The spectrum is the state that the physical realities infinitely change in continuity one after the other without being limited by a certain value range. On the other hand, things are virtually reciprocated to a certain value from any value range or might be fixed. The structure in which a continuous is represented by being divided into intermittant, disjoint units is the digital language. This disjoint structure constitutes the essence of many structures including the language we speak.
Anything that has been constructed on binary systems gives the same result from the epistemological perspective every time it is applied. This originates from the a priori structure of the digital language which has definite limits and has been agreed on. Whereas it does not always seem possible to say the same thing for a surface to paint with the same determination; for in practice there are many factors that will prevent you from creating the result every time and in the same way. However, it seems impossible that this matter of fact takes away something from the logical structure of the work. At the utmost, there might be a matter of the insufficiency of the description.
On program interfaces or on the internet, one might come across many color palette inputs or color schedules reconstructed by me. These are completely functional in the environment they are in. These built-in functions and the restructuring of the relation between these functions and their objects defined under them underlies this exhibition. One might ask how this restructuring is realized. The solution of the problem by me unfolds to the act of repetition. Finding this much color one by one and reapplying them substantially detracts the object in hand (the color palette input) from its built-in function. Each act or reobtained color affects and changes a whole structure the unit is connected to and leads to the redefinition of the relation of the object with its function. At the same time, one might come to the conclusion that this act is of no practical avail at all. For instance, there is no functioning color chart available any more from which you can choose colors. Therefore, the act seems to be completely pointless when considering the primary function of the object. Nevertheless, the utilization of computer structures based on instruction sets for the construction of a painting owns a function in terms of correlating the first and second environments and touching upon the basic problems concerning what these environments are. In that sense, what I am trying to do is that the same principles are also followed in the second environment according to how the first environment is structured.
It can be said that by this means the reciprocity between technical and less technical methods is revelaed. Flusser states that objects producing technical images are in-formed. For example, according to him, a computer should be in-formed. All probabilities are already present, built-in. Although the user does not know what is going on inside computers, there is an indirectly used information available while he/she creates the desired image. As these kind of informations contained in any object intensify, it is stated that our obligation to call it an apparatus also increases.* From this aspect, Flusser suggests that technical objects such as cameras are apparatus in comparison to tools such as brush or canvas. However, does the fact that an object such as brush, chair or table performs less functions in comparison to more technical objects change the fact that the object is encoded according to the function under which the object is defined, namely the idea that it is in-formed? More clearly, is it not that the object such as brush, chair, table which is not a product of advanced technology is encoded and formed according to its function? Or are brush users in comparison to computer users are aware of what is really going on in the definition/form of the brush? These kind of questions remain unanswered within such an approach. The idea that the distance between the function defining the object and the user of the object gets larger in technical objects such as computer and camera is an illusion similar to the judgment that there are two kinds of formations of objects in question: intrinsic and extrinsic.
When viewed in its widest framework, the exhibition is structured with the idea to bring into view the abstract objects defining the act of arranging, namely the laws that units follow when joining other densities. For units constituting the whole, and when widening the perspective, for two nonidentical things, there are some conditions of being collocated or rules of formation. When viewed from another perspective, these rules of formation are the sum of the compulsory and satisfactory relations between things and this provides that some things are defined beyond being a mass. In the works, each unit inside the whole has been systemized according to indicate this system of the environment in which it is defined. However, it is quite difficult to bring into view some abstract objects such as relations or correlations creating the system without characterizing them. Nevertheless, arranging the units is a key act. As units existing in the act of arranging with their built-in meanings are repeated with other units within the same system, the emphasis can materialize upon the relations or correlations followed by units while they are defined in these environments, rather than upon these units themselves.
Yağız Özgen August 2012 Translated by Güher Gürmen
*Ulus Baker, Beyin Ekran, Compiled by: Ege Berensel, Birikim Yayınları, p.250