Halil Akdeniz (Yoruma Doğru/Toward Interpretation, 1992)
The sensations, invoked by a work of art are real, that’s why they are beyond aesthetics. Th. W. Adorno
Halil Akdeniz contradicts the common scales of aesthetic feeling, with the world of drawing which is based on the visuality of thought; communication channels have been added to the settling duration with the prospects of the material. The common destiny of these works, is the insistent externalization by a wide range of observers.
On the other hand, it is impossible to establish any relationship between the headings with a clear meaning such as “Visual Evaluations of the Pollution of the Gulf of Izmir” or “Visual Notes from Izmir” and the visual counterpart on the canvas; the path extending from the verbal language to the vision, has been reversed, and the vision itself has been transferred to an asylum ignorantiae; the visual counterpart of the vision is just like a hideaway in which the absolute causelessness rules. In this context, the fact that the same problem has been a matter of argument for linguistics, is a rather important point for us: “World is an indicator for absolute phonology (Lautform), from one aspect. From the aspect of meaning, a word is a picture (image), because the meaning of the words reflect the objects and visions in the environment, with its specific conscious content, perception, design and concept”. (L. O. Resnikow). However, under the light of this determination there are two significant points that need to be kept in mind: a) meaning is open to the intervention of various subjective factors, mainly its content and perception; b) the duration of reflection is not only limited with the same production of a thing in another language, but the reflection is not only limited with the same production of a thing in another language, but the reflection of the word that comes into vision, has acquired an independent right of existence automatically; the principle of mutual independence has been imposed in the relationship between the meaning and vision. However, gradually it is observed that the inter-action duration between meaning and vision in both, the imagination and in concrete material, forms a whole which is in paradox with itself - along with the application of the principle of mutual independency -; the text with drawings or the inverse, is the best example of contradictio in adjecto.
In this situation, we distinguish that a different process is imposed in the drawing activities of Akdeniz, which are handled as a problem of reproduction in parallel with the duration of thought. The vision in the thesis of meaning returning back to itself, does not designate the aftermath of the imaged meaning, but it implies that we can create a new vision from it. Therefore, an available observation object does not exist for us; because seeing is always indexed to an organized pattern for reproduction of itself. A person wishing to see an available thing when looking at these works will be disappointed; because only a thing has been submitted to them.
In fact, all of these works point out the remaining freedom from a hopeless effort of forming a language, without a doubt; when Akdeniz adopted the logic of a discursive language at the cost of narrowing the field of motion, the chance of consolidating the subjectivity increase automatically. Thus, the artist has acquired the right to program the conditions of communication of realization as he wishes; now the observer has participated in the responsibility of not being understood.
In addition to this, Akdeniz follows the trace of a hundred year old tradition. Just like the first few samples that opened a new era in the independency of drawing were initiated with Cézanne and his followers. From now on, with its immanent laws, drawing is an independent structure, no matter whether its in the form of absolute graphemes in which the visual values before the figure and concept are emphasized or as a whole consisting of color stains (sensations colorantes). This venture which was aimed at changing the quality of seeing, has given us a new dimension in the context of total questioning of the perception contents. According to this, as long as the figure that we see on the canvas is there to invoke the design of its former existence, the tendency towards the transformation of the drawing to absolute object, is constantly under risk. Without a doubt the roots of this trend lays a utopic longing for the abolishment of the borderline between art and life.
Actually, we can not talk about a direct attitude towards the coincidence of life and art; because since the beginning he has believed that a peaceful shortcut for the cooperation of these does not exist. Therefore in this situation, the problem of interruption between art and life is solved by handling the principles that play a role in the artistic creation, in the content of their counterparts in the duration of thought; that is, a suggestion is implied not forced. In this case the meaning of being an object for art gains clearnes. As the content of perception is a product of the objects in my environment - I can only imagine a thing (shape), by making a selection between the things I have seen in the past - drawing should be included in this thought as well; instead of being a copy of the already existing, drawing should create a new field of entity along with it. However as it was mentioned earlier, there is a rather sensitive duration of abstraction; and it is very likely that we shall fall into a paradox, unless we are careful. Just like, the extend of the conformity of the possibility of creating a new vision from a vision, with what we have said can surprise us. In this case, we should repeat it again: With its object feature, drawing exists as itself, without representing another thing as long as it takes its place near the existing objects; we can easily agree on this matter. However, wouldn’t it be an indicator of a paradox if the vision that we encounter here does not point a result - otherwise a possibility of producing a vision would not be available - in the case of the drawing existing without being a copy of a thing? In fact this is an obstruction for the drawing; however, an explosion in the interpretation in the quality and quantity occurs at the extend of the blockings in the communication channels; the dialogue that we establish with the art work becomes more concentrated. Thus, instead of the drawing representing a thing, other things represent drawing. In the 20th Century, this secret exchange of places between object and figure (drawing, image) relationship has effected the various fields of life, especially the stage aesthetics and it has created a basis for a new model of sight.
Akdeniz always favors the drawing which is limited with the reality of the material; the internal logic of the work does not give a clue that a representation of a thing could be established. The canvas is a mirror that reflects itself, constantly swallowing illusions. For this reason, an organisation, in which only syntactical concerns are imposed, is used; “The analyzing of my paintings does not mean the determination of the borders of things such as items and objects only. Lines, linear elements, pencil, paint, and colors are used on the same canvas without one being preface of the other.” In fact, when examined independently line, color, rhythm and etc. are direct estranging elements in drawing; the illusions are constructed on the hiding of these elements. Therefore, “determination of the borders of things” is a concession of material aesthetics; the perfection of representation depends on the extend of this compromise. However, a problem that can not be solved completely is costantly prevailing: Even the most perfect illusion can not exceed the material supplying its existence; otherwise, talking about a syntactical element in the organizing of a realistic drawing would be sarcastic. Akdeniz has protected the material only at this stage without hesitation; the syntactical elements possess an interminable independence, as long as they do not exceed their own reality. According to this point of view, the only thing that restricts the freedom of the canvas is nothing but the canvas itself.
The set square that we see in the works the theme of “Gulf Pollution”, has a different importance for us, respecting the recognition of an object in the works of Akdeniz. Without a doubt, a series of answers can be given easily to the reason of the selection of the set - square; however it has only one explanation with respect to the inner logic of the work. Providing that it is painted on in connection to the surface, the set square is an object that does not contradict the attitude of excluding the place illusion (superficiality principle); just like the two dimensional ruler or paper. Furthermore, geometrical shapes that are in a harmony with the hart-edge aesthetics such as triangles, squares, rectangles etc. have been distributed to the surface of the canvas according to a secret symmetrical principle. Actually, it is possible that these shapes are implying a certain thing, just like letters and numbers; however we can not get anywhere by trying to interpretate these; because nothing is explained here, at least a direction of this kind is not intended, only the possibilities of expressing by means of paintings have been investigated.
For Akdeniz, painting is a stimulation of the potential of the empty canvas, and making this work according to its internal logic, as independently as it can; with its narrow meaning this is the non - interference of semantics; the aim of individual interference is keeping the interference at the minimum level. “The subjective duration in creation of respecting the individual is insignificant; however, this duration has an objective aspect as well, for the realization of the inherent law.” (Th. W. Adorno). Akdeniz always follows the trace of this inherent legality, at the cost of facing the consequences; the staged visions are the possibilities which are sheltered by inherent logic of the art work.
Again in this context, another point that needs to be given special attention to, is the place illusion which is excluded by absolute superficiality. The real place in which the painting takes place emphasizes itself as powerful as the trend, directed at the exclusion of the feeling of depth; that is the relation between these two, is inversely proportioned. This problem of double place, determined by the attitude against illusion, is at the same time the borderline between photograph and abstract painting. The photograph is essentially based on the rejection of the place in which it is in; we look at it and enter the place it represents. Entering the contructional place and expriencing the feeling of being there, is the pre-condition of illusion; even a single figure referring to its location shall be enough for this. Drawing, in which the object character is dominant, is a painted or -empty- canvas that is added to the place; a drawing of this type does not take us to a different place, all that we can do is associate it with a thing that we have seen.
At this stage we confront a difficulty and see that we need to consider other factors in the classification of the drawings of Akdeniz. Even though there is not even a single clue referring to the open space in the drawings of “İzmir” or “the Gulf pollution”, we stil confront with a situation which is related with the place. Without even considering what the drawing represents -there isn’t such a thing- we find ourselves in an indoor place, an office or a laboratory. This situation emerges from the presence of a painting that could be there, not that there is a thing representing that place. However, the so called coincidence that, we witness here is not an exact resemblance of the place; all the frequented points are organised for implying themselves; nothing changes the fact that we are standing in front of a painting. In other words, we can not enter the place that is foreseen for the painting. The most concrete example displaying that the canvas can be a wall or a panel in the works of Akdeniz, is the canvas on canvas; a trick that can be continued forever, circulus vitiousus; neither the canvas not the wall; only the thing it is, an object.
It is definite that these paintings do not represent a thing; naturally, what these paintings can represent depends on our life and conscious.
Mehmet Ergüven