foto's gemaakt door jhoeko
www.jhoeko.com

The area is divided exactly in two over the longitudinal axis by a grey arched construction which also continues onto the spacious inner court situated behind it.
It is patently obvious that this work is of an architectonic nature, but the question is what kind of architecture do we have here and what was the intended result.

The structure fails to please, it is not a pretty arch which also has an aesthetic function. Nothing is concealed here, it concerns a support construction which does not reach any compromises with the eye which also wants to see something.

On the other hand, nothing is supported because, although the construction reaches as far as the ceiling in the gallery area, it is clear that he could have finished it without this intervention and in the inner court he ends in a vertical direction without any purpose, in the air.
If any semblance of practical purpose on this spot has been exposed, we must ask ourselves why this thing is here anyway

I think that the structure refers to ‘real’ constructions elsewhere which do have a useful function there; perhaps it has been derived from one particular support construction or precisely from the typology of these types of structures in general. That does not seem so important because we are not familiar with any existing original, so that we as observers must think in terms of a general nature.
The associations then veer towards bridges, roads, aqueducts and, because of the colour, towards a military background, evoking vague thoughts of bunkers and casemates.

In this way, we are concerned with a change in the area of meaning, actually just as old as the readymade – it is perhaps going a bit far to describe this work as an assisted readymade or not, because after all it was made in its entirety, ‘again’ or not, for this spot, and then also from material which only shows similarity qua colour with what the original object may have been. The association with the readymade is indeed not very accurate but nevertheless not senseless because, in a limited sense, an object from the world of ‘everyday things’, which has its purpose there, has been moved to the art context where that purpose no longer applies without the reference disappearing.

Nothing in art has a purpose (for just now I am omitting those ‘social’ works of art which wish to claim the opposite for valid reasons or not, but there is no place here for that discussion).
That is point one.
The artist makes something out of nothing. That is point two.
But is that always the case, you could ask yourself as a result of this work. Because we have here a kind of construction which was already or could have been something in another context while this meaning is precisely removed here: this is more an example of art which makes nothing out of something.

However, perhaps that is not true either, because something else emerges. It is not always enough to theorize somewhat abstractly about context: after all, visually there is also a question of an object and even of an object of a considerably large format in this spot. So the observer must not only think, but also look.

And the area changes radically as a result of the presence of this construction. Instead of one undivided area, there are now two long horizontal ones which are more like corridors. As a result of the arched construction, you can get from one corridor to the other at almost every spot and those corridors do not have a purpose: the first purpose of the corridor is a connecting area from A to B, but these corridors do not lead anywhere, at least not to a spot which is opened up by them: they lead to the end of the area and therefore to the inner court, but that was already the case; this construction was really not necessary for that, it is rather a bit in the way. And once at the courtyard, he also partly divides that in two but yet again not to the end: you can walk round it with ample room. In other words: this thing suddenly stops, just as arbitrarily as its whole presence here.

You can also construe that the possible origin of this work is less interesting than its literal sensory effect in the area or areas. That is two-piece: the gallery area has been changed into two proportionally almost claustrophobic narrow corridors and in the outside world the work must obviously abandon that effect, so that even somewhere at a fairly random point it signs off and simply ceases to exist.

That could in itself be a reason for all kinds of speculations on the safety and security of an art object in an area given shape to for that purpose against the relative outlawed feeling of that same object in the outside world, where a different approach with yet other possibilities of meaning is required, and then you could also generalize that into a reflection on the human existence indoors and outdoors