This work was exhibited in 2011 at the Sanatorium on the exhibition ‘Re-degeneration’ by Firat Arapoglu.
Regeneration, which means that “after a tissue loss in a living thing, the cells of the same type and the same value multiply and fill up the missing cells” associated with the idea of “a regenerative process is the result of a degenerative process.”1
Inal, his work called “Uzlasma 2” which carries political concerns is thecontinuation of “Ates Dustugu Yeri Yakar (Fire Burns Where It Falls)” work which created with police helmets.
In the text of the work:
These expressions are included; “In this study, while re-existing, disintegrating, and trying to make a reading over the reflections of new displays in other forms, Inal, is displaying his work with material-oriented narrative method. Combining the matt and satin material that the spectator faces with its fragile and immaculately transparent stance, with a bomb image ready for explosion, Inal, shares his risk with his audience while making them question; ‘If it breaks, will it disappear? Will something happen to me?’. Again, a new moment’s confrontation from the beginning, in different formats and every moment while exploding does not always mean a recovery but the opposite, it means that the disease continues. It is the aim of this work, which is especially driven by capital accelerations, a moment in which we are experiencing increases and declines, and in which we breathe in broken and separated sides after breaks. Although it belongs to a fairly traditional stance with a production technique aimed at high realistic narrative, this work, which is presented to viewers with its meaning (not with its stance), points out the areas it absolutely fills with its presence. In other words, the absence of explosion, vacant or made empty, even evacuated areas with radical decisions. Empty spaces to be converted and / or transformed into filled areas as they are experienced and conquered until the end. Do the transforms really start from empty spaces, or from evacuated areas?”2
In interview with Inal, he pointed out that the workplace’s ideological ground is related to the ‘Threat’. Inal who stated that his work had a criticism towards the artist, emphasized that it is uncomfortable for artists to find themselves in protected areas and remain unresponsive to political developments. His criticism, created after the representations of 90, associated with; beyond of making matters visible, art based on the use of commodity production, the system and with the presence of the art field. He stated that sales-focused works, which artists provide for personal satisfaction, are not functional. In this study, which he is fed on this disturbance, Inal, stated that this situation was aesthetized with a plastic expression with a hand bomb held by a bureaucratic hand which belongs to a bureaucrat.3
Seha Nur Karatas
1Insel Inal, ‘Uzlasma 2’, http://inselinal.blogspot.com.tr/search/label/Seramik%20%C3%87al%C4%B1%C5%9Fmalar %C4%B1%20-%20Seramik%20Works, (12.12.2016).
2Insel Inal, ‘Uzlasma 2’, http://inselinal.blogspot.com.tr/search/label/Seramik%20%C3%87al%C4%B1%C5%9Fmalar %C4%B1%20-%20Seramik%20Works, (12.12.2016)
3Seha Nur Karatas, Insel Inal, Interview, Kocaeli, 2016.