ABOUT / Between Tradition and Innovation

   

“Sjimmie Veenhuis was born in Emmeloord in a street as straight as a nail, in the exact center of the Northeast Polder; an artificial, systemically engineered part of the Netherlands.” [1] The place in which Veenhuis was born exudes a strong sense of self­evidence, a quality which is reflected in the work that he creates. The repetitive nature and characteristic spatial arrangement of his birthplace resonate throughout his entire oeuvre and seem to be of great influence on the artistic choices that he makes.

Veenhuis makes his installations with commonplace materials that have con­ crete shapes, and subjects these materials to a process of transformation by taking their recognizable features and forcing them to come together in a new form. Despite this transformation, the original functionality and appearance of these materials is echoed in the final outcome. Through this self­contained interaction, the viewer is invited to take a new stance towards their material and systematic environment. Veenhuis searches for beauty in the unique qualities of everyday objects, and through an almost compulsive degree of repetition manages to create new worlds in which the power of ‘the number’, but also the power inherent to the unique characteristics of the materials that constitute the physical elements of his work, is strongly featured.

In his work and method, Veenhuis looks towards earlier movements in art history for points of reference, while simultaneously very much seeking his own path. Tradition and innovation go hand in hand, and as such it is quite impossible to leave out this art historical context when considering Veenhuis’ art. Before one can attempt to place Veenhuis’ distinctly varied oeuvre in a broader art historical context, it is necessary to determine how he works, and to find the stepping stones and focal points through which his work and thought processes can be understood. A deliberate precision must be practiced in order to regard Veenhuis’ work and method in a relevant art historical context, and as such one must aim to establish a well­supported, meaningful, and nuanced description of his oeuvre as a whole. This is especially the case considering the fact that he actively draws from history while remaining conscientious towards the present and future, and because he employs existing materials to find new manners of expression. Veenhuis’ own reflections on his work and method have proven to be invaluable in this process. Naturally, these will be extensively explored and will become a helpful tool in portraying and under­ standing an artist who constantly finds himself positioned between tradition and innovation.

Contradictions
Veenhuis’ work is characterized by a stubborn individuality. The materials he utilizes are approached in an almost binary fashion. The qualities and visual properties of these materials form a guiding set of rules which directly influences the possibilities of their application, actively shaping the ultimate image. Blue mushroom trays are placed in a neatly ordered field; upside down or right side up, a light is switched on or off. Seemingly nothing is left to coincidence. Every­ thing is a matter of strict composition. Through this controlled arrangement of materials arises an enormity of space and depth ­ the constituent elements become the building blocks of a new piece. By stripping objects of their individual functionality through the act of joining them together, they are subjected to a ‘substance transformation’. Without physically altering the individual building blocks, their primary function thus remains intact. [2] As such, Veenhuis’ work offers a form of reflection on the duality of appearances, in which the original meaning of individual objects is warped and given a new direction.

Bearing this contradiction in mind may be the key to positioning and under­ standing his work. There seems to be a certain self­evidence within his work, but looks can be deceiving. Rationality and irrationality go hand in hand. Rationality because his work is a sum of all parts, a sum in which the charac­ teristics of the separate constituent elements are vital to its outcome. Mathe­ matical precision and a flawless understanding of the context in which his monumentally spatial works are placed are defining features of his method. [3] Irrationality because Veenhuis also likes being guided by coincidences, and is willing to make concessions when new possibilities pop up throughout the process. The game is played according to certain rules, but the rules and the game themselves are also subject to the context in which the work behaves itself. When it benefits the intended result, there is always room to experiment.

Paradoxical to his method, but at the same time quite logically, Veenhuis feels a strong kinship to traditional painting. “The essence of painting, to me, is having the materials undergo a transformation in which the suggestion of a different reality emerges”. [4] In the way that painting can create the illusion of a completely different reality, he observes a significant parallel with his own work. Whereas in traditional painting the ends justify the means, and a com­ position arises from the plasticity of the medium, Veenhuis’ means become an end unto themselves when it comes to the emergence of a composition. Although paints are mixed to create certain effects and/or suggestions, he sticks to the original form of the materials that he applies in his work.

Veenhuis limits himself through a very specific choice of materials. However, he is still very much able to utilize this seemingly narrow playing field, restricted as it is by the concrete characteristics of his chosen materials, in order to create an infinitude of freedom. This freedom comes forth from the strength to limit oneself, fueled by an inner discipline and stoicity; a binary process of possibi­ lities and impossibilities that form a guiding set of rules for the course of action of the artist. This juxtaposition creates a tension between the recognizable materials on the one hand, and their alienating application on the other. The underlying logic and choices within Veenhuis’ work are simultaneously crystal clear as well as inimitable. Through the act of reinterpreting concrete and recognizable visual elements of the materials themselves, the effect of the contentive distance vis­à­vis our direct surroundings becomes observable. Consequently, Veenhuis’ work is self­evident, yet alienating at the same time.

What you see is what you see [5]
At first introduction to the work of Veenhuis, one enters an experience of colours, shapes, and patterns. The seeming detachment that emerges through an application of order and regularity to common utensils is closely related to the Minimal Art movement, Op Art, and ZERO (which originated in the Netherlands as the ‘NUL­movement’). All art movements that popped up in the late fifties and early sixties expressed a critical stance towards the dominant movements of the preceding decades, in particular the strongly individualistic and subjectively focused Abstract Expressionism. The basic principles of these artistic movements can perhaps offer insight in the content and meaning of Veenhuis’ work.

Minimalism strongly considers an extreme measure of objectivity and rationality, which translates to a certain clarity and regularity of shapes and colours, reduced to their purest and most elementary form. It bases itself on the individual characteristics of the materials that are used. [6] There is a sense of timelessness, and a complete lack of narrative aspect: “it’s there all at once, like a sudden revelation”. [7] What you see, is what you see.

In her search for the “[liberation] of the illusion and the subjective randomness of Abstract Expressionism (…) [which was] bound to the moment instead of looking towards the future” [8], the NUL­movement can be regarded as the Dutch version of the Minimal Art movement, which arose around the same time. “NUL intends to constitute a fresh start, more so a new idea and climate than a certain style or specific form (…). The artist recedes, communal ideas serve as inspiration for virtually anonymous pieces, which bear little semblance to the traditional visual arts.” [9]

After a thorough analysis of Donald Judd’s and Jan Schoonhoven’s work, Paul Hefting observed fundamental differences between the Minimal Art movement and the NUL­movement. Whereas Judd’s application of materials was defined by a ‘no­nonsense’ approach, characterized by a certain sense of perfection in treating industrially produced materials, Schoonhoven treats the material as subordinate to the intended harmony and regularity in the completed image. In striving for the ‘impersonal’, one may indeed consider Schoonhoven to be one of the most ‘personal’ artists within the NUL­movement. [10] This is exactly the nuance of interpretation that can be of use in attempting to place the work of Veenhuis in the continuity of art historical tradition.

It is precisely this space between two extremes; the pragmatic, analytical and theoretical nature of the Minimal Art movement on the one hand, and the active inclusion of irregularity and a highly constrained playfulness of application within the borders of an ordered totality of shapes that we see in the work of Schoonhoven and other artists belonging to the NUL­movement on the other, that could justifiably be applicable to Veenhuis’ work as well.

A lesser known movement called Op Art, which leans heavily on the basic principles of Minimalism, may have fallen under the shadow of the Minimal Art movement but can not be left out of consideration in the search for the ideological construct underlying the work of Veenhuis. Op Art was an immensely popular but short­lived international movement which focused on the optical effects of colours and patterns. Similar to Minimalism, Op Art held anti­individualist ideas, but included a strong emphasis on new develop­ ments in the world of computer graphics and the imagery of electronics. Just like Minimalism, Op Art was characterized by a cold, mechanical aesthetic; formalistically opposing the more individualistically­minded movements such as Abstract Expressionism. [11] This search for patterns, guided by a consistency of application, is a defining feature of Veenhuis’ methodology.

Apart from the seemingly axiomatic relation that can be drawn between Veenhuis’ work and the movements described above, one can also observe a kinship to Pop Art. It is of no small importance to consider the choice and recognizable nature of the applied materials when attempting to place Veenhuis’ work in this particular art historical tradition. [12] Although this com­ parison may seem quite obvious when considering the use of material – both movements incorporated a high measure of recognizability of material and imagery that was often drawn from one’s direct surroundings – it becomes more difficult to find any such similarities on grounds of subject matter. A certain dissonance seems to arise between the observable connotations and the considerations and ideas which in reality constitute the basic principles which Veenhuis adheres to in the creation of his works.

In line with the ideology of the spatial artists within the Minimal Art movement, Veenhuis reasons according to the individual characteristics and shapes of the objects he encounters without assigning them a deeper social meaning, and in doing so aims for a high measure of objectivity. The form of the materials are of guiding influence on the final result. Or, as Veenhuis himself puts it: “I consider everything that I do in my work to be no more than a natural outcome of the materials which I use, even though someone else might primarily re­ cognize these materials in association with the functional purpose for which they were originally produced. These recognizable elements are exactly what I use in order to make it something else.” [13]

Although the inner motivations of Veenhuis are a far cry from those associated with Pop Art, as mentioned in the above, it is still fascinating to consider why there exists such a strong association with this tradition and those we described earlier. Pop Art strongly distances itself from the cold, abstract, mathematical and objective character of the Minimal Art movement: “[a]lthough somewhat akin to the cool, deadpan look of Warhol’s serial paintings and sculptures, [Donald] Judd’s stacked boxes and [Sol] LeWitt’s modular cubes related more to mathematical principles and language theory than popular culture and consumerism.” [14] “[It] depicts a cultural acceptance of commercialism. (…) Pop aggrandizes the gluttony of advertizing, and imaginism coarsens it”. [15] Products, images, advertisements, imagery of celebrities, e.g. – all relics with great public appeal – were produced on a large, almost industrial, scale. It is no small wonder, then, that Andy Warhol’s studio came to be called ‘The Factory’. Art becomes retail merchandise and vice versa, the inspiration for which is directly drawn from the socio­economic context; ‘[it’s] about liking things’ [16]. In this game, without any clear rules, virtually anything could become exalted and placed on the pedestal of Art. The signature of the artist and the edition number of the work were, in fact, the only personal things that were added to them. With Veenhuis, this is not the case.

Embracing the industrial aspect is more so the result of his fascination for the individual characteristics of the objects and materials he chooses to work with. First and foremost, his chosen materials serve a purely formalistic purpose, causing the meaning of these materials to reveal themselves only after the viewer’s first impression. This produces undeniably clear compositions, which exude a distinct atmosphere of self­evidence and logic.

However, a thorough and profound investigation is concealed behind this facade of unquestionability, in which the carefully selected materials are arranged like the touches of brush on canvas, and through which the final image is gradually formed. Veenhuis walks a path that is of equal import as the destination: the materials that are used are equal in hierarchy to the intended image, and receive just as much attention. To him, it is not just about the repetition of shapes, but even more so about the transformation that his building blocks are subjected to through the process of composition, without their original form having to be degraded. Veenhuis’ work is defined by a serene and timeless simplicity. In contrast, Pop Art revolved around expressive images that were taken directly from daily life, and which were exemplary of the rising middle class in the 60’s and the mass­consumption that arose with it – ‘I consume therefore I am’. [17] This is not just a signifier that Pop Art is a product of its time, but also causes it to underscore the idea of mass­production and ‘hyper consumerism’, which in turn creates a strong sense of transience; it is overly garish, banal and platitudinous, and immediately forces itself upon the viewer with images that are easily recognized. In this sense, Veenhuis’ work is much more closely related to the monumental, timeless, and transcendent qualities of the Minimal Art movement and the movements closely related to it. It is modest and indirect – every and any object can appear, seemingly at random. The principle of ‘readymades’ and the repetition of recognizable shapes and images seem to be the principal parallels between Veenhuis’ work and the products of the Pop Art movement.

Another movement with which we can correlate Veenhuis’ work from an art historical perspective is that of Arte Povera. As was the case with Pop Art, this correlation can chiefly be considered applicable to Veenhuis’ work when observing the similarities in criteria for the choice of materials. However, contained within the name of this movement lies its first pitfall, since the use of commonplace materials may be characteristic to it, but does not constitute its defining feature: “the commonplace has entered the sphere of art. The insignificance has begun to exist – indeed, it has imposed itself. Physical presence and behavior have become art”. [18] A key focal point of Arte Povera, which arose during the 60’s, is the rejection of western consumer culture and the role that the art industry plays in it – a stance that directly opposes that of Pop Art, which displayed an intense involvement with contemporary socio­ economic developments. The relation between object and subject, with the artist being regarded as ‘producer’ and the public being branded as ‘consumer’, was redefined. As such, Arte Povera rebelled against traditional preconceptions about art, and sought to give new shape and meaning to the relation between culture and nature by means of unconventional methods.

It was a movement that developed horizontally rather than in depth. In this regard, anything could be used in order to activate the senses: “What interested the Arte Povera artists was the way in which it is possible to maximize the experience of beauty with a minimum of linguistic transformation and cultural imposition”. [19] It revolves around a total ‘experience’, in which the observer undergoes an immersion in the installations of the Arte Povera artists. Olfactory sensations, the temperature of the space, and the texture of the artworks; these things all contribute to the totality of experience. Apart from found objects, virtually anything could be used as a medium to this effect. Dissimilar to the Minimal Art movement and Pop Art, “it was concerned with difference and subjective specificity.” [20] In other words: “the subjectified sensibility in its objectified authenticity reflects a natural recollection of environmental phenomena, both universal and individual”. [21] It is precisely this aspect which makes the Arte Povera movement so difficult to define; it is an umbrella term that refers to a large variety of artists and disciplines. Bearing this in mind, it becomes apparent that referencing the term is equally useful as problematic because of the sheer infinitude of possible manifestations and options that the movement includes.

As mentioned before, Pop Art lays its key focus on consumer culture while Arte Povera is defined by its strong rejection of it. Veenhuis works with materials which fascinate him; one cannot predict beforehand which materials will find application in the works that he creates. The manner in which these materials are utilized is, in turn, heavily dependent on the specific features of these mate­ rials. His method is highly concrete, pragmatic and objective; the individual appearances of the materials remain unaltered and become the focal point of the manner in which they are processed, thus directly influencing the final image that arises. Veenhuis’ choice of materials is seemingly random and not determined by an attempt at layering deeper strata of meaning in his work. Each and every connotation of meaning which is summoned by his work is mainly subject to the search for transformations which naturally appear in the formalistic solutions that emerge from his method. With Veenhuis, one can observe neither a confirmation nor rejection of consumer culture. Rather, we see a continuous process of wonder, interpretation, and translation of pre­existing, commonplace materials in a new manifestation.

Discrepancies and reflections 
Veenhuis’ work can be understood by referencing the principles of specific art historical movements, but those who take these comparisons too far will easily wind up in a web of contradictions. By composing one’s judgment based on the criteria of those movements in art history that have long withstood the trials of their days, one inevitably develops a blind spot that hinders an attempt at defining that which is new. In reality, nothing is utterly new, and everything that happens today is determined by what came before; present and past are inseparably connected. Discontinuity exists by the grace of continuity and, in the case of art history, can take a long time to become measurable. That the one movement in art history is seamlessly succeeded by another is a mere illusion. Naturally, this statement is especially poignant in reference to contemporary artists. They find themselves in the mire of the present, looking towards artistic movements of the past for guidance in their work, and simultaneously to shape the path slowly travelled by art history. As such, Veenhuis seems aware of the fact that he is a part of a much longer art historical tradition and does not consider this past to be something to free himself of, but rather as a path that a contemporary artist such as himself can draw reflection from. At the same time, considering this past course also gives one the freedom to walk an entirely different path. “I find it interesting to take a position by making use of what already exists. Every expression is in fact a modified version of what has been expressed before. It does not only constitute a possible divergence from this earlier expression, but also a concrete connection to it for that exact reason.” [22]

As we were to take the Minimal Art movement in the broad sense of the word – that is to say, all subgroups included – as a starting point in analyzing Veenhuis’ work, we immediately encounter a certain problem. ‘Minimalism’ in its purest form is somewhat of a contradiction in terms, and refers to an ideal minimal which, in its absolute form, can never be attained. The means always justify the end rather than the other way around. The sort of Minimalism which we then employ as an umbrella term is a more helpful starting point, but only when we bear in mind the relativity of this term in the broader sense; Minimalism as a desire for the minimal, but nevertheless manifested in a great variety of material and form. The playful, experimental, personal and expectant – the creation of tensions and contradictions – are characteristics which define Veenhuis’ work and method. Built upon the solid foundation of rational consideration, yet abstaining from a sense of determination or extravagant masculinity. Veenhuis often likes to incorporate a thin veneer of humor which, if one is so inclined, can be seen as vaguely reminiscent of Pop Art. He constantly searches for a way in which to integrate composition and context with one another to the best of their combined potential.

The choice of simplistic materials should not be seen as a critique of mass­ consumption; Veenhuis’ primary goal is to simultaneously subvert and transcend the recognizability of his chosen materials, which allows for them to be attributed new meanings. This unprejudiced approach to thought and action grants him great freedom of choice in his work, meaning that the possibilities are endless. In spite of this fact, or rather because of it, Veenhuis deems it necessary to subject himself to certain limitations, chosen in accordance with the individual characteristics of the materials and the finitude of possible applications thereof. These boundaries are stretched to their limits but remain strictly upheld: “I regard everything around me as visual building blocks. (…) The characteristics and meanings of the materials themselves must hold the solution. (…) I find it especially exciting that the object maintains the form and meaning that we have familiarized ourselves with. When you apply it as it already is, it becomes a real challenge to give shape to the object which facilitates new associations and ways of looking.” [23]

Searching for clues in the past is good practice, and unmistakably useful in mapping the contours of the playing field in which an artist operates. However, this should not become the primary strategy through which contemporary artists in general, and Veenhuis in particular, are described and understood. In fact, this tool has the tendency to become an end unto itself, as it is tempting to look for solidity on familiar ground. Johannes Vermeer painted with brush and oils in the 17th century, Willem de Kooning did the same in the 20th century. However, the results of those artistic processes are lightyears apart. As such, medium and result should be regarded as two entirely separate entities. Better yet, this method of historical comparison should only serve as a secondary device in the process of interpretation, and the conscious application thereof should even be left out as much as possible in some cases. As described in the above, a diversity of meanings or thoughts can be attested to the use of virtually similar means. It is then more interesting to regard the two in reverse order; to treat the contemporary artist and their work as the starting point of the interpretive process, and to use this assumption to draw new correlations and break through existing frames of reference. In doing so, it becomes clear that Veenhuis’ work places itself in a wholly autonomous position, despite the presence of observable parallels between it and certain art­historical traditions. Or maybe it is thanks to these persistent traditions rather than despite them, by again making grateful use of that which is available to be picked up, used, and transformed.

Aspect Ratio 
Veenhuis’ work came to full fruition for the first time in the solo exhibition Aspect Ratio in the gallery of Piet Hein Eek, in November 2016. [24] ‘Aspect ratio’ refers to the ratio between the width and length of an image. It is precisely the regular form of the individual building blocks and of the dimensions which are created when these are joined together – the ‘object’ becomes the ‘subject’ – that defines Veenhuis’ work. He sometimes resembles an architect more than an artist in this approach of separate materials. The structures that sprout forth sometimes refer to images one might encounter in urban planning. A world entirely of its own arises in which order and chaos go hand in hand and in which the building blocks, that yet remain wholly unaltered, are given new meaning. The characteristics of these building blocks are of direct influence on their possible applications in a work, and on the final result. The meaning of the concept ‘aspect ratio’ becomes bifold, and represents both the separate parts which remain unaltered as well as the final image which they constitute.

A similar pattern unfolds in the interactive installation Action Reaction 2.0, in which Veenhuis gives concrete meaning to the phenomenon of ‘substance transformation’: “Through this piece, Veenhuis demonstrates how refreshing it can be to give something like a button, which is ultimately a ‘mediator’ between us and all kinds of technology, a different meaning. The installation consists of a large screen with a thousand buttons that after being pressed light up in a variety of different colours like single pixels. An interactive piece, visitors are invited to make patterns by themselves or together.” [25] We may well be able to regard the above quote as an essential representation of what Veenhuis stands for, and how the oeuvre and position of the artist can be interpreted, in a nutshell. He translates the recognizable and concrete, and is able to utilize only minimal alterations in order to create worlds that are governed by new rules and regularities; worlds which do not reveal their secrets at first glance, but which gradually disclose their unfolding meanings to the viewer. Some leeway in this process is possible, as Veenhuis allows for coinci­ dence to play its part and sometimes actively involves the viewer in his artworks. Suddenly, it becomes apparent that the quirks inherent to the materials that he works with are extremely suited to achieve certain effects, and that these give more meaning and depth to Veenhuis’ concept of ‘substance transfor­ mation’. However, the coincidences involved are, to an extent, of a predeter­ mined nature; they are acceptable within previously established boundaries. Though sometimes apparently playful, they are dead serious at their core. In the interactive artwork Action>Reaction, Veenhuis inverts the role of ‘maker’ and ‘viewer’ for the first time. Producer becomes consumer and vice versa. By means of buttons in the artwork, the viewers are enabled to make their own choices and to cause substance transformations. By letting illuminated buttons refer purely to their own function by means of a new application, one can directly influence the image that emerges.

For Veenhuis, context and interaction with the environment are paramount to his work. He applies his objects directly to the space in which he places them. Preferably, this space is not a ‘white cube’ – an installation of traffic signs can simply be laid down on the pavement, or the other way around. He creates a tiled floor of blue­white enamelled emblems, bearing monumental heraldry, in a medieval church in Krewerd, Groningen (Semio, 2018) or places a cube covered with red­and­white checkered marking tape in a tenebrous environment. The surroundings become part of the artwork and suddenly, through intervention of the artist, neither can exist without the other. Veenhuis embraces idiosyncrasies and attempts to give these direction and meaning by means of artistic intervention. Sometimes, the environment can be the guiding hand in this process, at other times it is the intervention of the artist himself, and every so often this part is played by others, but we can always be assured that the appearance of the material as it is, and the context of its exhibition, are the focal points of his work.

Conclusion
It has proven difficult to categorize Veenhuis’ work in an art historical frame­ work. Looking back to history offers respite, certainly because Veenhuis likes to reflect on, and compare himself with, art history. He deems himself the logical outcome of his predecessors, rather than a completely independent innovator. He prefers to base his judgement on those things that already exist, and then attempts to give these things new substance. The lack of a strong claim to avant­gardism leaves us at liberty to place Veenhuis’ work in an art historical framework without losing sight of the distinguishing features of the artist and without drawing such parallels to an extreme extent. However, we must not overlook the usefulness of categorization. By way of searching for a historical frame of reference, we may find clues concerning the underlying motives of an artist who consciously mirrors certain traditions, and are able to give more meaning to the nuances contained within his body of work.

The obvious similarities with the Minimal Art movement and the NUL­movement constitute determining factors in how Veenhuis’ work can be interpreted. Simplicity, regularity and unity are key concepts within these movements and can be directly applied to Veenhuis’ work and method. Associations with Pop Art may seem obvious and are not wholly unjustified when considering Veenhuis’ work, but are simultaneously too one­dimensional. All actions performed by the artist are the logical outcome of the material qualities that he employs, although the recognizable elements that take center stage are transformed to something completely different. The repetition of imagery is not alien to Pop Art, but this movement more so involves the seemingly industrial reproduction of existing images which are hardly altered in their visual appearance and which are also not subjected to a substantial alteration of function – Warhol’s ‘Campbell Soup’­series, for example. This movement may be regarded as an objectivating affirmation of consumer society, by means of the concrete imagery that is directly drawn from it. Contrastingly, Veenhuis places the original application of his materials in a completely different context. Recognition and alienation go hand in hand. Veenhuis considers the tension that results from the repetition of form to be a goal in and of itself, and the patterns which arise are merely the logical outcome of the characteristics of the materials he uses.

In the case of Op Art and Arte Povera, the materials are of lesser importance compared to the (strictly philosophical) paradigm of the movement, which rather appeals to the personal experience and interpretation of the viewer. For Veenhuis, the individual characteristics of the materials that he uses to create his work are precisely the guiding factor for his creative urge and process. Whether these materials refer to mass consumption or not is left ambiguous, and is strongly dependent on the context within which the work is exhibited. His inner motivation is mostly based on an ever­present fascination with appearance, and on the preference to utilize the appearances of objects in a logical and transparent fashion in the work he creates.

Conclusively, when we logically draw the above observation to its furthest extent, we appear to approach the essence of Veenhuis’ work. It is exactly the dissonance between the application of trivial materials in his installations and the manner in which he is able to transform these materials in a logical and seemingly obvious manner that often causes the experience of confusion within the viewer. Is it the distinguishing features of the building blocks or rather the visual totality which they constitute that determines our interpretation? This is exactly the tension that emerges when we look at Veenhuis’ work, and precisely this aspect of elusiveness threatens to disappear if we were to regard his work purely through eyes clouded by knowledge of art history.

Veenhuis manages to break through the existing frame of reference, yet is able to find his own way by means of these pre­existing ideas. A new reality is reconstructed without disregarding that which already exists. This tension makes Veenhuis’ work hard to define, a fact which I consider to be a testament to the autonomous character of his work. It seems utterly synchronous with his method that even when using the scales of art historical perspective, Veenhuis’ work balances on the boundary between recognition and alienation.

Pim Hoff, 2022

1 – https://www.nporadio4.nl/opium/opium-atelier/3684-opium-atelier-sjimmie-veenhuis – consulted on 30-12-2019
2 – S. Veenhuis, ‘Inhoudelijke transformaties’, in: Kunst & Klassiek aan de Vaart, nr. 10
3 – M. Bouman, ‘Camouflagekunst als verzet tegen verstikkende regels’, in: Friesch Dagblad, 9th of May 2018, p. 34
4 – Communication by email between S. Veenhuis and P. Hoff, in which Veenhuis explained the most significant concepts (late 2019)
5 – L.R. Lippard ed., ‘Questions to Stella and Judd’, interview by Bruce Glaser, in: Art News, 65, nr. 5 (1966), pp. 55-61
6 – P. Hills, Modern art in the USA. Issues and Controversies of the 20th Century (Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2001), p. 236
7 – P. Hills, Modern art in the USA, p. 237 (quote from Saturday Evening Post, 01-08-1959)
8 – P. Hefting, ‘Twee vormen van reductie: Judd en Schoonhoven’, in: Kunst & Museumjournaal, 4, nr. 3 (1992), p. 27
9 – P. Hefting, ‘Twee vormen van reductie: Judd en Schoonhoven’, p. 27, quoted from the catalogue NUL which appeared at the eponymous exhibition at the Stedelijk Museum (1965)
10 – Ibidem: Hefting, pp. 30-31
11 – E. Doss, Twentieth-Century American Art (Oxford, 2002), p. 163
12 – R. Schoonen, ‘Het is niet wat het is’, in: Eindhovens Dagblad, Monday January 23rd 2016
13 – Communication by email between S. Veenhuis and P. Hoff, in which Veenhuis explained the most significant concepts (late 2019)
14 – E. Doss, Twentieth-Century American Art (Oxford, 2002), p. 166
15 – J. Frueh, ‘Chicago’s Emotional Realists’, in: Artforum 17, nr. 1 (September 1978), pp. 41-47
16 – Hughes, R., American visions. The epic history of art in America (London, 1997), pp. 524-541 (citaat van Andy Warhol)
17 – E. Doss, Twentieth-Century American Art (Oxford, 2002), p. 154
18 – G. Celant, ‘Arte Povera’, in: Arte Povera – Im spazio (Genua, 1967)

19 – C. Christov-Bakargiev, Arte Povera (New York, 2014), p. 19
20 – C. Christov-Bakargiev, Arte Povera, p. 22
21 – J.-C. Amman, ‘About the exhibition’, in: Processi di pensiero visualisatti: Junge Italienisch Avantgarde (Lucerne, 1970), see also: C. Christov-Bakargiev, p. 20
22 – Communication by email between S. Veenhuis and P. Hoff, in which Veenhuis explained the most significant concepts (late 2019)
23 – Communication by email between S. Veenhuis and P. Hoff, in which Veenhuis explained the most significant concepts (late 2019)
24 – Aspect Ratio – 13 november 2016 – 5 maart 2017, De Galerie of Piet Hein Eek
25 – https://batterseapowerstation.co.uk/whats-on/detail/light-festival-2020 (consulted on 04/01/2020)

↑     ←