NAZIM H\u0130KMET RICHARD D\u0130KBA\u015e<\/b><\/p>\n
\u201cIn my dream, they were holding something called \u2018Scissors Day,\u2019 and I was required to attend. (\u2026)\u201d<\/p>\n
G\u00fcl\u00e7in Aksoy 03.12.2014, Twitter<\/p>\n
Censorship \u2013the restriction imposed on a form of communication by a power group using the means at its disposal\u2013 can sometimes take the shape of a \u201cfounding censorship\u201d so deeply rooted that society comes to see it as part of its own identity. At other times, as we have seen increasingly in recent years, it emerges in new forms, crafted by governments to suit their interests amid changing social conditions. It restricts, it judges, it punishes.<\/p>\n
The Susma Platform\u2019s 2024 report offers numerous examples of censorship.<\/p>\n
There, we see that censorship can be as crude and blunt as a district municipality canceling an exhibition in a space it \u201cowns,\u201d citing \u201cscheduling conflicts\u201d due to a dinner for muhtars <\/i>(elected neighborhood administrators). It can also be long-term and systematic, serving the evolving, intensifying, and targeted strategic goals of the government. At times, it takes the form of shutting down a radio station simply to avoid any confrontation with the shameful chapters of this land\u2019s history, or blocking exhibitions that allow the LGBTI+ movement to share its own narrative and gain strength. It may even aim to restrict how sexuality and gender are understood and expressed, keeping them confined within the government\u2019s increasingly narrow framework.<\/p>\n
In addition to de facto bans, the instrumentalization of the law to target artistic output is another widely used form of censorship today, as those whose expressions have been censored often find themselves in court. Yet one of the most powerful ways censorship operates is through the gradual imposition of restraints on the minds and actions of individuals, groups, and ultimately society itself \u2013 in other words, through the birth, growth, and spread of self-censorship from person to person, from community to community. So where exactly is self-censorship born? At what moments does it take root and develop? And in response, what kind of consciousness and awareness must we cultivate to dismantle it and prevent its spread? What can be done?<\/p>\n
Although I don\u2019t believe the arts can be easily separated from one another, let us, for the sake of this article\u2019s framing, focus on how visual art is \u201ccreated\u201d today. By understanding the process and environment in which art is produced, we can begin to see where self-censorship enters the equation \u2013 where it weakens the will, and where it silences. I say \u2018where\u2019 because, along the roadmap of creation, self-censorship as a counter-act occupies both a moment and a specific place. While it tells the artistic impulse\u2014 which seeks what has not yet been discovered, spoken, or depicted \u2013 \u201cdo not discover, do not speak, let it remain hidden,\u201d it too is an act: the result of a decision, or more often a series of decisions. It is a personal, collective, and societal state of being stifled that grows with each repetition of that series.<\/p>\n
Where do the sources of creativity lie? Is the source for visual artists found in the visual language that surrounds them, one they learn, practice, and reshape with their own contributions? We\u2019re always talking about the myth of \u201cfinding inspiration,\u201d perhaps sensing where it comes from without being able to describe it precisely. Where does inspiration lie? We say, \u201cI was inspired,\u201d but where do these creative breezes blow from? Our breath? \u201cCome back to the concrete world,\u201d I can hear you saying. Yes, freedom, a free society, is the condition of creativity. An artist can only learn, explore, experiment \u2013in other words, create\u2013 in a free society. But a free society is not a given. Freedom, the essential condition, the primary environment and material, is something that must be constantly fought for. It demands ongoing struggle.<\/p>\n
Creativity and self-censorship at a conceptual crossroads<\/b><\/p>\n
What do artists call themselves these days? I\u2019m not asking what they say to themselves in private \u2013that\u2019s something I will come back to\u2013 but rather, what term they use to describe themselves publicly. Both \u201ccontemporary art\u201d and \u201cmodern art\u201d are well-established labels. Some prefer \u201cvisual arts\u201d as a broader term, one that includes both the contemporary and the non- contemporary, allowing them to avoid being confined to a single era. It is a way of laying claim to all artistic periods in a time when humanity seems poised to discard not only its past, but possibly its final generations as well.<\/p>\n
All of these terms can be useful at times, but I would like to return to the term \u201cconceptual art.\u201d It may feel a bit pass\u00e9 or somewhat outdated in 2025, but it still maintains meaningful connections with other independent creative fields. \u201cConceptual art\u201d is a term I have always advocated for defining more thoroughly, expanding, and applying across all branches of the arts.<\/p>\n
In fact, it complements the word \u201cart\u201d more effectively than the suffix \u201c-ist,\u201d which can sometimes distort the meaning of what we are trying to express and, at other times, just sound slightly off. For instance, when we refer to a \u201ccontemporary artist,\u201d we might simply mean that they are our contemporary. When we say \u201cmodern artist,\u201d we risk overlooking those whose relevance has endured across centuries. Meanwhile, \u201cvisual artist\u201d falls short of capturing the full spectrum of artistic practice, as many artists work with sound, touch, even scent. By contrast, the term \u201cconceptual artist\u201d clearly signals that the work is grounded in ideas, that its process, form, and spirit draw their strength from the conceptual stage and from the relationships between concepts. This is the point from which we can begin to evaluate today\u2019s art and artists, to locate them on maps that are burning on all sides, and to assess their relationship to self-imposed limitations \u2013 self-censorship\u2013 which is, after all, the central concern of this article. Just as creativity is nourished by the conceptual stage, it is also where the traces of self-censorship can be most clearly seen.<\/p>\n
When working not just as a field but as a collective, how do artists think, how do they feel, what do they do through reflection, and what do they do with their emotions? How do they find their point of orientation, what we have called concepts in this text? How do they move across whatever forms they work in \u2013 painting, sculpture, video, installations, magazines, letters, writing? Can we detect self-censorship, can we pinpoint it at certain moments, curves, breaks, or slips in this movement, even if we can\u2019t document it in a report?<\/p>\n
As soon as it began to question itself and to encompass the shifting appearances, cadences, techniques, and ultimately the mediums of the modern world, art made one of its most radical and ambitious moves toward freedom and independence in relation to its \u201csubject.\u201d Art would no longer submit to the imposition of a fixed subject, a limited range of renditions, or a prescribed mode of interpretation. A landscape could now also be \u2013or be about\u2013 mental illness. A massive collage was undoubtedly a reflection of consumer society, but it simultaneously proposed a new thesis and practice in color theory. No one could argue that a few minutes of silence wasn\u2019t art; and indeed, we still speak of it with reverence for its depiction of infinity in a pure medium, and for the layered presence, change, and persistence of truths that can only be grasped through abstraction in every realm of life. Art would no longer allow anyone to dictate what it could or could not do.<\/p>\n
An autopsy of self-censorship<\/b><\/p>\n
Former hierarchies between subjects and themes imposed on art by power groups external to it were thus dismantled. Through its magnificent destructive force, art ultimately claimed its freedom. In doing so, every hidden element \u2013long embedded in the fabric of life\u2013 emerged as a valid subject of artistic exploration. Put simply: no part of life\u2019s diversity could any longer be deemed off-limits for art. Art placed at the very center of its practice the determination to reject authoritarian censorship, any form of power that sought to dictate what it could or could not do. While this radical act of liberation laid the foundation for the rich variety of visual languages and media in contemporary art, that diversity is a result \u2013not the source\u2013 of this breakthrough. We must be careful not to mistake the appearance of diversity for genuine freedom and independence.<\/p>\n
Today, when we perform an autopsy on art \u2013weakened, stifled, and ultimately killed by self-censorship\u2013 the first thing we find damaged is this radical freedom. While art had once claimed the freedom to choose its own subject, forge its own connections, and select its own materials, under sustained pressure it began to settle into a conceptual world that it had either constructed itself or inherited \u2013 one that had ceased to grow or evolve. It sacrificed its destructiveness. In limiting itself, in repeating itself without producing anything new, it began to rot and collapse. This also amounts to a betrayal, an abandonment of the rebellious, radical, and independent legacy of art I have tried to briefly outline above.<\/p>\n
In the case of an artist who, under prevailing social conditions, sets out never to challenge any form of authority \u2013old or new\u2013 and who becomes a vehicle for both the government\u2019s agenda and their own interests as aligned with power, it would be almost misleading to speak of art or self-censorship. The only reasonable response is to distance ourselves from such artists, who eagerly present their \u201cbeautiful\u201d works for use in government propaganda at every opportunity. What we are trying to understand and dismantle is the condition of the artist who, in the very act of creating art, interrupts themselves, holds back, and retreats. Of course, there is always a learning dimension: art is undoubtedly a lifelong process of learning from the world, from other artists, and through self-instruction \u2013 a process that might even be considered a definition of art itself. Thus, identifying the points where self-censorship infiltrates the discourse and practice of the educator\/artist is another crucial dimension of the autopsy of self-censorship.<\/p>\n
These are the clues that help us map out self-censorship, sometimes even in our own actions. We can trace it whenever we avoid taking a new step, refrain from asking a new question, and continue to repeat what we have done before within an unchallenged network of relationships. So, where can we observe maps of self-censorship? In the work of an artist whose early output was full of curiosity and the thrill of discovery, but who, a decade or two later, continues to produce similar work within the \u201csame\u201d conceptual framework, using the same materials and touch. Yet of course, the framework is no longer the same: the conceptual lens that once helped interpret and shape a personal or historical moment has fallen out of step with time; it has expired. There may be many reasons behind this kind of self- censorship, akin to pulling one\u2019s own brakes. Perhaps the artist\u2019s early work became \u201cpopular,\u201d gained recognition within a particular social discourse, and they are reluctant to give up that position. Or perhaps the artist has come to realize that the drive that once powered their work could now land them in trouble. To mention an exception: Could an artist become aware that they are hitting the brakes, and incorporate that very act of restraint into their work? Of course they could. That would mean forging a new conceptual framework, one that creates its own terms. But for such a move to take place, certain conditions must be met \u2013 conditions for an art that cannot be defeated by self-censorship: namely, remaining critical, questioning oneself, and never surrendering that critical stance for the sake of any other consideration.<\/p>\n
In lieu of a conclusion: When it smells like censorship<\/b><\/p>\n
Let\u2019s return to the dream my dear friend G\u00fcl\u00e7in had, and to the tweet she posted about it, the one I quoted at the beginning of this article (yes, there once was a place called Twitter, where censorship, both domestic and international, could be at least partially circumvented). First, let\u2019s take a look at the full tweet, which I previously quoted only in part: \u201cIn my dream, they were holding something called \u2018Scissors Day,\u2019 and I was required to attend. Is that the smell of censorship? Let\u2019s hope for the best\u2026\u201d<\/p>\n
There is a day of festivity, and the artist who dreams it is required to attend. This forced inclusion is, in fact, one of the most insidious aspects of censorship.<\/p>\n
Upon waking, she senses the trap, detects the smell of censorship, and feels uneasy (perhaps G\u00fcl\u00e7in meant to write fear of censorship rather than smell \u2013korkusu <\/i>instead of kokusu<\/i>\u2013 but I\u2019ll keep it as she posted it). For one of the most disturbing parts of the story is that the censorship regime presents its oppressive universe as a celebration, as a form of salvation. With her words, \u201cLet\u2019s hope for the best,\u201d G\u00fcl\u00e7in signals her readiness to resist and makes it clear she won\u2019t surrender to the threat of self-censorship, something that has reached her subconscious, but which she defies by recounting her symbolic dream to the world. To borrow Asl\u0131 Odman\u2019s phrase, she asserts her right \u201cnot to ride on the train of the powerful.\u201d In that spirit, let this be our principle against censorship and self-censorship: we will not attend any Scissors Days; we will rock the boat instead.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
“For one of the most disturbing parts of the story is that the censorship regime presents its oppressive universe as a celebration, as a form of salvation. We will not attend any Scissors Days; we will rock the boat instead”<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":1550,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2754],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1539","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-articles-interviews"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/susma24.com\/en\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1539","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/susma24.com\/en\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/susma24.com\/en\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/susma24.com\/en\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/susma24.com\/en\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1539"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/susma24.com\/en\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1539\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1566,"href":"https:\/\/susma24.com\/en\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1539\/revisions\/1566"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/susma24.com\/en\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1550"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/susma24.com\/en\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1539"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/susma24.com\/en\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1539"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/susma24.com\/en\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1539"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}