelines for appropriate remuneration, the Juist is Juist checklists, and the implementation of preventive and recovery measures for psychosocial well-being are being implemented in practice.

Networking

In several areas, the work of a visual artist is more ‘individual’ than in, for example, the performing arts or music (Ferwerda et al. 2022, 97). In 2003, writer and professor of cultural sociology Pascal Gielen spoke in this context about a low “social density” in the visual arts compared to, for example, contemporary dance. The bond between visual artists and their audience is different from that of live performers. Their professional connections are often one-on-one relationships: They negotiate personally with an interested collector, a curator or a venue (Gielen 2003). You also see this in legacies: usually they bear the name of one artist. In art criticism, reflective texts on exhibitions or art historical research, works of art and oeuvres are almost always interpreted and described from the perspective of individuals (Becker 1982; Jarzombek 1999).

Since Gielen’s research (2003), various creators and visual arts organisations have explored and applied collective models. These often strengthen the position of artists. They can be artistic and/or business, or logistical and/or practical in nature. Sometimes people also build informal support networks around themselves (for example, service providers such as photographers and designers, with whom they work repeatedly).

Yet the relatively isolated position of individual artists and art workers persists. This has an impact on their well-being and on the circulation of knowledge, for example about negotiations, pricing and support organisations. Existing misconceptions also continue to circulate for longer. Educational initiatives must make an extra effort to make their services and offerings known to visual artists. In this context, there are also differences per (sub)discipline. Based on what media artists told us during sector sessions, they appear to be less well networked within the Flemish arts ecosystem. There is no driving platform for art and technology. Art forms that make the link with digital technology and media receive little visibility. This is partly due to complex technical presentation requirements, for example with complicated installations tailored to a room, or digital set-ups for extended reality performances. Some networks depend on a limited number of players and are linked closely to individuals. If a personal relationship or an important player disappears, this can have consequences for an entire (sub)discipline.

The art worker in the visual arts

The majority of research into visual arts professionals focuses on creators. Largely rightly so, because as a group they find themselves in an extremely challenging socio-economic position. However, the same is true for many art workers who are not creators: a comfortable socio-economic position is not guaranteed for them either. Much depends on their status and specific professional activities.

Social expectations apply to art workers – or more correctly: narratives about success – which are less persistent than, but similar to, assumptions about artists. A ‘successful art worker’ might start as an assistant and progress to become a curator at a major art gallery, or a museum director.

In reality, art workers fulfil a range of important roles. They are curators, critics, gallery owners, but also museum conservators, coordinators of studio organisations or production platforms, exhibition builders, art book publishers, and much more. They work for wages, perform their duties as flexible workers, string together temporary or one-off assignments (such as the art critic who writes reviews and essays) or are the managers of their own company. Presumably, many art workers, like creators, combine different jobs, even outside the arts, and certainly if they also have an artistic practice themselves (Ferwerda et al. 2022). Further research into the situation of art workers in Flanders and Brussels could provide more clarity on this matter. For professional reasons, art workers need lifelong learning and self-development. Under the Arts Decree, curators and critics are not eligible for (residency) grants, but they are eligible for project subsidies within the development function. People employed by an arts organisation are eligible for training.

The position and role of visual arts organisations

Organisations take on various roles in relation to artists, art workers and the public: presentation, offering workspace, creative commissions, support in the form of sales, competitions and prizes, education and much more. Some organisations are active all year round, others during specific periods (such as biennials, triennials, other festivals or art trails). Organisations can be formal structures, collectives and artist-run initiatives, institutions of which artists themselves are not a permanent part, and they can operate in a discipline-specific manner, or even multidisciplinary, cross-sectoral or transhistorical (exhibiting works from different periods and backgrounds together). These can be non-profit organisations without staff, one-man businesses, small teams, a few studio assistants, or organisations with dozens of employees. Their financing and turnover range from several thousand euros to several millions per year. Some are in temporary locations, share spaces or have their own building.

Some organisations operate primarily through private funding such as patronage, fundraising, or market revenues. Think of galleries, foundations around artists’ legacies, or structures around a private collection or a private museum. There are also other types of private financing, such as crowd- or growfunding, income from work outside the organisation, or support from peers and friends’ associations. As with individual artists and art workers, there is a diverse financing mix.

Government support can also be part of this financing mix (De Wit 2022). The Flemish government provides subsidies through the Arts Decree or the Cultural Heritage Decree. Several local authorities support visual arts organisations through subsidies or the provision of infrastructure, such as studio organisations. Sometimes the local government is also the organising authority, as in the case of a number of museums or local cultural centres with a visual arts programme. In addition, local authorities and their institutions are important patrons for art commissions in (semi-)public spaces. The federal government and the Brussels-Capital Region support cultural and scientific institutions such as Bozar, the Royal Museums of Fine Arts of Belgium, and Kanal. Even the provincial governments, which officially no longer have any authority in cultural matters, still support institutions such as cultural centre de Warande or FeliXart. Governments apply different rules, policy visions, deadlines and plans, subsidy systems and criteria. This sometimes complicates the operation of arts organisations that maintain ties with multiple government bodies.

For many local authorities, ‘culture and leisure’ is the frame of reference for their cultural policy (and therefore also their arts policy). Policy initiatives for the visual arts are then considered in conjunction with other cultural expressions or policy domains: youth, movable and immovable heritage, tourism, leisure. A significant proportion of professional visual arts organisations are located in metropolitan areas, and therefore large cities sometimes implement specific policies regarding art (Debroux 2009; Janssens, De Wit and Seurinck 2018). But the local and supra-local levels outside the big city are also important to, for example, biennials, triennials, art fairs, art weekends, art routes or other public events. The forces of various initiatives from the city or region, and from policy domains, are then bundled to make things possible.

There are also differences in terms of ‘proximity’ of the government. Some administrations are closely involved, others implement the arm’s length principle such as the Arts Decree or the Cultural Heritage Decree. Some administrative bodies are politically composed – according to the rules of the Cultural Pact, the Local Government Decree, the Culture Governance Code – and others are not.

Development and production

Already in the early 2000s, sociologists Pascal Gielen and Rudi Laermans established that most people, practices and organisations in the visual arts worked in a product-oriented manner. They advocated for more development-oriented initiatives: “profiled spaces for process-oriented research, discussion, informal discourse and network formation, …” (Gielen and Laermans 2004, 151). Two decades later, work has been done on this, both in the field and from a policy perspective. Various residencies, workshops, studio initiatives and self-organised collectives have been established or further developed. With the introduction of the Arts Decree in 2006, these and other arts organisations were given the option of multi-year support (BAM 2011).

The Flemish government has expanded the possibilities for support for stays in residencies in Belgium and abroad through residency grants. Since the latest amendment to the Arts Decree, creators can apply for a grant not only for the residency locations with which the Flemish Community has an agreement, but also for other residency locations.

Institutions for arts education – higher, part-time, and secondary – are not necessarily considered ‘arts organisations’, but they do play an important role in the sector. They provide artistic training or further training, offer research opportunities, and are important employers for visual artists (Ferwerda et al. 2022, 51-52). In higher education, the opportunity has been added to pursue a research project or a doctorate in the arts.

Support centres, interest groups and networks of peers have taken initiatives to network artists and art workers nationally and internationally, offer career advice and other information, and bring them together to exchange knowledge on important topics and developments in the field. Umbrella organisations for amateur arts such as Kunstwerkt or BREEDBEELD are there for the many artists at the intersection between the amateur and professional circuits.

However, these do not eliminate the lack of a supportive and guiding field for development. Some of the organisations with operating subsidies that focused on function development in the period 2023-2027 were awarded a substantially lower amount than requested. Combined with the effects of inflation, which rose sharply in the period between application and award (Statbel 2022), this hampered the long-awaited financial catch-up for the visual arts and for development-oriented initiatives in particular.

In 2022, the Flemish Government (Ministry of Education and Training) decided to no longer conclude a management agreement with the Higher Institute for Fine Arts (HISK). This marked the (temporary) end in 2024 of a training programme that hundreds of visual artists from Belgium and abroad had turned to over the past decades to devote themselves to their artistic development.

Although a number of development-oriented initiatives and organisations are active (sometimes combining development with production), artists and art workers indicate that their needs in this area are not sufficiently met. Certainly mid-career visual artists find it more difficult to find support for developing and producing their work.

We see collectives and organisations responding to this need. Thus, museums, art halls and galleries are expanding their presenting role by also commissioning new work from creators (appropriately compensated, of course), offering production assistance or seeking co-producers to broaden the scope of a work or exhibition, and perhaps even presenting elsewhere. Larger visual art institutions can also use their international networks for this purpose. Only a few do this structurally.

Time and resources are also made available for a careful preparatory and post-project process, so that the curator and artist can build a relationship of trust. This can lead to ideas for sharing network contacts for other initiatives in the future – thus the focus is on sustainability. The reverse also occurs: residency locations or studios go beyond their core tasks. A residency location, for example, develops a follow-up and exchange programme in which people can remain in contact afterwards, with the location and with other residents. In such networks, opportunities for development, production or presentation also circulate – nationally or internationally. Or a studio actively works to bring together a community of artists, so that new networks can form and more exchange can take place. This is valuable in a discipline where, as mentioned, people often work individually.

In such supportive, sustainable and caring networks, gatekeeping is more collaborative than exclusionary. Artists and art workers (think curators) talk and reflect on plans and possible opportunities. They share contacts (Janssens and Boogaarts 2024) or study various open calls together. They exchange feedback in safety and trust. There are also examples of organisations that want to make it easier for an artist or art worker by hiring them for a project, rather than paying a fee that never covers all the time and costs invested. The artwork certificate offers opportunities for such an employment relationship, which also automatically gives artists and art workers access to certain aspects of social security.

Despite the generosity evident in these examples, structural gaps remain. There are insufficient production platforms for audiovisual art, sound art and media art in Flanders. Not only the technical facilities of such places are important, but also the connections and the symbolic and cultural capital they offer for the visibility of artistic work. Some argue for the establishment of such specialised spaces (they can offer space for development, but also production, archiving and other functions and services that are needed), while others expect established venues for visual arts to develop more attention to and expertise in these sub-disciplines.

In the introduction to this chapter we mentioned that visual arts are particularly suited to transdisciplinarity. Some people note a trend towards greater artistic ‘hybridisation’ in the field of visual arts. Flanders Arts Institute cannot (yet) substantiate this with figures, but this does resonate with other observed developments, such as an increased focus on participatory and cross-sectoral art practices. It also agrees with the hybridisation we see emerging in some production and development platforms, which traditionally focus on a specific discipline but where creators in practice are working more transdisciplinary. In the same way, partnerships are emerging between presentation, production and development organisations across various disciplines to provide support to creators who, due to the transdisciplinary nature of their work, are at risk of falling through the cracks.

The role of private actors

A significant number of players in the visual arts focus at least partly on private actors. The term ‘private’ can cover a lot of things here. Roughly speaking, a distinction can be made between formal and informal, and between profit and non-profit (Evers and Laville 2004). When a collector buys art out of personal passion, or a ‘community’ around an artist or organisation (sympathisers, friends, peers, acquaintances, or family) supports an artist or organisation, we speak of an informal motivation.

It becomes more formal when a gallery sells art and negotiates market prices to use the income to expand the business. Or when collectors place their collections in private foundations to benefit from a more favourable tax regime or to keep the collection together, with all the formal obligations that such a legal form entails.

Motivations of private actors can be of a profit or a non-profit nature. A gallery can sell art and reinvest the profits back into itself and the artist. It can also invest resources and time in the development of an artist, without necessarily pursuing a profit. Or a private collector’s collection may be part of a broader portfolio of assets or investments within the context of wealth management. A private collector can engage in philanthropy through monetary donations or a loan to a public institution (museum, art gallery). There are also galleries and collectors who financially support the production of new work or a publication at exhibitions at such a public institution.

Collaborations thus find themselves in areas of tension: private or public, formal or informal, and profit or non-profit. This can have beneficial effects if the parties involved explicitly agree on concrete expectations and agreements. If interests or objectives diverge too much, cooperation often becomes more difficult. This can give rise to conflicts of interest. A classic example is sponsorship by companies whose business activities are no longer in line with the values of an organisation. Or the collaboration between a collection-managing institution with a primarily public or non-profit mission and a private collector. The contribution of this collector can represent clear artistic or substantive added value. Their presence in the governing body can provide access to new networks. With good agreements in place, there need be no competition between the institution and the collector when purchasing art on the primary or secondary art market. But goals and agendas can change, or the collector may die and the heirs may view the matter differently. Perhaps after a while the collector wishes to sell a piece from the private collection on loan, or perhaps its value has increased due to the association with the public institution.

Both the input from the preparatory sessions of the Landscape Sketch and the findings from research (D’Hoore and Schramme 2022; Rutgeerts et al. 2023; Eckenhaussen 2023) point out two things. On the one hand, players in the visual arts field are asking for clear frameworks – principles, guidelines, step-by-step plans – to navigate these kinds of tensions in a well-considered and ethical manner. On the other hand, there is a need for knowledge development and exchange about existing good practices.

Dealing with visual arts patrimony

Visual art collections and legacies are preserved by various institutions: creators, art workers and arts organisations maintain the material and immaterial traces of their own practice. Private collectors build a collection according to their preferences and vision. Public institutions such as museums have the task of preserving, managing, displaying, researching and supplementing collections or archives.

Rutgeerts et al. (2023) mapped out the various players in this area who have a connection with the Flemish government. This concerns museums, service providers under the Cultural Heritage Decree and a number of players under the Arts Decree (such as Argos and the Flemish Community Collection). They assume a priori that artists, art workers and collectors build up and manage their own archives. Service providing organisations provide knowledge for this, and freelance professionals can also help. A number of public collection managers focus on a particular sub-discipline (such as photography or audiovisual art) or a specific type of heritage, or at least make their own purchasing choices. Mutual coordination occurs through one-on-one collaborations, coordination agreements, ad hoc projects or (in)formal networks.

This decentrally organised field is geared towards guiding artists, art workers and arts organisations during their active years. The mutual diversity between different institutions makes it more difficult to maintain an overview of collection profiles and selection criteria. These institutions also regularly deviate from their own collection policy to respond to opportunities. Consider the possibility of acquiring the estate of a respected artist, a purchase at auction, or a commission for a creation for your own collection. This ‘ad hoc’ collection policy plays a role in the historical backlog of the registration and access to the artistic heritage that these institutions manage. A shortage of physical storage space also plays a role. Manageability and size then become additional pragmatic selection criteria for including legacies and collections.

This means that there is also tension with the rest of the operation of a collection-managing institution: temporary exhibitions, publications, reflection, research. What is being focused on, what is not, and on the basis of what considerations? How do these activities meaningfully feed the collection, and vice versa (Gielen and Laermans 2004, 120-134)?

That this is not easy is also evident in the relationship with the Flemish Community Collection. It regularly purchases work by contemporary visual artists, with the overarching aim of providing a coherent picture of contemporary art production in Flanders over the years. The desire to work in a complementary way with the collection-managing institutions is in tension with the lack of clarity regarding their collection profiles.

This raises the question of how oeuvres and collections are canonised in Flanders. Collection-managing institutions play an important role in the recognition and symbolic capital of artists and collectors. If their selection criteria are unclear and coordination between institutions is poor, this makes a structured and transparent reflection on what should be kept (or ‘de-collected’) very difficult.

Sometimes the distribution of powers across policy levels also complicates the work, for example in the context of preserving Flemish art films. Or in the case of the city museums for contemporary art, which do not have to coordinate their purchases with Flemish institutions.

Clear collection profiles can help align the expectations of those wishing to leave a legacy with the capabilities of a collection-managing institution. Museums often reject archives because they formally belong in an archival institution, but there is little room there for visual art archives. The intangible aspects of a work, digital media, metadata or less common media are also sometimes difficult to safeguard.

Finally, Rutgeerts et al. (2023) point out that players in the arts can do more themselves to manage their legacy. Artists, art workers, and arts organisations themselves generally consider this important, but have little time or resources available for it and find it difficult to find their way in the field. Individual artists and curators in particular indicate that the visibility of the range of services could be improved. This is also underlined by the great interest in the Flemish government’s pilot projects for art heritage legacies.

Visual arts and its audience 

The visual arts reach a wide audience: visitors to exhibitions and galleries, tourists and passers-by, people who like to be involved in creation or curation. Yet there is a feeling that much valuable art does not get the attention it deserves. Attention to the general public has been a priority in the visual arts for decades: a sector that could be intellectual, abstract and difficult to access, surrounded by an aura of exclusivity. It might also be one-way traffic: the artist creates, the audience experiences. This image is incorrect, but it takes time and effort to correct it.

Two-way traffic

Of course, art professionals take their intended audience into account when creating and sharing artistic work. The extent to which and the manner in which this is done may vary. Some work from habits and current practices, implicit assumptions about or explicit questions asked of the public. Others think more actively and explicitly about their audience, and let it influence their work. This is particularly evident in process-oriented, participatory and embedded practices. In the latter case, the artist is primarily involved as an artistic expert who contributes to an artistic process by thinking along with and challenging (Flanders Arts Institute 2024).

Those who reason from the value chain model will quickly regard the audience as (only) the last step in a process from development to presentation. The public must then be guided to the artistic content, over which the curator or artist has control. It is their frame of reference that determines what the audience sees. The expertise of public outreach workers is at the service of this. The division between an artistic team, the public service and infrastructure management streamlines these work processes.

Some institutions take a different approach. They appoint an intermediary or community builder to better understand the wishes and needs of the people in and around the location. They offer the opportunity to question the institutions own assumptions and habits. Is a long text on the wall necessary for this exhibition or could it be done differently? Can we provide chairs or tables in the space? Are there works that lend themselves to interactivity?

This could lead to closer cooperation between curators and audience mediators. In this way, two-way traffic can sometimes arise, and an interaction in which audience-oriented objectives (such as the desire to reach pupils from local schools) are given an artistic interpretation, rather than simply the other way around.

This two-way traffic can also occur directly between a venue and the public. Especially in participatory and more socially engaged art practices, you sometimes see how the making and selecting of art, and the mediation and guidance of people, merge. More than just two-way traffic, there is shared ownership, and making art together can have a very direct social impact.

In this way, established frames of reference are challenged, artistic selection criteria and standard methods of audience engagement are critically examined, and participation barriers are addressed. This could lead to more nuanced approaches to ‘quality’, a more diversified deployment of the expertise of artists, curators and audience mediators, a new view on the role of collections, or a better sense of who the audience is and could be.

Art in public spaces

People attach great importance to the context in which they live, work or spend their free time. Art in public spaces can add a layer to this: an aesthetic experience, a reference to local stories, a history that may or may not be contested, a certain emotion or association, a visual or auditory reference (such as a recognisable landmark).

Public space can also be digital. Social media platforms ‘feel’ very public, but most of them aren’t. People post content that is censored, algorithms decide what can and cannot be seen, hate speech is facilitated, and private data is tracked. Some artists (collectives) are actively working on alternatives: truly public digital space for autonomous creation and critical thinking.

‘The public’ is also social, mental, political or discursive. In this sense, art in public space poses questions such as: who are we (as an audience, citizen, group), what binds us, where and how can we express ourselves, where and how can we freely ‘be’ (without, for example, having to consume, or without having to conform to coercive norms). Public art can be political, such as when it poses questions, provokes discussion, or provides context around images that are colonial, racist, or discriminatory. Art in public spaces can also lower the threshold and increase support for art in general, for example when people are inspired by a work they happen to encounter, and which is part of a larger biennial or triennial. Yet it can be risky, especially if it is more experimental in nature, has a rather unconventional aesthetic, is less easily understood or takes a clearly activist position. A key success factor is a good vision on the involvement of citizens, the local cultural sector and other services and associations with social, societal or economic importance. The more drastic the intervention, the more important it is that people who may be impacted have a say in it.

The appreciation of art – its aesthetics, its message, its recognisability and affinity with the themes it addresses – is subjective, and its potential impact on people is very strong. That makes the conversation about it, and a sense of co-ownership for those impacted by it, very important. The Platform for Commissioned Art provides advice and tools for this. One of the most important pieces of advice is to work with mediators: people with knowledge of artistic processes and expertise in facilitating consultation between (groups of) people with different perspectives and interests.

Young people

Research shows that education level, age and cultural participation in the family in which people grow up play a decisive role in visiting art exhibitions (De Baere 2021c). In the thematic section of this Landscape Sketch, we discuss art with, for and by young people. In the context of visual arts, a number of specific challenges can be identified in this regard.

Much physical visual art is fragile and unique, and therefore expensive. It must be handled with care, the work cannot simply be touched. This is often accompanied by an atmosphere of silent contemplation. This makes it, or the way it is presented, less suitable or less accessible for young children.

But sometimes little significant consideration has been given to whether and how the context could be rethought, with children top of mind. However, this could also benefit the wider public. For example, lower display cases are also useful for adults of short stature or wheelchair users. A guided tour or audio guide in simple language may be tailored to young people, but adults can also benefit from an accessible explanation. The experience can also be tailored to the needs of young people. For the very youngest, a tactile experience – if possible – is often quite nice. Adolescents like to receive explanations that connect with their own world and interests. Children are often especially fascinated when they can actively work with a medium, material or theme themselves. In many presentation spaces, adapting the space or experience to suit young people remains the responsibility of the infrastructure manager or communications department. Managers can think more consciously about two-way communication with public outreach workers.

Download the Landscape Sketch of the Arts 2025 (in Dutch)

Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats

Strengths

+ Artists often take their artistic practice into their own hands from A to Z. They receive custom services and flexibility from supporting and presenting institutions, or support each other in collectives.

+ As a sector, the visual arts have extensive experience with the interplay between public and private players. People are familiar with the tensions this can cause, and deal with it consciously.

+ The development-oriented work – for example residencies, studio organisations, platforms – for the visual arts are growing, and sustainable relationships develop within them between art workers, artists and arts organisations.

+ Visual arts lend themselves well to transdisciplinarity, cross-sectoral collaboration operations and participatory work. Artistic hybridisation in the field of the visual arts resonate with the focus on participatory and cross-sectoral art practices.

Weaknesses

– Visual artists very often find themselves in uncertain socio-economic situations, which are reinforced by their often-individual position.

– The catching-up regarding development in the visual arts seems to have come to a standstill after the final assessment round for operating resources under the Arts Decree.

– There are incidents of problematic leadership, unsafe work environments, and systemic exclusion. The balance between the well-being of arts professionals, the intrinsic motivation with which they usually work, and fair practices is still not found everywhere.

– There is a strong emphasis on visible work in exhibitions. In comparison, there is little attention to process-oriented practices, participatory processes, art in digital media, or art forms without a tangible artistic end result.

– The visual arts ecosystem is not yet in balance. For example, for audiovisual art, media art or sound art, platforms for development or production are (too) scarce. The focus is on metropolitan initiatives.

– The visual arts heritage field is not clearly structured and collection profiles are not aligned. That makes it difficult for players in the arts field to find their way.

Opportunities

↑ There are collaborations between visual arts and the cultural heritage field, but there are still opportunities in, among other things, the care of transitory or intangible art forms, fragile media, or artists’ archives. For this, connections are necessary with art colleges and universities, private initiatives related to legacies, international and other institutions.

↑ In some places, local initiatives provide support for visual art, for example in the form of studios or creative hubs. These initiatives depend on local policies. There are opportunities for custom services per city or municipality.

↑ The visual arts, especially in the public domain, can make its social relevance concrete through co-creation, participatory processes or intensive audience mediation.

↑ The artwork certificate has become more accessible for visual artists, giving them access to social security through employment.

Threats

↓ The art market – via purchases, patronage and sponsorship – contributes significantly to the financing of the practices of artists and arts organisations. This collaboration with private players is a strength and makes many socially relevant initiatives possible. In the absence of shared frameworks and targeted policies, however, it can lead to commercialisation or speculation.  

↓ Much visual work does not get the attention it deserves because of the assumption that the

sector would be intellectual, abstract and difficult to access, surrounded by an aura of exclusivity.