Özlem Günyol & Mustafa Kunt

Özlem Günyol ve Mustafa Kunt, 2005 yılından bu yana birlikte çalışıp üreten iki sanatçı. İşlerinin bel kemiğini oluşturan kimlik meseleleri, sosyal politika, sınırlar üzerinden adalet kavramını ve sistemin her bir parçasını liğme liğme edip dönüşüme uğratıyorlar. Kültürel kodları bağlamlarından koparıp soyutladıkları işlerin söylemleri net ve kuvvetli bir zemine sahip.

Hacettepe Üniversitesi’ndeki sanat eğitiminizin ardından çalışmaya başladınız ve tüm işlerinizde ikinizin ismini görüyoruz. Birlikte çalışma ve iş üretme sürecine nasıl başladınız? Bu süreç nasıl ilerliyor?
Frankfurt’a yerleştikten sonra birbirimizin bireysel çalışmaları üzerine daha çok tartıştığımız bir sürece girdik. Bu tartışmaların zaman içerisinde üretim ve hatta fikir aşamasında gerçekleşmeye başlaması sonucunda fikrin ya da çözümün kime ait olduğu gitgide bulanıklaşmaya başladı ve böylece ortak çalışma kararı aldık. İlk calışmamızı 2003 yılında gerçekleştirdik fakat bireysel çalışmalarımız 2007 yılına kadar devam etti. 2007 yılında Frankfurt Basis’te gerçekleşen ilk büyük kişisel sergimiz Be-cause’un kurumu ve bu sergi için ortaklaşa yaptığımız projeler sonrasında beraber çalışma ve üretim biçimimiz devamlılık kazandı.

Fikir ve üretim aşamasında ne gibi çatışmalar yaşıyorsunuz? İşlerinizi hayata geçirirken kim daha kararlı?
Yeni bir projenin hemen hemen her aşamasında çatışmalar yaşıyoruz. Ama insan bireysel çalışırken de benzer çatışmaları kendi içerisinde yaşıyor zaten. Beraber çalışınca bu durum ikiyle çarpılıyor diyebiliriz. Üretim aşamasında ikimizden birinin daha kararlı olması bir projeyi sonlandırmıyor. Böyle olsaydı ona ortak çalışma diyemezdik zaten. Projeler ikimizin karar verdiği noktada bitiyor. Eğer anlaşamadığımız noktalar olursa o projeyi bir süre rafa kaldırıyoruz. Bu şekilde bekleyen birçok projemiz var.

Frankfurt’a yerleşme kararını nasıl ve neden aldınız? Ne zaman yerleştiniz?
Hacettepe’de aldığımız eğitimin son derece klasik olması bizi başka okulları araştırmaya yöneltti. 2001 yılının şubat ayında gerçekleştirdiğimiz kısa bir Almanya gezisi sırasında Städelschule’yi ziyaret etme şansımız oldu ve hemen sonrasında da Städelschule’ye başvurduk. 2001 yılının sonbaharından beri Frankfurt’ta yaşıyoruz.

Kimlik politikalarıyla ilgili birçok işiniz var, aynı zamanda sınırlar, haritalar ve birçok kontrol mekanizmasını da sorguluyor ve dönüştürüyorsunuz. ‘Yabancı’ olmaya oradan bakmak, Türkiye’ye ‘yabancı’ olup dışarıdan bakabilmek pratiğinizi ne yönde etkiliyor?
Aslında, yurt dışı olsun – olmasın, kişi içerisinde bulunduğu toplumda, sürekli yeniden tanımlanıyor, sınıflandırılıyor. Yurt dışında olmanın getirisi ve aynı zamanda bizden götürdükleri, bu durumu hızlandırılmış bir kurs şeklinde yaşamak oldu. Bu sürecin sonucunda oluşan farkındalık hem yaşantımızı hem de çalışmalarımızı etkiledi.

Star Clusters’da apoletlerdeki yıldızları bulundukları yere, gökyüzüne iade ediyorsunuz. Spread the Word’de siyasi parti söylemlerini / sloganlarını bulundukları bağlamdan koparıyorsunuz. Fakat sonunda, özgürleşen bu kavramlar yine bir sanat işinin içinde, ya da bir mekanda tekrar başka bir şekilde sınıflandırılıyor ve şekle giriyorlar. Spread the Word, aslında bunun çok farkında olan bir iş, çünkü bağlamından kopardığı cümleleri anonimleştiriyor. Tüm bunların tamamen bağımsızlaşacakları bir nokta var mı sizce? Ya da o nokta, üstüste gelen harita (Ceaseless Doodle) ve bayraklarda (Flag-s) olduğu gibi, bu imgelerin aynı mekanda yer alarak veya tekrar ederek anlamını yitirdiği nokta mı?

Ceaseless Doodle ve Flag-s işlerinde tekrar eden şey imgeler değil, eylemler. Ceaseless Doodle’da bütün ulusal sınırlar üst üste çizildi, Flag-s’da ise bütün ulusal bayraklar ink-jet printer yardımıyla aynı kağıdın üzerine üst üste basıldıktan sonra ortaya çıkan sonuç kumaşa aktarıldı. Bu çalışmalarla ülke sınırlarını ve bayrakları bir arada sunarak onların anlamlarını kaybettiriyoruz.

Star Clusters işi 2005 yılında yaptığımız Scenes projesine daha yakın. Star Clusters’da bir özgürleşme/rahatlama söz konusu değil. İş karanlık bir ayna gibi çalışıyor: İzleyici işe yaklaşırken gördüğü şey siyah bir kare, işe yaklaştıkça aynı zamanda o siyah karenin içerisindeki kendi yansımasına da yaklaşıyor ve ancak yeterince yaklaştığında yıldız kümelerini fark ediyor. Aslında kendi yarattığın evrenine bakmak gibi bir şey bu… İş bu gerilim üzerinden çalışıyor. Spread the Word çalışması ise Almanya’daki politik partilerin son yıllarda kamusal alanda asılmış olan seçim afişlerinde kullandıkları söylemlerden yola çıkılarak yapıldı. Yaklaşık 60 kadar söylemi içeren çalışma için, bu söylemlerde kullanılan bütün kelimeler kendi bağlamlarından çıkarılarak alfebetik bir düzen içerisinde sergilendi. Böylece herbir kelime kendi bağımsızlığını kazanmış oldu. Fakat bu bağımsızlığın söylemlere bağımlı bir bağımsızlık olduğunu da unutmamak lazım. Çünkü bütün bu kelimeler, Almanya’daki politikanın gündemi ve davranış şekli hakkında istatistiksel bilgi veren bir index de oluşturuyor.

Proje, yukarıda bahsettiğimiz kelimeler indexinin yanı sıra her bir kelime için özel olarak üretilmiş binlerce küçük boyutlu baskı, yüzlerce konfeti tabancasından oluşuyor ve izleyicileri indexteki kelimeleri kullanarak kendi söylemlerini oluşturmaya davet ediyor. Aslında bizim yaptığımız bir şeye bağımsızlık kazandırmaktan çok söyleyeceğimiz şey icin bağımsız bir platform yaratmaya çalışmak.

Communication Systems in the Interplay of Design Processes in Society

In considering the heterogeneous artistic practice of Özlem Günyol and Mustafa Kunt, it seems helpful to look at the social and cultural contexts that their art encompasses, rather than to orient oneself based on formal models for the production of a work. A central theme in their joint work seems to be the examination of media communicated images and systems of signs, as well as links between linguistic and visual experience. How these affect the collective and individual differentiation of identities, which are shaped and mediated by cultural and social conditions, is a theme that is inherent in their art. It also touches on questions regarding the representation of power within subject formation in the media, and illustrates this in a lucid and extremely multifaceted formal working method. In their works of recent years, the power theoretical connection between the production and reception of images in our everyday culture plays a prominent role. The examination of linguistic forms of communication in the media also becomes visible as a central element in their art, despite the fact that Gü̈nyol and Kunt’s innovative practice makes it difficult to clearly separate specific thematic areas from one another. As a result, their works reveal the pervasion and interdependence of aspects of media and power, and their connection to the cultural, social, and political understanding of identity in our society today.

In addition to the conceptual approach, what also becomes visible again and again in Günyol and Kunt’s work is how a unique characteristic of art—the aesthetic experience— is revealed as a central point of concentration. The works, which are linked to complex social questions, also function in their conceptual orientation as a challenging aesthetic experience. They thus refer to the potential of contemporary art to generate meaning beyond our media shaped everyday experience as a system of signs without having to refer back to written, or purely textual intermediaries. In Günyol and Kunt’s work, art shows itself to be a discipline that makes reference to a broadly based sensual field, and thus facilitates a separate form of access to our environment. What becomes evident in their works is how formal aesthetic aspects take on significance within their working method while at the same time critically examining social themes.

The works of the artist duo can be structured into loose groups of works that invoke linguistic, gestural, symbolic, and purely visually characterized intermediaries. Nonetheless, these systems of communication repeatedly overlap within their artistic practice and frequently produce intersections or form associative connections within the particular works. The significance and function of linguistic mediation has already played a central role in the works of Günyol und Kunt for a number of years.

The work with the Turkish title, Avrupalılaştırabildiklerimizdenmisiniz? (2006), for example, is based on a play with words that is able to generate a complex, grammatically correct and multifaceted statement from one word through appending prefixes, suffixes, or appendixes. School children in Turkey use this game as a language exercise. The root of the word Avrupa—in English “Europe”— is used here as an initial form from which new meanings and questions are formulated by adding additional word fragments. By appending the syllable “lı” to Avrupa, meaning “Europe,” one gets the English word “European,” Avrupalı, while adding a further suffix, in turn, means “to become European,” Avrupalılaş. By means of further additions, the root Avrupa can thus become a construction that would be formulated in English as a sentence, and in translation have the meaning: “Are you one of those who we were able to make become European?” Avrupalılaştırabildiklerimizdenmisiniz?

Avrupalılaştırabildiklerimizdenmisiniz? was first placed on the outside wall of a building in the multi-cultural area surrounding Frankfurt am Main’s train station—in an effort to reach the Turkish-speaking population—as a twenty- six-meter-long lettering. The highly controversial debate taking place in Germany and Turkey about whether Turkey belongs to Europe thus—as a semantic game—becomes an open call to question cultural, political, and social localization in Turkey, in Germany, and in particular in that part of the city characterized by migrants in which the work was presented.

The work, moreover, also raises the question of historical, political, and cultural belonging on a fundamental level and inspires consideration of how the ideas of participation, affiliation, and difference have to be renegotiated again and again in Germany and Turkey, as well as in diverse social fields.

In the work Fresh Like the First Day, developed in 2011, the significance of linguistic mediation for the constitution of communities and the genesis of value systems also becomes visible. The installation work consists of fifty-three books bound in black and displayed for visitors to look at and read, in an area that is part of the work. Each of the books has a letter from the Turkish alphabet, a punctuation mark, or a number that is used in the Turkish Constitution of 1982 embossed in gold on the front side on a black ground. Each of the characters used in the constitution is isolated in one of the fifty-three books from all the others and presented in exactly the same position on the page on which it is located in the text as a whole. What is thus created is a convolution that is shaped by omissions and empty spaces forming strangely abstract structures.

Fresh Like the First Day was developed during a stay in Istanbul and is typical of how Günyol and Kunt work. The motivation for developing this work is based on the debate about the extensive changes to the Turkish Constitution that were adopted by the military government in 1982, a debate that came to a provisional end as the result of a referendum in 2010 in which the majority of the Turkish population voted in favor of the proposals of the ruling party. In Fresh Like the First Day, in a simple process of deconstruction, the consecutive text of the Constitution becomes a differentiated index of signs in fifty-three volumes, which in their entirety have a value that is constitutive for Turkish society. Through this act of dissection, what opens up in the work is a space of thought and association that questions the significance of signs and their function as an element that is constitutive for society. The isolated letter loses its semantic meaning when it is not integrated within a context of a differing system of signs. The obvious use of metaphorical aspects in thework of Günyol and Kunt, who frustrate all naive comparisons through such usage, is shown, or so it seems, in the empty spaces and gaps that the alleged text in the individual volumes of Fresh Like the First Day exhibits. The installation encourages graphic consideration of the factors that constitute society. Is it rigid systems, like a text, that makes this possible, or is it the interplay of the individual and the collective that gives momentum to the open spaces to be defined in order to facilitate participation and community?

The work When the justice properly works, then there is no room for compassion (2010) brings together a linguistic form of communication with a historically rigidified gestural one concealed behind it. Formally rigorous in its arrangement, the work consists of a vitrine standing on a base with the same basic dimensions. The black vitrine with its glazed upper side, sits on the lacquered white base and contains fifty-nine accurately sharpened pencils laid out next to one another. A letter or punctuation mark is imprinted in gold paint on each of the pencils so that it is possible to read the title of the work. The sentence When the justice properly works, then there is no room for compassion, which serves as the title, refers to a common practice of judges in Turkey, as well as other countries, of publicly breaking the pen with which a death sentence judgment was signed. Those who do not find such judgments ethically acceptable, despite being required by the legal situation, follow this practice. The symbolic act is expressed in the field of tension that arises between the state function of the judge and subjective assessment of the judgments he or she issues. In this sculptural work, what becomes particularly visible is the strategy that the artist duo often employs of staging the inherent quality of aesthetic experience through evocatively and metaphorically charging it. The formal rigor of the work, as well as the hermeticism, with which the pencils— precisely positioned and distanced from the viewer by means of a massive pane of glass—are presented is associated with the negation of scope for action, although the symbolic reaction of breaking the pencil is still allowed as a minimal, subjective form of articulation
vis-a-vis the government. The experience of the work and the social background to which the work refers, as well as the associative relationships that are established between these two parameters, form a lucidly choreographed setting.

The work …AND JUSTICE FOR ALL! (2010) consists of a twenty-two-meter-long rope with a diameter of approximately five centimeters, which is uniformly illuminated and accurately rolled up into a loose circle on a base. The precision with which the rope was worked is also obvious to laypeople as a result of the tight twists and the precisely knotted and fixed ends. There is a certain relationship of tension between this clearly expert production technique and the relatively low-quality material, which calls to mind simple linen or woven fabric. Although a rope is allegedly presented here as art in the sense of a readymade, doubt nonetheless remains with respect to whether this rope is actually alienated from a functional purpose—the material seems too soft to have been visibly taken to the limits of its resilience through stretching and twisting. Moreover, within the twisted material, intense green, yellow, orange, and blue fields of color stand out and impart a rhythm that punctuates the beige and ocher shades of the rest of the material.

Closer examination of the object intensifies the doubt about an existence of the rope that is exclusively oriented towards functionality since a brief comment on it explains that the rope was originally a protest banner bearing the lettering that serves as the title, …AND JUSTICE FOR ALL! What becomes apparent here is the goal of staging confusion beyond the production of a rope, confusion based in the change of material properties, and thus the processing of a cloth banner into a rope. The transformation of a banner into a rope initially makes reference to a process that can be understood as an alienation of the original functional context and, therefore, devalues it. At the same time, the object is now positioned in a new semantic field: art.

If the banner served to communicate a political message or social demand that was supposed to be addressed in public, the rope now shows itself to be an object that is in the position to initiate a holistic pattern of thought. It seems as if the work’s ability to provide a link to social issues is carried out and leaves the pure-object character of the work behind. And on this reading, an associative possibility for reading the rope, which can now also be interpreted as a tether, in turn evokes questions regarding the mechanisms of justice and the power relationships that stand behind them. Can the rope be understood as a functional symbol of the cohesion of social groups? Can the rope be understood as an image of interconnectedness and thus communication, which is able to generate connections, social exchange, and belonging? And as a result of the process of transforming a banner into a rope, is the thought pattern of a textual approach to social questions not pushed forward to become a metaphorical, and thus universal, non-linguistic level of expression?

The function and presence of gestural systems of communication, as they are generally experienced by being mediated through the media, forms the thematic starting point for the two works On the Stage (2010) and Persuasion Exercises (2011). Conceived during the election campaign in Ankara in 2011 as a public space site-specific work, Persuasion Exercises illustrates the varied gestures of a male individual acting in isolation in front of a white background in seventeen posters, executed in black and white on a billboard. The basis for the posters was an actor engaged by Günyol and Kunt who rehearsed the gestures in front of the camera and finally acted out one final pose for each gesture from campaign posters and from politicians from the local election campaign. Using their gestures and the presence before the camera, politicians attempt to convey a specific image in order to embody conviction, strength of purpose, seriousness, and other attributes that seem to be of importance in campaigning for political office. Through deliberately isolating the protagonist in front of a white background and the subsequent reintegration in the public space shaped by the propaganda images of the political parties, the billboard first has the effect of an abstract, sketch-like image of the scarcely scrutinized gestures of candidates for political offices. In combination with the campaign posters, however, the wall located on one of the main transport axes in Ankara developed a subversive potential since the gestures themselves—but not their design executed in black and white rows—made a formal closeness to the political image compositions visible. The mechanism of convincing through using purely gestural means of expression and the presence of these gestures mediated by the media, as well as the interchangeability of the individuals who are active and the contents that are presumably behind them, reveal the multiply fractured relationship between our superficial attention economy and the dominance of media staged gestures in the public space—the physical as well as the virtual.

These gestures and poses staged in the public space within the context of government responsibility stand opposite a non-government oppositional form of mediating physical movement, patterns, and gestures in the video work On the Stage. In the short film a dancer invited by the artists rehearses poses borrowed from photographs of actual demonstrations with concentrated intensity before a black background. The academic, professional, and intense way in which the dancer rehearses the mostly spontaneous gestures presents a clearly perceptible contrast to the movement patterns of masses of individuals as they become visible in the case of demonstrations.

In On the Stage, the field of tension between spontaneous and deliberately rehearsed gestures provides an alternative visual accessibility to the problematic transformation of the physical presence of the protagonist, who performs a reenactment of the gestures of demonstrators, and breaks them down into an isolated symbolic character. In the reduced representation, the pose is no longer visible as a reaction to the contents of statements, but is instead presented as a purely visual and physical symbol beyond any thematic significance. Compared with the staged media presence of political images as questioned in Persuasion Exercises, in On the Stage gesture
appears as an expressive sign that radiates activity and dynamism from within itself. Paradoxically, outside of content-related fields of meaning, both types of gestures function as a reference to the difficulty of classifying form and content within instances of mediation. At the same time, the two works address the complex compression of media perceived signs as a trigger for our attention.

Specifically within the context of current discussions about the utility of art, the works of Günyol and Kunt are clearly located in an intermediate position between engaged and explicitly socio-critical art, and efforts to facilitate creative articulations of an autonomous sphere of responsibility beyond functional or social questions. With regard to a hasty classification of their art within a political orientation, the works favor of a regime of visibility, which Jacques Rancière would position as a basis for political as well as artistic spheres of activity. Rancière attempts to attribute a position of resistance to art, a position that is not based on a transcendence of our modes of experience, but rather sets down the distinctive features of aesthetic visual experience with respect to the political and social spheres of our actions. For him, politics is always fundamentally an order that divides our world and subordinates particular aspects. Assumed in this theory is the resistance of the individual in order to define this order anew again, and again as a speaking being. Art fulfills the role of keeping the resistance potential open without embodying it itself. Rancière identifies art here not as a bearer of resistance and reclassification, but rather as an open space for reflecting on the fundamental possibilities of resistance and reflexive access to existing systems.1The sensitive question of how art—without making a political statement through clearly taking a pro or contra position and thus, according to Rancière, becoming politics itself— can still continue to maintain an independent status vis-a-vis the political is fundamentally anchored in Özlem Günyol and Mustafa Kunt’s working method.

As becomes apparent in the interpretations of the works, within the context of their critical and artistic references, the artist duo looks directly at experienced differences between various models of individual and collective understanding of identity, and how they are mediated through the media. Contemplation of which construction mechanisms for culturally and historically shaped disciplining authorities in various cultures, and how value systems influence the individual again and again, forms the starting point for their lucid, artistic activities. Those artistic activities understand how to articulate statements about our present world for society as a whole without negating the intrinsic value of aesthetic experience as a productive empirical model.

1 Jacques Rancière, The Politics of Aesthetics: The Distribution of the Sensible, ed. and trans. by Gabriel Rockhill (New York, 2004).

Özlem Günyol / Mustafa Kunt – Sorular

Neylan Bağcıoğlu: N.B.: Eğitiminizden bahsedebilir misiniz? Frankfurt’ta yaşıyor ve çalışıyorsunuz? Orayı seçmenizin özel bir sebebi var mı?

Özlem Günyol: İkimiz de Ankara Hacettepe Üniversitesi Heykel Bölümü’nü 2001 yılında bitirdikten hemen sonra Frankfurt’a gittik. Aslında bizim Ankara’dan ayrışımızın nedeni, akademideki klasik anlayıştan kaçmaktı. Frankfurt’a gitmemizin nedeni ise Städelschule’ydi. Ben, Ayşe Erkmen ile disiplinlerarası sanat okurken, Mustafa da Wolfgang Tillmans ile özgür sanat üzerine çalıştı. Bunun yanında Mustafa aynı zamanda Mainz’daki Johannes Gutenberg Üniversitesi’nde de okudu. Ama Mainz’daki bir sanat akademisi ve Ankara’daki klasik anlayış başka bir şekilde burada da mevcut. Bu nedenle okulu tamamlamadı.

N.B.: Nasıl iş birliği yapmaya başladınız?

Mustafa Kunt: Aslında bu planladığımız bir şey değildi. Başlangıçta birbirimizin projeleri üzerine konuşuyorduk. Zaman içinde bu konuşmalar tartışmalara dönüşmeye başladı. İlk ortak işimizi 2003 yılında davet edildiğimiz bir sergi için yaptığımız tartışmalar sonucunda gerçekleştirdik. Bu sergiden sonra 2 yıl kadar bireysel çalışmalarımıza devam ettik. Sonrasında 2005 yılında “Scenes”, “Foreignness” ve “Section 1” işlerini gerçekleştirdik. Zaman geçtikçe birbirimizin projelerini üretim sırasında ve hatta öncesinde tartışmaya başladık. Bir süre sonra fikrin ya da çözümün kime ait olduğu gitgide bulanıklaşmaya başladı. 2007 yılında Frankfurt Basis’te gerçekleşen ilk büyük kişisel sergimiz “Be-cause”un kurumu ve bu sergi için ortaklaşa yaptığımız projeler sonrasında beraber çalışmamız devamlılık kazandı.

N.B.: “Bitmeyen Karalama” (Ceaseless Doodle) adlı çalışmanız geçtiğimiz yıl Tütün Deposu’ndaki “Fikirler Suça Dönüşünce” sergisinde gösterilmişti. Bu çalışmadan bahsedebilir misiniz biraz?

Ö.G.: “Bitmeyen Karalama”yı ilk defa 2009 yılında Kunsthalle Mannheim’da gerçekleşen “Hector Preis” sergisi sırasında duvara çizdik. Türkiye’de ise ilk defa “Fikirler Suça Dönüşünce” sergisinde gösterildi.

Bu çalışma için dünyadaki tüm ülkelerin sınır çizgileri A4 boyutunda kağıtlara tam sayfa olarak basıldı. Böylece Lüksemburg gibi alanı küçük ülkelerle Kanada ya da Çin gibi büyük ülkeler eşitlenmiş oldu. Tüm bu görüntüler şeffaf kağıtlara çizildi, taranarak bilgisayara geçirildi ve daha sonra duvara yansıtılarak üst üste çizildi. Bunun dışında işin başlığını ele alırsak, ülke sınırlarını karalama eylemiyle birleştirmek de bizim için önemliydi. Burada işin ismi birbirine tamamen zıt iki çizim şeklini bir araya getiriyor: Sınır çizmek ve karalama yapmak. Karalama sırasında kişi devamlı, amaçsız ve çizilen şeye konsantre olmadan bir çizim oluştururken, sınır çizimlerinde bu durum son derece hesaplı bir şekilde gerçekleşiyor.

N.B.: “Bitmeyen Karalama” bu seneki İstanbul Bienali’nde de sergilendi. Bu aslında bir üçlemenin parçası değil mi? “Bayrak-lar” (Flag-s), “Bitmeyen Karalama”, ve “Uğultu” (Hullabaloo).  Bu üçlemeyi ve bienale çağırılma sürecinizi anlatabilir misiniz?

Ö.G.: Bu üçleme dünyadaki tüm ulusal bayrakları (Bayrak-lar), dünyadaki tüm ulusal sınırları (Bitmeyen Karalama) ve dünyadaki tüm ulusal marşları (Uğultu) içinde barındırıyor.

“Bayrak-lar” işi icin tüm ulusal bayraklar ink-jet printer yardımıyla tek bir kâğıda üst üste basıldı. Sonuç: Siyah bir kare. “Bitmeyen Karalama’da tüm ülke sınırları üst üste çizildi ve ortaya görsel bir kakofoni çıktı. “Uğultu”da ise tüm ulusal marşlar üst üste bindirildi ve sonuçta rahatsız edici bir ses yaratıldı. Bu çalışmalarla ülkelerin bayraklarını, sınırlarını ve milli marşlarını bir arada sunarak anlamlarını kaybettiriyoruz.

N.B.: Kimlik ve sınırlar -özellikle de coğrafi ve kültürel açıdan- üzerinde çalıştığınız konular değil mi? Neden?

Ö.G.: Aslında biz kimlik ve sınırlar üzerine çalışmayı seçmedik. Bütün bu meseleler ve yarattıkları sorunlarla bir şekilde mücadele etmek zorunda kaldığımız için üretimlerimiz çoğunlukla bu konular üzerine oldu. Bir de hem Frankfurt’un hem de Städelschule’nin %35-40’ını yabancı nüfus oluşturuyor. Bu melez yapı bize farklı bakış açıları kazandırdı diyebiliriz. Bunun da dışında belki de en önemli neden başka bir ülkede yaşam mücadelesi vermek oldu. Yabancı olma durumu hem hayatla hem de sanatla olan ilişkimizi tamamen dönüştürdü.

N.B.: Kosova’da tam da bu sınır konusuna parmak basan işinizi sergilediniz ve altına özellikle herhangi bir bilgi ya da açıklama eklemediniz. Sınırından girmesi kolay ama çıkması zor bir ülke olması sizi nasıl etkiledi ve bu çalışmanın gelişimine ne yönde katkı sağladı? Bu çalışmadan bahsedebilir misiniz?

M.K.: “Scenes” projesini 2005 yılında “Academy Remix. Städelschule, Frankfurt meets Missing Identity, Pristine” projesi kapsamında gerçekleştirdik. Bu proje sayesinde 6 ay içerisinde 2 kere Pristine’de kalma şansımız da oldu. Aslında Kosova’ya gitmeden önce “Scenes” projesine genel hatlarıyla karar vermiştik. Çünkü çok yakın zamanda olan savaş ve Kosova’nın o zamanki belirsiz pozisyonu açısından bu projenin duygusal yoğunluğu bizim için çok yüksek. Mesela nefes alırken o aldığın nefesi veremediğin için boğulduğunu düşün. Bizim istediğimiz hem nefes alan hem de verebilen bir şey yapmaktı. Bu nedenle Kosova’nın her bir sınırına giderek sınırları herhangi bir evin duvarında asılı olabilecek klasik birer manzara fotoğrafı gibi fotoğrafladık. Fotoğraflar her seferinde Kosova’dan dışarıya doğru çekildi ve daha sonra 3*4,5 metre boyutlarında basılarak şehir merkezinde sergilendi. Kamusal alanda fotoğrafların içeriğiyle ilgili bir bilgi vermedik çünkü orada hiç kimsenin sınır problemini hatırlamaya ihtiyacı yoktu. Güzel birer manzara fotoğrafı olmaları yeterliydi.

N.B.: Çalışmalarınız çoğunlukla bir nevi milliyetçilik eleştirisi. Ama bunu sert ya da muhalif bir biçimde provoke ederek yapmıyorsunuz. Bu da seyirciyi daha iyi yakalamanızı sağlıyor ve onları çalışmalarınız ile birebir ilgilenmeye itiyor…

Ö.G.: Evet doğru. Kimseyi ya da hiçbir şeyi parmakla göstermiyoruz. Bunu yapmıyoruz çünkü bir şeyi direkt olarak göstermenin (çoğu zaman) karşısında durduğumuz şeyin kendisine benzeme riskini taşıdığını düşünüyoruz. Bunun yerine genellikle karşısında durduğumuz şeyin sadece kendisini kullanarak estetik çözümlemelerle anlamını manipülasyona uğratıyoruz, başka bir şeye dönüştürüyoruz. Yani tanımını ortadan kaldırıyoruz. Bu da bize o şey hakkında söylemek istediğimiz söz için bağımsız bir platform yaratıyor. Tabii bunu yaparken sanat tarihinin bilinen görsellerini ya da formlarını da kullanıyoruz. Bu da izleyiciye zaten tanıdığı bir görsele yaklaşma rahatlığını veriyor. Tabii işin öteki yüzü yani konsepti bu aşamadan sonra devreye giriyor.  Çünkü işe yaklaştıkça ya da onunla vakit geçirdikçe aslında o formal tanımın nasıl oluştuğu ya da aslında ne olduğu ortaya çıkmaya başlıyor.

N.B.: Sanatın, belirli bir alanında sınırlı kalmıyorsunuz. Enstelasyon da yapıyorsunuz video da. Bu neye bağlı ve sizi daha özgür kılıyor mu?

M.K.: Açıkçası bu durum bizim işlerimizde her proje için farklılık gösteriyor. Tercihleri bizden çok üzerinde çalıştığımız fikrin ihtiyaçları yönlendiriyor. Böyle olunca klasik monokrom bir resim, bir video, bir enstalasyon ya da performans ağırlıklı bir çalışma da yapabiliyoruz. Bunun yanında bir aktör, dansçı ya da bir özel dedektifle de ortak çalışabiliyoruz.

N.B.: Dedektif mi?

Ö.G.: Evet. New York Metro istasyonlarında yer alan “If you See Something, Say Something” yazılarına karşı “Suspicious Activities” (Süpheli Hareketler) başlığı altında yaptığımız Male Subject & Female Subject (Bahsi geçen Kadın & Bahsi geçen Erkek) çalışması için profesyonel bir özel dedektiflik bürosuyla çalıştık. Kısaca bahsetmek gerekirse: New York metrolarında sürekli olarak karşılaştığımız “If you See Something, Say Something” (Bir şey Görürsen, Bir şey Söyle) yazısı bize her bireyin etrafını gözetleme ve şüpheli gördüğü hareketleri ihbar etme sorumluluğu olduğunu söylüyor. Fakat eğer herkes etrafını gözetlerse, gözetimin merkezinde aslında gözetleyenin kendisi var demektir. Bu da dolaylı olarak her bireye kendi hareketlerini kontrol etmesi gerektiğini söyler ve hem kanun yoluyla hem de kamu tarafından gözetim altında olduğu mesajını iletir.

Bu bakış açısıyla yapmaya karar verdiğimiz proje için New York’ta beraber çalıştığımız kurum olan Residency Unlimited’den ICORP Dedektiflik Bürosuyla kontağa geçmelerini ve bizi 1 günlük bir süre için izletmelerini istedik. Burada dedektif bürosundan istenen en önemli şey gözetimin son derece detaylı bir şekilde yer ve zaman gösterilerek hem video hem de yazılı olarak belgelendirilmesiydi. Böylece; sıradan bir günümüz bir özel dedektif raporuna çevrildi ve bu rapor sıradan bir günü şüpheli bir duruma dönüştürdü.

N.B.: Contemporary İstanbul fuarına özel bir çalışma yaptınız. İki adet de daha önceden yaptığınız çalışma ile bir arada sergilendi bu iş. Yeni çalışmayı biraz anlatabilir misiniz? Ve diğer iki çalışmanın burada olma sebebi neydi?

Ö.G.: Her ne kadar fuar alanı olsa da bu Türkiye’de gerçekleştirdiğimiz ve seçimlerimizde tamamen özgür bırakıldığımız ilk kişisel sunum. Bu nedenle mekânı kurgularken kendimize burada “ne söylemek istiyoruz?” sorusunu sorduk. “On the Stage” (Sahnede) ve “Persuasion Exercises” (İkna Egzersizleri), işlerini sergilemeye böyle karar verdik. Her iki işi de kısaca açıklamak gerekirse: “On the Stage” (Sahnede) videosunu 2010 yılında İstanbul’da “Invisible Play” isimli 10 günlük bir workshop sırasında yaptık. Basında yer alan savaş ve eylem fotoğraflarından yola çıkılarak oluşturulan bu çalışma için zor durumda kalmış insanların vücut hareketlerini içeren 17 adet çizimi bir dansçıya verdik. Dansçıdan bu hareketleri birbirine bağlamasını ve bunu yaparken de her hareket için yaklaşık 5 saniye kadar pozisyonunu korumasını istedik. Ortaya çıkan sahneyle amaçlanan savaş ve gösterilerde zor durumda kalan insanların bir anlığına anıtsal bir platforma taşınmasıydı. “Persuasion Exercises” (İkna Egzersizleri), 2011 ise Mayıs ayında seçimlerden hemen önce kamusal alanda (Ankara, Yüksel Caddesi) gerçekleştirdiğimiz bir çalışma. Bu proje için bir aktörle beraber çalıştık. Aktöre, Haziran seçimleri için parti liderlerinin propaganda posterlerinde verdikleri pozları göstererek ondan bu pozları yeniden canlandırmasını istedik. Sonrasında her bir poz tekrar fotoğraflandı ve damga gibi grafiklere çevrilerek vücut egzersizlerini gösteren grafiklerde olduğu gibi numaralandırıldı. Bu iki işe karar verdikten sonra yeni yapacağımız proje bizim için netleşti.

M.K.: Fuar için yaptığımız yeni projemizin ismi “İlk günkü kadar taze”. Bu çalışma için T.C. Anayasası’nın içerisinde bulunan her bir harf, sayı ve noktalama işareti metin içerisindeki konumları değiştirilmeden birbirlerinden ayrıldı ve 53 kitaba çevrildi. Böylece anayasa, yazının temelini oluşturan elemanlara indirgenmiş oldu. “İlk günkü kadar taze”, ilk okulda okuma yazmayı öğrenirken harf, rakam ve noktalama işaretleriyle ilk defa tanıştığımız zamana referans vererek anayasayı hayali kurgulara açık bir platform haline dönüştürüyor.

Bu serginin kurgusu da bizim için önemli. Çünkü; bir tarafa politikacıları, bir tarafa eylemlerde zor durumda kalan insanları, ikisinin arasına da anayasayı yerleştiriyoruz. Bu şekilde anayasa çoğunlukla yasal ve yasadışıyı temsil eden görsellerin hemen ortasında duruyor.

Bütün bunların yanında aslında bu üç çalışmanın en önemli ortak noktası üçünün de dille ilgili olması.

N.B.: Gelecek programınız nasıl? Sırada ne gibi sergiler var?

Ö.G.: Yıl boyunca Frankfurt dışındaydık. 3 ay Dublin’de ve hemen sonrasında da 6 ay boyunca New York’ta kaldık. Daha sonrasında da vaktimizin çoğu Türkiye’de geçti. Uzun süredir yaşadığımız şehirden uzak kalmak doğrusu bize çok iyi geldi. Bu yüzden önümüzdeki yıl içerisinde de biraz dolaşmak ve kendimize Frankfurt’un dışında çalışma ortamları yaratmak istiyoruz. Bu şu anda sadece bir istek tabii. Bunun dışında 2012 yılı içerisinde bazı kişisel ve grup sergilerimiz olacak. Ama şu anda en yakındaki sergi Şubat ayında Londra’da Parasol Unit’te katılacağımız bir grup sergisi.

A Tribute to the Spire: A Hallelujah to
a Future Yet to Come – by Rana Öztürk

Özlem Günyol & Mustafa Kunt’s four-piece work UP! UP! UP! takes its inspiration from Dublin’s Spire, known also as the Monument of Light – the thin, 120-metre-long structure that has been standing on the city’s O’Connell Street since 2003. Claiming to be the tallest sculpture in the world, this needle-like monument is unavoidable in the middle of the city. The first encounter with it is often one of curiosity, wonder, suspicion, amazement and surprise due to its overwhelming height, highly futuristic look, and inappropriate appearance and position among the more intimate, shorter, city centre buildings. Most cities have a famous tall building, a tower, monument or a skyscraper that with time becomes a symbol for the city, a point of reference for its residents, a tourist attraction for visitors, a historical site or a place that offers the best possible views of the city. The Spire in Dublin, though, is a site of ambivalence, at least at first sight… Özlem Günyol & Mustafa Kunt, who visited Dublin as artists in residence at Temple Bar Gallery and Studios for three months, have made use of their first encounter with the Spire as the basis of the work they produced during their stay in Dublin.

UP! UP! UP! consists of four separate pieces. Two main elements of the work are two paintings, which together represent a one-to-one scale portrait of the Spire. User’s Manual, which documents a historical timeline of the monument and the song “Up Went Nelson”, is presented on the wall as reference material for the viewer. Lastly, the forth element of the work is a performance of a song based on the melody and structure of “Up Went Nelson” with new lyrics written by the artists for the Spire. While the paintings play on the idea of real life representation of the monument in a
gallery context using its formal qualities and size, the song represents the complex historical and political background of the monument and the symbolic significance of its site for Dublin.

Günyol & Kunt make use of the exact physical appearance and actual measurements of the Spire to translate it on to a pictorial plane. The Spire is a stainless steel conical structure that has a diameter of three metres on the ground that gradually narrows to 15 centimetres at the top. On the picture plane, it is represented as a rectangular painting of three metres in width, with all the height of the monument divided into several sections folded onto each other. The result is a monochrome abstract painting that actually depicts the whole Spire in two dimensions. The second painting, placed on the floor of the gallery space, is also very minimal in its form and complements the other one with its round shape and choice of colour. A circle in the size of the bottom part of the Spire, this painting acquires the quality of text-based works of Conceptual Art of the late 1960s and 1970s, with the words UP! UP! UP! written on it. These words somehow
enhance the sculptural quality of the piece on the floor and incite the viewer to visualise the monument rising up from the painting. This, in a sense, completes the first painting, rendering a three dimensional image of the Spire.

The work culminates in a singing performance of a song written by the artists for the Spire based on the tune of an earlier song “Up Went Nelson”. This time, the words UP! UP! UP! read almost like a call to step up to the painting and sing the song. The first viewing of the piece at Temple Bar Gallery and Studios indeed turned the painting into a stage where five singers sang the song standing on. In this way the bleak image of the monument got broken up with the addition of a human element to it. Along with the traces of the singers’ footsteps left on the painting, the recording of the performance is to be included in later presentations of the work. A mocking exaltation of the Spire, this singing represents a possible way of engaging with the Spire despite its distant, cold outlook, while also connecting it to a past that it seems not so willing to acknowledge.

The Spire, controversial in its dominating position over the city, stands in the place of another controversial monument, Nelson’s Pillar, which had been standing there from 1808 till it was blown up in 1966 by the IRA. This 40-metre-high granite pillar was put up in order to honour Horatio, Lord Nelson, an English navy hero, who was famous for his role in the Napoleonic Wars and his leadership at the Battle of Trafalgar, where he was shot dead in 1805. Soon after the erection of the pillar with a statue of Lord Nelson on its top there were debates about its removal due to many
reasons. It was seen as an obstruction to the traffic; there were concerns about whether it was aesthetically good enough; and as a symbol of the troublesome colonial history of Ireland, many nationalists did not find it appropriate for the city. There were suggestions to replace the statue with statues of other Irish historical figures, which never led to any actual decision. It was only in 1966, the 50th anniversary of the Easter Rising, that these debates came to an end with the bombing of the pillar by members of the old IRA.

After the blowing up of the pillar, Go Lucky Four, a group of school teachers from Belfast, wrote the song “Up Went Nelson” set to the tune of “The Battle Hymn of the Republic”. The song was very popular and remained number one on the Irish music charts for eight consecutive weeks. It is also an example of how cultural forms migrate and take different meanings in different contexts. For instance, “The Battle Hymn of Republic” was a popular hymn that was written during the American Civil War, and is still very well-known as an American patriotic song. It was based on
the same tune as “John Brown’s Song”, a marching song about the abolitionist John Brown who gave his life to put an end to slavery. Both songs were based on an earlier tune called “Say, brother, will you meet us” that goes back to the American Christian camp meeting movement of the early to mid-1800s. Therefore, the song/tune represents multiple authors and different ideologies depending on the context and time it was used. Indeed, there have been many other versions of the song, most often composed for celebrations of different occasions, either in playful ways or in attempts at glorification.

In UP! UP! UP!, Günyol & Kunt trace the source of the song, presenting earlier songs in which the tune was used, as well as other songs written for the destruction of Nelson’s Pillar. Along with “Good Lord Nelson” by the Irish folk musician Tommy Makem and “Nelson’s Farewell” played by the band Dubliners, “Up Went Nelson” represents the mocking, witty humour of the Irish, an amusing way of engaging with an incident long awaited. With a similar gesture of appropriating an earlier tune, Günyol & Kunt make a new song that this time addresses the Spire with a humorous approach to its current state in the city. Built as part of the plans for the revival of O’Connell Street, which had been in decline since the 1970s, the Spire rises confidently above the city as a pretentious symbol of the economic boom the country experienced from the 1990s to 2000s. In the context of the recent collapse of the Irish economy, this tall shiny monument has inadvertently become an embodiment of this period of over-indulgence. Nelson’s Pillar remembers the past; the Spire aspires to the future. Nelson’s Pillar symbolizes the colonial power; the Spire symbolises the glory of the Celtic Tiger. Nelson’s Pillar is a memorial; the Spire is a contemporary urban landmark. Nelson’s Pillar offers a view of the city to its visitors; the Spire looks over the city all by itself. Nelson’s Pillar commemorates an imperial hero; the Spire celebrates itself. Nelson’s Pillar represents a troubled history; the Spire represents nothing, but itself…

Untiefen der Repräsentanz von Bildern und Zeichen –
Anmerkungen zu den Arbeiten von Özlem Günyol und Mustafa Kunt

Um sich der heterogenen künstlerischen Praxis von Özlem Günyol und Mustafa Kunt anzunähern, erscheint es hilfreich, sich weniger an formalen Modellen einer Werkproduktion zu orientieren, als viel mehr die sozialen und kulturellen Kontexte in den Blick zu nehmen, die ihre Kunst zum Gegenstand haben.
Als zentrales Thema ihrer gemeinsamen Arbeit erscheint die Auseinandersetzung mit medial vermittelten Bildern und Zeichensystemen sowie der Verknüpfung von sprachlichen und visuellen Erfahrungen. Wie diese auf die kollektive und individuelle Ausdifferenzierung von Identitäten einwirken, die durch kulturelle und soziale Rahmenbedingungen geformt und vermittelt werden, ist dabei eine ihrer Kunst inhärente Aussageebene.
Immer werden dabei auch Fragen der medialen Repräsentanz von Macht innerhalb der Subjektbildung berührt und illustrieren sich in ihrer luziden, formal äußerst heterogenen Arbeitsweise. Die machttheoretische Vernetzung der Produktion und Rezeption von Bildern in unserer Alltagskultur und der funktionalen Repräsentationsmacht des Kunstwerks in seinem spezifischen Erfahrungskontext, spielt gerade in den Arbeiten der letzten Jahre eine herausragende Rolle. Auch die Auseinandersetzung mit sprachlichen Vermittlungsformen im medialen Kontext wird immer wieder als zentrales Moment ihrer Kunst sichtbar, wobei es die innovative Praxis von Özlem Günyol und Mustafa Kunt schwierig macht, die jeweiligen Themengebiete klar voneinander zu trennen. Nicht zuletzt dadurch illustriert ihr Werk die Durchdringung und Abhängigkeit der Aspekte Medialität und Macht und der Anbindung an das kulturelle, soziale und politische Verständnis von Identität in unseren heutigen Gesellschaftsmodellen.
Neben der konzeptuellen Herangehensweise wird in Günyol und Kunts Arbeit immer wieder sichtbar, wie sich das Alleinstellungsmoment der Kunst, die ästhetische Erfahrung, deutlich als zentraler Verdichtungspunkt offenbart. So werden in den spekulativen und herausfordernden Arbeiten des Künstlerduos konzeptuelle inhaltliche Aussageebenen an ein immer auch herausforderndes ästhetisches Erlebnis gekoppelt, und verweisen damit auf die Potentiale der Gegenwartskunst -als Zeichensystem jenseits unserer medial geprägten Alltagserfahrung- Bedeutung zu generieren, ohne auf schriftliche oder rein textuelle Vermittlungsinstanzen rekurieren zu müssen. Kunst illustriert sich in ihrem Schaffen als Disziplin, die auf ein breit gefächertes sensuelles Feld verweist und damit eine gesonderte Form des Zugriffs auf unsere Umwelt ermöglicht. Ihren Arbeiten ist dabei abzuspüren, wie formal ästhetische Aspekte innerhalb der Arbeitsweise bedeutsam sind und zugleich eine kritische Auseinandersetzung mit gesellschaftlichen Themen aufgegriffen wird.

Die Arbeit ‚… and Justice for All!’ aus dem Jahr 2010 besteht aus einem 22 Meter langen, im Durchmesser etwa fünf Zentimeter starkem Seil, das gleichmäßig ausgeleuchtet auf einem etwa 30 Zentimeter hohen Sockel akkurat zu einem lockeren Kreis zusammengelegt wurde. Auffällig erscheint die noch immer gut sichtbare, offensichtlich professionelle Bearbeitung des Ausgangsmaterials, das allerdings wenig strapazierfähig wirkt. Die Präzision, mit der das Seil gearbeitet wurde, wird durch die straffe Drillung und die exakt geknoteten und fixierten Enden auch für den Laien sichtbar. Diese augenscheinlich fachmännische Technik der Herstellung steht gegenüber dem Material, das eher an poveres Leinen oder gewebte Stoffe erinnert, in einem gewissen Spannungsverhältnis. Das Seil scheint durch die bewusste Inszenierung im Ausstellungskontext, auf einem Sockel platziert, jenseits seiner Funktion als Gebrauchsgegenstand als ästhetisches Objekt ein Eigenleben zu behaupten.
Vermeintlich wird hier ein Seil als Kunst im Sinne eines Ready mades vorgestellt, was den Transfer eines Gebrauchsgegenstands ohne Veränderungen durch den Künstler in den Erfahrungsraum der Kunst bezeichnet. Und trotzdem bleiben Zweifel, ob dieses Seil tatsächlich einem funktionalen Gebrauchszweck entfremdet wurde, zu weich wirkt das Material, das unter der Bearbeitung des Streckens und Drehens sichtbar an Grenzpunkte der Materialfähigkeit geführt wurde. Zu irritierend zeichnen sich innerhalb des gedrillten Stoffes zudem intensive grüne, gelbe, rote, orange und blaue Farbfelder ab, welche die Beige- und Ocker-Töne des restlichen Materials rhythmisieren. Auch diese unregelmäßigen Farbreflexe verweisen in ihrer intendierten Distanzierung zu einem Seil als bloßem Gebrauchsgegenstand auf grundlegende Zweifel, dass hier durch die KünstlerInnen nur ein zum Gebrauch vorgesehenes Seil als Kunstwerk in Szene gesetzt wird. Allein die genaue Betrachtung schürt in ‚… and Justice for All!’ das Misstrauen des Betrachters gegenüber dem Seil als Gegenstand des Alltags und eröffnet damit ein assoziatives Feld unterschiedlichster Möglichkeiten, wie dieses offensichtlich aus einer gezielten Intention heraus hergestellte Objekt zu verstehen sein könnte.
Eine weiterführende Auseinandersetzung mit dem Objekt verstärkt die Zweifel an der ausschließlich an der Funktionalität des Seils orientierten Existenz, da eine kurze Erläuterung darüber aufklärt, dass das Seil ursprünglich aus einem Protestbanner entstanden ist, das den titelgebenden Schriftzug ‚… and Justice for All!’ trug. Aus diesem Banner, das auf einer Demonstration Verwendung gefunden haben könnte, wurde mit den fachmännischen Mitteln der Seilerei im Freilichtmuseum dieses Objekt gefertigt, nach den traditionellen und erprobten Arbeitsschritten, die in den Werkstätten den Besuchern vorgeführt werden. Die fachlich kompetente Herstellung des Seils steht nun in einem gewissen Gegensatz zu dem verwendeten Material, da wohl mit dem leichten Nesselstoff keine professionelle Werkstatt arbeiten würde.
Özlem Günyol und Mustafa Kunt verweisen mit dem Einsatz der handwerklichen Fähigkeiten eines Dritten, des vor Ort arbeitenden Seilers, der die technische Umsetzung der Herstellung betreute, auf eine strikte konzeptuelle künstlerische Arbeitsweise, die nun die Herstellung des Werkes nicht mehr zwingend an die künstlerische Hand übertragen sieht, sondern die materielle Fertigung in andere, fachlich kompetente Hände legte. Umso deutlicher wird in dieser Arbeitsweise die Zielsetzung, jenseits der Herstellung eines Seiles eine Irritation zu inszenieren, die auf der Veränderung der Materialeigenschaften, also der Verarbeitung eines Stoffbanners zu einem Seil, beruht. Durch diesen Eingriff wird der Fokus der an dem Objekt sich entwickelnden Reflexion über die Bedeutungsinhalte der Arbeit auf eine assoziative Ebene gelenkt, die in der Bearbeitung des Materials nur ihren Anfang nimmt. Zunächst verweist die Transformation eines Banners zu einem Seil -wobei dieses eine simple und bewusst oberflächlich gehaltene Botschaft vermittelt- auf einen Prozess, der als Verfremdung des ursprünglichen Funktionszusammenhangs verläuft und diesen Zusammenhang damit entwertet. Zugleich verortete sich das Objekt nun in einem neuen Zusammenhang, dem Kunstkontext, der nun ein breit gefächertes Reflexionsfeld eröffnet, ohne dabei eine funktionale Bedeutung des Gegenstandes einzufordern. Als Kunstwerk ist das Seil einer praktischen Anwendbarkeit enthoben und kann darüber hinaus auf unterschiedlichen Ebenen wiederum als Kommentar zu gesellschaftlichen Fragestellungen gelesen werden.
Dient das Banner der Vermittlung einer politischen Botschaft oder sozialen Forderung, die im öffentlichen Raum zur Sprache gebracht wird, so erscheint das Seil nun im Kunstkontext als ein Instrument der Reflexion, das eine weitaus holistischere Denkbewegung anzustoßen in der Lage ist. Wie mir scheint, vollzieht sich die Anschlussfähigkeit der Arbeit an gesellschaftliche Fragestellungen, die den reinen Objektcharakter des Werkes hinter sich lässt, anhand einer assoziativen Lesbarkeit des Seils, das in seiner präzisen und durchaus funktionalen Präsenz vor dem Betrachter inszeniert wird.
Kann das Seil doch wieder als funktionales Zeichen des Zusammenhaltes gesellschaftlicher Gruppen verstanden werden? Ist das Seil, als ein Bild für Vernetzungen, also Kommunikation, zu verstehen, das Verbindungen, sozialen Austausch und Zugehörigkeit generieren kann? Oder wird anhand des Transformationsprozesses von einem Banner zu einem Seil die Denkbewegung einer textuellen Annäherung an soziale Fragen hin zu einer metaphorischen und damit universalen, nicht-sprachlichen Aussageebene vorgeführt?
Diese und weitere Fragen wären an die Arbeit ‚… and Justice for All!’ zu richten und verweisen immer auch auf den Kern der ästhetischen Praxis von Günyol und Kunt, den visuellen Eigenwert der Kunst, der eine assoziative Lesbarkeit ermöglicht, innerhalb einer zeitgenössischen konzeptuellen Arbeitsweise zu verankern. Sichtbar wird auch hier das Spiel mit Repräsentanzen, die auf unterschiedlichen Erfahrungsebenen ein dichtes Netz von Bedeutungen entwickeln können und das der Arbeitsweise des Künstlerpaares oftmals eingeschrieben ist.

Auf eben diese Frage der Repräsentanz, der sozialen und kulturellen Funktion und Deutungskraft des Kunstwerkes, zielt die ebenfalls im Rahmen des Stipendiums im Freilichtmuseum Hessenpark entstandene Arbeit ‚The Pedestal that has lost its Monument’ von 2010. Frei im Raum steht ein präzise gearbeiteter, weiß lackierter Sockel, der vom Boden ausgehend eine dreifache Treppung aufweist, die das untere Drittel des Sockels gliedert. Die Gesamthöhe des Objekts liegt bei etwa 1,50 Meter und beruht auf einem annähernd quadratischen Grundriss von etwa einem Meter Tiefe und Breite. Mit diesen Maßen und der Treppung im unteren Bereich erscheint das Objekt als klassizistisch geprägter, idealtypischer Sockel für eine Skulptur, die jedoch in diesem Fall, wie der Titel der Arbeit verrät, nicht präsent ist. Wir stehen nur dem Sockel gegenüber, der seine kontextuelle Verortung im Bereich der Kunst durch eine Metalltafel unterstreicht, die den Titel der Arbeit, das Entstehungsjahr und die Namen der KünstlerInnen nennt. Die Absenz eines Kunstwerks, wofür der sorgfältig gearbeitete Sockel eigentlich als Träger und Präsentationsrahmen dienen sollte, wird nun zum Werk selbst. Dieser traditionelle Kontext, den der Sockel dem Werk verleiht, wurde in der Kunst bis in das 20. Jahrhundert hinein nicht hinterfragt, jedoch war er zweifelsfrei durch seine Bindung an das Werk schon immer für jeden Betrachter sichtbar ein unmittelbares Attribut des Kunstwerks. Auf diesen Umstand aufmerksam zu machen, Kunst nicht als von kulturellen, sozialen und politischen Faktoren autonomes Modell der Vermittlung von Inhalten zu verstehen, gelingt Özlem Günyol und Mustafa Kunt in ‚The Pedestal that has lost its Monument’ auf einer ersten Aussageebene allein durch die Thematisierung dessen, was fehlt, dem Kunstwerk im traditionellen Verständnis der Kunstgeschichte.
Der Verweis auf die leer gelassene zentrale Position, die traditionell das Kunstwerk einnimmt, eröffnet für den Betrachter eine Denkbewegung, die nun die institutionellen und strategischen Kräfte der Präsenzmodelle, die jedes Kunstwerk umgeben, sichtbar machen.
Bezieht man eine kunsthistorische Betrachtung der Arbeit mit ein, so wird diese erste Ebene, welche die Arbeit trägt, durch eine weitere ergänzt. Wurde die Rolle des Sockels in der Kunst des 20. Jahrhunderts vielfach befragt und in den minimalistischen Strömungen der 1960er Jahre endgültig entwertet, so zeigt der Sockel von Günyol und Kunt eine Weiterentwicklung dieser Auseinandersetzung mit den Darstellungsmodi von Kunst. Der Titel der Arbeit geht mit dem klassischen, in seiner Gestaltung etwas altertümlich wirkenden, jedoch zweifellos neuwertigen Sockel eine Verbindung ein, die neben der physischen Präsenz des Sockels auf einer textlichen Ebene den Begriff des ‚Monumentes’ in das reflexive Spiel der Arbeit einführt. Der Sockel hat also kein Kunstwerk oder eine Skulptur ‚verloren’, wie der Titel der Arbeit berichtet, sondern sein ‚Monument’. Der Begriff ‚Monument’ konnotiert als bewusste Setzung des Künstlerpaares, wie mir scheint, eine umfassendere kulturhistorische Verdichtung, als es die anderen genannten Begriffe des Kunstwerks oder der Skulptur leisten. Das ‚Monument’ nimmt in den meisten Sprachen eine eigentümlich zeitlose, erhabene Bedeutung an. Es verweist dabei auch immer auf Traditionen und auf einen sozialen Konsens der Gesellschaften, die das Werk hervor brachte und als Kunst präsentiert. Es verweist auf eine kulturelle, politische oder soziale Leistung, auf Triumphe, kollektive Erfahrungen, auf moralische und soziale Werte und auf eine kulturelle Akzeptanz, die in ihm verdichtet und sichtbar gemacht wird. Das ‚Monument’ kann die Repräsentanz von komplexeren Prozessen leisten, als es der Begriff der Skulptur könnte.
Ich vermute in der luziden künstlerischen Arbeit von Günyol und Kunt ein Abzielen auf genau diese sprachliche Differenz, welche die Kunst an die Befragung der Bedeutung kollektiver Zeichen, Bilder und Vorstellungen bindet und darin ihre gegenwärtige Funktion formuliert. Ob und in welcher Form dies geleistet wird, welche Macht dem Kunstwerk, dem Erinnerung und Erfahrung tragenden ‚Monument’, übertragen oder auf dieses projiziert wird, dies alles wird in der unscheinbaren Verschränkung der physisch präsenten Arbeit und des Titels der Arbeit von 2010 insistierend und doch still formuliert. Das Faktum, dass der Sockel ‚sein’ ‚Monument’ verloren hat, verweist mit der ausgestellten Leerstelle auf die Bedeutung der kulturell produzierten Zeichen, deren Funktion in der Absenz des Monumentes für uns als Betrachter neu überdacht werden kann.

Beide hier vorgestellten Arbeiten, ‚… and Justice for All!’ sowie ‚The Pedestal that has lost its Monument’ wurden im Rahmen des Arbeitsaufenthaltes der beiden KünstlerInnen im Freilichtmuseum 2010 realisiert. Dieser Umstand ist nicht allein auf der Grundlage der Vergabe des Stipendiums interessant, sondern darüber hinaus durch die konzeptuelle Aufnahme der Arbeitsmöglichkeiten und der strukturellen Arbeitsweise des Museums. Zielte die Ausschreibung des Stipendiums auf eine Interaktion der aus der Stadt Frankfurt eingeladenen KünsterInnen mit den Gegebenheiten vor Ort, so wurde durch die Vergabe des Arbeitsaufenthaltes an Günyol und Kunt eine innovative Neuinterpretation der ortspezifischen künstlerischen Arbeit offensichtlich. Gegenüber einer sichtbaren Intervention in die Arbeits- und Besuchssituation entschied sich das Künstlerpaar für eine eher stille, aber umso konsequentere Einbeziehung der Arbeitsmöglichkeiten im Freilichtmuseum, das durch die unterschiedlichen Werkstätten vielfältige Möglichkeiten anbietet, die eigene kreative Tätigkeit daran anzukoppeln. Nicht die offene kritische Auseinandersetzung mit der kulturellen oder sozialen Funktion des Museums war für Günyolund Kunt von Interesse, sondern eine der Aufgaben, der sich die Institution heute stellt, nämlich der Vermittlung und Bewahrung alter, traditioneller handwerklicher Arbeitsweisen. Diese werden in den Werkstätten an die Besucher vermittelt, wurden nun aber von den beiden als zentrales Moment der Entwicklung aktueller Gegenwartskunst zum Einsatz gebracht, ohne dabei historisierende Rückgriffe zu entwickeln. Viel mehr gelang es ihnen, die traditionellen Techniken in einen fruchtbaren Dialog mit einer aktuellen, konzeptuellen künstlerischen Praxis zu stellen, um damit eine innovative Form der Weiterentwicklung dieser Handwerkstechniken zu erreichen. Der zurückgenommene Zugriff auf situative Gegebenheiten des Freilichtmuseums konnte dabei eine umso nachhaltigere Entfaltung innerhalb der Werke erleben und schließt die vor Ort vorgestellten Handwerksarbeiten an einen innovativen zeitgenössischen Produktionsdiskurs der jungen Gegenwartskunst an.

Wie in den Werkinterpretationen und der kurzen Diskussion der Arbeit von Günyol und Kunt sichtbar wurde, setzten sie sich im Kontext ihrer kritischen künstlerischen Bezugnahme offensichtlich mit einer unmittelbar erlebten Differenz unterschiedlicher Modelle des individuellen und kollektiven Identitätsverständnisses und dessen medialer Vermittlung auseinander. Durch ihre Sozialisation in der Türkei und der anschließenden Integration in Deutschland konnten sie aus eigener Erfahrung erleben, wie verschieden Vorstellungen von Identität auf sozialer und politischer Ebene entwickelt werden und wie diese durch mediale Vermittlungsinstanzen heute mehr denn je als Spannungsfeld zwischen subjektiven und machttheoretischen Aspekten erlebbar wird.
Welche zumeist medial vermittelten Konstruktionsmechanismen dabei über kulturell und historisch geprägte Disziplinierungsinstanzen in unterschiedlichen Kulturen und Wertesystemen auf das Individuum einwirken, wurde somit zu einem Ausgangspunkt ihrer luziden künstlerischen Tätigkeit, die generelle, gesamtgesellschaftliche Aussagen über unsere Gegenwart zu artikulieren versteht.

Laudatio von Dr. Thomas Köllhofer anlässlich der Ausstellungseröffnung “Untitled (Gisei)”, ENTEGA AG, Darmstadt Eröffnung Günyol und Kunt / Darmstadt 11.2.2010

Kunsthistoriker neigen dazu, bei Adam und Eva anzufangen.
Manchmal aber lässt es sich wirklich nicht vermeiden.

Wenn es um Begriffe wie Chaos und Ordnung geht, landet man fast zwangsläufig
bei der Erschaffung der Welt.

Die Schöpfungsmythen nahezu aller Völker dieser Erde beginnen so, dass ein Gott oder eine göttliche Kraft aus einer Urmaterie die Erde schuf.

Die Urmaterie steht für eine chaotische Mischung alles Seins und in dem Gott dieses Chaos ordnet, d.h. es nach bestimmten Kriterien aufteilt, erschafft er die Welt.

Im Schöpfungsmythos der Bibel, in der Genesis heißt es entsprechend:

Am Anfang schuf Gott den Himmel und die Erde. Die Erde aber war wüst und leer gewesen, Finsternis lag über dem Urmeer und ein Gottessturm fegte über der Wasserfläche.

In der Folge dann scheidet Gott:      

• Licht und Finsternis
• Himmel und Wasser
• Wasser und Erde

dann formt er die verschiedenen Formen von Pflanzen, Lebewesen und schließlich aus Erde, aus der amorphen, chaotischen Masse auch den Menschen.

Schöpferisches Tun wird also dadurch erklärt, dass aus einem Chaos durch eine äußere Kraft eine Ordnung geschaffen wird.

Das Künstlerpaar Özlem Günyol und Mustafa Kunt, (und sie sind in ihrer Gemeinsamkeit eine Marke), hatten für diese Arbeit hier die Vorgabe, sich mit einer neuen künstlerischen Arbeit auf ein bedeutendes aktuelles kulturelles Ereignis Darmstadts zu beziehen.

Konkret bedeutete dies die Auseinandersetzung mit dem am Darmstädter Staatstheater kürzlich uraufgeführten Musikdrama von Carl Orff.

 Es handelt sich dabei um Orffs erstes, bereits 1913 entstandenes  Bühnenwerk mit dem Titel „Gisei“ (Das Opfer), das der Komponist selbst zwar nicht zur Aufführung bringen wollte, das von der Familie glücklicher Weise aber doch für eine Veröffentlichung frei gegeben wurde.

Das Stück lehnt sich an das Textbuch eines altjapanischen Trauerspiels mit dem Titel „Terekoya“ (Die Dorfschule) an.

In dem Stück beklagen zwei Gestalten, ein Mann und eine Frau, den Opfertod ihres Kindes, das bewusst anstelle eines anderen, ihm ähnlich sehenden Kindes getötet wird. Es ist ein Drama, in dem die Unabwendbarkeit des Schicksals thematisiert wird.

Das musikalische Stück „Gisei“ zeigt in Ansätzen all das, was Orffs späteres musikdramatisches Opus kennzeichnet: Ich zitiere aus einer Rezension: „die Suche nach neuen Klängen, Vitalisierung elementarer Rhythmen, Dramatisierung der Sprache, Auseinandersetzung mit dem Denken und Handeln fremder, hier fernöstlicher Kulturen“

Was aber hat dieses Kunstwerk mit dem Stück Karl Orffs zu tun?

Entstanden ist eine Arbeit, die in ihrer ornamental – konkreten Erscheinung einen sehr großen ästhetischen Reiz hat, die aber darüber hinaus eine ganze Reihe von Beziehungen zu eben diesem Stück, zu Karl Orff und zum Darmstädter Kulturleben und Kunstschaffen zu bieten hat.

Die Künstler haben sich das Libretto des Trauerspiels geben lassen.

Den Text haben sie aber auf eine ganz eigene, für ihr Arbeiten durchaus typische Art und Weise in ein neues Werk übersetzt bzw. transformiert.

Was Sie hier an der Wand sehen, das ist der gesamte Text des Trauerspiels. Kein Buchstabe fehlt. Allerdings haben die Künstler den Text nicht nur in seine einzelnen Worte, sondern die einzelnen Worte in ihre kleinsten Bestandteile, in die einzelnen Buchstaben und Satzzeichen zerlegt.

Entsprechend der Häufung ihrer Verwendung produzieren die einzelnen Buchstaben, die stark verdichtet, sich gegenseitig überlagernd auf die Wand gebracht sind, unterschiedlich lange Reihen. Sie haben hierfür eine Schrift verwendet, die ein sehr ausgeprägtes graphisches Schriftbild erzeugt. Dadurch aber dass sich die einzelnen Buchstaben überlagern, entstehen graphische Ornamente, in denen kaum noch die einzelnen Buchstaben wahrgenommen und somit gelesen werden können.

Das mag auf den ersten Blick wie gelungenes formales Spiel wirken, ist aber durchaus mehr.

Bereits im frühen 20. Jahrhundert haben sich Bildende Künstler mit dem Phänomen der Sprache auseinandergesetzt.

Baudelaire fordert die Vernichtung der Erzählung zugunsten der Form des Gedichtes.

Kurt Schwitters schreibt die Ur-Sonate, in der das rhythmische Klangbild den Inhalt dominiert – und

Tzara schließlich fordert die Vernichtung des Wortes für das Nichts.

Aber damit sind wir keineswegs am Ende der Entwicklung bei der Verwendung von Schrift durch Künstler angelangt.

In den 50er Jahren gibt es dann eine Bewegung, die mit der Sprache wie auch mit der Schrift in ganz neuer Art und Weise spielt.

Hier in dieser Stadt entstand der sogenannte Darmstädter Kreis. Das  war eine Gruppe experimenteller Schriftsteller und Regisseure, der sich ab 1957 um Claus Bremer, Daniel Spoerri und Emmet Williams am Landestheater Darmstadt formierte. Ihm gehörten auch Dieter Rot und André Thomkins an. Dieser Kreis versuchte, die Erfahrungen des experimentellen Theaters auf deutsche Bühnen zu übertragen und ein dynamisches Theater zu entwickeln, das das Publikum ins Spiel zu Stellungnahme und gleichberechtigter Aktion aufforderte.

Dies bedeutete, dass der Inhalt einer linearen Erzählung zu Gunsten einer nicht kontrollierbaren, gewissermaßen chaotischen, aber sehr kreativen Situation aufgegeben werden sollte.

Einige Mitglieder des Darmstädter Kreises waren ebenso unter den ersten Lyrikern, die Versuche mit konkreter Poesie anstellten. (Zu ihnen gehörten dann auch Franz Mohn, Eugen Gommringer Rot, Spoerri und andere.)

Damit sie verstehen, was man sich unter konkreter Poesie vorstellen kann, lese ich einige Sätze aus einem Manifest der konkreten Poeten vor:

Darin heißt es:

MAN MUSS DAS ‘ICH’ IN DER LITERATUR ZERSTÖREN

1. MAN MUSS DIE SYNTAX DADURCH ZERSTÖREN, DASS MAN DIE SUBSTANTIVE AUFS GERATEWOHL ANORDNET, SO WIE SIE ENTSTEHEN.
   2. MAN MUSS DAS VERB IM INFINITIV GEBRAUCHEN […].
   3. MAN MUSS DAS ADJEKTIV ABSCHAFFEN […].
   4. MAN MUSS DAS ADVERB ABSCHAFFEN […].
   5. JEDES SUBSTANTIV MUSS SEIN DOPPEL HABEN […].
   6. AUCH DIE ZEICHENSETZUNG MUSS ABGESCHAFFT WERDEN.

Sie sehen, dass es hier ganz wesentlich um eine erste Sinn-Entlehrung der Texte ging, um ein inhaltfreies Spielen mit Sprache. Entsprechend der Maxime „die Sprache prägt das Denken“ sollten daraus aber neue Sinnzusammenhänge entstehen.

Innerhalb der konkreten Poesie entsteht dann eine weitere Bewegung, die so genannte Visuelle Poesie.

Die Visuelle Poesie ihrerseits ist wesentlich durch eine Auseinandersetzung mit außereuropäischen Traditionen, insbesondere mit japanischen Tradition der „Shikakushi“ (dem Text für das Auge) oder „Shishi“ (dem Sehtext), entstanden.

Indem Özlem Günyol und Mustafa Kunt den vorgegebenen Text ordnen, beziehen sie sich auf die ganz ursprüngliche Form dessen, was künstlerisches Tun ist. Eine Form schaffen, eine Gestalt entstehen lassen  heißt, etwas aus einer undefinierten Masse herausheben. Hier geschieht es durch das Aufteilen, das Separieren von Einzelteilen aus dem Ganzen, die so in ihrer eigenen, einer neuen Gestalt erkannt werden können.

Gleichzeitig findet eine Form der Demokratisierung  von Sprache, bzw. deren Bestandteilen statt.

Die Buchstaben werden als reine Zeichen inhaltsfrei nebeneinander gestellt.

Es entsteht ein Ornament, das sich absolut von dem grausamen Inhalt des japanischen Trauerspiels befreit hat.

Allerdings greift die Arbeit etwas auf, das wiederum mit Orff und seiner Auseinandersetzung mit Japan zu tun hat.

Oben haben wir gehört, dass es Carl Orff bei seiner Suche nach neuen Klängen um die Vitalisierung elementarer Rhythmen ging und unter anderem auch um die Auseinandersetzung Klangfeldern, bei denen Töne aus ihrer linearen Präsenz herausgelöst werden.

Die Künstler beziehen sich auf gerade in dieser Stadt wesentlich mit entstandene Bewegungen der konkreten und der visuellen Poesie. Diese hat gleichzeitig einen deutlichen Bezug zu der japanischen Tradition der „Shikakushi“ (den Texten für das Auge). Damit erweisen sie abermals eine Referenz an Karl Orff und seine Bemühungen um eine Auflösung musikalisch melodischer Linearität.

Die Auflösung der Sprache in ihre Bestandteile, die Buchstaben, ermöglicht eine völlig neue Form des Denkens. Das Rohmaterial ist sortiert und kann neu zugeordnet werden.

Mit ihrer Arbeit haben Özlem Günyol und Mustafa Kunt weniger eine Ordnung geschaffen, als vielmehr etwas, das dem Chaos viel näher kommt. Die Auflösung eines narrativen Textes, die Auflösung sprachlicher Linearität und Ordnung zugunsten eines gleichberechtigten Nebeneinanders von Buchstaben.

Immer dort, wo etwas aus einer bestehenden Ordnung herausgenommen wird, wird es tendenziell ins Chaos überführt.

Durch die Ordnung der Buchstaben schaffen sie gleichzeitig ein Bild, das sich direkt mit dem Wesen eines Schöpfungsprozesses auseinandersetzt. Es ist der künstlerische Akt selbst, der hier Bildhaft, bzw. Form werdend, sich selbst thematisiert.

Dr. Thomas Köllhofer

Europe – A Grand Narrative

I have been working on this text over and over and started to rewrite every time I felt the need of saying and stating more. Europe and Europeanness and to become a European, to be part of such gathering and to be a member of such state of belonging evoke many fields of understanding. That has been the challenge of this text and the excitement of the process.
Avrupa-lı-las-tı-r-abil-di-k-leri-m-iz-de-n-mi-sin-iz? (Are you one of among whom we were able to make to become European) is a collaborative work by Özlem Günyol and Mustafa Kunt, which has been realised as an installation in Frankfurt am Main, last year. The work’s location was specially chosen by the artists to be in the neighbourhood of the train station, where it is overly active and crowded as well as populated by people from various countries and social backgrounds. Though the economic background similarity brings these groups to live together in the same quarter. The installation has been placed on a façade of a modernist building in that neighbourhood and was an attraction for the passer-bys especially for the Turkish (reading) community. The question asked in Turkish was posed to the Turkish community living in the area, hence specifying its subject matter or content of the piece. On the other hand, it could be grasped as some text related to Europe if one tried to read or as an advertisement campaign. Günyol and Kunt have solved this confusion by placing the second part of the work in their solo exhibition ‘Be-cause’ at Basis, accompanying an explanatory text. The installation in Turkish displays the production of the word step by step, which becomes a sentence in its translation to other Latin based languages. The word in its syllables which are actually the suffixes propose a timely question starting from the root of the word: Europe.
In Turkish language, production of words is a process of construction. Starting with the source/root word one can add annexes, suffixes and prefixes to produce new words in the related field of the root. For instance göz means eye and gözlük is produced by adding the ‘–lik’ means glasses and gözlükçü is the person who produces glasses and trades them. The structure is also founded on putting the vowels in rhyme and in relation to the requirements of the procedure of producing words. In accordance with this example, Turkish enables to produce long words with annexes, suffixes and prefixes. Through the elementary school years, one gets to learn how to read and write, how to make up words with suffixes and to deconstruct them into the smallest possible syllables or to add as many syllables as possible to make up a meaningful complex word. The competitions of making the longest meaningful word mostly end up with a word on a country and its nationalisation. Thus the longest possible word is mostly related with the norms of belonging and participation, on a nationalist level.* Günyol and Kunt takes this word-play into account and positions Europe, where the plain word game becomes a political output, investigating the norms of belonging and participation as a European. Their positioning of the word-play is taken further to a continent rather than staying with a country and its national aspects. The juxtaposition reflects on their background of receiving Western culture and becomes a projection of a grand narrative. Hence, they bring back the notion of grand narrative, of which conflicts with the aspects of post-modern discourse, that today is announcing its decay. Thus Günyol and Kunt mark the existence of such narratives and such scales of reception that are taking place today.
The piece produced in Turkish indicates certain tendencies that have taken place in Turkey about Europe and Western World. In other words, Turkey and its relation to modernity and Westernisation have been marked with European means of development and living. Turkey, founded in the 20th century, as a country with fresh breathes, with an urge to catch what is happening next, has been (mainly) fulfilled with tendencies of becoming a modern country. The questions of ‘where to go’ and ‘what to follow’ have shaped the development strategies from the beginning of its foundation, and Europe has been received as the source of development: cultural and technological castle of the new, the better, and the best of all that happens. The lateness of starting up anew, from the beginning of founding every single aspect of production and living has caused a certain anxiety and excitement to evolve into something different. West became the object of desire for Turkey: it would always move further and stay ungraspable. Within that rapid urge of development in Turkey, came the melancholy of the train that is missed and will never be caught. (The feeling of sitting at the train station, looking after the missed train on its track…**) The national declaration of facing towards the West and employing the notions of Western development has resulted in the in-between state of belonging, where on the one side stood history and traditions and on the other side development and modernisation. Today, the pattern is prolonged by European Union and Turkey’s candidate position. Since 2001, the integration of European requirements has been reshaping the country and its legislation, its social structures. The change that is introduced as a must is on productive and challenging levels. The required change shall be a rapid and an effective one in order to fulfil the expectations of the capacity of ‘self-realisation’ in liberal sense. It is also a continuation of the modernist tendencies in a way that becoming a member of European Union will be the legalisation of Turkey’s ‘modern’ social state. The membership will stand as a proof of being there, having caught the train. And the question is in which part of the train will Turkey be travelling and with what.
Yet, the modernisation strategies held in Turkey is related to today and to this work also by the fact that, the fragmented state of being has been marked by rebirth of grand narratives and in this particular case Europe and its aspects of belonging and defining the social sphere. Recently, Lisbon treaty has marked the discussions on European Union. Lisbon treaty is mainly about producing a unified constitution that will be valid in all member countries of Europe and there will be an assigned chairman who will be in charge of the whole structure. This is still in discussion and has recently received a rejection from Ireland. The state of the acceptance is still unclear but if so it will be a redefinition of the unification and togetherness. The effects of the unification will possibly lead to more of a standardisation of living styles and normalisation of rituals and customs of each minority and majority groups. If we define the society in the realms of minority and majority and encapsulate the norms of regulation, following stage will be homogeneous, where the integration of the minority into a normality. I recall Hannah Arendt’s definition of the normal man who is someone who can only say two times two is four, repeatedly.
Hence, what has become of Europe today is not what it has resembled in the 80’s or in neither the 70’s nor 60’s. Europe, with its union, tending to have a strong political stance in the world politics is employing norms of hygienisation, normalisation and othering. The policies of standardising the living, controlling the social behaviour and solidifying the borders have been shaping the conditions of being a citizen of a European Country. The economic and social flow is being defined in narrower terms, every day. The other becomes the excluded, the untouched and unrelated. In other words, the other becomes the outsider who shall stay outside. The exclusion of variety and difference increases with the rising of the right-wing governments and nationalist anthems. Europe, a fortress of its own, is being guarded by conservatism and dismissal. The question of investigating participation in such a context: are you one of the among whom we were able to make to become European is not only positioning the notion of nation in a continent-base but also the remarkable aspects of that nation, of that citizenship.
Günyol and Kunt’s question investigates the change that has taken place throughout the years of living in Europe, being part of a western civilisation. The ‘becoming’*** marks alteration, a differing of what one was and what one has become. The over signified Western civilisation and Europeanness is indicated by its contemporary state and in the eye of the beholder. The people who have been living in Europe, in this case in Germany for almost 50 years and have been experiencing what the people they left behind (in Turkey) are longing for. And what is the real picture? Are you, could you become European? Could that process be managed well and what does it mean? Where does it stand? Where will it lead us? Will there be a ‘we’ that is based on autonomous participation? Can we not even mention that ‘we’? What will the future society be like? Are you/will you become one of them? Could you be managed to become normal? How will that feel? How does it feel now?

Fatos Ustek

*For instance, Czech Republic is the country with the longest name in Turkish, and is the most regarded longest word with syllables when made into ‘are you among the ones who we were able to make to become Czech’.
** Ahmet Hamdi Tanpınar has keyed the term ‘missed train’ in regard to the contemporary conditions of 50’s Turkey. Tanpınar was one of the influencing prominent writers in Turkey.
*** The wording of becoming is used in reference to the conceptualisation of Gilles Deleuze. For Deleuze becoming is a continuous ontological procedure where the real and the construction of real is in a state of flux, or differentiation. In this perspective I claim that, the Europeanification of Europe is being defined by the continuous introduction of concepts of social aspects in order to perform the desired entity.