Fikret Can Kuşadalı's work "Self Consumption" questions the supermarkets and buying, ultimately capitalism and the habits of the consumption society. In his photography series, we see a gradual distortion of an individual in a supermarket. But what is distorted here? The woman in the photograph or the products inside the supermarket? Or what distorts us is what we eat? Does the individual in the photographs destroys herself bits by bits? Are we annihilated unawares, just as we think we live in a world of bed of roses? Or we are aware that we are annihilated because of our unhappiness?

Kuşadalı's distortion doesn't contain an appealing trickery we find in marketing strategies. On the contrary, it consists of random repetitions and is materialized in the same simplicity as "glitch" effect we see in computers. The reason why he prefers woman as his individual subject is because the image of women can be found in various consumption sectors and their bodies are used in marketing products.

For Kuşadalı, who is interested in the reflections of subjects like identity, women's bodies and discrimination on architecture and sociology, a fashion show by Chanel was an inspiration. In a product launch models are walking inside a supermarket and presenting the brand's collection (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLDUXZ4X5b8). Another similar example can be from Hunger Games. "The Capitol" is depicted as a city life where everything is about upscale fashion and food. For Kuşadalı, these are really horrific dystopias. But if we are to consider the fact that we have come to forget what kind of goods are produced in which season, and each product is marketed with a claim to be more organic than others, the situation in which we live is not really far away from a dystopia.

In "Self Consumption" Kuşadalı's focus on the system rather than the individual, makes us question this situation as much as he does himself. The essence of the matter is that we are in some market and that market is trying to feed us some stuff. What it feeds us with, being that ambiguous, can bear two different meanings.