Vasıf Kortun: I want to engage you in a retro discussion. You know the story of the platform intimately and have had one exhibition there. I am curious as to how the institution keeps on reflecting itself. What is the background? Are the intentions articulated on a concrete basis other than the regular press and public dissemination? What is/was this place to you? Has it changed over the years?
Ahmet Öğüt: Yes, I was involved in only one exhibition at Platform, but Platform meant much more to me than that. In the beginning, Platform was an informal school for me, a unique opportunity to spend days and days in the archive, watch all the videos, and look at magazines and books. I did my BA in Ankara, and there, I could only find a library at Bilkent University, but they had only magazines and books, and magazines were not updated.
VK: What happened afterward? Did you graduate? If Platform was an informal school, what kind of informal school was it? Everyone has been doing a “temporary academy” in the last few years. Other places can also provide publications or videos… How is it compared to the different libraries you went to?
AÖ: Platform allowed me to see videos and real works in its archive because I don’t think there is another library such as Platform that has visual material and published material
VK: Were we special because others were not doing what they were supposed to? That means we were not special but merely filling the holes, the gaps, the missing points…
AÖ: Standard libraries are not organic like Platform. Other practices, such as lectures, are also conducted there.
VK: so it means the library is not institutional; it is more like a conviction extended into sharing.
AÖ: Of course, in the beginning, it was pretty hard to enter; institutions can look cold from a distance. I would ring the bell and enter the door, and without saying hello to anyone, I would walk into the archive room, but by the time I get to know you and the other people of Platform, It turns into a dialogue, exchanging ideas and experience with the other artist who has been to Platform, then the residency takes an important part. So after that, what I learned from Platform moved to a practical and friendship level, and my experience developed.
VK: And you got married to another artist you met at Platform? Platform Garanti Contemporary Wedding Center. That is a first. I mean, there have been marriages before in museums or art institutions, but this was not a “public” occasion.
AÖ: That is true! I wouldn’t have met with her if you hadn’t invited Pilvi in 2005.
VK: There was a conversation at Platform, and a colleague of ours had said that Platform was a mainstream institution. I remember having an almost violent reaction, and another colleague told me last year to stop pretending to be an initiative. The complexity of that navigation was that we were trying to be neither. However, I do not want to evade this question, not this, and that is something else that begs to be defined. What is this institution about to you?
AÖ: There is no mainstream institution in Turkey yet. We can ask the question the other way around. Does mainstream refer to money or just power itself? If it is just power, where would it come from? If Platform became a successful institution internationally, it would be because of strategy, not money. For instance, if the reason would be money, Akbank would become a more internationally known institution. They have money but no strategy.
VK: What is the relationship between power and force? We tried to uphold the concept of having force, not necessarily power.
AÖ: No, the answer is not Power. The answer is about making the right decisions. Platform didn’t start in one night, right?
VK: But powerful, we have also been in international networks without being powerful locally; the institution was deliberated over many years; this is true, but it was not incidental… It was like, let us do the thing for which there is no demand.
AÖ: Yes, it is not a one-night institution, I can see your force since the beginning of the 90’s… Now, the issue is how we can take part in this institution… If you deny yourself the opportunity to enter the Platform building from the start, you will never know how to participate. I know some people were against entering that building; after two years, they had a studio there! They had a prejudgment to any powerful-looking institution. But then they find out they can have a perfect place to produce with total freedom.
VK: So we have a bad, inadequate representation from the outside, run by a badass, arrogant bastard.
AÖ: Why not? This is the destiny of all institutions. For those who don’t know that place, just take a distance and come closer slowly. One day, years ago, Esra (Sarıgedik) saw me in the corridor of Platform and said, “You are the ghost of the Platform” because I wasn’t saying hi or bye when I came to Platform; I was just spending time in the archive.
VK: something else, were the lectures successful in a way?
AÖ: Lectures were successful for me; at least I learned English in a way. But in general, there should have been more of an audience. It is a language issue… and all the lectures should have been in the gallery space.
VK: Do you miss it all, not in a nostalgic sense, but in an institutional way, and what was not working*
AÖ: I miss it, but I am lucky that at the moment, at Rijksakademie, they organize lectures. Michael Blum, Carlos Basualdo, and Philippe Pirotte have been here—those same people who have been in Platform.
VK: They never invite me to Rijks, not to teach or do anything else…
AÖ: That means you are not mainstream…
vasıf kortun 