Publication: Kamusal alanda seramik heykeller
Abstract
Kentsel yaşamın yüzyıllar boyunca oluşturduğu toplumsal bellek, kültürel gelişim ve çağımızdaki kentsel dönüşümün sanat’da ki etkileri, bu etkileşimlerle doğan yeni tanımlar Seramik Sanat’ını da kavramsal bir alana dahil eder. Artık Seramik Sanat’ı kendine özgü malzeme (kolay şekillenme, organik etki, pişerek oluşma, insani varoluşun sembolik anlatımı ve bu sebeplerle insanoğluyla dolaysız iletişim gibi özellikleriyle; toplumsal sorunlara, çağımızdaki teknolojik gelişmelere, kavramsal bir söylem oluşturmaktadır. Kamusal alanda yer alan Seramik Eserler bireyle girdiği ilişkide onu düşünsel algılamalara ve bazende bireyi fiziksel katılıma davet eder. Kamusal Alanda Seramik Heykeller başlığı altında “Seramik Sanat’ı sokaklarda, meydanlarda, parklarda güzel bir obje olmaktan çıkar ve kamusal alanla bütünleşen, kamusal alanı değiştiren eleştirel bir nesneye dönüşür. Bu dönüşüm ekonomik/ politik/ kültürel alan içinde bir sorgu, sorgulama nesnesi ile varlaşır. Esasında oluşan bu dil kültürel yapı içinde, seramik malzemeyi yeniden hatırlamanın bir ön taslağıdır. Alanlarda oluşan bu söylem öznenin kendi var oluşunu kalıtsal bir heykele dönüştürür. Söylem öznenin tartışma ya da anlamı değiştirme ve eleştirel tarafını öne çıkarma eylemiyle paralel yürür. Nesneler artık dildeki tüm araçlarını harekete geçirir. Beğeni/ eleştiri/ kavram bu nesnenin üzerinden yürür. Seramik, malzemenin kendine özgü yapısı: İfade ve Biçim üzerinden kurgulanmış “Sanat Eseri” ifadesini dolduracak kavramsal bir alanda yerini alır. Yaşamın bir parçası olan seramik, kent insanının yeni istemleriyle seramik düşüncesinin ötesine sıçramıştır. Eser olmaya. Bu sıçrayış kamusal alanlara ve kentte yaşayan bireye nasıl yansır? İfade ve malzeme özelliği daha karmaşık bir özne halinde varlaşacak söylemin ön taslağı haline dönüşerek eser kamusal alanda yeni bir söylem ve ‘dil’i hazırlar.
The impact of social memory formed by urban life for centuries, cultural development, and urban transformation in our era on Ceramics Art, and new definitions that emerge with these new interactions incorporates Ceramics Art into a conceptual sphere. Now, Ceramics Art, with its unique material plainnes, creates a conceptual discourse for the societal problems, future anxiety, and technological developments in our era. It invites Ceramics Art in the public sphere to intellectual perception and physical participation within its relation to the individual. “Ceramics Art” in the public sphere is no longer a beautiful object in the streets, squares, and parks. It transforms into an objective criticism object that integrates with the public sphere, that determines its own sphere in it, and that changes it. This transformation comes into existence as an inquiry into and/ or questioning of the economic/ political/ cultural sphere. In essence, this language is the preliminary draft of the re-juxtaposition within the cultural structure.This discourse that is formed in the spheres transforms the own existence of the subject into a hereditary sculpture.The issue is the challenging disintegration problem pertaining to the possibility of the discourse objects in the public sphere to change self. The claim of a determined objective ceramic sculpture on the discourse field is an extension of the hereditary thesis or claim on the subject that is uncertain, that can be split up or that is actual. Discourse goes parallel with the subject’s act of changing the discussion or the meaning and higlighting its critical aspects. The objects now mobilize all their means in language. Appreciation/ criticism/ concept is based on this object. Ceramics, the plainness of material. It takes its place in a conceptual field that will meet the expression “Work of Art” that is built on expression and form. Being a part of the context, ceramics has leaped beyond the thought of ceramics with the new demands of the urban person. How does this leap reflect on the public spaces and the individual living in the city? As the plainness of the expression and the material transforms into a preliminary draft of the discourse that will come into existence as a more complicated subject, the artwork produces a new discourse and “language”.
The impact of social memory formed by urban life for centuries, cultural development, and urban transformation in our era on Ceramics Art, and new definitions that emerge with these new interactions incorporates Ceramics Art into a conceptual sphere. Now, Ceramics Art, with its unique material plainnes, creates a conceptual discourse for the societal problems, future anxiety, and technological developments in our era. It invites Ceramics Art in the public sphere to intellectual perception and physical participation within its relation to the individual. “Ceramics Art” in the public sphere is no longer a beautiful object in the streets, squares, and parks. It transforms into an objective criticism object that integrates with the public sphere, that determines its own sphere in it, and that changes it. This transformation comes into existence as an inquiry into and/ or questioning of the economic/ political/ cultural sphere. In essence, this language is the preliminary draft of the re-juxtaposition within the cultural structure.This discourse that is formed in the spheres transforms the own existence of the subject into a hereditary sculpture.The issue is the challenging disintegration problem pertaining to the possibility of the discourse objects in the public sphere to change self. The claim of a determined objective ceramic sculpture on the discourse field is an extension of the hereditary thesis or claim on the subject that is uncertain, that can be split up or that is actual. Discourse goes parallel with the subject’s act of changing the discussion or the meaning and higlighting its critical aspects. The objects now mobilize all their means in language. Appreciation/ criticism/ concept is based on this object. Ceramics, the plainness of material. It takes its place in a conceptual field that will meet the expression “Work of Art” that is built on expression and form. Being a part of the context, ceramics has leaped beyond the thought of ceramics with the new demands of the urban person. How does this leap reflect on the public spaces and the individual living in the city? As the plainness of the expression and the material transforms into a preliminary draft of the discourse that will come into existence as a more complicated subject, the artwork produces a new discourse and “language”.