The Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism has conducted a demand survey for local governments interested in establishing branches of the National Museum of Modern and Contemporary Art (MMCA). To facilitate this, the ministry commissioned a feasibility study for the construction of regional art museums and invited applications from local governments. As a result, cities in various regions, including Goyang and Incheon in the metropolitan area, Daegu, Changwon, Jinju, and Miryang in the Yeongnam region, Gwangju and Yeosu in the Honam region, and Wonju in Gangwon, expressed their interest in hosting a branch.
Based on these applications, the ministry plans to prioritize regions according to the government's '5 poles and 3 special zones' policy for balanced national development, with a mid- to long-term plan to be announced in the first half of next year, including the first phase of construction sites. This direction is largely correct. Given the concentration of national visual cultural assets in Seoul and Gwacheon, and the awareness of the widening cultural gap in regions following the donation of the Lee Kun-hee Collection in 2021, the central government's response to local voices is commendable.
The competition among local governments to attract branches of the National Museum of Modern and Contemporary Art is heating up. However, the ministry has not adequately examined why branch construction has been impossible until now or what legal and administrative measures are necessary for future branch establishment. The walls that local governments face cannot be overcome merely by their willingness to provide land and secure budgets.
First, there is no legal basis for establishing branches. While Article 10, Section 4 of the Museum and Art Museum Promotion Act states that local museums and art galleries can be established under the National Museum of Modern and Contemporary Art, the MMCA is currently a responsible operating institution under the ministry. There are no legal provisions allowing responsible operating institutions to establish subordinate institutions, or 'second-tier institutions.' The very concept of a 'branch of the National Museum of Modern and Contemporary Art' cannot exist within the current government organization law and the responsible operating institution law. Thus, establishing a branch under the MMCA would violate the law.
Even if a branch were to be forcibly established through legal loopholes, the nature of the responsible operating institution cannot be defined. Depending on whether the regional branch is designed as an 'academic institution' with research capabilities or as a 'cultural and artistic dissemination and exhibition type' focused on exhibitions and enjoyment, the type of responsible operating institution would change. However, there is no legal basis for designing a regional branch as an academic institution since art museums are not legally classified as 'academic' institutions.
Ultimately, the issue of governance conflicts is unavoidable. If the branch is established as a special corporation, the main institution would remain a responsible operating institution while the branch would be a special corporation, leading to a coexistence of different legal statuses within one organization. This would inevitably result in fundamental conflicts in the command and supervision system, as well as in personnel and budget allocation methods.
It is also necessary to clarify the driving force behind the initiative. The establishment of local cultural and artistic institutions is primarily the responsibility of the cultural infrastructure department. However, the Visual Arts and Design Division has taken the lead in branch construction due to its oversight of the National Museum of Modern and Contemporary Art. This has led to a lack of reflection of the experience and know-how accumulated from the establishment of local branches of the National Museum of Korea.
In particular, if the regional branch aims to be an art museum, the cultural infrastructure department should take the lead, while if it aims to be an exhibition space without a collection, the Visual Arts and Design Division's involvement is appropriate. However, if the Visual Arts and Design Division leads the initiative, the art museum that the local government wishes to attract, which is supposed to have a collection, may end up being merely an exhibition space without a collection. If local governments are led to believe they are attracting a branch of the National Museum of Modern and Contemporary Art but end up with a space resembling a Kunsthalle, it would result in the central government deceiving the regions. Therefore, if the project is named 'Establishment of Regional Art Museums,' it should be overseen by the cultural infrastructure department. The mismatch between the responsible department and the driving force undermines the professionalism and accountability of the policy.
Finally, there remains the issue of equity with other responsible operating institutions. Other responsible operating institutions, including the National Museum of Korea, also have similar demands for branch construction. If only the National Museum of Modern and Contemporary Art establishes separate legal and organizational solutions, there is a significant risk of undermining the consistency of the entire responsible operating institution system.
These various issues are not separate matters. The absence of legal grounds leads to institutional impossibility, which in turn leads to undefined characteristics, resulting in governance conflicts, which then expand into issues of unsuitability of the driving force and equity with other institutions. Regardless of the practical conditions of land and budget, unless this fundamental legal and institutional design is prioritized, the establishment of a branch of the National Museum of Modern and Contemporary Art is not feasible.
Nevertheless, the ministry has begun the demand survey without resolving these preconditions. This is an example of administrative order being disrupted by inflated expectations, akin to entering a kitchen to cook without rice. The competition for attracting branches, conducted without establishing fundamental legal grounds and governance conclusions, will ultimately only encourage wasteful competition among local governments and foster unrealistic expectations. What is needed now is not a flashy blueprint for branch attraction but a sober establishment of laws and systems that directly address these issues.
Looking at international examples, the concept of 'regional branches of national art museums' is not universal. In fact, the 14 local branches of the National Museum of Korea are somewhat unusual. The UK's Tate operates as a single entity, integrating Tate Britain and Tate Modern in London with regional branches in Liverpool and St. Ives under a unified governance model without establishing new organizations.
France's Louvre opened a branch in Lens, an old coal mining area, in 2012, linking it to national balanced development policies, while the Pompidou Center continues to expand through brand licensing, with branches in Metz, Malaga, and a planned branch in Seoul by 2026. Both countries share a financial agreement structure where local governments contribute significantly to land and construction costs.
In contrast, Germany, as a federal state, exercises cultural policy at the state level, meaning the concept of 'regional branches of national art museums' does not exist. The five branches of the Berlin National Gallery are all located within the city, while the Städel Museum in Frankfurt and the Pinakothek der Moderne in Munich fall under the jurisdiction of state and city governments, respectively. The Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam maintains a single location due to the country's small size and ease of intercity travel, relying on traveling exhibitions and loans to enhance regional accessibility. Australia’s National Gallery and each state’s independent state art museums exist as separate entities with different affiliations and budgets, making the concept of 'regional branches of national museums' unfeasible.
The National Gallery in Prague operates as a single institution based on law, managing various historical buildings in the city, including the Sternberg Palace, which focuses on pre-Baroque European art, the Schwarzenberg Palace for Baroque art research, and the Convent of St. Agnes for medieval art, along with the Veletržní Palace for 19th to 21st-century art.
Poland's National Museum in Kraków also operates branches based on periods and genres, serving as a hybrid model worth noting. Both museums are overseen by a single entity with departments for painting and sculpture, operating various branches like exhibition spaces for their respective research departments. This model allows for diversified exhibition venues without separate institutional heads or budgetary authority, providing a reference for Korea, which is hindered by the constraints of responsible operating institutions. Ultimately, no country is required to build branches, and these examples demonstrate that entirely different solutions are possible based on geographical and administrative conditions.
In an era of accelerating population decline and discussions on administrative consolidation, it is essential to critically assess whether a high-cost, fixed branch model based on buildings and resident staff can be uniformly applied to all regions.
France has been expanding cultural accessibility in small towns through the 'Micro-Poly' project, an innovative digital cultural hub initiative led by the Ministry of Culture and coordinated by La Villette, involving 12 national cultural facilities, including the Grand Palais, the Louvre, the Palace of Versailles, the Musée d'Orsay, and the Pompidou Center, without physical branches. The establishment of a national collection fund that acquires artworks for loan and circulation among museums nationwide is also a viable alternative to ensure consistent access to quality collections without new buildings. Examples include France's National Modern Art Fund and the National Center for Visual Arts, the UK's 'Museum Without Collections' initiative, and Australia's 'National Collection Sharing Project.'
The National Museum of Modern and Contemporary Art has been operating a regional museum collaboration network since 2020, supporting traveling exhibitions and local museums. In 2022, it diversified its efforts by providing support for collection management systems and archive construction, as well as matching recommended artists and experts. Starting in 2026, the initiative will expand to include traveling exhibitions, international artist commissions, film and multimedia arts, education, and support for standard management systems for artworks through the 'MMCA Regional Partnership' project.
Since this approach expands existing infrastructure, it has the advantage of lower legal and administrative barriers compared to establishing branches, allowing for flexible adjustments to regional program placements each year. However, limitations are evident. In most collaborative projects, the National Museum of Modern and Contemporary Art has primarily assisted other institutions as a larger, more specialized entity, and the lending of collections has been limited, often resulting in a one-sided approach to traveling exhibitions.
Nonetheless, there are functions that cannot be filled through collaboration alone. While traveling exhibitions may last a couple of months, local residents desire a place where they can 'always see national-level exhibitions.' Only branches can fulfill this need. To fundamentally address the issue of overcrowding in storage facilities centered in Seoul and Gwacheon, physical spaces for preserving and storing collections must be distributed regionally. Unlike collaborative projects, which can be subject to budgetary constraints, branches established under law and organizational structure can be maintained more stably. This is why regions prefer branches over collaborations. Ultimately, a realistic approach may involve gradually combining both methods.
In fact, the Ministry of Culture's plan for the National Museum of Modern and Contemporary Art to relocate to Seoul and establish five regional branches was an innovative blueprint aimed at cultural decentralization and the era of unification, set forth in the 2004 'Creative Korea - Vision for a New Culture of the 21st Century' and its detailed implementation plan, 'New Korean Art Policy.'
The concept of regional branches planned alongside the relocation of the National Museum of Modern and Contemporary Art was intended to go beyond mere spatial expansion, embodying a commitment to regional balanced development through visual arts. The Yeongnam branch was envisioned to combine rich human and material resources in modern art, while the Honam branch aimed to merge the traditional landscape painting of the southern school with contemporary art. The central Chungcheong branch was to focus on printmaking and crafts based on the geographic advantage of the country's center, and the National International Art Museum was planned for Jeju as a free international city, with a National Ethnic Art Museum in northern Gyeonggi to restore ethnic homogeneity in preparation for unification. Although not fully realized due to budget and political conditions, this vision is regarded as a milestone in the multi-branch system of the National Museum of Modern and Contemporary Art and a key reference for today's cultural balanced development. It is hoped that this previous plan will inform the current 'Establishment of Regional Art Museums.'
The most efficient method for establishing regional branches of the National Museum of Modern and Contemporary Art, while directly circumventing legal constraints, is 'public incorporation' based on special legislation. This would involve changing the governance structure to a separate public corporation, such as 'National Museum Corporation National Museum of Modern and Contemporary Art (tentative),' and integrating local branches as subsidiaries.
There is already a precedent for this, as Seoul National University gained independent legal status through the 'Law on the Establishment and Operation of the National University Corporation Seoul National University.' Additionally, museums like the National Science Museum and the National Museum of Letters already exist as incorporated entities. Therefore, if the National Museum of Modern and Contemporary Art is incorporated, it would not need to obtain new civil service positions and organizational structures for each new branch, as personnel and organization could be reallocated internally, fundamentally resolving the major obstacle of 'restrictions on the establishment of second-tier institutions by responsible operating institutions.' This model is similar to the UK's 'non-departmental public bodies' or France's 'cultural cooperation public corporation (EPCC),' allowing for the promotion of local branches while bypassing hurdles like organizational reviews and preliminary feasibility studies. However, it is also essential to consider safeguards for local government participation rights, regularization of local branch curatorial staff, and prior adjustments to the management system of state-owned property.
Moreover, institutional reforms cannot be delayed. The definition of 'art museum' in Article 2 of the Museum and Art Museum Promotion Act should be amended to include 'academic' to restore consistency with the purpose clause in Article 1. This is a matter of correcting the definition clause to align with the legislative intent already specified in Article 1, so legislative resistance is unlikely to be significant.
Additionally, the National Museum of Modern and Contemporary Art's research and investigation functions should be explicitly defined at the legal or organizational level to qualify for national academic promotion support projects, and the division of responsibilities between the cultural infrastructure department and the arts policy department should be clearly delineated. A comprehensive reform plan that encompasses other responsible operating institutions, such as the National Theater, which shares the same organizational provisions, should also be established to avoid equity disputes.
The absence of the word 'academic' in the definition clause may seem like a minor issue, but it actually has far-reaching implications, leading to inconsistencies with the purpose clause, conflicts with the structure of responsible operating institutions, and weaknesses in the legal basis for branch project design, all of which hinder the establishment of regional art museums. The Ministry of Culture must now recognize and address this structural flaw. With over ten local governments entering the competition for branches and the announcement of a mid- to long-term plan expected in the first half of next year, the procedure of merely confirming local enthusiasm without addressing legal and administrative roots poses a significant risk of inflating expectations and leading to disappointment. The Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism must prioritize discussions on organizational restructuring alongside the demand survey and feasibility study, or even before them. It is essential to distinguish between what should be done first and what can wait, as well as between fundamental and peripheral issues.
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.