In the most general terms, Bayraktar is focusing the relationship between the whole and the part in 'et cetera'. He explains that the abstraction of the personal is a necessary action for knowledge and he is interested in the subjectivity of what is lost in this abstraction. According to him, this tension exists in every aspect of life:
“Our approach to the mass and each individual during social events, the relationship between each experiment and inductions in philosophy and science, the factual things happened in history and the way we interpret historical events can be given as examples to this. From an emotional point of view, I feel like while creating the culture, we become victims of it at the same time as each individual.”
Artist explains that he is working on the emotion of the leftovers from the necessary modeling which exists in human productions and that is why he focuses on the forms which are hard to induct or we do not need to induct. In this regard, he interprets the asteroid visualizations as “stains”:
"We tend to see these fragmented objects just like the noise in photography or like the way we perceive all the individuals as a mass. Because they are in space, they do not have the perspective we are accustomed to, they do not have a horizon line, because of this they are not symbols with limited boundaries. Sometimes they are the disaster objects of fear in Hollywood movies. This situation, of course is not related to asteroids at the bottom. I believe that anything we cannot abstract have similar qualities and this is corporal and related to death. For this reason, we are wincing from all sorts of fragmentation because our minds are built on this. It is important for me to perceive this not just visual productions of facts such as accidents or getting old, but as an issue related to the image itself."
According to Bayraktar, although these stones which are leftovers of the collusions during the formation of the universe, has a monumental quality in a romantic sense, they have a structure contrary the typical qualities of a monument. Most of them does not have any scientific or economic value, they have complex shapes and they lack the functional aspect in everyday life just like any other broken object. The artist creates similar visuals of these objects in computer from scratch, just like the way landscape artists turns landscape instances to monuments. For him, this way of production is parallel to the universe of ideas itself which is created by the images:
“The effort to control the randomness that happens all the time, the hitting of the technical limits of visualization to the environment, the attempt to symbolize the outcomes within a frame... The only difference between making a painting with a computer and making a sculpture from clay is not being able to touch the material, but our relation to the visuals of these objects in space is the same way. There is always a distance that makes you feel lonely and we only see one surface in a given moment.”
Bayraktar explains that the complexity of the algorithms he uses while producing the models of the asteroids already belongs to the potential of the environment and seen from the perspective of instantaneous relations we have with the appearances, the difference of them being photographs or being fictional is not important, just like the moments of seeing a dream. In spite of that, considering the point that he questioned the documentary qualities of photographs in his previous works evolved into the imitations of the photographs belonging to the field of astronomy, the fictionality is significant from the perspectives of photography and documents. The fact that his works are presented in the context of photography in both national and international platforms, is an important signifier that three dimensional computer graphics are considered as photographs in the present day. This situation brings new issues in terms of the historical change of photography and theoretical foundations of the medium.