sert sessizler; hani yanina bi harf gelince yumusayanlar

how does writing feed into practice? metaphors of my writing shows my location, orientation, discrete intentions. politics/posibilities of representation where is here/there writing changes the whole story, that was only implied to what extend im rooted to the cont-tr-art, and why is it so, why I feel so? why do i not want to bracket myself within a context? why am i avoiding the things that i am avoiding? auto/biographical/ ethnographical methodology, the data derived from this methodology do not bring a documentary quality to the work. the practice is motivated by this fieldwork, but do not use it as direct material to do work. the interpretation of the data is rather indirect, filtered through artistic language, through another structure of narrative. highly edited, kivirtkan voice. visual anecdotes? footnotes? off the story? documents of a sort, a fabricated one, the key to understanding is rather oblique. it requires the work of the audience. the work is timid, discrete, hermetic -maybe. this requires a good deal of work from the audience, reader, fieldworker. it does not tell in clear words, but whisper. asks another form of attention, close reading. almost like a secret. hence asks for editing, that has been done by the author during the production is being asked from the audience. holding the ends of a thread. it is silent to make it to be voiced by the audience. do not claim space, does not have a heavy personality, hesitantly stays, hangs there ephemeral, precarious it would have been easy to tell the whole story but not for me. i dont want to give away, not that there is something important to confess. maybe just the overratedness of bold sentences. redrawing, repeating, retelling to get away from it. the recurrence of the symbols