how do our cyborg-like habits reinvent the nature and the metamorphosis process? 

the whole question dawns in my practice from a mixed background and a pivotal experience of a six months cohabitation in 2013 with a colony of honeybees swarmed indoors. both factors have led me into studying pollinators’ social learning in comparison to human behavior towards the dwelling and habitats: in the terms of a mutual influence speculated across socio-biology, anthropology and visual arts altogether.

my viewpoint delves into expressions of social dissonances to foreground throughout materials culturally informed, by the endless process of life and death in natural patterns, and the serial character of man-made features, convened into a non-binary aesthetics.

as the process of metamorphosis traces adaptation, so social frameworks run within changes of status. Defining habitats summon a change of status/state. 

what boosts the working method overall is a labor-intensive manipulation of a special organic matter sourced from apiculture as a result of the cooperation between diverse non-human organisms and the human intervention,  over multiple passages by upcycling and curing until it gets the consistency of man-made building materials. its ability to undergo metamorphosis and to host further organisms dwelling, makes artworks evolve autonomously.

as dynamics of social conflicts and inter group-rivalry do. 

despite the candy-coloured simulacrum of nature, outcomes surpass unpredictably the original design, in a full circle of cooperation between human ends and other organisms’ evolution, including artificial applications.  working methods are drawn on renaissance workshops, land art conception and pop art as well, across various sculpting/painting techniques which handle materials akin to ‘domesticated’ environments such as porcelain, steel, iron, fabrics, insulation produ