MEANING?

​

Why necessarily meaning? It's a matter of feeling safe, but it can also be a matter of accepting something meaningless as it is. These two aren't opposites; they have two distinct functions. Meaning produces anticipation, anticipation reduces uncertainty, and when uncertainty decreases, the feeling of control increases, making people feel safe. Meaninglessness can also provide a sense of security, but only if meaning is suspended. Because something can't be completely meaningless. If that meaningless form draws us in, it means there's actually a potential meaning there. In fact, if something doesn't produce meaning, that too is a form of meaning.

​

Sometimes we just stare at the meaningless. Not because it's conceptual, but because of the use of lines, proportions, space, and rhythm. The viewer might say, "I don't understand, but I'm staring." That's the pleasure derived from meaninglessness.

​

The issue isn't just about individual meaning; it's also about social meaning. It's a safe space for society because society cannot live with uncertainty.

​

PIXELS AND TRAMS

​

With digital technology, pixels entered our lives. Images are made up of tiny squares. Printing on paper also works on the same principle, using trams. If you look closely at printing, you see that it's made up of polka dots. When trams overlap, the images in the print become colorful. In fact, trams are so effective that the large trams of comic book panels have become a material for artists as well. I love both trams and pixels. For example, I miss old pixelated digital games. I prefer applying Letraset trams to drawings and using trams in my work.

​

However, in today's games and prints, as technology has advanced, trams and pixels seem to have receded. Games have become so realistic that you can't even tell it's a game. This superrealism has disabled our minds. Because the pleasure of playing pixelated games and experiencing the joy of tram-prints is gone. Everything is the same and too perfect. The complementarity reflected in the viewer's mind has disappeared. This isn't a matter of "what were the old days like?" It's a structural and perceptual issue. Because the spaces between the tram and the pixel are the negative areas where our minds intervene. New technologies have eliminated those spaces. Minds have been deactivated.

​

Participatory perception has transformed into consumer perception. Visuals have been shut down in our minds. Like despotic regimes intolerant of thought and ideas.

​

​

LAYERS

​

When entering a house or a place, we take off what we wore outside; when waiting inside, we take off what we wore in bed; when entering the bathroom, we take off what we wore in bed, and we are left alone with ourselves. It's actually like a Matryoshka doll situation. This can be described as the production of surfaces, identities, and meanings based on numerous appearances from a fixed essence in art. It's not actually about adding or removing layers; identity is the sum of all situations. It can be called an inner history, but more importantly, a network of layers rearranged according to the situation. In other words, it can be considered a network of surfaces woven with representations, rearranged each time. What we call meaning arises from this network, which is re-established each time.

​

Where did the Matryoshka doll come from? It seems to have been used in the wrong place. However, new changes can be established in each change of situation. This is a new meaning.

​

 

A PERSONAL MATTER

​

I wonder if the opponent we're talking about is ourselves. I think the struggle to defeat someone or overcome a situation is a test of our own capabilities. Even if we have a boxing match, we're actually trying to defeat ourselves. That is, we're trying to overcome the limits of our own strength. They define this as internal and external opponents. Of course, it's not independent of external factors.

​

To conclude that we are alone in all our struggles might be incomplete and harsh. Perhaps struggles are internally lonely, but they can be the result of shared circumstances. So fundamentally, there's a core loneliness. Feelings are personal. But the struggle itself is relational. The personal aspect here isn't the absence of relationships, but the singularity of the way relationships are formed.

​

The harsh conditions we live in are isolating people. This isn't very much related to digital life. It may have only changed the way relationships are formed. The main issue, I think, is management-related.

​​

​

​

FROM WITHIN

​

It's actually interesting that the Matryoshka doll reappears with each opening. It has a philosophy. A part that emerges from the whole is a whole itself. This repeats. Even the smallest piece doesn't give the impression of being the end. In other words, it's open-ended. In works that emerge with negative space, there's actually no end. It's a process of successive creations. Perhaps this flow is the work itself. A conscious production process that progresses by cutting, displacing, reshaping, disrupting, and suspending.

It's clear that this isn't generative production. Perhaps this situation, although unrelated, evokes the Matryoshka doll. A Matryoshka doll represents a scaled-down version. The negative space, the nested production, doesn't represent; perhaps it carries the trace of a previous work. This surface movement is an endless flow.

​

Where you stand, or will stand, is important. In creative work, there are many discourses like 'establishing a system' and 'the process itself being art.' Actually, these two aren't the same thing. Okay, sometimes there can be situations where the two overlap. It's necessary to make this distinction clear. What you call a 'system' is production within a defined structure. 'The process being the work itself' means that the main issue isn't the form, but the process of forming the form. In the intersection of the two, the system organizes the process, and the process makes the system visible. It's actually that simple.

​​

​

​

INSPIRATION

​

Is nature the source of inspiration for human designs? For example, would there be airplanes if there were no birds? Perhaps we learned archery from hedgehogs that shoot arrows. Or the idea of ​​a dam may have come from badgers. Or we may have taken the idea of ​​a helicopter from a mosquito. However, forms in nature are not simply transferred. The principles behind them are the source of inspiration. For example, the low pressure created by a kingfisher's beak upon entering the water was the inspiration for the nose of a high-speed train. The friction-reducing skin structure of a shark was useful in design. Of course, nature can be a powerful source of inspiration, but it is not the only source.

​

Art has interacted with nature in various forms throughout different periods. They have focused on light, perception, and atmosphere. The forms of nature have been used in stylized forms. Nature has sometimes been the direct material of art. Ultimately, art has been influenced by appearance, atmosphere, and process in nature. Over time, the focus has shifted to structure, repetition, growth, chance—that is, principles and processes. Humans have become detached from nature, but they have not been able to detach art. Contemporary art and conceptual art have also broken away from representation and imagery. They conduct this relationship through conceptualization and process design.

​

​

NATURE'S RESPONSE

​

No matter what humans do, they've done things that can't be repaired, but ultimately, nature also has a resistance and a capacity for repair. It's part of trillions of galaxy systems. Even though Earth is like a speck of dust, this piece of rock and soil, gnawed away by humanity, resists with the strength it draws from the universe.

​

The creature called man, with his small world, defies what they call nature, which is a speck of dust in the universe. This thing we call Earth is the reason for humanity's existence and its living space. This space may not have universal significance, but it is indispensable to humanity. Humanity's reckless use of this space is nothing short of preparing its own end. Science knows this, but the masses of humanity cannot perceive it. The issue isn't just about humanity placing itself at the center. It's also about scale. On one hand, the vast universe that doesn't fit into our perception, on the other, the micron-scale Earth.

​

What difference does it make whether art has permanence on this speck of dust or not? From a human perspective, it's a universal goal. This is a perceptual disproportion.

​

​

THESE ARE THE STORIES

​

Visual works don't have to tell a story. This doesn't mean there's no story. The story is left to the viewer. But the creator of the visual needs to have a story. Things like where the work came from, where it's going, the motivation behind it, the production process – these things become more important. This must be ingrained in the structure of the work. If the work lacks a claim, a production logic, a system, then the lack of a story creates a perception of a weak work. Because there's nothing to hold onto.

​

For a story to form in the viewer's mind, the elements that trigger it must be present within the work. The viewer's mind first organizes the visual, puts the pieces together, and constructs the whole. It matches it with past experiences. The story isn't inherent in the work itself, but arises from the relationship between the work and the viewer. So, the essential thing isn't creating a story, but preparing the conditions for the viewer to construct their own story. Too many clues to create a story narrow the viewer's mental space. Too few clues may not trigger the mind.

​

There are so many things that trigger the mind in this world. Our minds become blocked. We have no space left for thinking.

​

​

IS ART POLITICAL?

​

I think there are two sides to it. There are commissioned works that reference politics and power. That is, propaganda posters, monuments, revolutionary visuals. The aim is to convey what is intended directly. The other side is when art structurally incorporates politics. Not directly guiding the viewer, but influencing their perception. A more intricate but more lasting method. So, art can actually make political references, but the key is how it's done. Works using symbols like flags, fists, doves, etc., are quickly consumed and don't last. The point is to do it subtly; this can create a more lasting effect. Picasso's Guernica is a good example of this.

​

Political content and political impact are never the same thing. The point is to change perception. This cannot be done with flags and fists. Art is often political, but its power doesn't come from symbols and signs. Furthermore, being political doesn't mean shouting slogans and delivering messages. Every work has a frame. It includes some things and leaves others out, making them invisible. The point is what the work shows and what it doesn't show. And that's exactly where the politics come in.

​

I made a lot of posters and designs with fists. I don't even remember most of them.

​

​

SOURCE

​

In some cases, a source or document can serve a function that strengthens the work and emphasizes sincerity. I even have an example that comes to mind, and it's also on social media. For instance, I used to think that a magician revealing the secret of their trick would diminish its impact. However, in new types of performances, making the audience aware of the trick and showing how it's done can be much more enjoyable. In some cases, citing a document or source can strengthen the work, but it also depends on how, when, and to what extent it's revealed. In other words, documents and sources add value not by being an explanation of the work, but when they become part of the work's material. The whole point is that documents and sources shouldn't create ambiguous meanings. In short, documents and sources shouldn't act like titles that explain the work.

 

Even with ambiguous meanings, I still like sources. I think it would be better if I didn't put them side-by-side. Because I'm revealing my whole trick. And revealing too much definitely weakens the work. The whole work is hidden in the viewer's mind. It's actually the trace of the process that is figurative. If I were to say that the real work is abstract, everything would be clearer.

​

​

A MIRACLE?

​

Art isn't magic, but it can be just as effective. The process, the source, the form of creation, what's been done before, even what's discussed on a psychologist's couch – art production should be as transparent as all of this. While it might seem like a single impactful piece, it reflects the totality of all these elements. I believe the source, the inspiration, and the starting point can be defined. They should be defined. Because creative works involve surprise, but not the surprise of magic. It wouldn't rely on that anyway. The issue is structural and system-building. Let me go further: look at the world from this perspective, and you've seen the form of creation; you can do it too. This removes art from being an unattainable miracle and makes it a shareable method.

 

Works that can be reproduced are called democratic, but democratic art should also show its process and source. Its pedagogical and transformative aspects should also be effective. Instead of masses watching the paint and line-bending artist and being astonished, it should create an intellectually open, participatory audience that can offer methods and approaches to the process.

​

Nothing good comes from empty talk. Even elephants are being drawn. We're watching because elephants are being drawn. Just as the democratization of society cannot be reduced to the ballot box, we cannot say that art has become democratized through the proliferation of such works.