medusa tribe

medusa tribe       mixed technique on paper     (dyptique)          2007

Advertisements

volkan diyaroglu upv tv interview 2007

evene.fr_2007

SEEKING PARADISES?…


photos: Saida Lorente

white games_07_08

 

frozen 100X100 cm mixed technique on canvas 2008 private collection

 

 

se acaba el agua mixed technique on canvas 2007

le roi tombe…

 

le roi tombe.. 130X250 cm mixed technique on canvas 2007 private collection

……

2007_paper…

https://volkandiyaroglu.wordpress.com/2008/08/31/776/

"MI VERTIGO" EXHIBITION

"MI VERTIGO" PAINTINGS AND TONI CALDERON TEXT

 


la posibilidad de ser un loco  220X440 cm    mixed technique on canvas     private collection

 

 

Volkan Diyaroglu. Mestizaje y sincretismo.

“el lienzo es un campo de juego en el que reproducir, rediseñar, analizar o expresar un objeto real o imaginario”
Harold Rosemberg

La obra del joven artista turco afincado en París Volkan Diyaroglu es mucho más que pintura. Para Volkan el proceso, las dimensiones y el espacio forman parte de su trabajo. Si su trabajo se analiza desde un punto estrictamente pictórico se evidencian claras similitudes con artistas universales del arte contemporáneo, en concreto, con los creadores de la “action painting” de los años cincuenta y también con la pintura renovada de principios de los ochenta o lo que es lo mismo, con el expresionismo abstracto de Jackson Pollock o la nueva pintura cuyo máximo exponente es Jean Michel Basquiat. Estas influencias, a priori, pueden definir a Volkan como un artista ecléctico en el sentido literal de la palabra, lo que no presume entenderlo en sentido peyorativo, pues el arte progresa y se anticipa cuando es capaz de conjugar pasado y presente a la hora de recorrer nuevos caminos. Son indiscutibles las influencias formales y procesuales en las que se sumerge y que están muy presentes tanto en su parte más intuitiva como, sobre todo, en su posterior desarrollo creativo. El uso continuado del “dripping” técnica en la que se vierte directamente la pintura del cubo o con grandes brochas en chorros que gotean toda la superficie del lienzo es, sin lugar a dudas, la protagonista formal en un escenario donde prima el impacto visual que provoca la pureza de su paleta de colores. De la misma manera, hay otros elementos que apuntan en esta dirección: el tamaño de sus lienzos, la acumulación de materia y el uso matérico de los pigmentos.

 

 

sin titulo     220 X300 cm     mixed technique on canvas        2007

 

 

Desde un punto de vista conceptual su trabajo está muy próximo a las teorías surrealistas del automatismo. Es un pintor intuitivo, mecánico en su praxis, inconsciente deliberadamente y espontáneo en la medida que se puede ser cuando un proceso se adecua a un guión preestablecido. En esta línea de paralelismos también hay que destacar la ausencia de un punto de vista central hacia el cual se vea forzado a mirar el espectador. Practica lo que se denomina sistema “all over” de representación y que consiste, a grandes rasgos, en la ausencia de composiciones centralizadas, es decir, con un solo punto de vista en el plano, si bien es habitual que en una obra aparentemente abstracta, entendida la abstracción como un proceso de estilización, introduzca elementos representativos que se convierten en referencia objetual hacia la cual dirigir nuestras miradas.

 

 

todo esta roto      225X300 cm       mixed technique on canvas      2007

 

 

En su pintura hay indicios que prueban la horizontalidad del lienzo en su proceso creativo. Volkan crea una superficie habitada, transitada por un artista despreocupado que deposita su huella en la superficie a modo de firma y pone de manifiesto su interés por generar unos residuos que formen parte ineludible del significado de su pintura. La consecuencia es un universo creado por un artista profundamente preocupado por el resultado final, por la apariencia revestida de momentos del pasado. Aunque en apariencia es una pintura azarosa, nada es caprichoso ni escapa de sus planteamientos primigenios. Los motivos que invaden toda la superficie están cuidadosamente seleccionados aunque parezcan fruto del transcurso aleatorio del acto de pintar.

 

 

agua     240X420 cm      mixed technique on canvas       2007

 

 

Una vez hechas las comparaciones y analizada la escena, cuidadosamente elaborada por el artista, cabe resaltar que la originalidad no recae precisamente en la obviedad de sus referencias sino en su capacidad de síntesis. Es hábil al incorporar iconos visiblemente identificadores de la cultura occidental junto a elementos más propios de su cultura de origen, la oriental. Este sincretismo hace que la obra mantenga la energía propia del proceso de un pintar intenso. Incorpora elementos decorativos, minuciosos, delicados, e incluye signos que se repiten sistemáticamente por toda la superficie. Es aquí donde reside la cualidad de su obra. El resultado es un trabajo donde emerge el mestizaje propio de quien conjuga, con extraordinaria destreza, aspectos expresivos y representativos al mismo tiempo. El énfasis en el acto de pintar, la obcecación por cubrir toda la superficie, la intención de crear con técnicas caóticas no es contraria a que broten historias, se narren conceptos y sobre todo enfatiza la inquietud de quien devora la pintura porque es parte íntima de su forma de concebir la vida. Imágenes o sucesos, historias detenidas en el tiempo, instantes emocionales, reproducir o expresar, qué más da si todo es producto de una evolución cuyo final, real o imaginado, sólo está en la mente de quien lo contempla.

Toni Calderón

 

 

col yalniz aksam       mixed technqiue on canvas      2007

mi vertigo catalog….

gazete okurken gokten dusenler…

 

gazete okurken gokten dusenler       mixed technique on paper     2007

"ZIGZAG" SHOW, EROA, CERGY, FRANCE

______

vagon..

 

vagon       mixed technique on canvas      2007      private collection

paper…2007

kirik borular…

 

kirik borular       250X250 cm          mixed technique on canvas       2007

francisco hurtado, photos…

….

"DELIK" SHOW, ESPACIO GRUPO FORJA, VALENCIA, SPAIN..

 

 

 

 

photos: Francisco Hurtado

"DELIK" PAINTINGS AND JOSE MIR TEXT

 

el coche roto    400X500 cm      mixed technique on canvas      2007

 

 

yagmur      400X500 cm      mixed technique on canvas     2007

 

 

katil      400X500 cm     mixed technique on canvas      2007

 

 

zaman      400X500 cm     mixed technique on canvas    2007

 

 

It is well know that art isn’t produced in a vacuum, that no artist is independent of his predecessors and models, and stemming from a specific tradition. In contemporary art, the paintings of Volkan Diyaroglu have parallels with historical vanguards as well as the legendary painters of the eighties, with references to gesture painting, to the action painters of the fifties such as Jackson Pollock, the art brut of Dubuffet and, closer to home, George Mathie or Jean Michel Basquiat, among others.

Nevertheless, a false sense of deja-vu shouldn’t influence the perception of the artist’s canvases in the least. One can appreciate how he immersed himself in his influences, both formal and those of process, to create experimental and free paintings whose borders continuously move in intuitive fountain of unlimited creativity. The elements are hybrids rather than pure, confused rather than clear, perversely indeterminate, elements that show the artist as a clear and individual personality.

From the purist or formalist point of view, the focus of abstract works such as these should be on the intrinsic values, on what the work of art is in itself, and not on what it represents. An abstract painting does not represent anything nor does it have any representative characteristic. The work is liberated from optical and linguistic suggestions, liberated from the codes of traditional representation, in spite of the fact that in this case we can find certain ironical touches and deceptive displays within the canvas.

Certainly, in the work of Volkan Diyaroglu, these intrinsic values of painting are essential. He uses large-scale canvases in the style of tapestries or carpets where the tendency toward the horror vacui unfolds, where leiv motive can be found, as much in the background tones as in the form of the brush marks, repeated throughout the surface.

His painting shows a strong gestural quality. The surface of the canvas is splattered in a spontaneous and energetic manner, without any a priori schema. His technique implies the concept of a work as a space of action, where the poured and spread paint and the tracks of the paintbrush on the surface determine the final impact of the canvas.

The creative process is defined in each palpable property of his painting, in the accumulation of the material and in the markings. The traces left horizontally on the large canvas can’t be reduced to the painting itself, but to the act of painting. Footprints, cigarette butts, and multiple attachments enrich the work’s surface.

All these elements converge into a decorative conception of painting. Elements that are usually the opposite to this, like the energy of the mark, the gesture, the track, stains, drips, and stuck-on objects, turn into decorative elements as in a tapestry.

In spite of this, the artist is not averse to introducing small representational elements, icons and forms, all of them done with simplicity and in a schematic form, including linguistic elements that move our gaze over the canvas. These elements make us doubt the existence of a final meaning of the work, one that is totally unknown to us. These relics indicate that we can both look at the canvas as well as through it, as if there exists a finality, a hidden message, a parallel reality beyond the materiality of the pigments.

Usually, we feel that works that do not have denotations can nonetheless refer to or connote an expression, an emotional state. We convert a display of colours, textures, and forms into emotions that we share, or believe to share, with the artist. By placing our attention on these qualities, we move to our own interpretation. When we believe that a form or color has an inherent expressive significance, we start the process of projecting as a spectator, in a way of reorganizing, of assimilating the world that we are accustomed to, or, as Nelson Goodman would say, another way of making new worlds.

In reality, this is not a contradiction, as long as we are not looking for absolute truths where they cannot be found. Beside any concrete, expressive or representative element that a painting may have, they simply represent an instant in the life of the artist, one of his acts, an expression of his personality. The instinctive sources of expression, it immediacy, or its impact, all connote the fragmentation of the self, the emergence of an individual who obeys the diverse logic of compartmentalized juxtapositions, the complex reality of the individual.

The same as the artist cannot hope that his work can duplicate the image he has in his mind, the spectator cannot hope for a concrete message. In both cases, we find that the transpositions of an acquired medium developed by tradition and skill, that of the artist and of the contemplator himself.

In the case of Volkan Diyaroglu, identifiable elements of Eastern culture intermingle with those of Western culture, beginning a meeting point between the two. He mixes intuition and spontaneity with meditated and mechanized processes of creation. The emphasis is on process, the importance of the tracks, the accidents in the creation, the irreverence that this brings to the contemplation of the work itself. They are merely samples, intimate references of a way of conceiving live, society, and art itself.

José Mir, 2007.

Bien es sabido que el arte no se produce en un espacio vacío, ningún artista es independiente de predecesores y modelos, y siempre parte de una tradición específica. En la actualidad, asumidas las vanguardias históricas como referentes omnipresentes, junto a la existencia de pintores ya legendarios de los años ochenta, no es difícil encontrar paralelismos en la pintura de Volkan Diyaroglu. Así pues, observamos referencias al arte gestual, a la pintura de acción de los años 50, con figuras tan conocidas como Jacson Pollock, al art brut de Dubuffet o a los trabajos más cercanos de George Mathie o Jean Michel Basquiat entre otros.

Sin embargo, una falsa impresión de dejà-vu, no debe condicionar, en absoluto, la percepción de los lienzos del artista. Se aprecia, en ellos, una gran capacidad de sumergirse en las influencias procesuales y formales, para crear una pintura experimental y libre, cuyas fronteras se desplazan perpetuamente en una fuente intuitiva de creación ilimitada. Donde los elementos son híbridos más que puros, confusos más que claros, perversamente indeterminados. Elementos que dotan al artista de una personalidad clara e individual.

Desde el punto de vista de la doctrina purista o formalista, en obras abstractas, como las que nos ocupan, deberíamos centrarnos en los valores intrínsecos, insistir en lo que la obra de arte es, y no en lo que simboliza. Un cuadro abstracto ni representa ni tiene en absoluto carácter representativo. Es una obra liberada de sujeciones ópticas y lingüísticas, liberada, por supuesto, de los códigos de representación tradicional, pese a que en este caso podamos encontrarnos con ciertos toques irónicos y engañosos dispuestos a lo largo de la tela.

Ciertamente, en la obra de VolKan Diyaroglu, éstos valores intrínsecos de la pintura son esenciales. Utiliza lienzos de grandes dimensiones a modo de tapices o alfombras donde despliega una preferencia hacia el horror vacui, donde el leiv motive pueden ser, tanto las tonalidades del fondo como las formas de las pinceladas, repetidas éstas, a modo de muestras por toda la superficie.

Su pintura goza de un fuerte carácter gestual. La superficie del lienzo se ve salpicada de forma espontánea y enérgica, es decir, sin un esquema determinado a priori. Su técnica implica la concepción de la obra como un espacio de acción, donde la pintura vertida, esparcida, las propias huellas de las brochas en la superficie, son sin duda protagonistas del impacto final de la obra.

En cada propiedad palpable de su pintura, en la acumulación de la materia, en los trazos, se nos define un proceso creativo. Rastros dejados sobre un gran lienzo en disposición horizontal que no se reducen a la propia pintura, sino a la misma actividad. Huellas de pisadas, rastros de colillas, adherencias múltiples enriquecen el acabado de la obra.

Todos estos elementos convergen en un concepto decorativo de la pintura. Elementos, en principio tan opuestos a esto, como la fuerza del trazo, el gesto, las huellas, las manchas, el goteo, las adherencias, se tornan elementos decorativos, en motivos de un tapiz.

Pese a todo esto, no es ajeno el artista, como indicábamos, a la introducción de pequeños elementos representativos, iconos y formas, todos ellos de una gran simplicidad y esquematismo, o incluso elementos lingüísticos, que dirigen nuestra mirada a lo largo del lienzo. Estos elementos nos hacen dudar de la existencia de un significado último de la obra que nos es totalmente desconocido. Dichos vestigios nos indican que podemos tanto mirar la pintura como mirar a través de ella. Como si existiera una la finalidad, un mensaje oculto, una realidad adjunta, más allá de la materialidad del pigmento.

Habitualmente, consideramos que las obras que no denotan pueden, no obstante, referir o bien connotar una expresión, un estado de ánimo. Convertimos una muestra de colores, texturas y formas, en sentimientos que podemos o creemos compartir con el artista. La atracción de nuestra atención sobre esas cualidades nos induce, al hacerlo, a una interpretación propia. Cuando concebimos, así, una forma o un color “cargados” inherentemente de un significado expresivo, entramos en el proceso de proyección como espectador, en una forma de reorganización, de asimilación al mundo al que estamos acostumbrados, una manera más de hacer mundos, como diría Nelson Goodman.

Realmente, no es una contradicción, siempre y cuando no busquemos verdades absolutas donde no cabe encontrarlas. Al margen de cualquier elemento concreto, expresivo o representativo, que pudieran poseer las pinturas, simplemente representan un instante de la vida del artista, uno de sus actos, una expresión de su la personalidad. Las fuentes instintivas de la expresión, la inmediatez o el impacto connotan la fragmentación del yo, la emergencia de un individuo que obedece a lógicas múltiples a la manera de yuxtaposiciones compartimentadas, a la complejidad real de un individuo.

Al igual que el artista no puede esperar de su obra que esta adopte un duplicado exacto de lo tiene en su mente, el espectador no puede esperar un mensaje concreto. En ambos casos, nos encontramos ante transposiciones de un medio adquirido y de un medio desarrollado por la tradición y la habilidad, la del artista y la del propio contemplador.

En el caso de Volkan Diyaroglu, se entrecruzan elementos identificables de la cultura occidental con elementos de la cultura oriental, punto de encuentro entre ambas como su origen. Mezcla de intuición y espontaneidad con procesos meditados y mecánicos de creación. El énfasis en el proceso, la importancia de las huellas, de los accidentes en la creación, la irreverencia que ello conlleva hacia la consideración de la propia obra. No son más que muestras, referencias íntimas del modo de concebir la vida, la sociedad, y el propio arte.

José Mir, 2007.

"DELIK" PAINTINGS AND INTERVIEW WITH TONI CALDERON

 

kirik zaman      400X500 cm      mixed technique on canvas     2007

 

 

buzul cagi   IV        400X500 cm      mixed technique on canvas      2007

 

 

 

Interview a Volkan Diyaroglu.

Toni Calderón. What role does painting have in an art world dominated by digital technologies?

Volkan Diyaroglu. In the first place, we have to look at ourselves and ask what role do the new digital technologies have in our lives and question what role we ourselves play. Do we have control over our lives? I would answer no. In no aspect of our life do we exercise the control that we should, and what’s more, at present digital technology dominates us rather than we dominating it. We’re under a dictatorial power and unable to decide the rhythm of our lives, which in a certain sense is absurd.

I would say that we are swept along in a wild, swirling river where each individual is looking for his place, complicated by swimming against the current. I believe that this structure destroys artistic creation from the start. I’m not saying that we shouldn’t accept new developments; on the contrary, we have to accept it with a wide understanding and ability to see what things have in common and what their differences are. No just looking at surface appearances, but digging a bit deeper.

For me, painting is just painting, no more no less, like poetry – it’s that simple. Asking questions is fine, but one also has to be able not to understand and to continue asking. And if I have to talk about the use of the new digital technologies in art, millions of questions are raised in my mind. Why does something painted in a computer with a 3d programme and then printed on a clean and shiny surface, or a photograph have to be any different than a painting? Or why is a painting any different than, for example, a cup o an apple? I think that what we’re left with is that they simply exist. Personally, I think that before looking at any technical questions, we should look at the context. The truth is that never has it been as difficult to be a painter in a society that moves along to the rhythm of what’s in fashion, like postmodern cannibals, and then run quickly to another objective, thereby creating a disorderly circulation of our own individual selves that is very dangerous, seemingly ordered but subordinate to power and the system.

Nonetheless, I think that never has painting, as we ourselves are, been so interesting, immersed in increasingly complex societies. Bit by bit, the new technologies are distancing humans from their own physical being, converting them into an object of consumption. I like and hate painting for the slow rhythm and its relationship with my physical body. I’m more interested in the time I spend while I paint than the finished work ready to be consumed by the spectator, although the finished result also interests me, but to a lesser degree. But who is to say that painting isn’t another new technology? Every day, I invent a new technology in my painting though I don’t tell anyone about it; it’s a secret surprise for myself and for those, who like me, don’t fit into this world. My paintings are there, as I said, like a table that is now before me, quiet and silent, and in the end I think that painting simply has the role of painting, just as we play the role of ourselves at the same time.

 

 

cuantos niños han muerto hoy en bagdad?     400X500 cm     mixed technique on canvas      2007

 

 

T.C. You speak of the relation of painting with the physical. What is more important in your work, the process, the act of painting, or paintings meant to be consumed as objects, or is it possible that you want the element of process to be clearly visible and to become the main element of your work?

V.D. To be honest, I’m not exactly sure which elements is the most important. I think that what I do give importance to is something that I still don’t know, and the day I do discover it will be the day I stop painting. I’m interested in the finished work but that is a product of a process. And this process is closer to myself than is the finished work. Finally, the time that I spend on a canvas is my real or imagined time that passes in my life with its real time and real space. This transition to the final work is what really interests me. But that’s something quite different from the finished work that other people see, but which for me doesn’t exist. Also, the process of a work, after my direct relationship with the painting is over, continues on by itself, away from me, and in life. If I would want to truly finish a work, I would destroy it in some way. In another sense, my visible process isn’t really my process, something that I don’t really understand. This process exists for me alone. What one sees from the outside is totally superficially, or at least I think it is, but at the same time, I’m not especially interested that the process becomes visible.

Speak of painting as object, I don’t know why artists are bothered so much that their art is treated as objects, or why we’re talking only about painting and sculpture as objects in the art world. For me, an installation is also one object more, in some ways decorative and thought of in a three dimensional way, or a video, if it wants to be seen also has to have a certain existence as an object the same as a painting. Even ideas, in order to be explained, have to be objects. Letters have to be written, or leave the mouth and mix with air, and sound in space has a form and that too is an object. Otherwise, it would be enough to think it without explaining it to anyone or to communicate with the outside world.

Today, one can consume anything that exists in the world. To say otherwise is a lie. This is totally outside my way of thinking and my studio. A glass, a sofa can be consumed, and the same thing happens with painting after I spend my time with the work, after the process is over and it continues on without me. I spend more or less eight hours a day working and in the process of this time, I change, I close, I open, I have fun, and I get bored. But all this isn’t in order to have something physical. Otherwise I’d do something more useful. Painting in its existence is absurd. All the work is for myself. Painting is the point at which I touch the exterior world and the world touches my inner world, it ties me to it, and liberates me from it.

 

 

buzul cagi        400X500 cm      mixed technique on canvas      2007

 

 

T.C. Your take on painting as an object ready to be consumed is interesting. Do you believe that painting has survived precisely because of the demand for its decorative qualities, and that explains its omnipresence in most art fairs although the world of art critics and many artists, outside of gallery structure, clearly go for what is called new media art?

V.D. No, I don’t care if that happens. What I want to say, as I said before, the importance that painting has for me precedes all of this, especially when I’m doing it. Of course, beyond this there’s a world with million of stories, millions of movements, million of businesses, all happening beyond my existence and at times we have to talk about that as well. But I don’t believe that painting is any more decorative than, as you say, new media art, and that at this moment they are decorating institutions, buildings, museums, which belong to the government and they are politicians, and we have to be careful in all of this, because the danger isn’t in that the paintings may be decorative, but that the ideas are decorative. All that we perceive to be new today I believe is just a new way to decorate. Even with current trends, where it’s hung it very important, maybe even more so than the work itself. And now there’s enough biennales and contemporary art museums that I consider very decorative, no less so than galleries, and the most worrying thing is that even ideas tend to be decorative.

I’ve never seen a poorly decorated museum. A painting is a work in itself; it’s the same to me where it’s hung, and it’s an object, but an object to me isn’t just an object. The art critics and artists can think what they want to. For me, communication is chaos that we like to create and nobody understands this very well. The world outside myself will never understand exactly what I want to say or do. Not even I understand it very well.

My work seems new to them, and they accept it – well, to me it’s not something new – I say new but everyone can also be wrong as we’ve seen many times in history. I don’t believe that today the galleries are backing painting, quite the contrary, and as far as art fairs go, I’d rather not talk about them as all is said in its name – they are fairs and, for me, distant from the natural world and time. The fairs are fairs, just as there are car fairs and technology fairs and which are backed by an incredible business structure, but one that doesn’t interest me in the least. People talk about this a lot, I don’t know why. A fair has its moment, a lot of money is paid to exhibit works in it, and that’s important for the gallery and the artist, more important than the work itself. After all the expenses, they want to sell no matter what, and I don’t know why they talk about it so much. I think that in Spain, it’s talked about even more than in other places. So now I want to ask some questions. Isn’t there something strange in all this? Don’t you think that they want painting to surrender to an art form that is direct, political and made to their taste? Don’t you think that painting is a form too individual and complicated to create in such a mechanized world? In a world so controlled economically and psychologically, do they want us to read less, or read more but about trivial matters? And lastly, do you think that there is something that is going well in the world we live in? I believe that art is a reflection of all of this.

 

 

buzul cagi  II      400X500 cm      mixed technique on canvas     2007

 

 

T.C. Going on to another theme, Volkan, and looking at your work, which are the important points to your painting so that a person with little experience in art can have some understanding of it?

V.D. Each individual is completely free to think and feel as they wish when contemplating my work, although they never will understand it all, but neither does that doesn’t matter much to me. It may not seem that way, but I think that my paintings move and change in form continuously, they have many different faces, and when you believe you understand something, that’s just when you don’t understand anything. I’m only asking people for a bit of humour, nothing else. Maybe you have to close your eyes in front of my work, and look at it like that.

 

 

buzul cagi    III      400X500 cm      mixed technique on canvas    2007

 

 

T.C. Continuing with questions inherent to your work, do you think that your painting is filled with symbolism, with elements that substitute in part concepts or questions beyond what is represented?

V.D. I myself am a spectator and when I look at my paintings, I think that the whole work is a question and there are many questions within my paintings that don’t have answers. Maybe I’m wrong. When there’s an answer, life is over. I believe that when I paint, I’m not painting. What does the act of painting consist of, in the end? I believe that concepts don’t exist in human life, we make them exist, give them form and a name, we attach the concept with a label and we give them a force, but at the same time we take away a part of their own existence. When we look at something, depending on our point of view, we may find something beyond what’s represented, or not. That’s something about ourselves, not something in the work, or in the objects or things that we believe exist. What I know is I don’t lie when working on a canvas, and this attitude doesn’t permit me to understand my paintings, what more can I say, my painting represents all that has happened, all that will happen, all that can or could happen in the moment that it is created and in the space that it is create.

 

 

jugamos      400X500 cm     mixed technique on canvas     2007

 

 

T. C. I’m struck by your statement that Volkan is a spectator in front of his paintings. Don’t you think that maybe we’re still asking too many questions about what a painting wants to say and are reductive about the explanations, usually absurd in the way a work is interpreted, in order to give it a didactic meaning and especially a historical one, reducing it to a level of absurdity, or trivial questions when what is happening is an enormous gulf disassociation between the spectator and contemporary art.

V.D. Yes, I agree with you. When I say that I myself am a spectator of my own paintings, I want to say that after the completion of an work, I am at the same distance from it than any other spectator, and certainly I’m a poor spectator. Of course we ask too many questions. A work doesn’t have to say or relate anything. I think that that’s a problem in contemporary life. Society wants to answer all the questions that come up and we think that we have answers to everything, and that everything is in the place it should be, without any problems. Especially in European culture where there’s a tendency to reason and to have answers. There’s not enough mysticism, not enough humour to look outside one’s own self, and at the same, within oneself. European culture, which is the culture that decides history, should be more self-critical. European culture has always wanted, within its own sadness, to create its own legend because it fears of losing itself in time, and thus cultural imperialism begins. I think that everything stems from this problem of a closed rationalization. The same occurs in contemporary art. I think that, outside of the art work itself; we’re all absurd spectators of our own existence. Another factor is the boredom of contemporary, especially European, life. I believe that today more than ever, contemporary art needs spectators more than ever. This is clearly seen. Everyone wants to explain something and understand something that doesn’t exist. I think that soon there’ll be more curators, commissioners, and art critics than there are artists.

 

 

katil II      400X500 cm     mixed technique on canvas     2007

 

 

T. C. In my opinion it is true that Western culture lacks self-criticism, and in all areas, not just in artistic matters. But focusing on your work, what is certain is that the references that you work with are clearly Western, the overall form, the dripping technique, and even part of the symbolism and the composition of your canvases, all have obvious precedents in the Western art of the second half of the twentieth century. Is your painting a sort of mix of the Western and Eastern with a language that incorporates elements of both cultures?

V.D. Good question. I said before that the West is the one that chooses the lineage of the history of art, the one that writes the history of world art, and on top of that, commercializes it. The overall form that your refer to is already in the history of Islamic art, it’s always been there, while we and the West never have wanted to see it while the east never has wanted to name it. On the wall of the Blue Mosque in Istanbul, we can see what in reality is an overall. In the end, it was the Americans and their abstract expressionism that named it to define pictures which covered the totality of the space without a central element or composition to the work. Abstract painting also has been present in the history of Eastern art and especially in Islamic art. We all know that the representation of the figure is forbidden. But the West since the Greeks started to conceptualize and at the same time materialize human life. For this reason when I look at a Pollock I see someone totally influenced by Islamic art. I don’t know if Pollock was conscious of this. The West, contrary to what it believes, is not alone on the planet. The silence of the East has not worked well.

As far as the dripping technique goes, I’d like to say that I don’t use it as a technique per se. Pollock, for example, used it as a totally innovative technique but I wasn’t even aware of it when I started to paint like that. I simply paint on a canvas, on the floor and what you see from the outside as dripping, isn’t really dripping, they are accidents that happen when I am over the canvas. The paint drips a lot while I put on a colour. Of course I realize this afterwards but I don’t do this consciously to create an accident, the drips exist en my time and space, and since gravity also exists, they fall, and I accept them as they are. Many times I like the accidents more that I like what I unconsciously want to do. Lastly, it seems to me that Eastern and traditional art is purer even though this doesn’t mean anything. It’s neither better nor worse. My work at the same time also co-exists with both cultures. That’s normal, because I’ve been in both, in the West and in the East, I was born in the city of Istanbul which is the gateway been east and west.

 

 

karanlik       400X500 cm     mixed technique on canvas     2007

 

 

T.C. I’d like to focus now on the content. It’s obvious that there are figurative references and a series of signs in your paintings. Can you say if a narrative analysis can be found in your work?

V.D. Yes, once in a while figures appear in the paintings. They appear to me in the same way as they do to you, but while I’m working. They’re like ghosts that want to say something but which I can’t understand very well. At the same time, my stains also are figures and the figures are stains as well. I believe that we must never forget that a painting is a painting and at the same time it is nothing of importance, like my ghost figures.

With respect to the analysis, of course one can do as one pleases. As I said before I also am a spectator after finishing the work, and, at times, I myself want to understand if there is something that they want to say to me while I look at them. It’s impossible to create a painting without a narrative element. It all depends on who looks at it and how. As I said before, my paintings might talk of all possibilities in an imprecise time and place. Can you imagine it? It’s immense, infinite. Because of this, I can’t even talk about my painting. You have to take painting very seriously, but at the same time you have to realize that there’s nothing serious about a painting. It’s like schizophrenia, as much for the spectator as for the creator. But why don’t we ever talk about a stone that we find? Doesn’t the stone want to tell things too?

 

 

yavas     400X500 cm    mixed technique on canvas    2007

 

 

T.C. Another characteristic of your work is, without a doubt, the scale of the canvases. In this exhibition the concept of an “environment” is very present. One could say that it underlies the concept of “site specific”, of work created for a specific place. In this sense, what is the relationship between space and your painting?

V.D. Scale as a characteristic of a work is, in a certain way, relative. There are neither large works nor small works. The scale is within the work. My paintings exist with their dimensions and I think that they are as they should be, neither smaller nor bigger. They’re normal, as they should be. But in the Delik exhibition, the works were made specifically for that space. Normally what I do is work freely, without thinking about the space in which I’ll show my pieces. I don’t even think about exhibiting them while I work. But at times it’s interesting to create a specific space, as on this occasion, because if you know beforehand, where and how they will be shown, you start to incorporate the sense of the place as well as their scale. This clearly affects the work, although you don’t want it to, and at the same time they are very related. It’s difficult to explain. In the end, seeing my works in different places is like an optical illusion. Each place has a concrete form and history. In each place, the light is different. A while ago, I exhibited in the thirteenth century Abbey in Paris and that was also work made for a specific place. Between each there’s a connection between work and space. It’s strange to dismount the work from its primary space and see it later in another place; it’s like a cut in time, a small earthquake.

 

 

kirik makine     400X500 cm     mixed technique on canvas     2007

 

 

T.C. I’m struck by the homogeny of the background colours chosen for this exhibition. They can be summed in backgrounds of red, yellow, blues, or greys. Is there some reason to do with style or language that determines the production around a set of determined colours?

V.D. For this exhibition, I worked within a set time enclosed in my studio. Before starting to work I had no idea what I was going to do, I only knew the sizes and number of canvases that I had to create. I got into a Delik which in Turkish means hole, and while I worked I felt, saw, heard and maybe thought. The colours came to me and struck inside my head. I never have understood people who thought about the composition, colours, or form before starting to paint. In regards to the background, I don’t believe that they are present as a concept, and for me the colours are my words that in reality don’t exist. Everything is grey and so are words.

Finally, after finishing these nineteen paintings, I look at them and it seems to me that I’ve excavated a huge hole, each second, each minute, that I spent working. I have taken some things from a place and I thought that maybe there’s a final story, or maybe there is nothing. I’d like to understand it. Maybe you can tell that story?

 

 

kirik su     400X500 cm     mixed technique on canvas     2007

 

 

silencio por favor      400X500 cm      mixed technique on canvas      2007

"delik" – paterna studio…

porte ouverte, photos adrien dirand…

collage_2007

ex-gravity


ex gravity         175X290 cm     mixed technique on canvas      2007      private collection

studio_montmartre…

2007_montmartre studio..

 

denizaltinda      215X400 cm     mixed technique on canvas      2007

 

idam    235X400 cm      mixed technique on canvas       2007

 

 

ev kazalari    220X360 cm       mixed technique on canvas      2007

 

 

yer     230X390 cm     mixed technique on canvas

 

 

slow growing tree      280X400 cm      mixed media on canvas       2007

……

opening, decalages…

decalages paintings…

 

i was thinking that….       300X550 cm     mixed media on canvas          2007

 

 

we are perfect          300×510 cm         mixed media on canvas      2007

 

 

welcome gold oil       300X400 cm       mixed media on canvas     2007

 

 

please kill my time        300X380 cm      mixed media on canvas     2007

 

 

su II         220×600 cm            mixed technique on paper          2007

 

 

su III       220X600 cm      mixed technique on paper     2007

 

decalages…





"DECALAGES", ABBAYE DE MAUBUISSON__

 

 

 

 

 

we are perfect!

cergy studio_2007

delik

 

porte ouverte

zig-zag

studio 2007