These are the days when I write the most, read the most, on the process, pain and form of creativity. I mean I am writing letters, reading letters...I have tens of people before me, whom I correspond generally in the electronic medium. And the things they tried to create, thought over, felt pain for, reached for are the 'mirrors' they would send to me. Furthermore, some of those correspondences are with people for whom I decided to act as audience only, to whom I informed that I was leaving them alone on their journey. But most of them never give up. They start with "Alright, but listen to me anyway..." and keep on telling their thrills which they never experienced in the past, which they never intended to experience. I sense that some of them will not turn their thrill into an object/mirror, or if they do, they will not like that thing/mirror.
Now that 'I Want My Mirrors' has become an event whose process itself is as much important as its exhibition. Thus now I plan to include some of said correspondences in the exhibition catalogue, naturally by obtaining a prior consent from their writers.
A number of factors arising from the correspondences seem to open a door to new debatable suggestions. Here they are:
The dominant definition of artistic creativity continues to be a selectivist definition for the people who chose a way of life outside artistic creativity. They consider artistic creativity to be a work of a natural talent, even genius, and the latter to be an observable/recognizable process appearing at the early stages of life. In their opinion artistic creativity is not a feasible personal journey which can be aimed and learned.
For the people who chose a way of life outside artistic creativity, the cultural-artistic events, observations and witnessing in which they are interested as a sideline in addition to the professions they selected or agreed to do, are the one and only artistic activity they think they are entitled to be interested in.
For the people who chose a way of life outside artistic creativity, their limited activities involving traditional, decorative or -almost in spite of themselves- spontaneous creativity can only be defined with just one word: hobby! The only common aspect of those people who keep a diary, who write their travel impressions, reviews on events of art, who compose poems or songs, play an instrument or paint pictures is their pre-fabricated belief that their activities is not artistic in terms of content or form...
The web sites focusing on literature, culture and arts apply lower selection barriers thanks to their independence from the rules, hierarchy and financial problems of the printed periodicals in this country, so that they rank as the first and fastest address for the people who chose a way of life outside artistic creativity. Noticing this new and unexpected opportunity, said people review what they wrote and painted in order to make them less amateurish, and set their production (creation) standards higher for their future output.
For the people who chose a way of life outside artistic creativity, every effort made by the others to show, teach, notify, point out and provoke the creative potential existing in their mind is an enjoyable but hopeless effort. In their opinion, the subjects of said effort are real artists who don't forget them (or who don't forget where they came from)!.. And the above mentioned efforts by said real artists are humble but ill-defined mentions presented to them who are not artists at all...
Some of the people who chose a way of life outside artistic creativity have their artistic creativity sentences or steps extinguished, prevented or destroyed, or they had to quit said steps when faced with reality, at one time or another in their life. And they need an answer to the question if they are too late to continue their artistic creativity, but it is unknown who will give that answer.
For the people who chose a way of life outside artistic creativity, every call from a subject who presents as a creative ground not the well-known and popular references of traditional and contemporary arts, but the 'spirit of time' is a confusing and curious call. For them every creative ground remaining supra-disciplinary, interdisciplinary, mischievous, containing the ordinariness of daily life is a field of expression where they can express their experiences, views and knowledge at a level they never hoped for. The ground in question has a quality enabling them to debate the existence for artistic creativity, which they had thought over and refused, again, and they have no pre-fabricated answers in said debate. The more the ground of debate stimulate them, the more they ask questions!
What's more, the definition of a higher problem concerning the superiority and originality of the quality of artistic creativity might lead the people who chose a way of life outside artistic creativity to spend efforts for a meaning and purpose which they can define as creativity now thanks to the peace of mind they enjoy by excluding themselves from said definition. Furthermore, they notice during those journeys of yours that their non-artistic experiences are so rich that they are efficient resources for that they attempt to do.
My dialogue with the subjects having the above mentioned subjects is continuing, and will continue. And the changing, transforming and evolving nature of each of those subjects, arising from their inability to continue to use their old and familiar definitions about their existence continues to make me happy...
(Article by the artist, published in "Görsel Kültür Arşivi" ParalaX on 16.09.2000)