Institutional Entrepreneurship in the Arts – The Renaming Initiative of Kunstinstituut Melly

5 days ago
12 min read

(1) Authors: Teresa Esser, Kira Koplin. Co-authors*: Giulia Azzalini, Guim Gómez i Camprubí & Lorenzo Miozzi

(1) Erasmus University Rotterdam - teresaesser5@gmail.com / kirakoplin@gmail.com

Abstract:

This paper examines the “social turn” in the arts through the renaming of Kunstinstituut Melly (formerly Witte de With) as a case of institutional change. Drawing on the concept of institutional entrepreneurship, it analyzes how artistic directors navigated tensions between participation and control, social critique and organizational constraints. Based on interviews, the study shows how conflicting stakeholder interests, funding dependencies, and legitimacy pressures both constrained and enabled transformation. The case demonstrates that institutional change in the social turn requires strategic clarity, transparency, trust, and sustained space for experimentation.

Keywords: Institutional Entrepreneurship, Arts Institutions, Institutional Change, Social Turn, Participatory Processes

*Disclaimer: This article is based on a group project conducted by students of the Master’s Program Cultural Economics & Entrepreneurship at Erasmus University Rotterdam, drawing on data from joint interviews and using the conceptual lens of institutional entrepreneurship. While the foundations were developed collaboratively, the text has been further revised, restructured, and extended by the two authors.

The Social Turn in the Arts

In recent years, the art world has undergone a profound transformation, which Bishop (2006) refers to as the social turn. In the course of this, the art sector transitioned from an isolated and object-focused field to one in which social values such as collaborative ethics and accessibility play a central role (Bishop, 2006). This changed focus is reflected in the content and communication of art, which is increasingly expected to address social and political issues involving the affected, often marginalized communities (Kester, 2013). This has given rise to new thematic interests, including postcolonial and institutional criticism. In this context, artists, activists, and scholars demand more than just symbolic gestures; they call for institutional change (Azoulay, 2019).

While institutions, their rigid structures, and the norms they institutionalize are known to resist radical change, a significant question arises: what does it mean for a cultural institution to question and innovate its practices and norms? This paper explores such a case: the renaming initiative of Kunstinstituut Melly, formerly Witte de With Center for Contemporary Art in Rotterdam. The institution initiated a three-year renaming process, promoting engagement in this transition by hosting public discussions and think tanks. This process, which was initiated by artistic criticism and developed through collective participation, clearly shows how the social turn changes not only the role of artists but also challenges the positions of cultural institutions as intermediaries in the sector.

To better understand this process of institutional change, it is worth looking at the role of the artistic director – not as a mere managemnet position, but in their responsibility to facilitate and integrate transformative processes under the pressure of existing institutions. Thus, the concept of institutional entrepreneurship offers a helpful lens, as it describes actors that initiate and implement institutional change even in rigid structures rather considered resistant to change (Battilana et al., 2009). In the case of Kunstinstituut Melly, this enables the examination of tensions between stakeholders, participation and control and the processes or resources needed to enable institutional change. Two artistic directors were involved in the institution's transformation process. Defne Ayas initiated the name change while she was in office until 2018. She was succeeded by Sofía Hernández Chong Cuy in 2023, who carried out the renaming process until its formal completion. As their perspectives are crucial to the analysis, interviews with both form the basis of this essay.

The Renaming Initiative of Kunstinstituut Melly

In 2017 the institution initiated Cinema Olanda, a project that presented works by Dutch artists and cultural producers engaged in the country’s decolonization movement. At a preparatory meeting, Egbert Alejandro Martina, one of the participating artists, posed the question: "What does it mean for a white institution to do critical work under the name of a colonizer?" At the time, the institution was named after Witte de Withstraat, a Dutch naval officer central to colonial expeditions (Borstner, 2020), which stood in stark contrast to the values it sought to embody through its artistic collaborations. This was also the opinion of the artists, and activists who published an open letter in 2017, which criticized the institution for carrying on a colonial legacy, and pointed out the contradiction between its self-proclaimed critical stance, while operating under the current name. The letter called for public attention and for critical reflections of the institutions structures and activities. The artistic director during that time, Defne Ayas, responded to the letter in 2018 by dedicating the institution to a multiple-year renaming process.

This commitment was not solely aimed at rebranding but at initiating a structural transformation process that included (1) diversifying the staff and the board, (2) repurposing the first floor of the museum to a hybrid space for art and community events, and (3) creating new public engagement and educational formats. Central to these efforts was the aim to actively involve and exchange with diverse communities and their lived experiences to enable collective learning. This approach was supported through public discussions, online surveys, forums, and a public advisory committee on the name change.

Since 2021, the institution has been operating under the name Kunstinstituut Melly, a decision ultimately made solely by artistic director Hernández Chong Cuy and the supervisory board. This highlights the tension between participation and control actively negotiated by the artistic director. In an attempt to explore this tension, the following analysis focuses on the role of the artistic directors as institutional entrepreneurs who implement change under complex structural and political constrains.

Artistic Directors as Institutional Entrepreneurs

At the heart of the definition of an institutional entrepreneur is their role as an initiator or manager of change process (DiMaggio, 1988), which in this case resulted in the transformation of an existing institution. It emphasizes the endogenous position of the actor, and their role and capacity for action within institutional processes (Battilana et al., 2009).

However, agency, the capacity of individuals to act self-sufficiently or counteract institutions, rarely develops in a vacuum. In the given case initial pressure for the renaming initiative, came from outside, which makes the artistic director appear reactive rather than proactive. Yet this dynamic reveals an important aspect of institutional entrepreneurship, namely the embeddedness and relationality of actors within institutional settings. As Eisenstadt (1980) points out, institutional entrepreneurs are rarely singular agents of change but a variable in a complex interplay of many actors and internal as external forces. What sets the two artistic directors apart from the others, however, was not only their recognition of the need for change but also their initiation and ultimately implementation of criticism as innovation for the institution (Battilana et al., 2009). This required not only visionary thinking and commitment but also the ability to mediate between competing expectations – including those of artists, staff, communities, funders, and the board. Understanding artistic directors as institutional entrepreneurs highlights how these different needs bring opportunities and obstacles to include criticism as a driver for long-term institutional change. The following chapter will therefore adopt this perspective to analyze how this entrepreneurial role took shape in practice. It will focus on four key areas: dealing with conflicting interests, balancing control and trust, negotiating funding and legitimacy, and creating space for experimentation.

How Change Takes Shape

1. Conflicting Interests as Catalysts

The biggest challenge in the transformation process for both artistic directors was to reconcile the different perspectives and needs associated with the collective learning approach. For example, the artists involved felt that the institution was moving too slowly, while the institution, characterized by hierarchical decision-making processes and bureaucratic rigidity, was simply unable to adapt quickly. Moreover, there was a high-level board unwilling to accept the name change in general. What appears here to be conflicting, even incompatible interests, can, however, also be a catalyst for institutional change, as Scott (2014) points out. While it is merely impossible to simultaneously meet all competing expectations, the case shows that such conflicts may add to the urgency for change-making.

Vision development, in this case a strategy for how to involve diverse internal and external actors, stands as the first stage of the institutional transformation, followed by the mobilization of the people putting the vision in action and the maintenance of their motivation to achieve and sustain change (Battilana et al., 2009). Following these three stages, the following chapter analyzes the development of a vision for the transformation of the Kunstinstituut Melly, as shared by the artistic directors.

2. Balancing Control and Trust

As one interviewee points out, it is important that even when following a social transformation, such as the renaming initiative of Kunstinstituut Melly, the artistic directors were acting like classic entrepreneurs, identifying "who [their] stakeholders are and […] categorizing them by priority". It was essential to capture their different demands in the transformation, "balancing out internal and external expectations,” social, political and economic expactations - which reflects the institution's pressure to maintain control in the process and organizational viability and legitimacy (Alexander & Bowler, 2014).

Ultimately, the final name was chosen not by the community, but by the artistic director and the supervisory board. A step often critiqued, since the participatory processes suggested a degree of openness, while the actual decision-making power remained within the institution. This step was particularly difficult given the importance of the community's urge to act for sustainable change (Nicholls, 2008) and the significance of maintaining cooperative relationships, which are crucial for transformation (Lawrence & Suddaby, 2006). However, as one interviewee points out, a helpful tool for addressing the latter was ensuring transparency and open communication about the choices made, which helped to develop a shared understanding of institutional change and its limitations. This once again underscores the importance of components such as collectivity and embeddedness in institutional transformations.

3. Funding and Legitimacy

Another significant factor that pushed the artistic directors to modify their initial strategy was a lack of funding support. Among other things, one interviewee mentioned that lacking financial resources led to limitations in community engagement and adoptions in the initiative’s timeframe.

With the economic and political embeddedness of the institution and its dependency on external financing and funding partners, the institutional entrepreneurs were still bound to their requirements, which highlights the coercive impact of cultural funding on arts institutions and their content (Alexander & Bowler, 2014). Within the social turn, this tension becomes particularly acute: institutions are expected to incorporate values like participation and equity while simultaneously remaining accountable to funders whose priorities may not align with social demands – revealing how legitimacy in the arts is constantly negotiated between ethical values and economic expactations. The present case illustrates how institutional entrepreneurs in the arts must navigate these complex tensions of missions (Zolberg, 1986). As both funders and the public impose different visions of institutional legitimacy, directors face not just resource limitations but also legitimacy dilemmas (Scott, 2014).

As outlined previously, these conflicting interests can act as catalysts for change. However, when it comes to funding, this dilemma poses a real challenge. Experimentation and openness, particularly necessary for social transformation, require additional resources. However, without adequate political support and understanding of these processes, social missions and visisons risk remaining mere rhetoric.

4. Space for Experimentation

The necessity for openness and space for experimentation was emphasized by the interviewees, who consider such as pivotal counterbalance to strategic management. Furthermore, these approaches were indispensable for the present case because the outcome of the renaming initiative was supposed to be open and strongly influenced by the participatory involvement of external communities and collective learning. Thus, it is a crucial balancing act to find the right degree of control while allowing for experimentation and openness to impact the taken-for-granted institutional structures.

Yet achieving this balance requires more than intention – it demands different resources: On the one hand, such processes require external financial commitment and conceptual backing from cultural policy; on the other hand, the institution's internal staff must be willing and able to commit time and effort. Since the outcomes of such experimental and participatory processes remain uncertain, trust becomes a crucial factor. As Scott (2014) suggests, openly acknowledging and actively moderating differing expectations can help manage this uncertainty and foster a shared sense of purpose. This combination of factors was summarized by one of the artistic directors, defining “clarity of goals, space for experimentation, and investment of time" as the foundation for successful transformation, because "those things will produce trust, and trust will produce change".

What We Can Learn

The case of Kunsteninstituut Melly illustrates well how structural tensions gain increasing relevance in the course of the social turn. When negotiated with care, they become catalysts for positive institutional change processes. In their management role, the artistic directors act as institutional entrepreneurs, actively mitigating conflicting demands between participation and control, social ambition and economic constraints, internal values and external expectations.

While the processes described cannot offer a blueprint for change, the case does highlight how strategic clarity, transparency, and trust-building can serve as tools to responsibly engage with social critique in institutional settings. Moreover, it reveals the paradox of public agency in institutional change processes, which is ultimately limited by the decision-making, remaining within the institution.

(Cultural) Institutions in the social turn are facing ambiguous pressures: on the one hand, they are expected to increasingly consider values like equity, care, and collectivity; on the other, they remain embedded in public administration, often targeted at economic outcomes and efficiency. This creates a legitimacy dilemma that is not solved with management rhetoric but needs dedicated structural openness, as well as time and space for experimentation.

As the case illustrates, transformation becomes possible where critique is not silenced but centered. Most of all, it calls for institutional self-reflection and transformation - towards relationality, reflexivity, and the acknowledgement that institutional legitimacy is no longer granted but constantly negotiated.

References

Alexander, V. D., & Bowler, A. E. (2014). Art at the crossroads: The arts in society and the sociology of art. Poetics, 43, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.poetic.2014.02.003
Azoulay, A. A. (2019). Potential history: Unlearning Imperialism. Verso Books.
Battilana, J., Leca, B., & Boxenbaum, E. (2009). 2 How Actors Change Institutions: Towards a Theory of Institutional Entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Annals, 3(1), 65–107. https://doi.org/10.1080/19416520903053598
Bishop, C. (2006). 16 The Social Turn Collaboration and its discontents. In Stanford University Press eBooks (pp. 238–255). https://doi.org/10.1515/9781503627253-018
Borstner, S.-M. (2020, July 16). Why Did Witte de With Change Its Name? Frieze. Retrieved July 22, 2025, from https://www.frieze.com/article/why-did-witte-de-change-its-name
Dimaggio, P. (1988). Interest and Agency in Institutional Theory. Institutional Patterns and Organizations, 1–21. https://ci.nii.ac.jp/naid/10030010621/
Eisenstadt, S. N. (1980). Cultural Orientations, Institutional entrepreneurs, and Social Change: Comparative Analysis of Traditional Civilizations. American Journal of Sociology, 85(4), 840–869. https://doi.org/10.1086/227091
Kester, G. H. (2013). Conversation pieces: Community and Communication in Modern Art. Univ of California Press.
Lawrence, T. B., & Suddaby, R. (2006). Institutions and Institutional Work. In The SAGE Handbook of Organization Studies (pp. 215–254). https://doi.org/10.4135/9781848608030.n7
Nicholls, A. (2008). Social entrepreneurship: New models of Sustainable social change. In Oxford University Press eBooks. http://ci.nii.ac.jp/ncid/BA79103317
Scott, W. R. (2014). Institutions and Organizations: ideas, interests, and identities. http://ci.nii.ac.jp/ncid/BB13547703
Zolberg, V. (1986). Tensions of Mission in American Art Museums. Oxford University Press.

Comment 1

Thanks for letting me read and provide comments on the paper. I found it highly engaging and well-written – and it connects academic ways of thinking with artistic and structural problems in contemporary institutions. For me, this is a highly relevant piece that is vibrant, interesting and curious.

Comments

The abstract and introduction invite the reader into the focus on the social turn in the arts and the specific case of Kunstinstituut Melly. In the second paragraph, a key question is asked:

”Yet, while institutions, their rigid structures, and the norms they institutionalize are known to resist radical change, what does it mean for a cultural institution to fundamentally innovate its practices and norms?” It is a small comment, but it would improve readability by slightly adapting the sentence. E.g., “While institutions, their rigid structures, and the norms they institutionalize are known to resist radical change, a significant question arises: what does it mean for a cultural institution to fundamentally innovate its practices and norms?”

Later, the concept of institutional entrepreneurship is introduced. It would be relevant if the authors could already provide a slightly more elaborated explanation of this concept, and why it is particularly relevant beyond the general notion of “describes actors that initiate and implement institutional change”. Again, a small change to help the reader understand the role and use of the concept.

The second section, The Renaming Initiative of Kunstinstituut Melly, provides a clear overview of the need to rename the institution. The notion of collective learning is highlighted, and what does this mean to the author? Does it relate to existing theory or practices of learning, either social, constructivist, or perhaps other approaches? And how is collective learning structurally scaffolded or incentivised? It appears to relate to the strategic involvement of diverse communities, which could be more clearly connected or elaborated.

Section three, Artistic Directors as Institutional Entrepreneurs, is really well written and introduces institutional entrepreneurship with clarity. One small comment is that it would be nice to elaborate on and discuss the concept of agency more, as the paper, in the abstract and later, discusses relationality. Setting the stage for discussing agency in relation to relationality would be of great interest to this case and to the cultural-creative fields.

In 1. Conflicting Interests as Catalysts, the initial challenges and processes are framed. An example of the artist’s involvement is given, though it would further support the paragraphs and the paper’s overall argument/discussion with more practical examples. What did it look like when different actors tried to reconcile diverse perspectives? When and how did it happen?

In 2. Balancing Control and Trust. Is the following a typo: “… such as the remaining initiative of Kunstinstituut Melly”? Shouldn’t it be renaming initiative?

Please also consider a brief reflection on the difference between institutional and economic entrepreneurs, as the latter is introduced here. Also, the interview examples are supportive, but they operate on a “micro-level” – and perhaps a thicker analysis could support the argument that “This once again underscores the importance of components such as relationality and collectivity for an institutional entrepreneur.” Lastly, it would be great if relationality were further conceptualized in the text, as it is used differently across fields and theories.

Section 3. Funding and Legitimacy is precise and detailed – no comments.

Afterwards, in section 4, the tension between experimentation and management is set out, which is quite interesting and meaningful. It resonates with me and with scholars, theorists, and critics such as Hartmut Rosa, as well as many others, who highlight the contemporary societal duality of control and freedom, structures and anti-structures, management and experimentation, and the need to balance and establish an equilibrium in the middle. This would be a highly engaging discussion to elaborate on.

The final section on What We Can Learn captures the paper’s focus and discussion nicely. However, with the abstract emphasizing relationality and reflexivity, it would strengthen the final parts of the paper to elaborate more on those concepts, their interplay, their connection to and implications in balancing tensions and the ambiguous pressures. In other words, how does it look and feel like for (cultural) institutions to adopt a more reflexive and relational stance – and what are the collective and structural implications of it?