The Human-Object Relationship in Singular and Plural Contexts
A Progressive Look at the Paintings of Fevzi Karakoç by Kaya Özsezgin

I

Man himself is the starting point for everything in life; everything exists with man and is formed with him and by his conscious intervention. As humanist approaches mature to the level whereby they direct existential and universal formations and activate scientific hypotheses, we become even more aware that this fact follows this procedure. Art is, in one sense, the indicator of this phenomenon. The artist is conscious of his own body's existence and then, using his mind that directs the body, observes the positioning of other living beings in nature around him and, by personally intervening in their existence in line with his requirements, creates certain results.

The curiosity to perceive and learn is as much a factor here as is the objective to imbue these results with meaning within the sphere created by emotions and thoughts. We are only able to organise our relationships with other creatures in direct proportion to how well we can use our bodies with our own volition. The body itself consists of elements such as hands, arms, legs and trunk, all working in harmony with each other. The artist's instinct to control his environment is manifested through his decisiveness of making this instinct a reality. But what remains an invariable is this point: Interest starts from the near environment and goes towards the far. Just as humans start by learning about the nearest, the artist is also likely to prefer the closest opportunities in providing visual and technical material during his learning process.

As horizons are formed in expanding parabolas from the near to the far, the artist naturally is directed from the more elementary to the more complex. Life provides findings that are directed from the singular to the plural; this is undoubtedly closely related to the feeling of "dissatisfaction" that exists in the artist's nature. This phenomenon, which we can also define as the feeling of extending oneself, is the main element of the periodic activity: The means of expression obtained at first are defined within a unilateral relationship between the subject (artist) and object (nature); this relationship later develops into a more reciprocal one.

This balance is without doubt neither stable nor unchanging. The changes in the artist's perceived world and his specific vision as to the objects he witnesses or enters into a visual relationship with, will all have a bearing on his personal make up. It is possible to refer at this point to the tendency to view detail as an integral part of the whole as the natural instinct that connects many artists. But what essentially defines an artist's vision are the stages that follow each other much later. This does not have to mean that what is left behind at each stage is gone and forgotten.

As periodic works are accumulated, what new references were offered to the artist, and at which point, becomes clearer upon a review of works from these periods. These references may appear somewhat opaque to us. A deeper look, however, will reveal the connexions between the deep and the surface and the unilateral and reciprocal. All the same, the passage to the reciprocal leads to more a selective route for the artist. While reciprocity and selectiveness appear at first to be mutually exclusive, the former manifests itself in looking at the world of objects while the latter, the multidirectional and more embracing view, needs to be disciplined by a reductive method and therefore contains the obligatory revolutionary relationship.

The work of art as an externalisation example does not need to be reflective and therefore it brings along a structure based on process during various phases and this will be spread through to every stage of change. This (the research into the timedependant textural structure of the creation) may well be why, the quality of the conceptual dimensions of the work that caused its birth and later, underwent certain degrees of change, in other words, the "itselfness" of the work- becomes clearer. These details are valid for all types of work, whether one is looking at the creation of evaluating it in line with the personality of the artist; they are also likely to be investigated from the point of view of the artist's own background and the conditions in which he lives.

The lifeline and the activities of the artist intersect at certain points. Such an approach, a mainstay of objective criticism, may at first appear not to bind the artist; however, it does continue to be an indirect element that affects his choices. This is the reason why the peaks and troughs in the artist's lifeline and the environments that he enters and leaves will occasionally reveal themselves as indicative values in the contextual backgrounds of the work.

The first comment one must make with regard to the art of Fevzi Karakoç is, while he starts out with some observations, he is not analogical, but representative; not reflective, but commentative; not figurative, but rather, dedicated to giving perception through thought. This attitude can only be realised through accepting art and life as equivalent, co-existing in a lane of mutual reactions, justifying and proving each other. However, in doing so, he has always preferred to discover the routes that lead him to his perceptions by his own efforts.

In other words, he has always favoured an approach that attempts to capture the mysteries of harmony not through traditional formats but rather by following the possibilities offered to him by the painting itself. All this will lead us to look at the points of view in his life to date; he obviously considers painting as a practice, an integral activity of his life that contains its own objective.

II

Artists use paradigmatic motifs from their homes that they have inherited through birth and family relationships; these motifs are preserved as an infrastructure and only later are reflected in their works. These motifs are often hidden values that are only revealed through immersion. Stylistic analyses of the works may reveal certain evidences leading to their detection.

Artists use indicative motifs from their homes that they have inherited through birth and family relationships; these motifs are preserved as an infrastructure and only later are reflected in their works. These motifs are often hidden values. A certain amount of time is required for them to be converted into original motifs. Stylistic analyses of the works reveal the changes these values have undergone in line with knowledge and accumulation and lead us to review the artist's life story once more.

Fevzi Karakoç was born in 1941 in Çankiri and he went to the elementary school in his hometown. It was not unusual for pupils to take on summer jobs; children would learn a trade and contribute to the family finances by working in a tailor's or cobbler's workshop or in a restaurant or patisserie. Children who weren't going to school would while away whole days playing games at the coffee houses. As Çankiri was a small town, time passed slowly for the unemployed. Fevzi Karakoç, on the other hand, worked in a trade every summer and went to the cinema at nights.

These periods of work benefited him: Using tools, being able to do something, human relationships and manual dexterity are all valuable skills. Sadly he was unable to find any documents, books or pictures on art. That being said, the undeniable will to paint had already manifested itself. There was no one around who was in any way interested in painting. He still wonders where the desire originated from. Pre-school, he was making clay animal statues (clay being the easiest material to obtain).

He would put them under the sofa to dry and his mother would throw them out of the house as bad, which saddened Fevzi. His father, despite being a devout person, did not object to his son's interest in art. His mother had been induced by the next-door mosque's imam, who insisted that sculpture was proscribed and therefore statues had to be thrown out of the house. It must have been his reaction to this narrowmindedness that directed him towards manual trades.

He would enlarge the portraits of the emperors in the elementary school history books and take great pleasure in attaching these portraits on the history timelines. The first paintings he ever saw must have been the colour reproductions in the Hayat magazine centrepieces; he would collect these pictures, observe them for hours and then copy them on pieces of card or tin plates that he had found.

He often wondered about the methods the artists had used to create these paintings. As he had no other pastimes, he focused all his attention on these pictures and widened his horizons. He would sometimes go to the coffeehouse, in search of something else to do, but as he knew no card or board games, he would soon leave this uninteresting entertainment and returned to his main interest.

Another interest was the manufacture of horse carts, a common handcraft in Çank?r? during his childhood. The carts would be brought to the decorator and he would watch the decorative motifs the artisan would apply by painting. He had often been drawn to the floral motifs that the decorator would achieve by a couple of flicks of the wrist. There would usually be a stream in these paintings, a house by the stream and some hills, trees and the sun over the hills; another sine qua non would be a bridge over the stream. This handcraft has all but disappeared today; yet it is still fresh in Fevzi Karakoç's memory.

He saw an oil painting exhibition at the Çank?r? local education centre when he was in third form; this left a huge impression on his visual memory. Groups of pupils were being shown round the exhibition by their teachers. So entranced was he by his first group visit that he went back after school every day to look at the paintings for hours. This exhibition that introduced him to real paintings was truly an invaluable experience. While he may have forgotten the name of the artist who first activated his thirst for learning, he still remembers one painting depicting the Balkan Wars: Surrounded by their fallen comrades, some soldiers are reduced to gnawing tree barks to assuage their hunger. It was this event that made him think of the educational value of museums.

He decided to go to Ankara on his own to sit the Hasanoglan Teacher School entrance exam. He stayed at the school as a guest for a week. He was worried about not passing the test-style examinations, as he was enchanted by the school. A green town, extensive sports facilities, a swimming pool, painting and music halls, a cinema and an open-air theatre had all impressed him tremendously.

The good news finally arrived; he had passed the test and was accepted to Hasanoglan. The school was set in a modern campus, offering a variety of facilities to develop the students' talents. The art and music training was well structured. Every student had to play an instrument. As Fevzi Karakoç was more interested in painting, he was happy to stick to the mandolin. The arts studios were well equipped and he finally found the conditions to paint consciously. The library was well stocked; needless to say, his interest was focused on books on art. His art teacher Himmet Sahin favoured Karakoç and a few others who were also artistically inclined and allowed them all the facilities they required.

Left alone in the art studio, Karakoç spent his time painting and leafing through books. His teacher even supported his first exhibition. People were beginning to know him at school. Himmet Sahin instructed the students to make large size Cézanne copies to hang in the dining hall. He also took them to notable exhibitions in Ankara. These trips were invaluable for the students.

In the third form of middle school, the portfolios of successful art and music students were sent to the teacher school in Istanbul and a pre-selection made at these seminaries would invite talented students to a test in Istanbul. Successful candidates would be offered places at the Istanbul teacher schools. Karakoç and two friends thus arrived in Istanbul by coach early one morning.

As they got to Kad?köy, Istanbul was under a dense fog. Steamers that arrived at and left the quays, the seagulls flying around, the boats on the water and the barely discernible outline of Topkap? Palace opposite… They had arrived at the enchanted sea they had so often watched in movies. They took the boat to Karaköy. The school had just moved to Ortaköy by 1965; they take a car to Ortaköy.

The exam asked students to paint something they had visualised themselves and another from a model. Karakoç passed this exam and registered at the Istanbul Teacher School Arts Seminary. His painting teacher was Hamdi Dicle. Intensive painting studies were conducted in addition to the traditional lycée lessons. Hamdi Dicle took his students to exhibitions in Istanbul as well as to the studios of the Fine Arts Academy and the Higher School of Applied Arts.

He met Nermin in the last year at school. Nermin was in her first year; this was 1967. His wife was, from that point on, to always accompany him and support his work. He took the Higher School of Applied Arts entrance exam in 1968; he intended to study Graphic Arts. He became one of the 12 lucky students who won the right to study here following a week of exams. This school was established in 1957 by Prof. Schneck on Bauhaus principles and its tutors came from Germany and Austria.

The first year focused on basic art education, drawing and calligraphy. Karakoç, drawn by his passion for painting, went to the print production studios in his free time. His first small etchings attracted the attention of the teachers. He worked at advertising agencies and printing houses during the summer holidays and exhibited his Hürriyet newspaper work (where he had started working in his third year) at the German Cultural Centre (2). He was also accepted to the Capri (Italy) international biennial in the same year. He also participated in a mixed exhibition, organised by Prof. Mustafa Aslier and toured many countries, in the same year (1972).

He finished the 1971-1972 school year as top of the school following the diploma exams that lasted thirty workdays. He started working at the Güzel Sanatlar (=Fine Arts) Printers and moved to the Cömert -Is printers the following year. While these jobs were satisfactory from a financial point of view, they did hinder his artistic pursuits to a certain extent, making him unhappy.

He married Nermin, his beloved wife, in 1974. Nermin had a very good effect on him. They shouldered many a difficulty together and her positive approach smoothed them out. Meeting his teacher Mustafa Aslier in 1975 first led to a friendship, and later to the offer of an assistant's position. He discussed this opportunity with Nermin; commercial work did pay better than a teaching position.

Nermin knew he was unhappy with the commitment required by commercial work, which ate into his artistic time. He decided to accept the offer. This would give him access to a studio and allow him to spend more time on his main interest. He entered two pieces into an original print competition organised by the Intercontinental Hotel in the same year and won. He made fifty prints of each work for the hotel. He did his abbreviated military service in the summer of the same year at the Jandarma base in Devrek/Zonguldak; his wife was pregnant at the time.

He received news of the birth of his son Yagmur nearing the end of his military service. He rushed to Istanbul at the weekend to see his wife and son. This was one of the happiest moments of his life. He continued working on original prints throughout and participated in many exhibitions in Turkey and abroad. He won an Austrian government scholarship for the Salzburg Summer Academy in 1979 where he had the opportunity to work with Prof. Werner Otte in the lithography studio. His work attracted attention; artists from other studios visited him and some even purchased his work. He produced some very good work at this time.

An unexpected situation forced him to return a week earlier than planned and he learned later that he had won the Salzburg Honorary Award for his work. This encouraged him to work harder and he won the Success Award at the State Painting and Sculpture Exhibition in 1981 and 1983 (3) and his work in the Viking Original Print contest won a prize in 1983.

He received the Competence Degree in Original Print in 1983 and became an assistant lecturer in Marmara University in 1986. He became a professor in 1993 and served at the Fine Arts Faculty of this university until February 2002. He then joined the Yeditepe University Fine Arts Academy where he continues to lecture to this day.

III

While the relationship between the work of art and the external world has never been denied, even though its place on the agenda as a subject worthy of various interpretations has been secure to this day, philosophers have never hesitated to draw a line between the two. As for artist themselves, they have frequently mentioned the subject in favour of the work of art. Cézanne held that nature resided within us, thereby granting a priority to the concept of external reality specific to the work of art. Merleau-Ponty focused on the "symbolic texture of the real" and emphasised that what the painting offered the eye was nothing more than this symbolic texture. Another philosopher, Malebranche, more interested in the actual, stated that the mind went out of the eyes in order to wander through objects.

It is possible to cite many more examples. The arrival point will inevitably be the principle that while artistic reality and natural reality may occasionally intersect, these two realities will never overlap entirely. The artist who is connected to objects related to natural reality, positions these "things" in line with his interpretative skills and according to his own beliefs. This positioning is specific to the artist and by extension, to the work of art and it is this peculiarity that is the sine qua non principle of the phenomenon of art.

Viewed this way, it would be more appropriate to define the natural objects ("things") that are the subjects of Fevzi Karakoç's paintings as imaginary descriptions. These objects follow the structural rules of the art of painting and while they contain references to external reality, they are in no direct connexion with this reality. It may be possible to refer to an indirect connexion at this point. In other words, these "things" are "symbol-objects". They hold the warning that the viewer must perceive them as such.

Karakoç demonstrates a profound imaginary activity that has drawn its own boundaries and prefers to wander within those boundaries unhindered. This boundary is also one drawn by the viewpoint that makes the imagination specific to each artist. The close relationship between this boundary and the quality of expression that has been selected for the pictorial interpretation of the objects, and as this relationship also brings together paintings of similar subject matter within a given context; the impression obtained is that this boundary is quite flexible.

The symbolic pomegranate, for example: While it points to the pomegranate from which it stems, it also emphasises that this reference is not limited to that natural object. That is why this indirectness is able to take on other presentation styles in other works based on the same object. A possible stylistic partnership is thus surmounted and other pictorial or imaginary dimensions are reached. This flexibility is also relevant to the relationship between the pictorial object and the space within which the object is located. The lack of definitive spaces in Karakoç's pictures is in actual fact a reference to an abstract concept of space that has burdened imaginary objects.

The object's shadow, while at first evocative of an emptiness or depth, this first impression created by the picture never deepens or becomes more realistic. If the viewer is aware of the artist's objective and if this knowledge is relevant to the general impression created by a series of pictures, he's unlikely to connect the relative perspective view with the spatial concerns in the literary sense. This is because the artist does not require his painting to be thus perceived; he has already emphasised that the object "shown" in the painting is not the actual thing by abstracting is from a context of space.

It is necessary at this point to refer to the fact that the imaginary motifs that frequently confront us in Karakoç's paintings actually have a speculative function. This is a speculation in the context of reality; while it excludes reality, it does not entirely fail to keep it on the side. This speculation is connected to how objects are treated within a graphic design system. This system insists that objects be considered within their own positional relationships. While composed within the surface of the painting, they are obliged to act as functional elements of this surface, but they are not their own indications either.

In actual fact, a dichotomy confronts us at this point: Objects are both themselves and not themselves. In the first instance, they are the natural objects they depict; in the second instance, they execute a turn at this point and are content to stay as complementary elements of the painting surface within which they are situated.

Design, visualisation and therefore fantasy are the main elements that define Karakoç's paintings and that imbue these paintings with their own identities. That these concepts are interlinked and that one invites the other out of necessity reveal an organic structure. While we question the relationship between the perception of external reality and the composition of the painting, we may also be questioning the meaning of this relationship.

Fevzi Karakoç does not start out with the mastery of technique. The skills honed with lithography are enhanced by others when the artist moves to painting. Whereas humans and life figured largely in his prints, somewhat influenced by the effects of graphics, this tendency moves in a different direction in paintings. Lines are replaced by colours and a new design concept emerges as a direct result and accompanied by the brush. This is the point at which the artist has to choose between line and painting. This does not have to mean that the choice is a one-way street.

It is worth noting, all the same, that the artist continues, enticed by the possibilities offered by paint. This attitude of symbolising objects rather than representing them is the very same attitude that defines modern artists. This attitude that is generally shared helps today's artists meet at certain points, while leaving them free to seek out their individual solutions. This rule is valid for Fevzi Karakoç as well and it leads us to think about the brackets of the positioning that he tries to spread on his paintings. These brackets are held within the contexts of viewing and interpretation.

These views and interpretations do not exclude today's art criteria though; for example, a conceptual approach exists at a functional level in his paintings, selecting content and theme. This functional approach to conceptualisation puts form or form-related approaches to the fore and leads him to determine the coordinates of this approach. This is a notional definition and therefore the relationship between form and content is never a merely mechanical one, quite the opposite; it reveals the effort to exclude the mechanical. Fevzi Karakoç's attention to this effort is in direct proportion to the function his paintings assume within the context of the creation stages.

The "thing" that the artist includes in his work is able to coincide with the indicative meaning of the object as long as it refers to other values besides the object whose form it carries. This indisputable fact oscillates on an analytical point between the work of art and the artist who created it; sometimes it favours the artist, sometimes it lags behind the individual control of the artist and limits itself to a rough reflection of the object it represents. In the first instance the artistic function gains dominance while in the second, the natural function takes the lead. Evaluating Fevzi Karakoç's paintings within this context, the artist-object relationship swings in favour of the artist's subjective attitude and thereby putting the artistic dimension of this position to the front.

That the work of art had to "say something" and make the viewer think along those lines were beliefs widely held by the symbolists and their predecessors, the romantics. The spirit came before the body, said the fantasy artists, rejecting all rational and positivist teachings, and they concentrated on the "forms of fantasy." The actions of the artist who opened up the gates of fantasy within artistic vision are related to these "forms." That being said, whichever is the subject in had, each of these "forms" will be in direct contact with the structure of fantasy.

Unless taken forward to an abstract line, the fantasy is the carrier of its "form" and is not independent of it. The still lives in Fevzi Karakoç's paintings are not too far removed from the realistic shapes of the objects depicted; in other words, while they take on the mantle of a fantastic form, they do not exclude the representational value of the fantasy. That is, the form that the fantasy becomes in the painting does not stray too far from the object thus depicted. All the same, the object has been removed from its attractiveness. For example, the object symbol in the painting representing a fruit does not coincide entirely with that fruit; it goes beyond the fruit and becomes the fruit in the painting.

This condition is an invariable within natural artistic development and in the case of Karakoç's paintings, it points to a significant item defining the paintingobject relationship: The fruit is more of an indication of the painting than the natural object it represents. It is not an element that belongs to nature, but rather to the painting itself. It may indicate natural realism, but it does this in a circuitous manner, asking the viewer to focus in this direction.

As in the reductive Greek literary form Meiosis, the vision of an object thus reduced gains emphasis at this stage. It would be appropriate to seek out the reasons why the visions of objects in Fevzi Karakoç's paintings are depicted in such reduced shades and minimal number of colours. Reduction by abstracting their natural characteristics is the elemental method in picturing objects. Reduction and abstraction are used equally in these paintings and thus their object visions relatively abstracted from their natural characteristics also equate to reduced forms at the shape and colour levels.

Observing the shaping concept, a fundamental discipline in his paintings, we may conclude that Fevzi Karakoç's place in the modern vision is open to external influences while the values that make this place his own stem from this modern vision itself. In other words, Karakoç views the measure of modernity in painting as an integral part of a holistic approach to modern art. Such an approach leads us to the fact that modernity passes through total familiarity with today's values. As all artistic phenomena going back at least a hundred years demonstrate a formation around the dichotomies of human-nature and individual-society, the importance of such a wideangled approach to art today becomes evident.

Recalibrating the artistic phenomena to the level of individual artists, these phenomena become the background in front of which the artist's personal efforts come to the agenda. All the same, what opens up the way for the artist is the vision of modernity and the quality of this vision. It is at this stage that Fevzi Karakoç pays special attention to keeping the unifying characteristics of actual sources on the agenda instead of becoming tied down by them as he approaches artistic activities around him, near or far.

He is well aware of this. Another point he's aware of is that each printing technique carries individual characteristics resulting from their own structure and procedures. Lithography, for example, necessitates the harmony of drawing and black and white compositions, only achievable by paying attention to the possibilities offered by the technique.

The logic behind the composition does not deny a soft or flexible geometrical structure that is not immediately emphasised. This is a geometry that is based on a grid. The erect figure in each square undertakes an additional function of "becoming the defender of his singularity" (7). This emphasis on "singularity" will meet us again, later on, in the paintings he turned to, the emphasis will be more pronounced but the human figure, so dominant in the prints, will give way to still life objects. Another defining aspect of lithography is the line-based composition. In fact, Karakoç's prints in this category are often distinguished by lines either accompanying the main figure or underneath it.

Fevzi Karakoç followed this period of original prints and watercolours with oil paintings from the early 1990s onwards. This change of direction not only is further evidence of the development of a modern artist but also leads us to conclude that the change in medium has not created any major issues with regard to his investigative discipline. This can also be seen as "unifying expression" (8). His paintings done with this technique and first exhibited at the Tem Art Gallery in 1991 display vertical figures all in a line and a separate group of riders. In some pictures, these two groups intermingle.

It is worthy of note at this point that the artist is not following a representational method, but that has opted for an imaginary composition instead. Imagination may start out as the harmonious grouping of figures seen in decorative pictures but goes beyond all that; the thick and intense use of paint brings the painterly concerns to the fore. Free and impulsive touches of paint are layered, resulting in this intense effect, indicating that Karakoç is able to spread colours spontaneously on the canvas with no need of previous roughs. This means that the creation of the painting itself is formed by internal undulations and changes. It has been postulated from time to time that there is a close connexion between imagination and the design of symbols.

The fact that spiritual life has a dual polarity is also related to this connexion. Jung mentions the "Telesphoros" from a psychoanalytical point of view, that meanders through the dark regions of the cosmos, which itself shows the way to the gates of the sun and the route to the world of dreams (9). As the artist is, in some way, after these mysterious concepts evoked by this entity, the shapes we note as imaginary elements and shapes unconnected with reality, may indeed need to be taken at face value.

Viewed this way, these motifs that insist on appearing in Karakoç's work and that have turned into natural shapes in the latter years, are pictorial motifs that have a partial connexion with nature and carry no other aim than to be reminiscent. Man (artist), used to carrying out his life on two levels, finds certain solutions to the issue of how best to interpret events or objects as he goes back and forth between the conscious and the subconscious. The first of these levels tries to understand while the second seeks out the opportunities to express imaginatively.

Fevzi Karakoç repeatedly reflects an object or figure onto the picture surface; this is an attempt to multiply the visual paradigms of experience on "knowing" that object. In doing so, the multiplication action is carried even further by the fact that paintings on the same theme are also multiplied to follow one another, thereby emphasising the theme. The view that the universe within which humans live and objects exist may not be the only one is the mainstay of this type of interpretation. Plato, for example, asks just such a question in "Timaios."

One of the most frequently noted repeated motifs in Karakoç's work are the riders, a single rider in some, but most often a number of riders, evoking serial book illustrations. It is necessary to point out that this is an indirect similarity. These riders are depicted in a painterly manner, abstracted from reality, removed from the representative. Another point worthy of note is that the rider and the horse are depicted as one unit. It is this characteristic that leads one to think about the South American Mayans, who, when first confronted with the Europeans on horseback, mistook man and horse as one creature.

Needless to say, the rider figures in Karakoç's paintings are not based on the error of American natives. Harmonious and daring, these figures refer to speed, heroism, daring; images of war and conquest; all the same, they demand, "we must redefine them." (10) When a painting carries the challenge that we must redefine it, this indicates that the painting carries references open to interpretation by the viewer. We may be surprised by the titles selected by the artist for these pictures of riders ("In the Twilight", "Passing Into the Second Dimension", "Yellow Love", "From Chaos to Order", "Opposing Points", "Subconscious Layer", "Where Have You Been?", "On Blue Clouds", "Storm on a Branch" etc.) that they may indeed be imbued with content that covers abstract messages in harmony with the technique, going beyond the references first noted. This is the point at which we note that we are confronted with the pictorial variations of subconscious concepts. A certain type of suggestion or the indirect equivalents of the objects depicted will draw the viewer to other areas.

It is also possible at this point to view Karakoç's riders' meanings in the context off "stereotyped" pictures often seen in Oriental art. For example, we may see repeated representations of the mustard plant on one page in Oriental art. These pictures have been designed to indicate a garden full of plants by repeating the abstracted singular image of one plant. This style of composition based on the insistent repetition of the one motif leads one to think of a "description" focused on the object selected as the main motif. This style of interpretation, mainly specific to Oriental culture, is related to an approach that may be defined as the plural reality of nature as reduced to a singular reality. In other words, the choice between type and stereotype directs the artist to focus on a singular object. This focus on concentrating on a singular point is directed at capturing the common axis of such processes that follow one another as seeing, understanding, perceiving and reflecting.

Soon the rider figures are replaced by singular plant motifs. The theme may have altered, but their repetitive placement on the pictorial surface leads us to the conclusion that the same path is taken here. These serial forms, both in the previous and in these new paintings, are utilised as "clever codes" (11). That matter is "a part of the repeatable process" does not disfigure the alteration of the objects. In actual fact, as the stereotyped order aims to reflect the concept that rules the artist's spirit, the alteration in the object or the motif does not surprise us.

Natural objects such as pomegranates, peppers, pears or tomatoes are lined either horizontally or vertically (and occasionally, without following a grid of any sort) in these latter pictures. The shadows of these objects thus lined on a surface fall underneath them. The relative three-dimensionality obtained by the use of paint on the rider pictures gains an additional spatiality in these pictures.

IV

The passage from the iconised rider figures to still-life objects, similarly laid out, may be defined as a new stage in Karakoç's nature-object relationship. Such a passage indicates that the order and composition concepts in painting precede the choice issues and therefore the attempt to create a visual or pictorial effect takes priority. The figure of the rider is not just a figure and neither is the natural object in the second group merely a representation of the object it indicates; both take on further meaning. This meaning that becomes clearer with each painting, following and strengthening each other and naturally carries a progression.

Are we able to classify these paintings as still lifes in the received sense by looking at these objects indicated by them? It is well known that still life was a rather latecomer to the artistic scene, finally becoming a more accepted theme for modern painters after the efforts of the cubists. This theme that had symbolised riches, wealth and happiness in the hands of the Flemish painters and had become more conceptual with modern artists -for example, Cézanne's fruit object goes beyond being an indication of the object and becomes a geometric-spherical form.

Gauguin, Klee, Bonnard and Dali's are so much more than still lifes. The tendency to reduce to singular form to carry to the picture natural objects in general and still-life objects in particular is an "attitude" of modernism. Such an attitude is incompatible with the traditional still life, which depicts still life objects laid out on a table in an environment where each item is in a relationship with the others.

What we witness in Karakoç's paintings is related to this attitude. Our modern painting has many still life examples carried out in the traditional manner and yet, Süleyman Seyyit, an otherwise typical example of this genre, shows an interesting break. His peeled and segmented oranges reveal him to be more than a traditional still life painter.

Presenting the object in a singular form, freed of its plurality is an Oriental approach and imbues the object with a spiritual meaning. This altered positioning of the object, defined as the "second order" by N. Hartmann within the context of spiritual existence, is also related to emotional perception. This new positioning that goes beyond the tendency to depict still life objects within a given order and composition, also brings along a new meaning laid on the object itself.

In conclusion, Fevzi Karakoç's latest paintings narrow the boundaries of this world of objects on a meaning plane by emphasising this distinctive characteristic of "looking" at this world, but at the same time, deepens the content motif just that bit more.

Notes
(1) Mahmut Akbulut lived in Stuttgart/Germany for many years and he died there; he worked in the automotive industry and in addition continued his artistic pursuits in ceramics. His ceramics objects, often exhibited in Germany, consisted of modern pop style colourful and free forms.
(2) Istanbul German Cultural Centre was the main location for the young talent of the time in the 1960s and beyond, before the advent of commercial art galleries.
(3) Fevzi Karakoç has not entered any more competitions since that date.
(4) "The History of Modern Turkish Painting From the Beginning to Date", K. Özsezgin, M. Asl?er, V. 4, 1989 Istanbul.
(5) ibid.
(6) "Two Artists, Two Interpretations", O. Z. Çakaloz, Gösteri, i. 5, April 1981.
(7) Catalogue text, H. Koçan (Tem Art Gallery, 9 January - 3 February 2001)
(8) "Fevzi Karakoç and Looking at His Art", M. Asl?er, Sanat Çevresi, i. 119, April 1989.
(9) "Memories, Dreams, Thoughts", C. G. Jung, Published by Can 2001, Istanbul
(10) Catalogue text, H. Aktunç (Tem Art Gallery, 27 January - 22 February 1999)
(11) Catalogue text, M. Graf, (Tem Art Gallery, 27 January - 26 February 2005)

Images and text courtesy of Fevzi Karakoç and Eczacibasi Virtual Museum

FEVZI KARAKOÇ

1947 Born in Çankiri, Turkey

Education

1968-72 State graduate school of Applied Fine Arts
1979 International Salzburg Summer Academy
1983 Received doctorate inArt, Graphical Arts
1986 Assistant Professor in Marmara University
1993 Professor
1974-2002 Marmara University Faculty of Fine Arts
2002 Yeditepe University Faculty of Fine Arts

Awards

1979 Salzburg City Honour Award
1981 State Painting Sculpture Exhibition
1983 State Painting Sculpture Exhibition
1983 Viking Paper Printart Award

Solo Exhibitions

1972 Turkish-German Cultural Center, Istanbul
1980 Ministry of Culture State Fine Arts Gallery, Istanbul
1981 Im Art Gallery, Istanbul
1982 Gallery Lebriz, Istanbul
1983 Istanbul Municipality Taksim Art Gallery, Istanbul
1984 Doku Art Gallery, Ankara
1985 Akbank Art Gallery, Bursa
1987 Antik Art Gallery, Ankara
1989 Palet Art Gallery, Eskisehir
1989 Tem Art Gallery, Istanbul
1991 Tem Art Gallery, Istanbul
1993 Yasar Education and Culture Foundation Art Gallery, Izmir
1993 Tem Art Gallery, Istanbul
1993 Falez Art Gallery, Antalya
1995 Emlak Art Gallery, Ankara
1995 Tem Art Gallery, Istanbul
1996 Arda Art Gallery, Ankara
1996 Tem Art Gallery, Istanbul
1997 Yasar Education and Culture Foundation Art Gallery, Izmir
1998 Arda Art Gallery, Ankara
1999 Tem Art Gallery, Istanbul
2001 Tem Art Gallery, Istanbul
2001 Yasar Education and Culture Foundation Art Gallery, Izmir
2002 Tem Art Gallery, Istanbul
2005 Tem Art Gallery, Istanbul
2006 Yasar Education and Culture Foundation Art Gallery, Izmir

Group Exhibitions

1972 2nd international woodcut triannale, capri, Italy
1972 "Contemporary Turkish Printart Artists Exhibition" Romania
1977 Printart biennale, Switzerland
1982 "3rd peace and frienship art exhibition between balkan countries" Romania
1983 International xylon 9 winterthur woodcut triannale, Switzerland
1984 State painting and sculpture exhibition
1985 Xylon 10 gelsenkirchen exhibition
1986 1st international asia-europe art biennale, Ankara
1986- 2006 "us and them 1-19" Tem Art Gallery, Istanbul
1987 “Contemporary turkish painting from Istanbul" Kophenhag-Denmark
1987 "Woodcut in Turkey and Germany art exhibition", Ankara
1987 Printart painting, Kayaalp Art Gallery, Istanbul
1990 International xylon 11 winterthur woodcut triannale, Switzerland
1991 "From çelebi to gürbüz five years in service for art" AKM, Istanbul
1991 1st Istanbul art fair, Tem Art Gallery, tüyap exhibition hall, Istanbul
1992 Tuval Art Gallery, Izmir
1993 International xylon 12 winterthur woodcut triennale, Switzerland
1993 Ten printart artists exhibition, eylül Art Gallery, Istanbul
1994 Printart exhibition, eylül Art Gallery, Istanbul
1995 5th Istanbul art fair, Tem Art Gallery, tüyap exhibition hall, Istanbul
1995 Replica Art Gallery, Istanbul
1995 Printart exhibition, eylül Art Gallery, Istanbul
1996 Replica Art Gallery, Istanbul
1996 "The Other"habitat II.painting exhibition, antrepo, Istanbul
1997 Türkiye is bankasi "Major Art Award" exhibition, Istanbul
1998 "75th year of the Republic Exhibition"' bilim art, Istanbul
1998 Çamlica art house 25th year exhibition, Istanbul
1998 Iam painting exhibition, toprakbank Art Gallery, Istanbul
1999 Taç Spor Art Gallery group exhibition, Istanbul
1999 "Exhibition dreaming of it's museum" M.Ü.G.S.F., Istanbul
2001 11th Istanbul art fair, tüyap exhibition hall, Istanbul
2001 Taç Spor Art Gallery, Istanbul
2001 Karsi Art Gallery, etchings, Istanbul
2002 Teksin Art Gallery 9 artists, Istanbul
2002 Istanbul Asyakasi Contemporary art as selected by galleries, Tem Art Gallery, M.Ü.G.S.F. Exhibition Halls, Istanbul
2002 Upsd Watercolor Exhibition, Istanbul
2002 Iam exhibition teksin Art Gallery, Istanbul
2004 ODTÜ 6th art festival (painting exhibition), Ankara
2004 "A Contemporary look" yeditepe university, Istanbul
2004 Art Istanbul "International Contemporary Art Meeting" Lütfü Kirdar Exhibition Hall, Istanbul
2004 1st Prague International Art Fair, Tem Art Gallery, Prague
2005 Ankara Contemporary Art Fair, Ankara
2005 "Fevzi Karakoç, Sema Ilgaz Temel, Yusuf Ziya Aygen" Trio Exhibition, Ortaköy Art Gallery, Istanbul
2006 Gra-plas Painting Exhibition, Ckm Art Gallery, Istanbul
2006 ODTÜ 7th Art Festival (painting exhibition), Ankara
2006 Remart Art Gallery Group Exhibition, Istanbul