Critics who emulate MGK – Kultur – Kunst

From this perspective, mines are generally to be seen as texts that “work on different roads”. They therefore do not contain any “literary criticism” in the true sense of the word. The truth is that I never had such a goal. It’s not that I deny it or that I think such work is unimportant; on the contrary… But I’ve made it a principle to leave that job to the “real, knowledgeable” critics and to write articles that come into play at the level of understanding. In general, I tried to intervene, based on the thesis that a work of art and literature is not “omnipotent”.

YOU WORK LIKE MGK

I was more interested in what the “employees” in this market said than what they produced. Maybe that’s why interview books have always fascinated me. For example interviews that Nedim Gürsel collected under the title Ending the Century; An interview with Foucault on structuralism and poststructuralism etc.

Aside from what the authors wrote, I was more interested in how they interpreted the world and how they approached events/phenomena. For example, I read an interview with Murathan Mungan. Murathan Mungan said that the “critics” work like the MGK, they work like the MGK and they emulate the MGK. In such conversations it is possible to grasp the level of embracing of the universe of writers/thinkers and therefore of the universe. Wide and narrow, shallow and deep seas stand naked before you in such conversations, not only stand still, but also show you where they stand.

Take what Murathan Mungan had to say about critics, for example. If we read his words backwards we can say that Murathan Mungan speaks like the MGK in the sense that he silences the critics. This approach, which is an outpouring of intolerance to criticism, is obviously some kind of artist/literature complex! It indicates a narcissistic/egocentric approach. Ask the critic, “Who are you too?” It’s perhaps the crudest, most primitive, and shortest way of saying “The way to criticize the critic” could be to identify him with the MGK? With this attitude of Murathan Mungan, we can say that he is chasing after “literary power”, making any kind of criticism intolerant and even increasingly destructive. Of course, we cannot make a definitive judgment about all of Murathan Mungan’s works on the basis of this “wrong word”; but we can go to a weigh level.

As for the other side of the matter… We’ve encountered Murathan Mungan-like tendencies many times. In the controversies that the publication of a magazine entailed from time to time, we met many artists-literati who (consciously or unconsciously) had similar tendencies, and even critics …

Well, that’s not my main concern. What? This: the artist/literaturist is not a machine pumping products onto the market; That he (the artist/literary artist) should be the witness, the opponent, the changer, the revolutionary subject of his time, as many socialists defended and fought for. Unfortunately, this is a quality that the Turkish artist/literary artist (usually) gives up. My main concern is to rebuild this quality.

*

THE MEANING OF THE “GUERILLA WAR AGAINST BOURIOUS CULTURE”

As we always complain, I must add again, to avoid creating room for misunderstanding: Although there are many examples in history and I have a respectable place in my memory, I do not expect “political militancy” from an artist “. Literary Artist. On the contrary, I believe that staying away from the given political environment as much as possible leads to healthier outcomes. On the other hand, I wish for a militancy, a politics that can express itself intellectually and artistically/aesthetically. Eugane Lunn, while analyzing W. Benjamin in Marxism and Modernism, says somewhere: “Although he was interested in the path to communism pursued by Breton, Aragon and other surrealists, what interested him most was the guerrilla warfare of these people against bourgeois culture” (Alan Publishing , Istanbul, January 1995).

Yes, the importance of “guerrilla warfare against bourgeois culture” is more relevant today than it was in the world of the 1930s and 40s. Open invasions, open wars, open enemies have been replaced by virtual wars, virtual invasions, virtual surrenders. In this world of virtualities, the work of cultural workers is more difficult than ever. So we shouldn’t block them.

The “radical left” in particular has always had such expectations of intellectuals: Articulation of the given political environment, i.e. their own ideological character… If this expectation was not met, direct accusation, attack and slander were used, not criticism. Almost all accidents on the world trip from the past to the present have been tried to be blamed on them. I have to admit that I’ve fallen into similar traps from time to time on both Clarifying Reason/Purifying Love in Literature and Night Dance for Nothing. What you need to know is quite simple: intellectuals are not behind the wheel; They are not the ones driving the car! Therefore, it is necessary to determine well the direction of the charge, and then adjust the dose well …

However… Yes, what needs to be done is what needs to be said to the intellectual/intellectual… Write, draw, think, speak, contemplate, paint, deconstruct, redesign, spoil again… The last half is because intellectuals/intellectuals aren’t called that. No works and writers have emerged on a universal level for a century. (Don’t think I missed Orhan Pamuk as I have discussed Orhan Pamuk in different contexts!) Such works and authors are now almost numbered. is it an example Compare a Russian literature with a Soviet literature… After the Second World War, one began to experience a desert in this sense. Perhaps because the truth implied by Teodor Adorno is undermined: “After Auschwitz, poetry is no longer possible.” This means that not only poetry, but also stories and novels cannot be written and thoughts cannot be produced. We encounter a similar situation when we turn our gaze to the national (Turkey): Turkey’s arts-literature thought environment is almost non-existent on a universal level. Turning our lens on the most recent data, we see an even more chilling picture: March 12, September 12 have come and gone; destroyed, destroyed and passed … But we cannot come across a single work that universally condemns these “12s” in the sky of Turkey.

IT IS IN FACT ONE OF THE TYPICAL CONCEPTS OF CAPITALISM

To pretend that the traditional socialist movement(s) did not find fault with this image is a great betrayal of history and humanity. “Put away, run to the scene!” Mine means underestimating the act of writing in the first place. That’s how it is to see dealing with poetry as “the work of the petty bourgeoisie”… Unfortunately, the criminal record of the traditional socialist movement(s) on this subject is anything but clean.

This lineage is a lineage that Murathan Mungan also indirectly or unknowingly owns! The line is straight. You go from one end to the other, then at the end you change direction and return to where you started! Walter Benjamin calls this “one-way street” or “one-way street”. Detours are blocked: When looking at the thinker/producer, things are not much different.

The attitude of the traditional socialist movement(s) is the same as the attitude of the bourgeoisie towards those who work differently: Going the same way in reverse: modernism, enlightenment and progress parables; plus, bless science and technology…

A phenomenon that Mehmet Ali Kılıçbay also emphasizes. Kılıçbay says in The State of the East, Republic of the West: “The ideology of progress, which in Turkey is often taken to have Marxist origins, is actually one of the typical concepts of capitalism and has been put forward to confirm its existence. ”

Norman Davies also approaches the phenomenon in his history of Europe: “Most Europeans believe that their continent is a magnificent endowment commissioned by nature for world domination. Again, many imagined that the happiness of Europe would somehow last forever. In 1748, Montesquieu called the “climate empire,” “the first of all empires.” And he tried to show that the European climate is unrivalled. For Montesquieu, as for many thinkers after him, Europe and progress are synonymous.”

In addition, it should ask the following questions: “Progress”; but at what cost? “Science and technology”; but at what cost? The price paid for the blessings of progress plus science and technology has hitherto been ignored. It’s time to do that calculation. Those who have heart and courage should start destroying themselves!

This is what Raoul Vaneigem must imply:

“Where it all begins is behind the door. Then it’s time to hit the shoulder and break it.

Alaattin Topcu

Odatv.com

Add Comment