Krist Gruijthuijsen © Ari Karttunen / EMMA

 

Conversation with curator and art critic Krist Gruijthuijsen, director of EMMA – Espoo Museum of Modern Art

This summer, the internationally known curator Krist Gruijthuijsen became the director of Finland’s largest art museum, “EMMA – Espoo Museum of Modern Art.” EMMA was founded in 2006, and it is located in the exhibition centre WeeGee in the city of Espoo – a building complex where, alongside EMMA, there is also the Espoo City Museum, a contemporary art gallery, a media art centre and an art school.

From 2016 to 2024, curator and art critic Krist Gruijthuijsen was the director of the KW Institute for Contemporary Art in Berlin. He has created exhibitions featuring Hanne Lippard, Ian Wilson, Adam Pendleton, Willem de Rooij, Hassan Sharif and Martin Wong, as well as many other artists. In 2023, he was also a member of the international jury of the Purvītis Prize.

“I really like EMMA’s ambitious, flexible and future-oriented attitude,” says Gruijthuijsen. “With its international, cross-disciplinary programme and impressive architecture, the museum has become a notable institution in the region. EMMA’s location at the crossroads of the Nordic and Baltic countries offers a strong geopolitical context – full of potential and opportunities.”

What new possibilities could this open for artists from the Baltic states? What will EMMA’s role be in the wider Nordic cultural system? And how does Krist Gruijthuijsen see the place and mission of a contemporary museum in a country that, similarly to the Baltic states, is now often perceived as a borderland? These were the questions I intended to ask at the beginning of our conversation, but EMMA’s new director turned it in another direction.

“I don’t know if you are aware, but I spend quite a bit of time in Latvia, helping to restructure the Pāvilosta Artist Residency (PAiR) programme. Some time ago, I spent a whole week living in Pāvilosta and just as long in Riga. I regularly return to Latvia, and in the future I will do so even more often.”

***

Could you tell us more about your mission in Pāvilosta?

I am a curator-consultant. I help to select residents and develop the programme. From next year, it will essentially be organised with my involvement.

But you were also a member of the Purvītis Prize jury two years ago?

Yes, that is exactly how we met Vita Liberte and Vilnis Štreams.

What was your impression of Latvian art and of the artists nominated for the prize?

It’s interesting – this year we also visited studios, and I noticed that many artists are still working very actively with the past. Their works often carry a serious, reflective mood – about personal heritage and the country’s history. Compared to other Baltic states, Latvia seems quite different – in many aspects more closed. Of course, there are reasons for this, but it influences how artists perceive the world. From my perspective, Latvian artists tend to look at things more introvertedly. That is, of course, the view of an outside observer.

Do you think that, for example, Estonian artists are somewhat more extroverted in their approach?

Definitely. I would say that Estonia is somewhere between Latvia and Lithuania. Lithuania tends to be the most open in its outlook on the world – less self-reflective and more narrative. I would describe the way Lithuanians connect different ideas as a kind of fantastical method.

I can safely say that all the Baltic states have interested me for a long time. While directing the master’s programme in Amsterdam, we often included Baltic artists, and I had several projects with each of these countries. So I have long-standing relationships, and part of my next role will be to strengthen these relationships.

That is exactly what interests me. Do you already have specific plans, or is it more of a future goal?

I am one of the first international directors in Finland. They specifically sought an international perspective to move away from a comparatively local discussion. In Finland, international dialogue is already happening on many levels. Having someone from outside look at cultural heritage and contemporary art – both visual art and design – can be very productive. It creates the opportunity to ask questions. Cooperation between Finland and the Baltic states exists, but it could be much more intensive. And looking at the region more broadly, it is clear that it needs to be expanded.

I am Dutch, and the Netherlands is a very small country. For us, an hour and a half by train seems like a long journey. But after decades of living abroad, it seems like a short distance. For example, in Germany a five or six hour train ride is completely normal, an everyday thing. It really is a matter of mindset and scale. If you look from a distance and view the region through the prism of the surrounding sea, everything is actually very close and interconnected. Finland seems particularly interesting to me not only because of the language or culture, but also because of mentality. In the European context, Finland operates in a very peculiar way – it is both closed and independent. Its complicated history with Russia and Sweden makes it both isolated and independent. And that, I think, has made Finland stronger.

It’s as if it drifts in the middle, and I believe that’s an interesting perspective when thinking about the region as a whole. That is also part of my plan – although I come with my own interests, the first years will be devoted to absorbing what already exists, understanding what is missing and what the Finns themselves want. At the same time, I want to make this museum – a very ambitious and beautiful institution that is still undeservedly under-recognised internationally – into a strong team player both locally and internationally.

How do you see the role of EMMA – the Espoo Museum of Modern Art – in Finland’s cultural landscape? And, looking to the future, how do you see its role in the wider international context?

The museum is still relatively young – next year it will turn 20. It has been led by two Finnish directors: one for 10 years, including during its development phase, and the other for 13 years. Espoo is a developed area on the outskirts of Helsinki that has grown into a city, but it doesn’t really have a centre. In this sense, it is somewhat similar to Berlin – it is more a collection of districts than a single city centre.

As my friend said, Espoo is “the periphery of the periphery.” So, there is Europe, then the northern part of Europe, which is already a kind of periphery, then Finland, which is a periphery within the Nordic region, then Helsinki and then Espoo, which is the periphery of Helsinki. When visitors go to Helsinki, they definitely don’t go to Espoo – it’s not really a tourist attraction. It is important for me to understand what the museum’s function is in this specific area. It is located in a 1960s industrial architectural monument, an incredible Brutalist building where each floor is 6000 square metres of open space. It used to house a printing plant, and, like many buildings in Finland, it even has a sauna – in the basement, where there is also an abandoned swimming pool that the city of Espoo plans to restore. This is interesting because the building had a public function that needed to be considered after the printing era ended. To clarify – it is one building, but it houses several museums: EMMA – Espoo Museum of Modern Art, the Espoo City Museum, and others.

An important part is the Saastamoinen Foundation Art Collection, which is one of the most significant modern and contemporary art collections – more than 3000 works – all stored and exhibited in our museum. Here is also the archive and collection of two notable designers – Ruth Bryk and Tapio Wirkkala. Additionally, a selection of 1400 glass and ceramic works from the Kakkonen Collection is held here, which is the largest design collection in Finland (it currently has about 10 000 works) and is constantly being expanded. And I am mentioning only a few examples… My goal is to create a coherent narrative that would encompass the history of design, modern and contemporary art in Finland and internationally, so that when visiting the museum, it feels like a unified story. I think my naive outsider’s perspective might help facilitate this. And it is important for me to understand the museum’s status in Finland.

This is about expanding perspective beyond the Nordic region. If one looks at this part of the world, this museum – with its unique combination of design and contemporary art – could create exhibitions that travel to very different places around the world. My goal is to initiate these conversations, to look beyond the usual borders. I know it sounds a bit general, but it’s important to start viewing Espoo or EMMA as a place where exhibitions are created or presented that represent the entire region.

When you started working at the KW Institute in Berlin, you already had curatorial experience in various institutions. But that was definitely a rather interesting task.

When I arrived at KW, I was 35. Before that, I worked in Graz – Grazer Kunstverein is a small institution with only three employees – where I had just completed an expansion and renovation process. Then I arrived at KW… it wasn’t quite a blank slate, but rather a new beginning. It was a major challenge to rebuild KW’s processes and, as they say, make it more professional – to improve its functioning on all levels, not only in the programmatic sense. There I learned not only to delegate tasks, but also to better understand things.

Of course, I arrived with all my curatorial ideas, but once I was on site, they no longer seemed reasonable because they lacked connection with Berlin – they could have been applied anywhere. During this time, I learned to focus on what was missing in Berlin’s context and on what could serve as a portal for international conversations that had not yet taken place. One of the things I have always done as a curator (and I know it is very “fashionable” today) is the desire to support artists who were somehow overlooked and thus gradually enrich art history.

One of the essential features of the programme was that it was led by artists. This will always be important to me, because first and foremost I am an artist. The nature of the director’s job has changed significantly in recent years, but content is still my main priority, and I continue to develop and oversee exhibitions. I do not focus only on the administrative side, although it is very important.

This new job requires true commitment from both sides. I love adventures and challenges, but with 60 employees who all speak Finnish – and I am one of the few non-Finns – it will require full involvement from all of us. It will be a completely new way for me to face a challenge. This is a museum that, first of all, has done good work in Finland, but now it also needs to gain international recognition. I need to understand better what I can contribute in this process.

There are certain similarities with my experience at KW. In the first couple of years, I didn’t fully understand Berlin – I think I learned it only after about four years. The difference now is that in these eight years I have learned to “let go” – not only to delegate, but to truly listen.

Do you also plan to change something in the visitor experience at the museum, maybe organising it differently?

I plan to listen to the employees and understand what works and what doesn’t. I plan to spend a few hours doing each employee’s work, as well as spend time with visitors, trying to understand how people experience and perceive the museum. But I also hold closely to my personal experience when visiting. For example, I take the metro – how do I feel in the metro? When I get off the metro, how do I get to the museum? Why is it open? Why is it closed? So, very simple things – how I move through the space.

I am very intuitive and work by openly expressing my feelings. I want to create a meaningful experience, which would mean that everyone feels welcomed and also challenged. But, as I said, I am only just starting my job. Maybe when we talk in a year and a half, I will be able to offer you a completely different view.

But speaking about Finnish art and its presentation in the museum, possibly balancing it with the international context – do you already have ideas on how to show or present it?

I like synergy. An international mix that includes Finnish art – not because Finnish art is not international in itself, but I would blend it with something else. Essentially, I want the museum to create the feeling that there is no hierarchy between design and visual art. I want a more unified feeling to emerge.

And I think we need to highlight the Finnish context differently, also curatorially. I want to invite more designers and artists to work with our collections – either by curating them, interpreting them anew… I want to continue what my predecessor started, bringing forward many overlooked aspects in the history of Finnish art, especially women’s perspectives. I think that is very important.

At the moment, the programme is not particularly important to me – the experience of the building and the creation of a sense of unity between the various offerings matter more. In any case, there is no point exhibiting works that people can already see in Paris, Berlin or other major art centres. It has to be something truly unique.

How do you see the role and position of the museum, especially a contemporary art museum, at a time when Russia’s aggression in Ukraine still continues? What does the museum represent today, and what could it mean for people?

I think these are two different questions. One thing I consider very important – and it relates to what you mentioned – is that I definitely want EMMA to become a more political institution. I am not someone who simply ignores the fact that, for example, Russia is only a few hours’ drive away. I want EMMA to be much more engaged with what is happening around us. That is what I consider necessary. At the same time, I do not want to openly dictate politically what to do or not do.

I believe it is very important to emphasise certain things that are essential for expanding the museum’s operational boundaries – both in its public role and in what it can offer to artists. For example, one of the first initiatives I plan to implement is a fair compensation system for artists. I want to explore the possibility of employing artists so that when organising solo exhibitions, they receive at least one year’s salary as permanent employees, including support for health insurance. Artists, especially those who interest me, would greatly benefit from a year in which they do not have to worry about where to get money.

And, of course, the museum’s civic duty is not only to provide information or create wonder, but also to encourage and support discussions about culture and politics. For example, we are now in talks with the Kyiv Biennial – why not invite it to EMMA? We are trying to convince the Baltic Triennial to come here – why should it take place only in the Baltic region? These may seem like small initiatives, but in the political and cultural context they are essential. The museum has a real opportunity to engage in these discussions. It is a place to gather, experiment, try new things. A place without censorship, where one can freely devote oneself to research. I will always try to protect people who want to gather and discuss specific issues. Our goal is to create an environment conducive to dialogue and participation.

***

26.11.2025

Sergejs Timofejevs

Original post — Arterritory.com