To be in public space and to create a ‘public opinion’ have its peculiar difficulties. First of all, we should keep in mind that the information released to the public is created through several phases of filtering. Thus, the information loosing its context and purity becomes open to ideological explotation. In fact, as we think of the contemporary art work, the outcomes create their own contexts refering to the outcome once again instead of giving information to the public. There appears an inclination such as serving to a specific class with specific forms, for instance codes for advertisements. Referring to the work itself can also be interpreted as preserving its power.

The solution lies through breaking the process of singular art work and erasing the “genius” quality of the artist. One should consider Mythology and anonymous fairy tales at this point. They have the power of the transformation with the need of the “public” naturally, because they are not sealed, closed to its contex, with a “signature” of a person. And so they are inherent to the ”public”.

In this way, the information and contex becomes fluid enough to enter the “filters”. As a form of indirect relations, “filters”, are the links of divided system of modern ( and also its postmodern akin... it does not matter) societies, the links of fragmented situations. Taking the accont of filtered information leads us to o form of indirect relations, not to the problem itself.

Now the question, so far, is should the relation with the “public” be constructed by an indirect way or, (by erasing the will of creating an singular art work/contex-whatever..) direct way. Are we strong enough to be “minor” or “cheap”- a way of becoming “none”-. Virtue, honour, fame are all the forms of “private” space, and not related with “puplic space”.