I have to say that thIs desIre for dIssImIlarIty and unIqueness Is rooted In the defence of subjectIvIty. ArtIstIc systems also partIcIpate in the socIal + technologIcal + polItIcal forces of the day. They suppress and oblIterate subjectIvIty. In my opInIon the attempt of certaIn art quarters to suppress subjectIvIty by means of populIst approaches wIll create a flatness, a voId. ExclusIon of the IndIvIdual, a great flatness, a horIzon of the medIocre... The IndIvIdual vanIshIng at last In the many.

Mümtaz Sağlam – In your latest works, in which surface considerations are clearly discernible, and in the choice of materials, we see that the object is treated for itself, by itself, and in all in its corporal identity. It is possible to relate this development to the variability controlled by “a creative will alluding to what is outside the picture” in your work. Alternatively, would it be correct to interpret this situation as a “new course” which concretises the symbiosis of your art with life in the holistic sense and its connection with the topical?

Ömer Uluç – Bringing the material identity of the object to the fore or obliterating it are not aesthetic considerations which have any importance for me. I have created a style, not only for painting, but for all media of expression. Consequently I am more concerned with the composition of the object and its participation in the game. Composition begins with the object itself and its specificality. Then come transformations and a process of formation. The object, that is substance, which has acquired form within a process of formation, is for me a hunt, an obsession. Someone who is perpetually expanding their own territory, as if hunting down ghosts and shadows on its borders… In the end the object hunter achieves freedom of a kind. For me it is inconceivable that an artist should restrict his own freedom, himself, that is his own art, and impose prohibitions.

I am someone who takes risks and moves fast, so perhaps this derives from my style, my dimension of movement. Consequently everything that I see and their components are naturally within this expansion and territory. In this way what is seen takes on significance in the present. Yes, in short this might be called a new course, but with a long past.

MS – In your work, which I believed to have been transformed into a “platform for debating probabilities,” I believe there are very important clues to observations and conclusions relating to experiments with painting and giving form. These pictures which in a real sense bring the surface into conflict with the object or image, to be honest know well how to place themselves at the necessary distance from the entire art tradition and future, and the new and topical. In your view, what can this expansion of your work consist of in terms of the morphological systems of its general approach as demonstrated at present?

ÖU – “Probabilities platform” is an accurate definition. It points to the most important thing, to freedom, the diversity and richness of “life + art.” I have never understood the adoption of a stance and unchanging attitude in art. Attitudes and judgments in the end suggest systems for acquiring respect and position.

Early on I emerged from “paint + paint,” the paint became thinner and faster. Later by means of various transparent layers I endeavoured to open the surface to depth, to memory, or by means of openings to expansion, to the future. Then came three dimensions, and “picture + sculpture” began as a reflection of the surface. In this exhibition there is a further addition: “picture + sculpture + object.” The object in question here is an opening, a replica cast from a ready-made object. But it has been painted and altered before taking its place, creating a formation with the two and three dimensional forms next to it, without losing its own past, so its meaning changes and expands. Here there is growth by the multiplication of opposites and semblances. A process of growth, of perpetuity, through extensions.

MS – In an article I published last year, I said that deliberate focus on the absence of order was a factor in your work, and that it comes into focus within an existence based on violating many things, including order, from the start. In this respect one could speak of a preliminary design phenomenon aiming at its own dissimilarity and uniqueness. Or could we see your process of creating a work as a “game of seeking a reason” which gives clarity to current problems?

ÖU – I have to say that this desire for dissimilarity and uniqueness is rooted in the defence of subjectivity. Artistic systems also participate in the social + technological + political forces of the day. They suppress and obliterate subjectivity. In my opinion the attempt of certain art quarters to suppress subjectivity by means of populist approaches will create a flatness, a void. Exclusion of the individual, a great flatness, a horizon of the mediocre… The individual vanishing at last in the many.

MS – The art of Ömer Ulus comprises the “mixed” products of a consciousness which can be both Eastern and Western. Basically, a design which seems plain and to that extent simple rests on a sense of order which we coula call ‘the expression of chaos” or “organised chaos.” Figuration achieved over time in a process dominated by abstraction is transformed into indicators of a psycho-social approach to analysis of criticism and humour. Which equivalents does this new course which seems to relate to a perception and thought out-side the norm find for itself in the social and cultural sphere as a result? for example, if we consider the works in your exhibition, bow does a context like “Eyes/Tbe Good, The Bad and The Loving” gain clarity?

ÖU – I must say that the idea of analysis is not an approach which I am particularly accustomed to. I do not trust much in approaches. “Eyes” aims to sum up what we have been talking about. Because it shows that everything, all objects, can be alive or perceived as being so. When you ascertain where their eyes might be, you feel that you can animate them at a touch. By the right touch on any surface, with any patch of colour, they come to life.

We now come to the main game which takes place between the real and imaginary. A patch which is part of reality becomes a figure-image at a touch. Therefore chaos has eyes.