You have a blog as well as your newspaper and magazine experiences. It seems like the blog is for the audience following particularly Ayşegül Sönmez whereas the rest address anyone who bought the newspaper or the magazine. You have a wide range of audience. How does this work?
In fact I care about that 'everyone' so much. I mean who is that "everyone"? Sometimes I think about myself as a translator; that is why you asked a good question. When today's writer look into a work, he/she needs to translate it for everyone to understand that work. I believe in translating in a way for everyone to understand and I see this as a kind of a mission as well. I don't believe in writings with many quotations and with lots of references to some philosophers. I believe in explaining the question of a work philosophically, but with a language that everyone can understand. Therefore there or here does not matter for me. I think I developed a kind of a style over time by keeping these issues in consideration. I used to have a column in Milliyet called Art Niyet. Before that we were publishing a magazine called Negatif, and this was the main point. Negatif didn't believe in something called high and low art. It aimed at examining popular culture and its icons, and it wasn't disgusted from the popular in the name of art. There were times when it was praising kitsch and also making fun of agendas through tests. It was definitely an avant-garde work in a mainstream magazine group. It really was a good project; but as all good projects it didn't last long. Deceased Duygu Asena was the editor in chief. I was writing on plastic arts there. We used to call it like that at the time; it is not used as, now. What I am trying to say is that there is B.C. and A.D. of this work: I am young; but I witnessed the past since my father's connections and him owning an art gallery in Kadıköy.
Is there anything in practice such as I can deal with this in my blog; but I can't do the same in x magazine or x newspaper?
I don't have anything as such. I even try to write an academic article as I am. I don't believe in academics anyway. I am lecturing in a university; but I don't think these kind of titles are important. I find the forced academic format with a lot of footnotes and quotations boring as well. That is why I think I try to form my own language in this area and it is a very problematic area in this respect. Nobody can make it personalized; there is so little who can manage it...
How do you choose your topic?
For instance, I reached Cubism in a conference from an image that is delivered to liquor stores (tekel) after alcohol prohibitions. I make these kind of associations: images circulating in the city coming to a point in art history or visa versa. Since you do this as a job, you need to follow certain exhibitions, but you don't have to write about everything in it. You can choose one work from it and trace the whole path and inspiration of exhibition with that work. I am paying so much attention to these kind of things. Can we come up with any other kind of art critic understanding? I struggled with this for years. Sanatatak has a very important mission in this sense; it has provided a space. You can even write when the exhibition is over; if you still have that in your mind, then you can write about it more than once. The biggest handicap of Turkish press was this. You wouldn't write it once the exhibition is finished. But you would in Sanatatak.com! I am visiting Venice Biennial with a Western colleague of mine: she write after three months; I have to write there and then!
The writers have effect on forming of literature. What do you think about it?
They sure do. After all is said and done, our perspective on today and the critical photo we take are going to be source for further academic researches. There is more a risk in question in the way I do this job rather then writing a thesis.
My collogues and I produce word on what is daily. However, an art historian sets off from the one, of which consensus has already been done, and that is already in history. All my life, I have always been defined as a journalist when I was with academics and critic when I was with journalists. Yet I am all of it and I think journalism is too risky but creative in compared to the other one.
On the other hand due to the existing network, it is quite hard for the one, forming this language, to exist. It is also very hard financially.
Yes; there is financial problem. It is not possible to continue one's living with this. About the other issue: that is why I say sanatatak. We don't have any power behind us. We are only proceeding with our own possibilities. We get support here and there. Surely we wish to get more. But the cure for all this is not Drogba! Independent publishing! Autonomy! The number of writers will increase if this happens in Turkey. For instance, one of our writers went to an exhibition and instead of writing on the works in the exhibition, the writer wrote something about his/her puberty that the exhibition has taken him to, and I think this was so valuable - it was an experiment of style. We need things like this so much. There should be multitudinousness! Both curator and writer; as well as artist and also a publisher and gallerist... Everybody needs to open up a space for others and as I said this multitudinousness needs to be established.
You are using social media quite effectively. You both have communication with audience and also get involved in discussions. I can't recall anyone, who uses this efficiently.
This is a medium creating a multitudinousness and that is why it is so beautiful. You can hear the multitudinousness there; but there is an issue that I am afflicted with: Everybody thinks that sanaberbat is me. This mistake can be professionally quite weary. Let that person -whoever that person is- continue writing; but I will be explaining that this person is not me by taking legal action.
You have said in one of your articles that 'we criticised contemporary art in the presence of gezi's visual opposing conceptual culture. We had a chance to confront ourselves and our culture labourers.'. What kind of a confrontation was this?
I think this was a sudden and a very deep confrontation. This is what I call life-art issue. Life got ahead; sometimes life score a goal to art and this was one of those moments. The second one was the cancellation of Mardin Biennial, for instance. The reality that is lived, push you not to do anything or put you in a confrontation with what you do. Our friends were quite conformist until Gezi. What is going to happen after the pink bulldozer? We had some meeting on this issue; but we didn't turn this into a book immediately. Gezi is becoming a commodity. Shall we put this pink bulldozer in the biennial or something? Just leave it there; that happened then. Let us deliver some things to life.
Lastly, you are saying in one of your interviews that 'balloons were being created through the clearance of culture and art pages with the support of economy pages and end the jobs of art writers'. This must have created problems from the perspective of art writing's quality as well as being unemployed. How do you see this?
I witnessed this period and I managed to follow since I worked in the newspapers all the time. When we were making Milliyet Sanat in every fifteen days, all of a sudden it became monthly, then became glossy papered and it started to produce under the oppression of selling more slogans. Then I wasn't writing anymore. I got transferred to Milliyet newspaper's culture and art service from Negatif magazine in '96-'97 When we were having two giant papers then, now there is not even half a page; it is being closed. I saw this being transferred to economy pages. In fact I had a proposal when I had a column in Milliyet; but it was ignored: I suggested the people doing the economy pages should write for art and us to go and write for economy news. If we have done something like this it was going to be a performative work and an important action. It is written about the fairs in the articles that this work is being sold for this million dollar - it is all numbers. This is a very dangerous thing: Sanatatak is formed since I foresaw this: in order to defend "writing on art without numbers" and we are in our third year. Complaining does not encourage creativity. Let us memorialise Hüseyin Alptekin with 'Don't Complain': we should to stop complaining and rack our brains on what we can do with this situation. This is a global problem; not unique to us. All the writers are afflicted with it. There is an organization AICA: how many members an how many articles were written in a year and where? For instance let this be calculated. I think more writers should write more articles and AICA should do something about it. For instance, there are foundations funding artists to do their job; but these foundations do not send a local eye to go and see and write about that work; they don't even support the status of art writer. Either the curators or the artists are supported with these funds. But, wouldn't all these works be transferred to art history with the words of writer? No! It is enough if a foreign writer writes about a Turkish artist supported in a foreign country! It is not important to have form a language and provide an intellectual build-up. All to do with network. Turkish artist is in that exhibition!!! Here the mission is complete. Hence, I am thinking about a form of organization only for art writers. Not only for contemporary art. We should be thinking on the concept of culture labourer. Think about it: you are talking about something that is sold for millions of dollars; yet you don't have any money to pay for your internet! How is that possible? And this is exactly the situation of a brave writer!
