MEHMET GÜLERYÜZ - DEPRESSED

In this case, Güleryüz says that this was completely coincidental. Yet coincidental has a determining factor: the lamp illuminating the billiard table was also being tilted very slowly to the left, illuminating only the part where the player's arm and hand were located. This arrangement would of course require the exact opposite lighting and figuration in a picture made with the expectation of someone using the cue normally with their right hand.

Although Güleryüz’s paintings have intellectual implications, in the final analysis, they are works that feed on Pathos, not Logos. They seem to clash. His anxiety towards Dada and post-Duchamp movements may stem from a kind of concern for unity. Because the historical avant-garde wanted to fulfill a function of unmasking. Its contemporary versions, on the other hand, stand in a suspicious position, ignoring its ideological burden. In the words of Richter, who was involved in the Dada movement: “Pop-Art is in fact the ideology of our society, not the unmasking of it.”

It is worth recalling that Ortega y Gasset, in 1925, was overcome with discouraged distress at some of the products of the historical avant-garde and wrote, "As long as art is stripped of its touching human content, it remains important art; without any pretense of being humane."

Güleryüz paints with the twisted movement of the arm and hand. He does not look for the subject or meaning, he finds it while doing it. Monstrous figures, deformed bodies, appearances and objects that have lost their naturalness are directly imagined, perhaps invading the canvas surface without deepening from within.

Of course, Güleryüz does not see inner experience only on a personal level. There are of course elements of the oblojoria (outside the frame) of fear, horror and brutality, but there are also elements specific to the social environment. There are also situations of fear and loneliness experienced in public spaces, for example in American bars and restaurants.

Despite living in America, Güleryüz stayed away from Dada and post-Duchamp American versions, especially objectification and spatialization tendencies. It cannot be said that he compromised with the absolute, reductionist approach of Op-Art and Pop-Art. Although he did not disagree with the anti-sensational and limited practices on the “camel” in the Feshane arrangement, the dramatization of art did not interest him much. He did not insist on such aggressive attitudes belonging to the world of show business. Güleryüz always remained loyal to peinture. We can say that he did not break away from human and ethical problems and did not aim to exclude them.

In this respect, it can be argued that there is an original connection with the works of the German Expressionists, which have political implications but are also open to ambiguity. It can be said that his painting tries to fulfill the "unmasking" task that Nietzsche assigned to philosophy on a pictorial level.