Metin Özgör’s paintings are considered visual texts that carry philosophical, sociological and psychological layers questioning human existence, rather than being merely aesthetic. The artist’s intellectual framework is shaped by the concepts of boundaries, dilemmas, thresholds, contrasts, geometry and transition. Addressing the boundaries between inside and outside, the individual and society, the past and the future, and consciousness and the unconscious as interpenetrating spaces rather than clear-cut distinctions, Özgör’s approach recalls Michel Foucault’s concept of the “limit-experience.” The figures in the works appear at moments of decision between belonging and not belonging, leaving and staying, and speaking and remaining silent; contrasts such as movement and stillness, light and darkness, and hope and anxiety also evoke Hegel’s dialectical understanding. In this respect, the artist establishes an intellectual affinity with René Magritte and Francis Bacon. Geometric divisions, intersecting lines and layered surfaces make mental fragmentation visible. While this language is associated with the approaches of Piet Mondrian, Kazimir Maleviç and Paul Klee, in Özgör’s work geometry expresses the tension between order and chaos. Thresholds also become spaces of psychological and cultural transition reminiscent of Sean Scully.
Why it matters
This approach makes it possible to read Özgör’s paintings not only through their formal characteristics but also as a field for discussing the individual’s relationship with society, the past and their inner world. Thus, rather than reducing the figures and arrangements in the works to a single meaning, viewers can relate them to experiences of uncertainty, fragmentation and transition. The text’s references to various figures in art history situate Özgör’s work within a broader visual and intellectual heritage; however, it leaves open whether these similarities reflect the artist’s conscious choices or interpretive connections established by the criticism. The article also raises the question of why geometric order is consistently addressed alongside a sense of tension.