“….In his recent paintings Adem Genc illustrates wrinkled, sharp-grooved surfaces with vaguely organic associations and smooth cylindrical rods, or perhaps “tubular shells” without resorting to academic illusionism. The latter usually dominate the painting and give it a formal stability. On the other hand the dramatic features search for a reality in the painting testifying to a flow of comprehension. The artists vigilance discourages
the logic of a merely pictorial unity. Genç’s careful intellectual stance adds tension to the fragmented unity of the form, but he does not stop here. Genc reverses the situation with expressionist spaces and gestures, geometrical forms and descriptive images. These measurable rods or pipe-like tubes can not indicate this or that object, they can only bring associations to it. Put another way, this choice: adopting the given conception of modernist integrity paradoxically implies a representative identity.

But here, precisely where the forms and the pictorial mechanism can not control this ambiguity of meaning they are ultimately forced to assert themselves because the painter acted simultaneously with both intemperate sensualism and an intellectual frugality….” “….In his work Genç seems to be saying that the discussions above could never resolve themselves in any fruitful way, so he’s attempted free them (and himself)
from a game of dueling paradigms. The oeuvre is not ignored but it is not made sacerdotal either. Gathered together in a relationship of dynamic unity, moment by moment the painter regains the right to give improvised contextual guidance. Entropy functions naturally in Dadaism, but for Genç it is a type of aesthetic legality which comes through his historical, scientific and epistemological concerns about the probity of art.

Dadaist Abnegation

The painting clearly identifies some contours in itself but these contours will be lost in any attempt to immobilize them. On the one hand the painting deviates from the imprisonment of modernist dogma and on the other it searches for traction against Dadaist abnegation. The work endures this abnegation without making itself into a cult object and without reducing itself into irrelevance. Individual paintings can be appreciated as various conditions of an experience instead of a particular experience.
In this regard, Genç guarantees his own state of existence i.e. historical and artistic personality. The painter dominates the terminology. Kant claims that our perception is related to our method of knowing not with our knowledge about things, (thing-in- itself/ding an sich.) With a parallel reading, it is understandable that the modernist “Pure Oeuvre” is an aggressive desire to penetrate and represent without any limits
this contradictory improvisation inevitably becomes “saturated”. At this saturation point, the painter carries the context to another level of reading instead of changing conceptual “instruments” or the logic of a particular pictorial mechanism. Finally, it is the painter with his historical personality who returns to a place of sensation from a static conceptually oriented existence.

Genc’s Discription of Life and Art

Genc’s description of life and art is a more complex and intense course for himself and intensive course for the viewer. What conclusions can be reached from an intensive examination of his ouvre? Is the painter performing a role he has chosen with the help of theories? Genç’s oeuvre has revealed what he’s accepted consciously from his current experience. Ten years ago the painter apprehensively questioned his style. Occasionally, the central elements of his work reveals evidence of this discontent.
By Adrian Martinez, 2008