Her present work embodies above all a quest for meanings. She exchanges the absolute for the relative; the latter, however, without any negative connotation. (The) relative (is seen) from her conviction of the versatility and ambivalence of things. She deals with manifold points of view, areas of tension, relations, and contextuality. Her characteristics (are): psychic dynamics, questioning, reflection, becoming aware of and belief in meaningful communication via the artistic. Art, for her, needs to be directed from inward outward to outward inward.

Concretely, this translates into an attempt at deconstruction of existing categories. In the area of painting, in the mixing of diverse genres, with the landscape as the preferred terrain of exploration. The latter is interlarded with city buildings and architectural fragments; broadened? At the same time the principle of limiting the diverse media is put into question. Painting, photography, collages; everything is combined into one work of art. Combined? Not really, because fragments remain discernible with the large whole as more or less autonomous components. Every specific work of art simply forms a chance Gestalt of meaningful relations of which the compound parts, in another work, in another context, give rise to a totally different, even meaningful, composition. The impression that some fragments in the work of art are not really integrated is to be traced back to this problematics.

 Analogously firmly rooted thought patterns connected with so‑called obvious, inseparable relations between style and content are looked at closely. Expressive touches do not necessarily need to point to emotionality ("Homage to Lichtenstein”).
These elements can be detached from one another and, in ensemble with others, function as totally different elements. Likewise, the stratification of the concept "realism" gets an essential place in her attempt to position herself within this clearly dynamic radius. What do concepts such as realism and objectivity mean? Does such a thing exist? Or does each have "its" truth, each "its" objectivity? Through confrontation and fusion of diverse kinds of reality, for example, the use of photographs of a particular building from different viewpoints, Ms. Krantz creates countless visual metaphors for this more general theoretical questioning.

A number of her works indeed form visual stimuli which, upon inspection, set thought processes in motion. The intent is to broaden the view of society and art, with their concomitant values, out of the realization that everything is a part of a permanent dynamic. A dynamic, in which the task is placed upon us to find again and again a new, crisp ‑‑ even if changing and labile ‑‑ balance.

The thematic treated by this artist is many‑sided. She questions everything in her environs and is amazed at what she learns. The diverse possible visions of the world fascinate her greatly, and she asks herself questions about that which is given in contextuality. She is fascinated by the spiritual, the sacred, which she does not give the appellation, "God". And she declines to see it in a personified existence that is outside the typically human. She is cognizant of a conversion of values. That which earlier passed as sacred, was elevated within the splendor of a cult, is today nothing more that a hazy recollection, which threatens to dissolve softly and soundlessly but irrevocably into an atmosphere of false romanticism. In "Poetry Doesn't Do It Any More," this is evoked with great feeling. Similarly, art is also stripped of its aureole and degenerated to a consumer object, the new idol of a truly materialistic vision. This profanation goes hand‑in‑hand with the negation of the work of art in its capacity as contemplative and meditative object. The area of tension between the sacred and the profane (Above and Below," "The Sacred and The Profane," "Belfort," "Medieval Presence,") often constitute the subject of her art. Although religious institutions in many respects have lost their power of attraction, the need for rites and cults nonetheless continues to exist. Thus man creates a new of new myths. For this he borrows the idiom and the elevated style of the sacred but exchanges its spiritual content for purely profane values. Thus the sign system is laden with religious symbolism at the outset, becoming the spokesperson for a principally materialistic society.

A comparable critique is expressed in the painting, "Aral's Gent," a commentary on a street map of the historical city of Ghent and widely distributed by the oil company, Aral. Here in no way is the attention directed to the (city's) rich cultural heritage. The only question that receives prominence is: how and how, within this labyrinth of canals, avenues and alleys can one find one's way to the gas pumps of the brand "Aral."

The importance of the work of Ms. Krantz does not limit itself to the above‑mentioned aspects. The artist lived for a long time in Flanders, sojourned in its cities, visited there it's shops and cafes. In her art she offers us some reflections on this. Sometimes critically, sometimes slightly ironically and playfully ("Canal House," "Flemish Landscape"), she nevertheless repeatedly succeeds in transposing every anecdotal starting‑point on the surface of art and raising it to the level of criticism. "Belgian Cafe" constitutes a glowing example of this. This work amply transcends the narrative. It implies a conceptualization of the Flemish landscape as it presents itself, as she experienced it, as it appears in some forms of Flemish painting. Inspirational source for this: the white small curtain in the pseudo‑lacework that decorates many a window in Flemish cafes and on which picturesque country houses in repetitive patterns are detailed. This pretentious little curtain and the typical tile floor drew the attention of the artist. By integrating these two elements in her work ‑‑ the little curtain as ready‑made and painting the little tiles through them and adding them to the "landscape" ‑­she offers a multi‑colored commentary.