446

REPRESENTATION AND HISTORIOGRAPHY IN MODERN TURKISH ARCHITECTURE (1984)
A THESIS SUBMITTED TO

Modern Turkish Architecture (1984) is one of the first publications to evaluate the development of architecture in Turkey by relating it to the contexts within which architectural works were produced. The book, covering a broad timeline of architectural production between the final years of the Ottoman Empire and the 1980s, has a historiographical significance, in addition to its continuing importance in education and academic studies. Modern Turkish Architecture (1984) is the outcome of a photographic exhibition and a seminar that took place in 1982, which was organized as part of the Atatürk Centennial activities with the collaboration of Middle East Technical University and University of Pennsylvania. As the first publication written in English, the edited volume was intended and constructed as an international representation of accomplishments in the architectural field of Turkey, addressing a global audience. In this thesis, it is aimed to trace and discuss the key ideas and themes that shape the representation of a past in the architectural history of Turkey in the 1980s, through the specific case of Modern Turkish Architecture (1984). Contextual
v
and narratorial factors which play a role in the construction of image/s of the past in the book, were examined and categorized to discuss how different approaches to narratives, and the utilization of ideological and architectural themes in a text, can construct varying meanings, which allows for diverse interpretations, re-interpretations, and writings of architectural histories.
Keywords: Modern Turkish Architecture (1984), Representation, Historiography, Architectural Historiography, Architectural History
vi
ÖZ
MODERN TURKISH ARCHITECTURE (1984)’TE TEMSİL VE HİSTORİYOGRAFİ

Ağustos 2021, 544 sayfa
Modern Turkish Architecture (1984), Türkiye’deki mimari üretimi bağlamı ile değerlendiren ilk kitaplardan birisi olma özelliğini taşımaktadır. Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nun son döneminden 1980’lere kadar olan geniş zaman aralığındaki mimarlığı inceleyen kitap, eğitimde ve akademik çalışmalarda taşıdığı önemin yanı sıra, historiyografik değere sahiptir. Modern Turkish Architecture (1984), Atatürk’ün Doğumunun 100. Yılı etkinlikleri kapsamında, ODTÜ ve UPENN üniversitelerinin iş birlikleri ile 1982 yılında gerçekleştirilen bir fotoğraf sergisi ve seminerin ürünüdür. Konu üzerine yazılmış ilk İngilizce kitap olan ve uluslararası bir okuyucu kitlesini hedefleyen bu çalışma, uluslararası bir temsil olarak amaçlanmış ve kurgulanmıştır. Bu tezin amacı, Modern Turkish Architecture (1984) kitabı üzerinden, Türkiye’de 1980’lerdeki mimarlık tarihi yazımında geçmişin temsilini şekillendiren önemli fikir ve temaların izini sürmek ve tartışmaktır. Bu çalışmada, kitapta kurgulanan geçmiş yansımalarının bağlamsal ve anlatısal faktörleri incelenmiş ve kategorize edilmiştir.
vii
Mimarlık tarihi anlatılarına olan farklı yaklaşımların ve bir metinde ideolojik ve mimari temaların kullanımlarının, kurgulanan anlamları nasıl şekillendirdiği tartışılmış ve bunun mimarlık tarihi yazımlarında çeşitlenmiş yorumlara ve yeniden yorumlara olanak verdiği vurgulanmıştır.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Modern Turkish Architecture (1984), Temsil, Tarih Yazımı, Mimari Tarih Yazımı, Mimarlık Tarihi
viii
This thesis is dedicated to my parents and to my husband, who have supported, encouraged, and loved me…I am grateful to have you all in my life…
ix
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
First and foremost, I would like to thank my supervisor, Prof. Dr. Belgin Turan Özkaya, whose expertise and ideas guided me throughout my thesis studies. I am deeply grateful for her mentorship, feedbacks, and support, which pushed me to become a better researcher. I would also like to thank my co-supervisor, Assist. Prof. Dr. Bilge İmamoğlu, whose bright ideas and criticisms steered my work in the right direction.
I would like to thank my thesis monitoring committee, whose evaluations, criticisms, and ideas helped me to formulate the framework of my thesis. Their inspirational comments widened my perspective on the subject. I want to express my gratitude to Prof. Dr. Elvan Altan, who shared her immense knowledge on the architectural history of Turkey and her invaluable comments on my study, which helped me to deepen my research. I would also like express that I am grateful for the contributions of Assoc. Prof. Dr. Bülent Batuman, whose ideas and different takes on issues has taught me to think in diverse ways and challenge myself more than ever.
I would like to thank my dissertation jury members, Prof. Dr. Esin Boyacıoğlu and Assist. Prof. Dr. Pelin Yoncacı, whose valuable commentaries contributed greatly to my study, and brought up potential discussion subjects for my future studies
One of the significant elements of my research was the interviews I have conducted with Prof. Dr. İlhan Tekeli; Prof. Dr. Suha Özkan; Prof. Dr. Ahmet Evin; and Prof. Dr. Renata Holod, who were significant actors in the publishing of Modern Turkish Architecture (1984), in addition to being respectable and well-known figures in their fields. Among them, I would first like to express my deepest gratitude to Prof. Dr. İlhan Tekeli, who met with me during the pandemic despite the conditions of the time. He shared his knowledge, memories, and views on my subject, I feel extremely lucky
x
to be able to learn from him. I would also like to express my deepest gratitude to Prof. Dr. Suha Özkan, whom I had a chance to meet in his exceptional Bodrum Architecture Library. While he shared his knowledge, views, and memories with me, I did not only learn about my subject, but I was also inspired by his views on life, and on being a scholar. I will always cherish the day we have met and will always remember your advices going forward in life. I would like to share my sincere appreciation for Prof. Dr. Ahmet Evin, who patiently answered all my questions and contributed greatly to my study. Lastly, I would like to thank Prof. Dr. Renata Holod, whose answers clarified some of the missing links in my research and provided great insight.
In my research, I have used archival documents. I would like to thank Necati Yurtseven, who shared his reminiscences regarding the photographic exhibition, as one of the photographers of METU in the 1980s. I would also like to thank, Rüstem Taşman, who got me in contact with different people to complete my archival research in the different archives of the Faculty of Architecture of METU. I want to express my deepest thanks to Alessandro Pezzati from the Upenn Museum Archives, who helped me obtain archival documents on the photographic exhibition and seminar from the University of Pennsylvania.
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Assist. Prof. Dr. Elif Güneş, who encouraged and supported me during my most stressful times and inspired me with her understanding and patience. I would like to share my thanks to my dearest friends, Dr. Melike Selcan Cihangiroğlu; Dr. Dilşa Günaydın Temel; Dr. Büşra Ünver; Dr. Gökçe Aykaç; Simay Özkan; and Dr. Hüma Tülce Uman. You listened to my endless complaints and always made me believe in myself. I want to thank my parents, Nesrin and Nail Sazan, for their unconditional love and support, and for always being there for me. I would like to express my deepest thanks to my husband, Burak Can Yakupoğlu, who calmed me during my most stressful times, loved and supported me unconditionally, engaged in endless discussions on different topics and pushed me to think differently. Lastly, I would like to thank Laika, our dog, who took my stress away with her love and excitement. I am grateful to have you all in my life, and this study would not be possible without your supports.
xi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PLAGIARISM............................................................................................................ iii
ABSTRACT................................................................................................................ iv
ÖZ ............................................................................................................................... vi
DEDICATION.......................................................................................................... viii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .......................................................................................... ix
TABLE OF CONTENTS............................................................................................ xi
LIST OF TABLES.................................................................................................... xiv
LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................. xvi
CHAPTERS
1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 1
1.1. The Aim and Significance of the Thesis ................................................... 1
1.2. Modern Turkish Architecture (1984) as a Representational Object ....... 10
1.3. The Method of the Thesis ....................................................................... 21
1.4. The Structure of the Thesis ..................................................................... 23
2. ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY, REPRESENTATION, AND IDEOLOGY....... 27
2.1. Representation, History, and Architectural History................................ 27
2.2. Ideology as Representation and Representing Ideologies....................... 41
3. CONTEXT OF THE PRODUCTION OF MODERN TURKISH
ARCHITECTURE (1984) ......................................................................................... 49
3.1. Historical and Political Events Leading to the Publication of
Modern Turkish Architecture (1984) ............................................................ 50
3.1.1. The Military Intervention of 1980; the Higher Education
Law; and the Atatürk Centennial ....................................................... 50
3.2. Institutions, Actors, and Connections ..................................................... 68
3.3. The Photographic Exhibition and Seminar on Contemporary
Architecture in Turkey, 1920-1980 .............................................................. 111
3.4. The Architectural Historiographical Context........................................ 163
xii
3.4.1. Themes in the Architectural Historiography on the
Ottoman Empire ............................................................................... 164
3.4.2. Themes in the Architectural Historiography of Turkey ......... 176
4. REPRESENTATION IN THE NARRATIVE/S OF MODERN
TURKISH ARCHITECTURE (1984) ....................................................................... 199
4.1. Ideological Themes of Representation: “Nationalism”, “Modernity”,
and “Liberalism” ......................................................................................... 201
4.2. Architectural Themes of Representation ............................................... 228
4.2.1. City/s ...................................................................................... 229
4.2.2. Public and/or Residential Building Types .............................. 236
4.2.3. Architectural Works, Architects, and Symbolic Meanings .... 238
4.3. Visual Representation ........................................................................... 305
5. DISCUSSION ...................................................................................................... 332
5.1. Re-visiting the Exhibition and Seminar on Contemporary
Architecture in Turkey, 1920-1980; and The Narrative/s of Modern
Turkish Architecture (1984) ........................................................................ 332
5.2. Exclusions ............................................................................................. 339
5.3. Modern Turkish Architecture (1984) in Architectural
Historiography of Turkey ............................................................................. 360
6. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................... 371
REFERENCES ......................................................................................................... 385
APPENDICES
A. INTERVIEWS ..................................................................................................... 411
A1. INTERVIEW WITH ILHAN TEKELİ ............................................................. 411
A2. INTERVIEW WITH SUHA ÖZKAN .............................................................. 426
A3. INTERVIW WITH AHMET EVIN .................................................................. 445
A4. INTERVIEW WITH RENATA HOLOD ......................................................... 455
B. MİLLÎ GÜVENLİK KONSEYİ'NİN BİLDİRİLERİ: MİLLÎ
GÜVENLİK KONSEYİNİN BİR NUMARALI BİLDİRİSİ ................................. 459
C. ATATÜRK’ÜN DOĞUMUNUN 100 NCÜ YILININ KUTLANMASI
VE ATATÜRK KÜLTÜR MERKEZI KURULMASI HAKKINDA KANUN ..... 465
D. KENAN EVREN’S FULL SPEECH FROM JANUARY 5, 1981 ..................... 470
xiii
E. ATATÜRK’S BIRTH’S 100TH YEAR CELEBRATION PROGRAM IN
METU ...................................................................................................................... 481
F. PROGRAM OF THE SEMINAR OF CONTEMPORARY
ARCHITECTURE IN TURKEY 1920-1980; AND THE PRELIMINARY
PROGRAM OF TURKISH ARCHITECTURE, 1920-1980 ..................................... 485
G. FINAL PROGRAM OF THE PHOTOGRAPHIC EXHIBITION OF
CONTEMPORARY ARCHITECTURE IN TURKEY 1920-1980 ............................. 487
H. DRAFT PROGRAM OF THE PHOTOGRAPHIC EXHIBITION OF
CONTEMPORARY ARCHITECTURE IN TURKEY 1920-1980 ............................. 489
I. CORRESPONDENCES AND OTHER NOTES ................................................. 506
J. CURRICULUM VITAE ...................................................................................... 516
K. TURKISH SUMMARY / TÜRKÇE ÖZET ....................................................... 518
L. THESIS PERMISSION FORM / TEZ İZİN FORMU ........................................ 544
xiv
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 - Descriptions of the Architectural Works of the "First National Style" in the Exhibition Program ........................................................................................ 131
Table 2 - Descriptions of the Architectural Works of the Period Between 1930 and 1940 in the Exhibition Program ........................................................................ 137
Table 3 - Descriptions of the Architectural Works of the "Second National Style" in the Exhibition Program ............................................................................. 143
Table 4 - Descriptions of the Architectural Works of the Period Between 1950 and 1960 in the Exhibition Program ........................................................................ 147
Table 5 - Descriptions of the Architectural Works of the Period Between 1950 and 1960 in the Exhibition Program ........................................................................ 150
Table 6 - Comparison Between the Titles of Seminar Papers, and Chapters of Modern Turkish Architecture (1984) ....................................................................... 162
Table 7 - Excerpts from Yıldırım Yavuz and Suha Özkan’s Narrative in the Second Chapter “The Final Years of the Ottoman Empire” .................................... 244
Table 8 – Excerpts from Yıldırım Yavuz and Suha Özkan’s Narrative, from the Second Chapter, “The Final Years of the Ottoman Empire” ................................... 249
Table 9 - Excerpts from Yıldırım Yavuz and Suha Özkan’s Narrative, from the Third Chapter “Finding a National Idiom: The First National Style” ...................... 250
Table 10 – Excerpts from Afife Batur’s Narrative, from the Fourth Chapter, “To Be Modern: Search for A Republican Architecture” ........................................ 269
Table 11 – Excerpts from Mete Tapan’s Narrative, from the Fifth Chapter, “International Style: Liberalism in Architecture” .................................................... 296
Table 12 - Excerpts from Atilla Yücel’s Narrative, from the Sixth Chapter, “Pluralism Takes Command: The Turkish Architectural Scene Today” ................. 301
xv
Table 13 – Comparison of Exclusions for the Works of the “First National Architectural Movement” Between Modern Turkish Architecture (1984), Draft and Final Programs of the Photographic Exhibition ................................................ 343
Table 14 – Comparison of Exclusions for the Works of “Republican Architecture” Between Modern Turkish Architecture (1984), Draft and Final Programs of the Photographic Exhibition ................................................................ 345
Table 15 – Comparison of Exclusions for the Works of “Second National Architectural Movement” Between Modern Turkish Architecture (1984), Draft and Final programs of the Photographic Exhibition ................................................ 347
Table 16 – Comparison of Exclusions for the Works of “International Style” Between Modern Turkish Architecture (1984), Draft and Final Programs of the Photographic Exhibition .......................................................................................... 348
Table 17 – Comparison of Exclusions for the Works of “Pluralism in Architecture” Between Modern Turkish Architecture (1984), Draft and Final Programs of the Photographic Exhibition ................................................................ 348
Table 18 – Comparison of Exclusions for the Works of “First National Architectural Movement” Between Modern Turkish Architecture (1984) and the Photographic Exhibition ..................................................................................... 352
Table 19 – Comparison of Exclusions for the Works of “Republican Architecture” Between Modern Turkish Architecture (1984) and the Photographic Exhibition .......................................................................................... 353
Table 20 – Comparison of Exclusions for the Works of “Pluralism in Architecture” Between Modern Turkish Architecture (1984) and the Photographic Exhibition .......................................................................................... 353
xvi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 - Newspaper Clippings with the Headings "Teaching staff of universities will not have affinities with politics" and “University” .......................... 54
Figure 2 - The Winning Project for the Competition of Ankara Atatürk Cultural Center ......................................................................................................................... 60
Figure 3 - The Cover of The Unesco Courier dedicated to Atatürk, titled “Atatürk: The father of modern Turkey” ................................................................... 63
Figure 4 - Newspaper Clippings on the Atatürk Centennial Year Opening Ceremonies in Ankara ................................................................................................ 64
Figure 5 - Internal Correspondence document from METU ..................................... 74
Figure 6 - Correspondence between METU and Turkish Language Association (TDK),and Document addressed to the martial law command .................................. 75
Figure 7 – Correspondence between METU and Martial Law Command ................ 76
Figure 8 - Document sent to METU on how to greet the president .......................... 77
Figure 9 - Mehmet Kıcıman writing in the Book of Honor, in Atatürk's Mausoleum and his writing in the Book of Honor ..................................................... 80
Figure 10 - Photograph of the Palace of Exhibitions (National Exhibition Hall). .... 81
Figure 11 – Photograph from1966 Excavation Project of Qasr al - Hayr al- Sharqi in Syria ............................................................................................................ 85
Figure 12 - Talat Sait Halman announcing the beginning of the Atatürk Centennial at the Annual Luncheon of the American Turkish Society. ..................... 88
Figure 13 - Photographs of İsmet İnönü's visit to the METU Campus, with Kemal Kurdaş ............................................................................................................. 92
Figure 14 - İsmet İnönü's note for the opening ceremony from 1963 ....................... 92
Figure 15 - Report of ITU History of Architecture and Survey Program showing Selçuk Batur in the Ph.D. program with Doğan Kuban as his advisor ...................... 97
Figure 16 - Newspaper Clipping of Afife Batur from 1983 ...................................... 99
xvii
Figure 17 - Newspaper Clipping on the Çevre Journal ........................................... 100
Figure 18 - Report of ITU History of Architecture and Restoration Program showing Üstün Alsaç and Yıldırım Yavuz in the Ph.D. program with Doğan Kuban as their advisor .............................................................................................. 105
Figure 19 - Cover page of the Preliminary Report on the 19th Century Row- Houses in Istanbul .................................................................................................... 106
Figure 20 - A Newspaper Clipping from The Daily Pennsylvanian on Salih Memecan and his cartoons ....................................................................................... 110
Figure 21 - Invitation for the exhibition on Contemporary Architecture in Turkey 1920-1980 .................................................................................................... 114
Figure 22 - Ankara Palas Hotel ............................................................................... 115
Figure 23 - Letter from Renata Holod to Gale Tomas ............................................ 116
Figure 24 - The description of the "Photographic Exhibition: Architecture of Turkey 1920-1980 by the University Museum ........................................................ 118
Figure 25 –Invitation Letter by Renata Holod and a Note ...................................... 121
Figure 26 – Announcement for the photographic exhibition, as included in the University of Pennsylvania Almanac ....................................................................... 122
Figure 27 - Document showing that the exhibition was planned in two parts ........ 122
Figure 28 - Renata Holod's letter to Gregory Possehl and a Note .......................... 123
Figure 29 - Program of the Seminar, Contemporary Architecture in Turkey, 1920-1980 ................................................................................................................ 125
Figure 30 – The first page of the final program of the exhibition, Contemporary Architecture in Turkey, 1920-1980 .......................................................................... 130
Figure 31 - The second page of the final program of the exhibition, Contemporary Architecture in Turkey, 1920-1980 .................................................. 130
Figure 32 – Photographs of the Turkish Historical Society. ................................... 160
Figure 33- Table of Contents of Modern Turkish Architecture (1984)................... 200
Figure 34 - The Hermann Jansen Plan of Ankara (1932) ....................................... 234
Figure 35 - Sirkeci Railroad Terminal .................................................................... 243
Figure 36 - Faculty of Letters; Residence of the Minister of Foreign Affairs; Municipalities Bank; and Railroad Terminal Ankara .............................................. 275
Figure 37 - Cover of Modern Turkish Architecture (1984) .................................... 281
xviii
Figure 38 - Photographs Showing the Conversion of the National Exhibition Hall, to the Opera House .......................................................................................... 287
Figure 39 - Photographs of Oriental Café from two different perspectives ............ 310
Figure 40 - Sirkeci Railroad Terminal .................................................................... 311
Figure 41 – Photographs of the Ankara Palas ......................................................... 312
Figure 42 - Ankara Palas Ballroom ......................................................................... 313
Figure 43 - Stad Hotel ............................................................................................. 314
Figure 44 – Photographs of the Ankara Railroad Terminal .................................... 315
Figure 45 – Photographs of the State Railroads Headquarters ................................ 316
Figure 46 - Faculties of Sciences and Letters, and Istanbul Radio ......................... 317
Figure 47 – Photographs of the Complex of Retail Shops (Manifaturacılar Çarşısı) ..................................................................................................................... 318
Figure 48 - Complex of Retail Shops (Manifaturacılar Çarşısı) ............................. 319
Figure 49 – Photographs of the Lassa Tire Factory ................................................ 320
Figure 50 – Photographs of the Central Post Office building ................................. 323
Figure 51 – Side by side photographs of the First National Assembly, and the Headquarters of the People’s Republican Party, later the Second National Assembly .................................................................................................................. 324
Figure 52 – Photograph from the interior of the Second National Assembly ......... 325
Figure 53 – The Residence of the President ............................................................ 326
Figure 54 - Anıtkabir (Atatürk’s Mausoleum) ........................................................ 327
Figure 55 - The Hilton Hotel ................................................................................... 329
Figure 56 -Photographs of Çınar Hotel; City Hall; Etibank Headquarters; and Hukukçular Apartments ........................................................................................... 330
Figure 57 - Photographs of Tercüman Newspaper Offices; Ministry of Defense Student Dormitories; Agricultural Products Office; Akbank Building; and Vakıflar Bankası ....................................................................................................... 331
Figure 58 – Photographs of the Turkish Historical Society building; and Odakule Center ......................................................................................................... 331
Figure 59 - Gerede People's House Project ............................................................. 355
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1. The Aim and Significance of the Thesis
The aim of this thesis is to trace and discuss the key ideas and themes that shape representations of the past in Modern Turkish Architecture (1984), which covers the architectural production in Turkey between the final years of the Ottoman Empire and the 1980s. The architectural histories of Turkey, focusing on different periods of architectural production after the foundation of the republic, began as early as the 1930s, which were mostly in the form of articles in journal Mimar/ Arkitekt. These studies, however, mainly concentrated on the formal characteristics of architectural works, and highlighted their architectural “styles”, by pointing out the factors that govern a building’s appearance,1 such as proportion, form, material, color, and ornament. This approach to the writing of architectural history in Turkey, began to change after the 1960s with the systematic examination of architecture and the engagement with specific cultural, political, and social contexts, within which architectures were produced and operated. As a result of these changes, in the 1970s and the 1980s, the first books on the architectural production in Turkey began to be published, by the first generation of scholars. Even though these early books are still in use, in numerous scholarly works, mostly as data sources since they provide a ground of information for the architectural production in Turkey, works on architectural historiographical are still quite limited.
1 Leach, Andrew. Style and Period. In What is Architectural History. (2010). Polity Press.
2
The few books, theses, and articles in the architectural historiographical field, on the other hand, often focused on specific periods, concepts, or on the theoretical aspects of historiography in Turkey. Among the significant works of historiography, we may first point to İlhan Tekeli’s book, Tarihyazımı Üzerine Düşünmek (1998) (Thinking About Historiography), which is a collection of his essays on the subject dating between the years of 1982 and 1997. Even though this book is not directly related with the architectural historiography of Turkey, Tekeli (1998) highlights the changes in the history writing and its problematics over the years, by pointing to the differences in his eleven articles from different years, which exhibits parallels with the writing of architectural history in Turkey.2 Here, we may point to his statements addressing his first article, Tarih Metodolojisi Üzerine that was first published in 1982, which are applicable for the developments in the field of architectural history of Turkey, until the 1980s. According to Tekeli (1998) changes in the fields of social sciences in Turkey could be understood as connected to two political developments between years of 1960 and 1980, which he identified as the making of planned development into a constitutional institution3 and the 1961 Constitution itself, which made Turkish political life open to leftist movements. In accordance with these changes in the political and economic atmosphere of Turkey, Tekeli (1998, 11) explains that the development of Turkey was depended on scientific planning, in which social sciences
2 Tekeli, İlhan. (1998). Tarihyazımı Üzerine Düşünmek. Dost Kitabevi Yayınları.
3 State Planning Organization (Devlet Planlama Teşkilatı) was founded in 1960, with the aims to identify different sources, resources, and means of Turkey, to help the government determine its economic and social policies and future goals of the state. (T.C. Resmi Gazete (1960). Devlet Planlama Teşkilatının Kurulması hakkında Kanun. Law Number: 91, Acceptance Date: 30/9/1960. Accessed on 06.07.2021, Available from: https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/arsiv/10621.pdf) In the First Five-Year Development Plan, which covered the years between 1963 and 1967, it was announced that Turkey had entered a period of planned development with various economic and social goals, while pointing to the growing population that resulted in housing and unemployment problems.(T.C. Resmi Gazete. (1962). Birinci Beş Yıllık (1963-1967) Kalkınma Planı. Plan Resolution Number: 1, Acceptance Date: 21/11/1962. Accessed on 06.07.2021, Available from: https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/arsiv/11272.pdf). Here it should also be noted that, even though the plan was titled, The First Five-Year Development Plan, there have been previous attempts on planned economic development in Turkey, as early as the 1930 (Fry, Maxwell J. (1971). Turkey’s First Five-Year Development Plan: An Assessment. The Economic Journal, 81(322), 306.)
3
assumed an instrumental function and entered into an unprecedented boom phase,4 which also had an impact in the field of history, as well as architectural history.
Another study that should be mentioned here is Uğur Tanyeli’s book, Toplumsal Hafıza, Mimarlık, Tarih ve Kuram (2017) (Social Memory, Architecture, History and Theory), which is an interview between him and Erhan Berat Fındıklı.5 While Tanyeli has many articles on the architectural historiography of Turkey, as well as sections on the subject in many of his books, it is significant to mention this publication as he comments on different architectural histories of Turkey, written by different generations of architectural historians, on different periods of architectural production. In that sense, Tanyeli’s book portrays a similar image to that of İlhan Tekeli’s, since it is possible to observe and trace the changes and developments in the architectural historiography of Turkey in the book.6
Among different works of Uğur Tanyeli that encompasses the subject of architectural historiography of Turkey, we may mention his preface for Ali Cengizkan’s book, Modernin Saati (2002) (Time of the Modern), where he briefly points to the problematics of the field of architectural history, among which he includes the inefficiencies in systematic data collection on architectural works, the insufficient numbers of archives; stills libraries; and museums, and also to inclusion of the canonical works of architecture in texts, as part of the architectural history writing
4 Tekeli, İlhan. (1998). Tarihyazımı Üzerine Düşünmek. Dost Kitabevi Yayınları. p.11
5 Tanyeli, Uğur., & Fındıklı, Erhan Berat. (2017). Toplumsal Hafıza, Mimarlık, Tarih ve Kuram: Uğur Tanyeli ile Söyleşi. Everest Yayınları.
6 Uğur Tanyeli’s evaluations regarding the architectural history of Turkey are mainly located in the last subheading of the last chapter, titled, Sanat ve Mimarlık Tarihi: Öncüler, Amatörler, Profesyoneller (Art and Architectural History: Precursors, Amateurs, Professionals). In that section, he starts by looking at Celal Esad Arseven’s writings and continues with the writings of important art/ architectural historians of Turkey, including Semavi Eyice, Doğan Kuban, Gülru Necipoğlu, Zeynep Çelik, and Sibel Bozdoğan.
4
tradition in Turkey.7 Here, we may also point to a rather recent book of Tanyeli, Mimar Sinan: Tarihsel ve Muhayyel (2020) (Architect Sinan: Historical and Imaginary), in which he evaluates Architect Sinan and his works in two different contexts, first by examining his position in the sixteenth century Ottoman Empire, and later his image, in the architectural history of Turkey.8 It is significant to mention that the “iconic” and “imaginary” position of Architect Sinan, was discussed by other architectural historians as well, which we can exemplify through Gülru Necipoğlu’s article, Creation of a National Genius: Sinan and the Historiography of “Classical” Ottoman Architecture (2007).9 Here, we may also mention Bülent Tanju’s Ph.D. thesis, 1908-1946 Türkiye Mimarlığının Kavramsal Çerçevesi (1999) (1908-1946 The Conceptual Frame of the Architecture in Turkey), in which he also makes similar arguments on the constructions of “classical” Ottoman architecture, while also problematizing the dichotomy between the East and the West as a “meta-discourse”, which, according to him, finds a place in architecture, as well as in architectural history writings on later periods, in the First National Architectural Movement, and in the architectural praxis of the Early Republican Period. 10 Tanju (1999), in his study, explores the role of this dichotomy to explain the eclecticist/historicist approach in architectural production, while also examining relations between architecture, ideologies, and discourses, to assert that culture is the result of a series of material practices that are utilized to produce meanings, one of those practices being the articulation of discourses, as in the case of architectural history writings.11
7 Tanyeli, Uğur. Önsöz. In Cengizkan, Ali. (2002). Modernin Saati. Mimarlar Derneği 1927 ve Boyut Yayıncılık.
8 Tanyeli, Uğur. (2020). Mimar Sinan: Tarihsel ve Muhayyel. Metis Yayıncılık.
9 Necipoğlu, Gülru. (2007). Creation of a National Genius: Sinan and the Historiography of “Classical” Ottoman Architecture. Muqarnas, 24, 141-183.
10 Tanju, Bülent. (1999). 1908-1946 Türkiye Mimarlığının Kavramsal Çerçevesi. Istanbul Technical University. (Ph. D. Thesis).
11 Ibid.
5
In addition to Tanju’s study, there are several other theses that directly focus on the architectural historiography of Turkey, which has different focuses. Among them, we may first mention Bilgen Dündar’s Ph.D. thesis, Against Style: Re-Reading “New Architecture” in Early Republican Period in Turkey (1931-1940) (2011). In her study, Dündar criticizes “style” based categories of architecture in the writing of architectural history, by looking at the writings of the first generation of architectural historians, namely to the writings of Üstün Alsaç; Metin Sözen; Mete Tapan and İnci Aslanoğlu.12 While her thesis highlights variants of modernity, and provides insight regarding the construction of the idea of modern in architectural history, by relating it with the process of modernization, the scope of her study is limited to the with the Early Republican Period.13 However, many notions she identifies in her thesis, such as different types of architectural works; the discursive construction of the idea of the “new”, or the “Turkish House, can be argued to find place in later periods, even though the meanings or utilization of them may change.14 Here, we may also mention to her master’s thesis, The Construction of Turkish Modern Architecture in Architectural History Writing (2003), in which she focuses on the Turkish architectural historiography as a media where discourses are produced.15 In this thesis, she examines the approaches of architectural historians that are Bülent Özer; Üstün Alsaç; Metin Sözen; and İnci Aslanoğlu, and evaluates their methods, their conceptions of architecture, modern architecture and modern; as well as their logics of classification.16 While her study provides insight regarding the connections between modern
12 Dündar, Bilgen. (2011). Against Style: Re-Reading “New Architecture” in Early Republican Period in Turkey (1931-1940). Izmir Institute of Technology. (Ph.D. Thesis).
13 Ibid.
14 Dündar, Bilgen. (2011). Against Style: Re-Reading “New Architecture” in Early Republican Period in Turkey (1931-1940). Izmir Institute of Technology. (Ph.D. Thesis).
15 Boyacıoğlu, Bilgen. (2003). The Construction of Turkish Modern Architecture in Architectural History Writing. Izmir Institute of Technology. (Master’s Thesis).
16 Ibid.
6
architecture and the national ideology in the architectural historiography of Turkey in her thesis, Boyacıoğlu’s (Dündar)(2003) study is limited to the writings on the architectural production in the Early Republican Period.17
Another study that directly focuses on the architectural historiography of Turkey is Tayfun Gürkaş’s Ph.D. thesis, Türkiye’de Mimarlık Tarihi Yazımı: Konuşmaya Başlarken Susmak (2010) (Architectural Historiography in Turkey)18. Gürkaş’s rather theoretical study, does not necessarily focus on narratives or analyze them separately, rather he utilizes phrases from different articles and books to support his theoretical arguments on notions that are embedded in architectural historiography and on the role of the architectural historian.19. In addition to these theses, there are significant articles on the architectural historiography of Turkey,20 and also there are several other theses and books that examine architectural historiographies that focus on the works that were
17 I Boyacıoğlu, Bilgen. (2003). The Construction of Turkish Modern Architecture in Architectural History Writing. Izmir Institute of Technology. (Master’s Thesis).
18 The title is translated as “Architectural Historiography in Turkey” in the abstract section of Gürkaş’s thesis.
19 Gürkaş, Tayfun. (2010). Türkiye’de Mimarlık Tarihi Yazımı: Konuşmaya Başlarken Susmak. Yildiz Technical University. (Ph.D. Thesis).
20 Among these articles, we may mention the articles from the 2009 issue of Türkiye Araştırmaları Literatür Dergisi (TALİD) (Number 13), which provides insight regarding different focuses and problematics of the architectural historiography of Turkey, such as the “Orientalist and Nationalist” writings of architectural history; the writings on Seljuk architecture; the Sinan historiography; the writings on the architectural production in the Republican period; the “Eurocentric” approach to the writing of architectural history, while also providing bibliographies on the subject. The contributions to the volume are made by some of the most significant art and architectural historians of Turkey, including, Sibel Bozdoğan; Gülru Necipoğlu; Halil İbrahim Düzenli; Ali Uzay Peker; Elvan Altan Ergut; Tayfun Gürkaş; Müge Cengizkan; Alev Erkmen; Belgin Turan Özkaya; Gül Cephanecigil; Selen Bahriye Morkoç; Göksun Akyürek; Yusuf Civelek; Burak Asiliskender; Nicole Kançal Ferrari; Tuba Akar; Alidost Ertuğrul; Gül Kale; Faruk Deniz; Ömer İskender Tuluk; Turan Açık; Ahmet Erdem Tozoğlu; Serap Durmuş; Fulya Üstün Demirkaya; İlknur Kolay; Zeynep Kuban. Here we may also mention the articles from the 2007 issue of Muqarnas (Volume 24), which encompasses articles on the historiography of Ottoman architecture, as well as in Modern Turkey, with contributions from significant art and architectural historians on the subject such as Ahmet Ersoy; Gülru Necipoğlu; Shirine Hamadeh; Sibel Bozdoğan; and so on.
7
built prior to the foundation of the Republic, such as the writings on Ottoman Architecture, Byzantine Architecture, or else.21
If we look at Panayotis Tournikiotis’s influential publication, The Historiography of Modern Architecture (1999), we see that the main object of his analysis are the texts, or “histories”22, as he explains that he removes the contexts of the processes within which the histories he evaluates emerged, and lefts out the cultural, economic, or political conditions that might have had an impact on those histories.23 Regarding his
21 Among these studies, we may mention, Şule Kılıç Yıldız’s Ph.D. Thesis, Byzantium between "East" and "West": Perceptions and Architectural Historiography of the Byzantine Heritage (2013), which examines the representations of the cultural and architectural heritage of Byzantium in the architectural history writings. Another significant study on architectural historiography is Vesile Gül Cephanecigil’s Ph.D. Thesis, Geç Osmanlı ve Erken Cumhuriyet Dönemlerinde Mimarlık Tarihi İlgisi ve Türk Eksenli Milliyetçilik (1873-1930) (2009) (The Interest in the Architectural History and the Turkish Nationalism During the Late Ottoman / Early Republican Era (1873-1930), which discusses different approaches to architectural history writing by focusing on the early writings and their authors, which provides insight regarding the “nationalist” formulations in architectural historiography. Another significant study is Ahmet A. Ersoy’s Ph.D. thesis, On the Sources of the “Ottoman Renaissance:” Architectural Revival and its Discourse During the Abdülaziz Era (1861-76) (2000), and later his book, Architecture and the Late Ottoman Historical Imaginary: Reconfiguring the Architectural Past in a Modernizing Empire (2015), which both provides great insight on Usûl-i Mi'mârî-i Osmânî (1873), which is often considered as the first architectural history writing on Ottoman architecture, by examining the context of its production, as well as by looking at other discourses from the period, while also exploring the architectural production in the Abdülaziz era, in relation to the contexts they were built in. Lastly, we may point to Ceren Katipoğlu Özmen’s Ph.D. Thesis, Re-Thinking Historiography on Ottoman Mosque Architecture: Nineteenth Century Provincial Sultan Mosques (2014), which provides an alternative reading to the “Eurocentric” approaches to the architectural history readings on nineteenth century Ottoman architecture, with a focus on sultan mosques, first by examining the historiography on them and later by re-evaluating the mosques according to their construction dates, locations, sites, as well as architectural characteristics such as plan schemes, space configurations, and façade designs, which offers a different methodology, combining an examination of historiography and then offering alternative histories on the objects of those texts. Here, it is significant to state that, in this section, some of the main works on the architectural historiography are mentioned, however, there are other theses and articles on the subject, as well as books and scholarly works that include evaluations of architectural historiography as part of them.
22 Tournikiotis, Panayotis. (1999). The Historiography of Modern Architecture. MIT Press.
Tournikiotis (1999) uses the term “histories” to emphasize that there can be different interpretations of the past that deal with the same or similar events, which results in different narratives.
23 Ibid. p.5
Here, we might add that, Tournikiotis also lefts out any biographical details regarding the authors, and he does not evaluate any connections between the histories and the architectural works that finds place in them.
8
process of removal, Tournikiotis (1999, 5) states that he does not intend to underplay the impact of these parameters (the contexts and actors), and that he is open to criticism regarding the exclusion of “…the main actors, the historians themselves with all the weight of affinities and influences they drag with them”.24 Also, considering the time range of the histories he evaluates, which is between the late twenties and late sixties, we may understand that there are different contexts for each text in his rather comparative study.25 Looking from this perspective, we may observe that many of the mentioned scholarly works on the architectural historiography of Turkey, employed a similar approach to that of Tournikiotis’s, in their evaluations of histories by mainly focusing on texts as their objects, even though they offer some explanations regarding the utilization of certain notions and ideologies with regards to the periods they were produced in, and with regards to their authors. In other words, most of these scholarly works do not examine the various contexts of the production of texts as a factor that play a role in their formulation, rather they analyze the approaches within the texts to make arguments regarding the architectural historiographical context. Furthermore, the image/s of the past being constructed in these scholarly works are often overlooked, since their objectives and focus are oriented towards the historiographical examinations and explanations. In that sense, this study can be considered different from these studies, since it offers a different perspective for the examination of histories, and for the evaluation of the constructed representations of the past in them.
The objective of this study is not to propose another alternate story to the histories of architecture in Turkey, rather, it is aimed to understand the representational components and contextual factors that play a role in the construction of a past in the architectural historiography, through the specific case of Modern Turkish Architecture (1984). To achieve this goal, two main lines of research are being conducted, first on
24 Tournikiotis, Panayotis. (1999). The Historiography of Modern Architecture. MIT Press. p.5
25 The texts analyzed by Panayotis Tournikiotis are written by some of the major historians of the twentieth century, as examines the works of Nikolaus Pevsner; Emil Kaufmann; Sigfried Giedion; Henry-Russell Hitchcock; Bruno Zevi; Leonardo Benevolo; Reyner Banham; Peter Collins; and Manfredo Tafuri.
9
the context and then on the main object of analysis, the book, through which, the two following research questions are trying to be answered:
1) What are the historical and contextual conditions that might have had an impact in the construction of the representation of the past in Modern Turkish Architecture (1984)?
2) What are the prominent themes that play a role in the construction of image/s of the past in Modern Turkish Architecture (1984), and how those themes operate in the representation process?
While these are the main research questions of this thesis, finding answers to them requires further interrogations on various subjects. If we deepen the first question, we see that there are several historical and contextual aspects that needs to be examined, to be able to understand if and how they affect the representation in Modern Turkish Architecture (1984). First of those factors are the political and historical contexts in which the book was published, since both might have implications for the academic atmosphere, as well as for the lives of the actors. The actors themselves, who in this study mainly refers to the authors of the edited book, even though the term also encompasses key figures from different institutions, can be considered as the second factor. The academic backgrounds of the authors and their connections with other actors can also have an effect on their approach to the subject, when combined with historical circumstances. Lastly, the architectural historiographical context and the themes that have been embedded in prior studies might also be a factor, since existing texts may play a role in the shaping of the author’s approach, or might be being used as informational sources, which in turn might be a determining factor.
If we look at the second research question, which takes the book as its main object of analysis, we can see that there are an array of questions, both for the identification of prominent themes in the book, as well as for the understanding of the ways they operate in the representation process. To identify different themes, it is important to understand the organization and periodization of the book; the turning point events in relation to
10
the structure of the book; the recurring ideas and notions, alongside the contexts they are being used in. However, since the object of this examination is an architectural history book, there are also questions regarding the inclusion and exclusion of architectural works from the text, which encompasses examinations on their architects, building types, location, and descriptions, as well. Another related question, to understand the constructed image/s of the past, is the use of visuals as representational tools, and their connections with themes in the book. As a consequence, in this study, it is aimed to find answers to the mentioned two main research questions, while also looking at their related inquiries, to understand the factors that affect the representation of the past being constructed in Modern Turkish Architecture (1984), as well as to comprehend the image/s of the past that is portrayed in the book, which can provide insight regarding the architectural historiographical tendencies of the time. Before continuing with the methods that were used in this study, it is considered significant to explain the reasons behind selecting Modern Turkish Architecture (1984), as the object of analysis for this study, among others.
1.2. Modern Turkish Architecture (1984) as a Representational Object
In March 1982, roughly one and a half year after the 1980 Turkish military intervention, a photographic exhibition and seminar titled Contemporary Architecture in Turkey, 1920-1980, took place in the University Museum of University of Pennsylvania, as part of the Atatürk Centennial activities. Modern Turkish Architecture (1984) was the outcome of this collaborative event between two universities, that were Middle East Technical University and University of Pennsylvania. The seminar papers and later the chapters of the book were written by some of the younger generation of architectural historians/ critics of Turkey, who are often considered as the first generation of architectural historians that published on the subject,26 and the book was edited by Renata Holod and Ahmet Evin. The edited book,
26 Dündar (2011, 1) expresses that architectural historians who produced between the years of 1973 and 1983 can be accepted as the “first generation of architectural historians of modern Turkish architecture”, and points to the works of Üstün Alsaç, Metin Sözen, Mete Tapan, and İnci Aslanoğlu, who “established the theoretical groundwork of ERP architecture”.
11
published by the University of Pennsylvania in 1984, follows a chronological organization is the first international publication that evaluated the architectural production in Turkey, and covers a broad timeframe, beginning with the late years of the Ottoman Empire, and ending around the 1980s. The 192 pages long book, printed on pages that are sized 20 cm x 25,5 cm, consists of an introduction; eight chapters, and a last section that shows “Herman Jansen’s Plan for Ankara”. The book has two more editions that were published in 2005 in English,27 and in 2007 in Turkish,28 which were both published by the Chamber of Architects of Turkey.
The contents of these new editions were unaltered, however, both of them were published with a new introduction written by Suha Özkan, who is listed amongst the editors of the two 2005 and 2007 editions and was one of the major actors in the organization of the photographic exhibition and seminar, as well as in the publication of the book. In addition to that, the second and third editions of the book were published as two set volumes, which included Modern Turkish Architecture (1984), and a consecutive book on the architectural production; profession; and discourse on Turkey, titled, Architecture In Turkey Around 2000: Issues In Discourse And Practice,29 which was edited by Tansel Korkmaz, and had contributions by important scholars on the subject, “a new generation of critics”,30 who were, Ali Kural; Ali Cengizkan; Deniz Güner; B. Deniz Çalış Kural; Cemal Emden; Zeynep Mennan; İhsan Bilgin; Elvan Altan Ergut; Belgin Turan Özkaya; and lasty, Atilla Yücel, whom also
27 Holod, Renata., Evin, Ahmet. & Özkan, Suha. (2005). Modern Turkish Architecture. Chamber of Architects of Turkey. (The second edition).
28 Holod, Renata., Evin, Ahmet. & Özkan, Suha. (2007). Modern Türk Mimarlığı. TMMOB. (The third edition).
29 Korkmaz, Tansel. (2005). Architecture in Turkey Around 2000: Issues in Discourse and Practice. Chamber of Architects of Turkey.; Korkmaz, Tansel. (2007). 2000’lerde Türkiye’de Mimarlık: Söylem ve Uygulamalar. TMMOB Mimarlar Odası.
30 Özkan, Suha. (2007). Modern Turkish Architecture: A New Introduction for Modern Turkish Architecture. METU Journal of the Faculty of Architecture, 2, 179-185. p.182
12
had a chapter in the first volume. One last difference between the first and later editions was the format and graphic design of the book, since the cover photograph was removed, and the page sizes became 23,8 cm x 23,8 cm.
Before continuing with the reasons behind selecting Modern Turkish Architecture (1984) as the object of analysis for this thesis, and why it is viewed as a representational object, it is considered useful to provide brief information regarding the contents of the book, to be able to familiarize with the subject. If we start by looking at the “Introduction”, written by Renata Holod and Ahmet Evin, we can see that they begin their text with a criticism on the “histories of modern architecture”, in terms of reflecting a specific and limited architectural tradition, which they define as the “metropolitan tradition” and its strands that originated in specific geographies, specifically in Western Europe and the United States, while often turning a blind eye to the transformations of architecture elsewhere in the world, including Turkey, whose architectural production is being showcased through their book.31 Holod and Evin (1984, 1) express that these transformations of architecture, which occurred outside the mentioned geographies, were mostly “derived” from the “metropolitan tradition or later the international style”, but that there was a search for a “regionally based and regionally recognizable idiom”.32 In other words, in the first paragraph of the introduction, the reader is familiarized with the idea of two different architectures, the modern architecture of the “West”,33 and the “regional”, through which something “new”, a different architectural language is being constructed.
This idea of a “regionally recognizable idiom” finds a different ground of discussion with the inclusion of two other notions, “Authenticity” and “Turkishness”, in their text,
31 Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press. p.1
32 Ibid. p.1
33 Here the term “West” is being used a concept that is often being used to construct a difference between the “West” and its other. In this study, the notion of the “West” is understood as a historical
13
since Holod and Evin (1984, 1) states that “The overriding concern of the authors can be understood as a search for authenticity of Turkishness, as the latter is continually defined and redefined by political and economic realities, and social and cultural attitudes”.34 In their statement, we can see that they point to the changing meanings of “Turkishness” in relation to their historical contexts, which brings a questioning of the term “authenticity” as well, since the meanings of the two concepts are tied with each other. Nevertheless, we may state that, from the first page, the reader is faced with the question of what is, or maybe what are “Modern Turkish Architecture”?
The next point that Holod and Evin (1984, 1) makes in their introduction is related to the writing of the architectural history of Turkey, since they express the book is a “presentation of a school of thought which has developed among architectural historians, practitioners, and critics, and which although methodologically connected with architectural history at large, has its own internal language, preoccupations and, to some extent, its own criteria”. Here, Holod and Evin, suggests that the language being used to describe the architectural production of Turkey, is tied with the historical, educational, as well as with the personal, contexts of the authors, even though they pertain to the methodological approaches of the architectural history field. Considering this, we can question, if there may be a language of “regionally based and regionally recognizable” writing of the architectural history, or “a school of thought”, as Holod and Evin defined it.35
Holod and Evin (1984, 1) continue their introduction by outlining each chapter, and express that the book “concentrates on the architecture and the architectural profession
construct. Hall, Stuart. (1997). Representation: Cultural Representations and Signifying Practices. London; Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 1997, c2003.
34 Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press. p.1
35 Ibid. p.1
14
of the Turkey which Atatürk created”.36 We see that Holod and Evin view the “phenomenon of the Republic and the role of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk” as given, since they underline it as “common knowledge”, and provide contextual information related to the architectural production, beginning with the Tanzimat era, and focusing mainly on the reforms of the Ottoman Empire, when according to Holod and Evin (1984, 3), “the seeds of modern Turkey were sown”.37
The first chapter following the “Introduction” is a thematic chapter written by İlhan Tekeli, titled, “The Social Context of the Development of Architecture in Turkey”, which explains the development of architectural profession in Turkey starting from the late Ottoman period and continuing until the 1980s, while giving information on social, economic, political and cultural transformations; as well as on educational developments, that are related to the field of architecture in Turkey.38 In his chapter, we see that he uses a centre-periphery model,39 to understand Turkey’s condition within the international capitalist system, where the “ideology of nationalism” itself is viewed as an “import” of the “West”.40 Tekeli views the architectural production in
36 Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press. p.3
37 Ibid. p.3
38 Tekeli, İlhan. The Social Context of the Development of Architecture in Turkey. In Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press.
39 Kaps and Komlosy (2013) expresses that since the 1960s, the centre-periphery model had an important place in global history narratives, which provided views to understand the entangled hierarchies between different geographies, countries of the world. However, the model has also been challenged by historians on the concern that the distinction between a “center” and a “periphery”, strengthened the Eurocentric approaches to history. The centre-periphery model has been transformed as a world-system analysis model with regards to criticisms, since it identifies the power relations between the “regions” of the world, through a dichotomy between the “dominant” – “the center” –, and the “other” – “the periphery”, while ignoring the entangled relations between them in the historical processes, which can be viewed as a similar dynamic to the ones between the “West” and the “Other”.
40 Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press. p.9
15
Turkey as connected to various internal and external factors, and underlines the role of ideologies (specifically of nationalism/s, as he points to different interpretations of it, in different periods), as well as the role of economy, society, and culture. He clearly expresses this by stating, “Such ideological redefinitions on the national level require architects to continually espouse new architectural movements and to reject prevailing ones”.41 In other words, he relates the transformations in architecture, directly to the changes in the definitions of ideologies, among other factors, where Turkey as a peripheral country, was faced with the construction of a national identity.42
Following İlhan Tekeli’s thematic chapter, where he identifies the relations between the changes in the political power and architecture, and underlines different interpretations of “nationalism”, the book continues with the evaluation of architectural production within each period, that are roughly separated by decades, which corresponds to various historical turning points, events, or outcomes of them.
In their two consecutive chapters, “The Final Years of the Ottoman Empire” and “Finding a National Idiom: The First National Style”, which are the second and third chapters of the book, Yıldırım Yavuz and Suha Özkan examine the “First National Style” in relation to the architectural production that precedes it, in the Ottoman Empire. The second chapter, “The Final Years of the Ottoman Empire”, begins as early as 1699, with the Treaty of Karlowitz, which the authors state was the time of “Ottoman discovery of Europe as a force to be contended with”, and continues by
Here it should be noted that, in our interview, İlhan Tekeli expressed that while the centre-periphery model was suitable at the time to place the objects, architectural production, as well as various architectural ideologies within their relations to the center and periphery, the model is not suited to evaluate and explain the architectural production specifically since the end of the Cold War, in a multipolar world. Interview with İlhan Tekeli, 18 June 2020. Full interview in APPENDICES A1.
41 Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press. p.9
42 Ibid.
16
providing various significant events until the end of the 19th century.43 The chapter mainly focuses on the architectural production in the Late Ottoman Empire and the contexts they were built in. The evaluation of the “First National Style” starts in this second chapter and extends into the latter.
The two chapters of Yavuz and Özkan are separated at the historical turning point of the foundation of the Republic, in 1923. In both chapters, they provide brief contextual backgrounds on the events that affected the architectural production of those years, and then describe architectural works, mostly one by one, pointing to their architectural features, such as their organization of masses; facades; plan schemes; materials; or use of ornamentation. They complete their narrative on the “First National Style” around the 1930s, where another architectural movement in the architectural history of Turkey begins in the next chapter of the book.
This movement is discussed by Afife Batur (1984) in the fourth chapter, “To Be Modern: Search for a Republican Architecture”, in which she explains the architectural production and related events between the 1930s and the 1940s. Batur’s chapter organization differs from Yavuz and Özkan’s, since she uses several subheadings to highlight different points of discussion. Her introduction to the chapter begins with a contextual background, where she illustrates historical, social, political and economic factors that has a role in the shaping of “Republican architecture”.44 Batur underlines different building types, such as “Service and Industrial Buildings”; “Educational Buildings”; or “Housing”, while also providing information on the series of laws that played a role in their shaping at the time.45 One of the subheadings, is dedicated solely to the “Foundation of Ankara”, in which she demonstrates the transformation of the
43 Yavuz, Yıldırım. & Özkan, Suha. The Final Years of the Ottoman Empire. In Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press. p.34
44 Batur, Afife. To Be Modern: Search for a Republican Architecture. In Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press.
45 Ibid.
17
city to a modern capital.46 In her last subheading, “Ideology, Expression, Symbol, and Style”, she exemplifies the architecture of the decade and developments of different building types by describing architectural works, which she views as connected to the building program of the state, and as representation of the official ideology.47
Following Batur’s narrative, Üstün Alsaç, in the fifth chapter, “The Second Period of Turkish National Architecture”, focuses on another architectural movement, the “Second National Style”. Alsaç begins his chapter, that covers the period between the 1940s and the 1950s, with a contextual background, and points to the historical conditions, which played a role in to the emergence of the movement, such as Atatürk’s death; the World War II; and Sedad Hakkı Eldem’s “Seminar on National Architecture”.48 He puts forward some of the prominent architectural works, as the exemplifications of larger discussions on “Revivalism”; “Nationalism”; and “heritage” as a sources of inspiration, among others. Lastly, we find comparisons to the prior two movements in this chapter, which Alsaç includes to differentiate the “Second National Style” from them, and to explain its characteristics.
The next period of the architectural production in Turkey is the subject of the sixth chapter, “International Style: Liberalism in Architecture”, in which Mete Tapan examines the period roughly between the years of the 1950s and the 1960s. Similar to the beginning of earlier narratives, Mete Tapan also provides a contextual background that led to the shift in architectural tendencies towards “International Style”.49 The
46 Batur, Afife. To Be Modern: Search for a Republican Architecture. In Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press.
47 Ibid. p.75
48 Alsaç, Üstün. The Second Period of Turkish National Architecture. In Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press. p.95
49 Tapan, Mete. International Style: Liberalism in Architecture. In Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press.
18
exemplifications of architectural works in this chapter differs from earlier ones, as Tapan describes the architectural characteristics of some prominent commercial buildings, which he presents as an outcome of the economic policies of the government, in that period.50
The transition from Mete Tapan’s chapter to Atilla Yücel’s chapter, “Pluralism Takes Command: The Turkish Architectural Scene Today”, is rather continuous, since the architectural production in the former, extends into the latter, to the seventh chapter, specifically due to the dates of production of the included architectural works. In his chapter, Yücel provides an examination of the last period of the book, from the 1960s to the 1980s.51 His narratorial organization resembles Batur’s chapter, as he also organizes the topics around subheadings, beginning with the social context of the period, and continuing with factors that affected the architecture of the period, such as “New programs, Needs and Constraints”; “Architectural Education”; and “Social Conditions and Professional Associations”. Yücel, through the discussions under these subheadings and with the consideration of developments in the period, highlights different architectural trends, alongside theoretical discussions surrounding them.52 Lastly, he provides an overview of architecture, in which he exemplifies different tendencies through his descriptions of architectural works, without neglecting their theoretical aspects, and views pluralism as the “only suitable common denominator for architecture as a cultural product, whether in theory or in practice”, after the 1960s.53
50 Tapan, Mete. International Style: Liberalism in Architecture. In Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press.
51 Yücel, Atilla. Pluralism Takes Command: The Turkish Architectural Scene Today. In Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press.
52 Ibid.
53 Ibid. p.148
19
In the eight chapter, “To House The New Citizens: Housing Policies And Mass Housing” which is the second thematic chapter and the last chapter of the book, Yıldız Sey examines the housing in Turkey, under four periods, as 1923-1933, 1933-1946, 1946-1960, and post-1960, after providing a background on the policies of the Ottoman Empire.54 In her narrative, Sey outlines how the laws and policies of different governments; changes in the structure of the society; as well as natural factors such as disasters, has affected the residential architecture, and exemplifies the outcomes of government policies; solutions to housing problems; and architectural tendencies, by describing various prominent residential works from different periods.55
Looking at the context of its production and its contexts, it can be seen that Modern Turkish Architecture (1984), as well as the photographic exhibition and seminar on Contemporary Architecture in Turkey, 1920-1980, functioned as representations of the past, which still continues today, since the book is among the few books on the subject that is being used in education, and in academic studies. In all these three mediums, the seminar; the photographic exhibition; and later the book, we can argue that representational tools and/or languages were utilized, to construct image/s of the past, which resulted in a distinct representation, that was constructed by specific people in the 1980s, with specific representational objectives, by utilizing selected architectural works and contexts they were built in. Therefore, Modern Turkish Architecture (1984) was considered as a representational object for several reasons in this study. First of all, as it can be understood from its contents, the book covered a wide timeframe of architectural production in Turkey, meaning that it constructed images on a broad period, between the final years of the Ottoman Empire and the 1980s. This coverage would allow for the examination of representations of different periods, while it could also give information regarding representational decisions behind the organization of the book, and the periodization of the architecture in Turkey. Secondly, the book was one of the earliest studies to examine architectural works in relation to their political,
54 Sey, Yıldız. To House The New Citizens: Housing Policies And Mass Housing. In Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press. p.153
55 Ibid.
20
social, cultural, and economic contexts. This aspect of the book could provide insight regarding what was put into prominence, and which historical and/or contextual events of the past were emphasized.
Another reason to consider Modern Turkish Architecture (1984) as a representational object, was its compelling context of production, as it can be understood from the brief background information. It could be seen that the photographic exhibition, seminar, and later the book, was constructed as an international representation of the architectural production in Turkey, which resulted in the book, being the first international publication on the subject. Furthermore, this international representation was being constructed by Turkish architectural historians/ critics,56 which made it a “self-representation”57 that could start a discussion regarding the decisions on how a school of thought in the 1980s portrayed architectural practice in Turkey, while also constructing a representation of Turkey itself, whether consciously or unconsciously. Considering these different reasons, in this study, Modern Turkish Architecture (1984) was viewed as a representational object that could provide insight regarding key themes and ideas that play a role in the construction of image/s of the past in the architectural historiography of Turkey. However, as it could be understood from the contents of the book, and from the events that led to the publication, the book was the outcome of a complex web of connections between actors and institutions,58 in the
56 The book was written by the younger generation of architectural historians and/or critics of Turkey, who were mostly affiliated with METU and ITU, meaning that the book reflected the ideas of a school of thought that began forming in the 1960s, in the field of architectural history of Turkey.
57 Here, the term “self-representation” is being used to draw attention to the position of architectural histories of Turkey among “Eurocentric” histories of architecture. Modern Turkish Architecture (1984) as the first international publication on the subject, provides an image of architectural production in Turkey, addressing a global audience, from Turkish perspectives.
58 The connections between actors and institutions encompasses the relations between authors; editors; their affiliations with different universities; and the institutions that are related with the backgrounds of these actors.
21
1980s’ historical conditions,59 while also being the result of an entangled web of different factors, themes, and ideas, which required several different methods to examine.
1.3. The Method of the Thesis
In this thesis, several research methods were used in the examination of the representation of the past in Modern Turkish Architecture (1984). The starting point was a close reading of Modern Turkish Architecture (1984), which Brummett (2010, 3) defines as “the mindful, disciplined reading of an object with a view to deeper understanding of its meanings”.60 In this study, multiple techniques of close reading was utilized to be able to identify different themes, narrative decisions, and organizational structures. In doing so, each chapter of the edited book was accepted as a narrative, since they can be considered as representations of different periods, through which the authors explained a particular subject, in their own framework. However, they were also viewed as part of a larger narrative, that is of the book’s, which was shaped through the organization of these smaller narratives. In the close reading of the narrative/s, charts for each chapter were prepared to be able to trace different elements in them, such as the recurring concepts; historical turning points; the use of visuals; and the inclusion and/or exclusion of architectural works, alongside their descriptions; locations; and architects. These elements were analyzed to understand how they operated in the texts. The charts were also used to understand the periodization and organization in chapters, and in the book, which provided insight in terms of how the structure of the narrative/s played a role in the representation process.
59 Among the significant historical conditions, we may count the 1980 Turkish military intervention since the photographic exhibition and seminar took place roughly one and a half year after its occurrence. Atatürk Centennial was another significant happening of the time, which was celebrated under the junta regime through national and international activities at the time. It can be argued that the passing of the Higher Education Law, which was announced in 1981, was also important since it affected the academic atmosphere and scholars, which provides information regarding the conditions under which the book was published.
60 Brummett, Barry S. (2010). Techniques of Close Reading. SAGE Publications. p.3
22
Situating Modern Turkish Architecture (1984) in architectural historiography and the examination of its context of production required the use of secondary sources in research. In that sense, other architectural history books on the subject were examined to be able to understand if the identified themes were embedded in the former publications, and if they maintained their representational place after 1984. Secondary sources were also used in the understanding of general concepts and ideas related to this thesis, such as the concepts of history; architectural history; representation; and ideologies.
In the examination of the context of the production of the book, besides secondary sources on the periods; events; and connections between actors and institutions, documents that were obtained from the archives of the Faculty of Architecture of METU, and the Penn Museum Archives were utilized. The documents obtained from the archives of the Faculty of Architecture of METU, mainly showed the importance given to the Atatürk Centennial activities at the time, since there was an extensive celebration program in METU, which encompassed exhibitions; a travelling library and a view show; performances; art exhibitions; concerts; conferences; and research activities. In addition to these, the documents also gave insight regarding the academic; political; and social conditions following the military intervention of 1980, where many activities were bounded to the permissions of the junta regime.
On the other hand, the records obtained from the Penn Museum Archives provided information regarding the intentions and scope of the exhibition and seminar on Contemporary Architecture in Turkey, 1920-1980, which led to the publication of Modern Turkish Architecture (1984). Among those documents were the draft and final programs of the seminar and the photographic exhibition, which showed any differences that were made in the process. The texts and architectural works in draft and final programs of the exhibition demonstrated decisions that were made in the construction of a specific representation of the past, which included determinations on the periodization of architectural production in Turkey; the organization and selection of architectural works; and the ways they were to be situated within the political, cultural, and social contexts in which they were built. In addition to these documents,
23
there were correspondences between various actors and institutions, which showed the intentions behind organizing an event that focused on the architectural production in Turkey, through the perspectives of Turkish authors.
Lastly, oral history, which Leavy (2011, 4) briefly defines as a “method of collecting narratives from individuals”, was used by conducting interviews with four of the significant actors of the publication, to be able to understand their perspectives, while also acquiring and recording their valuable knowledge and reminiscences on the photographic exhibition, seminar and the book.61 The four interviewed actors were Prof. Dr. İlhan Tekeli, who wrote the first thematic chapter of the book; Prof. Dr. Renata Holod and Prof. Dr. Ahmet Evin, who were the editors of Modern Turkish Architecture (1984) and wrote the introduction chapter; and lastly, Prof. Dr. Suha Özkan, who played a significant role in the organization of the exhibition and seminar, co-authored the second and third chapters of the book with Yıldırım Yavuz; and also wrote a new introduction for the book in the 2005 and 2007 editions, which he edited alongside Holod and Evin. In the interviews, open-ended questions were used to gain the perspectives of the authors on the subject as well as to understand the course of events leading to the publication of the book. In those interviews, interviewees shared their memories and opinions regarding the photographic exhibition and the seminar; the contents of the book and their approaches; as well as their views and reminiscences on the social, cultural, and political conditions of the time, when the event and the publication of the book were realized, which made a significant contribution to the thesis.
1.4. The Structure of the Thesis
This thesis consists of six chapters. In Chapter 1, the “Introduction”, the aim and significance of the study and the main research questions of the thesis are outlined. The reasons behind selecting of Modern Turkish Architecture (1984) as the main
61 Leavy, Patricia. (2011). Oral History: Understanding Qualitative Research. Oxford University Press. p.4
24
object of analysis, and why it is being viewed as a representational object in this study are clarified. The main sources and methods used in this thesis are explained. The chapter is concluded with the structure or the thesis.
In Chapter 2, “Architectural History, Representation, and Ideology”, concepts that are parts of the discussions in the following chapters are overviewed. The concept of representation; its relation to the fields of history and architectural history, and the role of narrativity in the representation of past/s are discussed in this section. Also, the notion of ideology, which is viewed as a flexible concept referring to a broad range of system of ideas in this study, is explored in relation to the processes of representation.
Chapter 3 and Chapter 4 are the main chapters of this study, in which the two areas of research, the context of the production of Modern Turkish Architecture (1984) was examined, and its analysis was made. In Chapter 3, “Context of the Production of Modern Turkish Architecture (1984)”, the events that led to the publication of the book was examined from several angles, starting with an overview of the social and political conditions in the 1980s. The events that were viewed as related to the publication of the book, specifically, the military intervention of 1980, which had outcomes in different fields such as the establishment of the Higher Education Law that affected universities and scholars; and the Atatürk Centennial, which was celebrated during the junta regime, was researched. National and international connections between institutions and actors were traced to understand how a collaboration between them occurred in the historical, social, and political conditions of the time. The Exhibition and Seminar on Contemporary Architecture in Turkey, 1920-1980 was researched. Through this examination, it was aimed to gain insight into the representational intentions and objectives of the exhibition; and to examine the components that were used in the constructed international representation on the architectural profession and practice in Turkey. The periodization of the exhibition and seminar; the architectural works that were included; the descriptions of the architectural works in the draft and final programs of the exhibition; and the short texts that explained different periods of architectural production were explored. Lastly, the architectural historiographical context in the 1980s, on the architectural production of the Ottoman Empire and of
25
Turkey, were examined to understand if the identified themes in Modern Turkish Architecture (1984) had already existed in the former publications.
In Chapter 4, “Representation in the Narrative/s of Modern Turkish Architecture (1984)”, the narrative/s of the book were analyzed to understand its main components that played a role in the construction of the representation of a specific past. The examination was structured around ideological and architectural themes of representation in the book. In the analysis of the ideological themes, three prominent ideologies that shaped the narrativity in the book were identified as, “Nationalism”; “Modernity”; and “Liberalism”. In that section, the understandings and formulations of those ideologies, and re-interpretations of them in relation to different periods, as outlined in the book, were explored. The analysis of the architectural themes were organized into three main sections as “City/s”; “Public and/or Residential Building Types”; and the “Architectural Works, Architects, and Symbolic Meanings”, whose relations with the ideologies that were put into prominence in the book were also examined. The chapter was concluded with a look on the visual representation, to understand if and how the use of visuals contributed to the image/s being constructed in the narrative/s.
In Chapter 5, “Discussion”, the Exhibition and Seminar on Contemporary Architecture in Turkey, 1920-1980; and the narrative/s of Modern Turkish Architecture (1984), were re-visited, to discuss their representations, while looking at their similarities and differences, in terms of their organizations; approaches to different periods of architectural production; selected architectural works that were decided to be included, alongside their descriptions. Additionally, exclusions from both the event and the book were examined and discussed to understand why they might have been left out or treated separately. The chapter was ended with a discussion on the place of Modern Turkish Architecture (1984) in the architectural historiography of Turkey.
In Chapter 6, “Conclusion”, the processes; connections and events that led to the publication of the book was overviewed and their influences on the construction of representations of the past was discussed. In addition to that, the main components and
26
factors that formulated the representation of the past; different categories of ideologies and their relations to architecture/s in Modern Turkish Architecture (1984), with regards to the research questions of the study, was evaluated.
27
CHAPTER 2
ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY, REPRESENTATION, AND IDEOLOGY
2.1. Representation, History, and Architectural History
Whether academic or fictional, filmed or written, any reconstruction of the past is a cultural artifact, reflecting its own time and intervening in the world in which it is produced. The ideological and social functions of any reconstruction of the past should interest the historian who accepts that the past, the present, and the reconstruction of the past are all part of the world in which she or he lives.62
– Edward Countryman63
Historiography, in a broad sense, means the writing of history,64 or “the history of history”65. It can be understood as “results of inquiries about history, written accounts of the past”.66 It is a field that attempts to infer descriptions of histories,67 which are
62 Countryman, Edward. John Ford’s Drums Along the Mohawk: The Making of an American Myth. In Benson, Susan, P.; Brier, Stephen., & Rosenweig, Roy. (1986). Presenting the Past: Essays on History and the Public. Temple University Press. p.87
63 Edward Countryman is an American historian, who focuses on cultural clashes in America and their social consequences.
64 Iggers, George., Edward, Wang., & Supriya, Mukherjee. (2008). A Global History of Modern Historiography. Harlow; England; New York: Pearson Longman.
65 Lange, John. (2010). The Philosophy of Historiography. New York: E-Reads.p.37
66 Tucker, Aviezer. (2009). A Companion to the Philosophy of History and Historiography. John Wiley and Sons. p.2
67 Ibid.
28
based on documents and evidences, and are presented in literary form.68 The American philosopher of history Hayden White defines historiography as “the representation of history in verbal images and written discourse”.69 In line with these definitions, architectural historiography can be understood as the history of architectural history, a field that studies architectural histories. Even though there are differences between histories and architectural histories, which will be mentioned later, they can be considered as representations of the past that are produced through different methods; sources; archives; and voices (of historians or architectural historians).
In the broadest sense, representation can be defined as the re-presentation of something absent; or as “a making present of something absent”.70 The concept of representation, specifically in the sense of people representing other people, is a modern notion.71 According to American political theorist Hanna Fenichel Pitkin (1967, 2), “The ancient Greeks had no corresponding word”, even though they had activities involving representation such as electing officials and sometimes sending ambassadors.72 Pitkin (1967, 3) explains that “The Romans had the word repraesentare”, from which the old French word representacion was derived, which used to mean “the literal bringing into presence of something previously absent, or the embodiment of an abstraction in an object (say, the embodiment of courage in a human face or in a piece of sculpture)”.73
68 Legault, Régean. (1991). Architecture and Historical Representation. Journal of Architectural Education 44 (4): 200–205.
69 White, Hayden. (1988). Historiography and Historiophoty. The American Historical Review 93 (5): 1193–99. p.1193
70 Pitkin, Hanna Fenichel. (1969). Representation. New York, Atherton Press, 1969.p.16
71 Pitkin, Hanna Fenichel. (1967). The Concept of Representation. University of California Press.
72 Ibid. p.2
73 Ibid. p.3
29
In the middle ages, the term mainly carried the meaning of a mystical embodiment in Christian community; but it was also emerging as a way to express political representation in the early institutions in many parts of Europe, in terms of representing a person.74 Even though the modern idea of representation emerged as a political concept in the 17th century,75 later it was widely accepted in different disciplines and began to be used to emphasize “the ways in which all images or the world are just that: images, and not the world itself”.76
Representation can be understood as part of the process, in which meaning is created. The representation of any subject involves decisions on how to represent it, represent it through which point of view and represent it to which audience.77 According to Peirce (1931), representation involves a sign of some kind, which mediates between an object and an interpreting thought.78 He explains how a sign works by stating, “A sign stands for something the idea which it produces or modifies. Or, it is a vehicle conveying into the mind something from without.”79 Similarly, Hall (1997) argues that we use signs, which are organized into “languages” of different kinds to communicate with others, and elements of languages works as signs, which carry meanings.80
74 Sukla, Ananta, C. (2001). Art and Representation: Contributions to Contemporary Aesthetics. Westport, Conn: Greenwood Publishing Group.
75 Pitkin, Hanna Fenichel. (1967). The Concept of Representation. Berkeley, University of California.
76 Beller, Manfred. & Leerssen, Joep, T. (2007). Imagology: The Cultural Construction and Literary Representation of National Characters: A Critical Survey. Amsterdam; New York, NY: Rodopi, 2007. p. 415
77 Morphy, Howard. (1986). Reflections on Representations. Anthropology Today, 2(2), 24-26.
78 Peirce, Charles Sanders. (1931). Collected Papers. Cambridge: Harvard University.
79 Ibid. p.171
80 Hall, Stuart. (1997). Representation: Cultural Representations and Signifying Practices. London; Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 1997, c2003.
30
The term language here encompasses not only “language” as in the written and spoken language, but also includes representational systems, in which signs are organized into languages of different kinds to communicate with others,81 which may be painting; photography; architecture; film, or as in the case of this study, it may refer to narrative writings, such as architectural history texts or books. The meanings that may be produced, exchanged or communicated through these different types of languages, or representational systems, can be understood through common access to these languages, which allows the interpreter to make sense of what is being represented.82 Frank Ankersmit (2013, 51), who is a professor of historical theory from the Netherlands, expresses how a historical text can be understood as representation, as follows:
“The historical text is not something that we look through, but something we look at, in much the same way that we always look at paintings and not through them, as if they were mere windows. It is true that both the historical text and paintings evoke the illusion of looking at something lying beyond, or behind, the text of the paintings themselves. This is the miracle of representation.”83 (Ankersmit, 2013, 51)
Architectural history, which often combines different types of media in its production such as photography; technical drawings; oral history; and archival documents, in addition to explanations and descriptions within the texts, can be understood as a representational system that allows its audience to make sense of historical data, through the object of architecture and its surrounding contexts. It is important to note several aspects of history and architectural history to understand how architectural history narrative/s may work as representational systems.
81 Hall, Stuart. (1997). Representation: Cultural Representations and Signifying Practices. London; Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 1997, c2003.
82 Ibid.
83 Ankersmit, Frank R. A Plea for a Cognivist Approach to White’s Tropology. In Doran, Robert. (2013). Philosophy of History after Hayden White. Bloomsbury. p.51
31
In its most simplistic definition, history can be understood as organized knowledge of the past.84 German philosopher of history, Jörn Rüsen (2005, 2), defines history as “time which has gained sense and meaning”.85 He expresses that, “history combines past, present and future”, which creates an intersection between the remembered past and the expected future.86 British historian, Edward Hallett Carr expresses a similar understanding of history, by stating that it “consciously or unconsciously, reflects our own position in time, and forms part of our answer to the broader question what view we take of the society in which we live in.”87 According to British historiographer Keith Jenkins (1995, 16), history can be understood as “the various accounts constructed about the past by historians and those acting as if they were historians”.88 Carr (1987, 9) underlines the role of the historian, in the construction of an account of history, as follows:
“History consists of a corpus of ascertained facts. The facts are available to the historian in documents, inscriptions and so on, like fish on the fishmonger's slab. The historian collects them, takes them home, and cooks and serves them in whatever style appeals to him”89. (Carr, 1987, 9)
In Carr’s definition, we see that the historian, collects historical documents on a subject, which can be in written, visual, or oral forms; interprets them, and then arranges these materials in a specific order, organizing them into a meaningful account of the past. In other words, the historian plays a key role in the construction of histories,
84 Williams, Raymond. (1983). Keywords: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society. Oxford University Press, New York.
85 Rüsen, Jörn. (2005). History: Narration, Interpretation, Orientation. Berghahn Books. p.2
86 Ibid. p.2
87 Carr, Edward Hallett & Davies, R.W. (1987). What is History?. Penguin Books, England.
88 Jenkins, Keith. (1995). On ‘What is History?’:From Carr and Elton to Rorty and White. Routledge.
89 Carr, Edward Hallett & Davies, R.W. (1987). What is History?. Penguin Books, England. p.9
32
as he/she is the one, who interprets the historical data, subjects them to a selection process by determining what to include or exclude. Stråth (2006, 28) explains this by stating that “History is not the past but about the past. History is a translation of the past into our time, an act of interpretation.”90 Furthermore, he states that “History is in flux; it is, like the present, in a permanent state of transformation. The past does not exist ‘out there’, waiting to be discovered, but history is permanently invented in order to give meaning to the present—and to the future—through the past.”91 In other words, it is possible to view history as a construction, interpreted through the perspective of the historian in the present, offering a representation of the past, meaning that the past may be interpreted and represented in diverse ways in different times, by different historians.
While these definitions highlight the role of the historian; importance of the process of interpretation; and the diversity of histories, this was not always the case, since earlier conceptions of history, particularly of Leopold von Ranke’s and Rankean historians,92 underlined the issue of subjectivity of the historian, and argued that the self should be extinguished in order to convey the “facts”.93 In other words, this earlier understanding of history was based on conveying things as they were, in the search for an “objective
90 Stråth, Bo. (2006). Ideology and History. Journal of Political Ideologies, 11(1), 23-42. p.28
91 Ibid. p.29
92 Leopold von Ranke was a nineteenth century German historian, whose scholarly works, methods, and ways of teaching had a significant influence on “Western” historiography.
Leopold von Ranke. (2021). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Accessed on 16.07.2021, Available from https://www.britannica.com/biography/Leopold-von-Ranke
According to Doran (2013, 4), “Leopold von Ranke (1795-1886) sought to professionalize the study of history by grounding it in a rigorous, empirical approach to the past, that is one based on primary sources and archival research…Ranke aimed to separate history from the literary genres…”
93 Benzoni, Gino. Ranke’s Favorite Source. In Iggers, Georg G. & Powell, James M. (1990). Leopold von Ranke and the Shaping of the Historical Discipline. Syracuse University Press.
33
description of the past”,94 or a “realist representation of history”.95 In this type of approach to history, the vocabulary of explanation, where the historian made descriptive and explanatory statements, was being used, based on the works of Ranke.96 Kuukkanen (2012) explains this approach to history, as follows:
“The historian concentrates on doing archival research, using the internal and external methods of criticism to judge the authenticity, reliability, and significance of source materials. A good historian keeps theory and politics out of research on history…Further, individual historians eliminate personal factors in research by ‘extinguishing’ themselves, and let the facts found in documents speak for themselves.”97 (Kuukanen, 2012, 342)
According to Tucker (2009), there are two main problems with this approach:
“First, according to the original Rankean research program, reliable historiography, knowledge of the human past, can be inferred only from documents that were not written for posterity, but have been preserved usually in archives. This limitation of the evidential base has become obsolete since historians developed methods for reliable inference of information about the past from material remains, artefacts, shapes of landscapes, genetic analysis of present and fossil DNA, works of art, and so on. Second, some philosophical approaches to historiography consider it special for having a human subject matter. Forms of description, understanding, and explanation in historiography are allegedly different because of this special subject matter.”98 (Tucker, 2009, 3)
Rankean conception of history began to be challenged in the early twentieth century, however, Rankean tradition continued to affect the ways historians worked with their
94 Vierhaus, Rudolf. Historiography Between Science and Art. In Iggers, Georg G. & Powell, James M. (1990). Leopold von Ranke and the Shaping of the Historical Discipline. Syracuse University Press. p.67
95 Ankersmit, Frank R. (1998). Hayden White's Appeal to the Historians. History and Theory, 37(2), 182-193. p.187
96 Ankersmit, Frank, R. (1988). Historical Representation. History and Theory, 27(3), 205-228.
97 Kuukanen, Jouni-Matti. (2012). The Missing Narrativist Turn in the Historiography of Science. History and Theory,51(3), 340-363. p.342
98 Tucker, Aviezer. (2009). A Companion to the Philosophy of History and Historiography. John Wiley and Sons. p.3
34
sources.99 Around the 1970s and 1980s, this approach was mainly abandoned and a new vocabulary came in to use, where “both hermeneutists and narrativists believed that the historian’s task was not the explanation but the interpretation of the past.”100 Here, the historian was seen as the narrator, and the products were seen as narratives.101 American historian Hayden White, published his book Metahistory: The Historical Imagination in Nineteenth-century Europe, in 1973, which was devoted to the historians and/or philosophers of the late eighteenth and nineteenth century,102 and challenged earlier conceptions of history, by stating that his analysis “intended to provide a new perspective on the current debate over the nature and function of historical knowledge.”103
There are two notions that we may mention in relation to White’s scholarly works. First is the notion of “historical prefiguration”, which can be described as the situation, where historians, consciously or unconsciously, make assumptions on the realities of the past, that White views as a metahistorical understructure.104 The second notion is
99 Iggers, Georg G. (1988). The Crisis of the Rankean Paradigm in the Nineteenth Century. Syracuse Scholar, 9(1), 1-8.
100 Ankersmit, Frank, R. (1988). Historical Representation. History and Theory, 27(3), 205-228. p.206
101 Kuukanen, Jouni-Matti. (2012). The Missing Narrativist Turn in the Historiography of Science. History and Theory,51(3), 340-363.
102 In different chapters, titled, “The Received Tradition: The Enlightenment and the Problem of Historical Consciousness”; “Four Kinds of ‘Realism’ in Nineteenth-Century Historical Writing”; and “The Repudiation of ‘Realism’ in Late Nineteenth-Century Philosophy of History”, Hayden White examined the works of Hegel; Michelet; Ranke; Tocqueville; Burckhardt; Marx; Nietzsche; and Croce (White, 1975).
103 White, Hayden. (1975). Metahistory: The Historical Imagination in Nineteenth-century Europe. The John Hopkins University Press. p.2
According to Frank Ankersmit (2013, 47), Metahistory was “by far the most important work published in philosophy of history since World War II” (Ankersmit, F. In Doran, 2013, 47).
104 Doran, Robert. (2013). Philosophy of History after Hayden White. Bloomsbury.; White, Hayden. (1975). Metahistory: The Historical Imagination in Nineteenth-century Europe. The John Hopkins University Press.
35
"narrativity”, that can be described as the “content of the form of narratives”,105 which White argued, contributed to the process of representation in a historical text, by the construction of a sequence, a structure.106 According to narrativism, the historian/ architectural historian collects evidence regarding the past, which he or she selects in the present, and creates a pattern from his or her point of view, through interpretation, that results in a narrative.107 Ankersmit (1988) expresses that, the vocabulary of interpretation, after the 1970s also had its disadvantages, like the vocabulary of explanation and description, since “the historian's perspective often both creates and investigates a past that is devoid of intrinsic meaning.”108 Furthermore, Ankersmit (2012, 50) expresses that interpretation “always is an activity of the subject”,109 and therefore he proposes the vocabulary of representation in the examination of a historical object, which “…has the capacity to account not only for the details of the past but also for the way these details have been integrated within the totality of the historical narrative.”110 The object here may refer to architectural works in an architectural history text, or as in this study, to the architectural history text may be the object itself, which holds a constructed representation of the past.
Before continuing with the role of the narrative, it is considered significant to mention some of the differences and similarities between history and architectural history.
105 Kellner, Hans. Hopeful Monsters or, The Unfulfilled Figure in Hayden White’s Conceptual System. In Doran, Robert. (2013). Philosophy of History after Hayden White. Bloomsbury.
106 White, Hayden. (1980). The Value of Narrativity in the Representation of Reality. Critical Inquiry, 7(1), 5-27.
107 Ibid.
108 Ankersmit, Frank, R. (1988). Historical Representation. History and Theory, 27(3), 205-228. p.207
109 Ankersmit, Frank R. (2012). Meaning, Truth, and Reference in Historical Representation. Cornell University Press. p.50
110 Ibid. p.209
36
Architectural history, which can be understood as a subdivision of history that overlaps with different disciplines including history,111 is mainly concerned with the study of architectural works, the built environment and their many historical contexts.112 In other words, architectural history does not focus solely on the object: the building, but rather, it is an interdisciplinary work that may focus on different historical contexts surrounding its object, which comprises of a wide variety of topics, that may overlap with other disciplines including, cultural geography; economics; political history; sociology; art history; philosophy; literature; tourism; film studies; cultural history; gender studies and so on.113 Even though architectural history can be understood as a subdivision of history, it differs from it and from other disciplines that study the past, such as archeology or anthropology, in terms of its use of documents and materials.114 Architectural history may draw upon from history’s written records; archeology’s studies of physical remains and records; anthropology’s studies on social rituals and cultural practices, in addition to the utilization of its primary archive: the building; as well as all kinds of written, visual, and oral documents on the subject.115
In terms of methods and perspectives, it is possible to state that there is a difference between history of architecture; and other histories such as art history; political history; cultural history; etc., due to its object, architecture. According to Upton (2002)
111 Fernie, Eric. (2003). History and Architectural History. Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 13, 199-206.
112 Conway, Hazel. & Roenisch, Rowan. (2005). Understanding Architecture: An Introduction to Architecture and Architectural History. London; New York: Routledge
113 Stieber, Nancy. (2005). Introduction. Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, (4), 417.
114 Arnold, Dana., Altan Ergut, T. Elvan., & Özkaya, Belgin Turan. (2006). Rethinking Architectural Historiography. Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. p.xvi.
115 Ibid.
37
“Architecture …forms the fabric and the setting of everyday life.”116 This aspect of architecture makes it connected to a wide variety of factors. First of all, in the architectural practice, it is possible to speak of the dialogue between the architect and the client, in terms of what the client wants, what the architect conceives and what the client accepts and pays for.117 This dialogue may be bound with other factors such as laws, customs, necessities, economics, prejudices, politics, society and culture; and/or with other interests such as; aesthetic concerns; form; proportion; and the expressive qualities of the architectural work.118 Furthermore, since architectural works can be altered and/or can be used in different times, their social, cultural, political and economic context may also change in time.119 Consequently, it is possible to observe that the object of architectural history, architecture, may not be understood fully through its primary archive, the building, and additional knowledge regarding its contexts may be needed, which can be acquired through textual, visual, or oral evidences.120
Considering the earlier mentioned definitions of history; which can be applicable to architectural history as well; looking at the interdisciplinary aspect of architectural history; and different archives that may be used to produce an architectural history text, it is possible to state that architectural historian carefully uses the following to construct a historical text, by organizing them through points of view in different times
116 Upton, Dell. (2002). Architecture in Everyday Life. New Literary History, 33(4), 707-723. p.707
117 Allsopp, Bruce. (1968). Architectural History and Practice. Journal of the Royal Society of Arts, 116(5139), 180-238.
118 Ballantyne, Andrew. (2006). Architecture as Evidence. In Arnold, Dana., Altan Ergut, T. Elvan., & Ozkaya, Belgin Turan. (2006). Rethinking Architectural Historiography. Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.
119 Arnold, Dana. (2002). Reading Architectural History. Routledge: London and New York.
120 Ibid.
38
and spaces (time and space of when and how the architectural historian makes his/her organization; may also affect the way the text is being produced):
(1) an object: architecture (an architectural work or a series of architectural works through some sort of focus, such as a specific geography, period, architect, landscape, city, environment, or a built environment),
(2) a topic: surrounding contexts (such as political; cultural; social or economic conditions; but also, such as gender; identity; or its relation to some sort of media such as film or literature),
(3) its archive: the building and related archival material (written documents (such as various government, corporate, or personal records; accounts of patrons or architects; manuscripts); visual documents (such as photographs; sketchbooks; film; technical drawings; paintings); oral history (such as voice recordings; interviews)).
Consequently, architectural history texts or architectural histories can be understood as organized representational systems that construct a representation of the past, in the form of a narrative, since it is a written account of history, even though it often combines other types of media in its production. The narrative here, the architectural history text, can be viewed as a representation, that carry meanings waiting to be interpreted by an audience, who has access to that shared language. In other words, there are no fixed meanings regarding that representational work, and they are interpreted in relation to social, cultural, and historical conditions and therefore, they may have interchangeable and diverse meanings.
An important point, that is valid for both history and architectural history fields, to be discussed here then is narrative writing. Narrative, in a basic sense, can be understood as the telling of a story,121 which includes written, oral, or visual stories, whereas the term narration expresses the process of narrating a story. As White (1988) questions, “What would a nonnarrative representation of historical reality look like?”, he categorizes historical representations into three basic kinds as the annals, the chronicle
121 Tucker, Aviezer. (2009). A Companion to the Philosophy of History and Historiography. John Wiley and Sons.
39
and the “history proper”.122 He explains that, annals lack a narrative component and represents “…historical reality as if real events did not display the form of story”; and the chronicle consists of a list of events in a chronological order and is seen “…in the form of unfinished stories”.123 On the other hand, in the “history proper” or “proper” approach to history, the reporting of past realities as in the annals and the chronicle is secondary, since it aims to assign “…some meaning or significance to, or finding some message in, or giving some explanation of the facts truly reported”124, with the use of a narrative. Similarly, Barthes (1989) explains these different ways of writing history by stating the following:
“For history not to signify, discourse must be limited to a pure unstructured series of notations: these will be chronicles and annals…The signifieds of historical discourse can occupy at least two different levels…first of all, a level immanent to the material stated; this level retains all the meaning the historian deliberately gives to the facts he reports…(and) the second level, that of a signified transcending the entire historical discourse, transmitted by the historian’s thematics, which are thereby entitled to identify with the form of the signified…In the historical discourse of our civilization, the process of signification always aims at ‘filling’ the meaning of History: the historian is the one who collects not so much facts as signifiers and relates them, i.e., organizes them in order to establish a positive meaning and to fill the void of pure series.”125 (Barthes & Howard, 1989, 137-138)
White (1988) considers narrative as the solution to the “…problem of how to translate knowing into telling.”126 Similarly, Arnold (2002) states, “The choice of narrative is
122 White, Hayden. (1988). The Content of the Form: Narrative Discourse and Historical Representation. London: The Johns Hopkins University Press.p.4
123 Ibid. p.5
124 Danto, Arthur, C. (1953). Mere Chronicle and History Proper. The Journal of Philosophy, 50(6), 173-182.
125 Barthes, Roland. The Discourse of History. In Barthes, Roland. & Howard, Richard (Translator). (1989). The Rustle of Language. University of California Press. p.137-138
126 White, Hayden. (1988). The Content of the Form: Narrative Discourse and Historical Representation. London: The Johns Hopkins University Press.p.1
40
an important way of making the facts speak.”127 She expresses that history, which is about the past, only exists in the present and therefore the historian has the role to create a dialogue between them, which is possible through the use of narrativity.128 According to Legault (1991), “The process of historical understanding is indeed largely indebted to the workings of narrative” and the plot has a prominent role in “the production of a meaningful historical account.”129 As a summary of the definitions and statements regarding architectural history texts, as representations of the past, the following can be said:
1) History and architectural history have several differences, which may affect the way an architectural history text being examined in terms of its representation. First of these differences is its main object architecture’s selection criteria within a narrative, which may be a selection based on physical attributes or “style”; a period that is also connected to the historical, social, cultural, and political contexts; a focus on a specific architect; or a combination of these, if there is not another specific focus suggested by the architectural historian. The object, architecture, also brings in the client and architect dialogue, which may arise questions about representation, since architectural works may be used as representational systems themselves, particularly in the representation of power, as in the examples of “state architecture”. Lastly, the object, architecture, is the primary archive of architectural history texts, even though secondary archives are also used within the narrative, which differs from accounts of history.
2) Architectural history texts, while they can be written as mere annals or chronicles providing us with the sole information and documentation of its object, often combine visual and textual media, in the form of a narrative, to construct a representation of the
127 Arnold, Dana. (2002). Reading Architectural History. Routledge: London and New York.p.3
128 Ibid.
129 Legault, Rejean. (1991) Architecture and Historical Representation. Journal of Architectural Education 44 (4): 200–205. p.202
41
past. In other words, within architectural history texts, it is possible to find explanations; descriptions; as well as visual materials, which may be used to convey meanings. The selection and use of visual materials are also seen as representational tools in this process. Furthermore, the form of the narrative, the structure and organization of the text, can also affect the meanings that are being produced through that representation.
3) The architectural historian plays an important role in the process as he/she is the one who interprets primary and secondary archives and constructs the representation of the past by organizing them. As mentioned, representation process involves decisions on ways to represent. The architectural historian is the one, who decides how to represent the past; through which material; in what type of organization; and to which audience. He/she makes the decisions to include or leave out certain historical events and documents, that might stem from concerns over the cohesion of the narrative, or some historical facts may be accounted as common knowledge for the target audience, or else. Another important point regarding the architectural historian is his/her position in time and space. While the architectural historian constructs a representation of the past that is situated within its own contexts; he/she is also positioned in his/her own contexts (political, social, cultural or even academic), which might have effects on his/her focus; selection of topics; or point of view that can also in turn affect the meanings being conveyed within a narrative.
4) Architectural history can be understood as an interdisciplinary field that may overlap with other disciplines. This aspect of architectural history may lead to different focuses and to the use of archival material in different contexts, which in turn may result in the construction of different meanings within a narrative, and therefore in different representations of the past.
2.2. Ideology as Representation and Representing Ideologies
The notion of ideology can be viewed as one the troublesome concepts in humanities and social sciences since it has been defined and redefined many times in different
42
contexts. According to Terry Eagleton (1991), who is a literary theorist and critic, the term has a wide range of useful meanings, which he lists as the following:
“(a) the process of production of meanings, signs and values in social life;
(b) a body of ideas characteristic of a particular social group or class;
(c) ideas which help to legitimate a dominant political power;
(d) false ideas which help to legitimate a dominant political power;
(e) systematically distorted communication;
(f) that which offers a position for a subject;
(g) forms of thought motivated by social interests;
(h) identity thinking;
(i) socially necessary illusion;
(j) the conjuncture of discourse and power;
(k) the medium in which conscious social actors make sense of their world;
(i) action-oriented sets of beliefs;
(m) the confusion of linguistic and phenomenal reality;
(n) semiotic closure;
(o) the indispensable medium in which individuals live out their relations to a social structure;
(p) the process whereby social life is converted to a natural reality.” (Eagleton, 1991, 1-2)130
These different meanings of ideology, as it can be seen onwards, may be intertwined with each other, which is largely due to the social aspect of ideology that works as an identification progress for different groups and due to their social and cultural practices. The term is used widely in academic spheres, as well as in mass media. It often creates an uneasiness in everyday practice, due to connotations that are linked with earlier (or traditional) uses of the word, and it is often understood as a negative concept. According to Teun A. van Dijk, who is a professor of discourse studies, this negative association with the term ideology goes back at least to Marx and Engels, and to their conception of “false consciousness”, in which the working class may have popular but misguided beliefs under the dominance and manipulation of the ruling class.131 Dijk (1998, 108) explains “Dominant ideologies in that case are an instrument of the ruling class which serves to conceal its power and the real socio-economic
130 Eagleton, Terry. (1991). Ideology: An Introduction. Verso. p.1-2
131 Dijk, Teun A. van. (1998). Ideology: A Multidisciplinary Approach. SAGE Publications.; Dijk, Teun A. van. (2007). Ideology and Discourse: A Multidisciplinary Introduction. Unpublished English version of the Spanish version published by Ariel, Barcelona, 2003. Accessed on: 16.07.2021, Available from: www.discourses.org.
43
conditions of the working class.”132 The commonsense and political uses of ideology characterized the term as false, misguided or misleading beliefs.”133 Freeden (2003, 1) regarding this negative connotation of the term ideology states as following:
“Ideology is a word that evokes strong emotional responses… When people hear the word ‘ideology’, they often associate it with ‘isms’ such as communism, fascism, or anarchism… But not every ‘ism’ is an ideology (consider ‘optimism’ or ‘witticism’), and not every ideology is dropped from a great height on an unwilling society, crushing its actually held views and convictions and used as a weapon against non-believers.”134 (Freeden, 2003, 1)
In its most simplistic definition, ideology refers to a system of ideas, particularly to political; social; or religious ideas, that are shared by a social group or a movement, which may be positive or negative depending on the perspectives of people.135 In other words, the term ideology may be used to discuss systems of ideas of all sorts, including the ones that oppose each other as in the cases of communism versus anti-communism, or pacifism versus militarism136, and therefore can be understood as a flexible notion rather than a fixed, negative concept.
132 Dijk, Teun A. van. (1998). Ideology: A Multidisciplinary Approach. SAGE Publications.; Dijk, Teun A. van. (2007). Ideology and Discourse: A Multidisciplinary Introduction. Unpublished English version of the Spanish version published by Ariel, Barcelona, 2003. Accessed on: 16.07.2021, Available from: www.discourses.org. p.108
133 Ibid.
134 Freeden, Michael. (2003). Ideology: A Very Short Introduction. OUP Oxford. p.1
135 Dijk, Teun A. van. (2007). Ideology and Discourse: A Multidisciplinary Introduction. Unpublished English version of the Spanish version published by Ariel, Barcelona, 2003. Accessed on: 16.07.2021, Available from: www.discourses.org.
136 It is important to note that anti-ideologies do not solely oppose other ideologies, rather they have their own systems of ideas. For example, feminism is not only an anti-sexist ideology, but it has its own sets of ideas and values (Dijk, 2007).
44
This flexible concept of ideology, is as a structure that groups of people make sense of the world, since ideologies map the political and social worlds.137 Stuart Hall (1996, 26) explains this by defining ideology as:
“…mental frameworks —the languages, the concepts, categories, imagery of thought, and the systems of representation—which different classes and social groups deploy in order to make sense of, define, figure out and render intelligible the way society works.”138 (Hall, 1996, 26)
In this broader understanding of the notion, ideologies do not belong to individuals but they are shared by groups, even though people are the carriers of those sets of thoughts, beliefs or ideas. Miodrag Šuvakovic (2014, 3) makes the following definition of ideology, which summarizes the broad notion of the term, as well as its relation to individuals and to society:
“In political and cultural terms, an ideology is a relatively coherent and determined set of ideas, symbolic conceptions, values, beliefs and forms of thought, behaviours, expressions, presentations, and actions, shared by the members of a particular social group, political party, state institution, ethnic or gender group, or class of society. Therefore, ideology has the character of identificatory representation and perception. The ideology of an individual is the way s/he perceives her/himself as a singular subject in the context of her/his society, a subject in a community, the community as a subject, and therefore life itself, nature, and the world as phenomena for the subject.”139 (Miodrag Šuvakovic, 2014, 3)
Here it is important to underline that “the identificatory representation” Šuvakovic refers to above, is the representation of basic properties of a group, which corresponds to the following main categories and questions that are theoretically constructed by
137 Freeden, Michael. (2003). Ideology: A Very Short Introduction. OUP Oxford.
138 Hall, Stuart. The Problem of Ideology: Marxism without Guarantees. In Morley, David & Chen, Kuan-Hsing. (1996). Critical Dialogues in Cultural Studies. Routledge. p.26
139 Šuvakovic, Miodrag. (2014). General Theory of Ideology and Architecture. In Mako, Vladimir, Marta, Vukotic Lazar & Mirjana, Roter Blagojevic. (2014). Architecture and Ideology. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. p.3
45
Teun A.van Dijk (1988, 69-70), and are used to define and identify interests of groups, which gives us a basic format of the structure of ideologies.
“1) Membership: Who are we? Where are we from? What do we look like? Who belongs to us? Who can become a member of our group?
2) Activities: What do we do? What is expected of us? Why are we here?
3) Goals: Why do we do this? What do we want to realize?
4) Values/norms: What are our main values? How do we evaluate ourselves and others? What should (not) be done?
5) Position and group-relations: What is our social position? Who are our enemies, our opponents? Who are like us, and who are different?
6) Resources: What are the essential social resources that our group has or
needs to have?”140 (Dijk, Teun A. van., 1998, p.69-70)
As it can be seen in this format, there are no private ideologies that belong to certain individuals, rather ideologies are socially shared by groups, collectives or communities.141 While not every collectivity, group or community develops an ideology, different groups may follow different ideologies, such as social movements; political parties; or religious ideas.142
In his discussion regarding the relationship between ideologies and social structures, Dijk (1998, 8) defines ideologies by stating that they are “the basis of the social representations shared by members of a group”, which means that “ideologies allow people, as group members, to organize the multitude of social beliefs about what is the case, good or bad, right or wrong, for them, and to act accordingly.”143 In other words, ideologies involve the practices of social and cultural representations that define the social identity of a group, community or collective, through their shared ideas, which
140 Dijk, Teun A. van. (1998). Ideology: A Multidisciplinary Approach. SAGE Publications. p.69-70
141 Dijk, Teun A. van. (2006). Ideology and Discourse Analysis. Journal of Political Ideologies, 11(2), 115-140.
142 Ibid.
143 Dijk, Teun A. van. (1998). Ideology: A Multidisciplinary Approach. SAGE Publications. p.8
46
is then reproduced within different systems of representations, or languages.144 The social aspect of ideologies, in which the systems of ideas serve as ways to define and represent social identity of a group, and which creates a polarization between “Us and Them” in the process of “identificatory representation”, is considered important here, due to the mechanisms or ways that ideologies spread. It is through the actions of people, through their social and cultural activities that ideologies reach other people, which are reproduced continuously within different contexts.
Similar to the ideas of van Dijk, Terry Eagleton (1991, 9) state that “ideology is a matter of 'discourse' rather than 'language'”, since “it concerns the actual uses of language between particular human subjects for the production of specific effects.”145 Teun A. van Dijk (1998, 191) explains this by stating the following:
“Discourse, language use and communication do play a special role in such processes of reproduction, but ideologies are also being expressed and reproduced by social and semiotic practices other than those of text and talk.”146 (Dijk, 1998, 191)
In this statement, he refers to non-verbal and non-textual media, such as photographs; movies; signs; dance; paintings or gestures, which can also be considered as representational systems, when they are organized as languages. Here, it is possible to observe that all sorts of media discourses, may be used in the reproduction of ideologies, which allows for the materialization of ideologies, intentionally or unintentionally.
The reproduction of ideologies may also occur through architectural history texts, which provides organized knowledge within a narrative and can be understood as a
144 Dijk, Teun A. van. (2006). Ideology and Discourse analysis. Journal of Political Ideologies, 11(2), 115-140.
145 Eagleton, Terry. (1991). Ideology: An Introduction. Verso. p.9
146 Dijk, Teun A. van. (1998). Ideology: A Multidisciplinary Approach. SAGE Publications. p.191
47
representational system. When architecture is situated within its political and social contexts,147 rather than being treated as mere physical objects, architectural histories get intertwined with historical realities or happenings, and become representations of the past. In other words, when architectural works are considered and explained in relation to various contexts, both architectural works, and the texts that define them through language, can be viewed to take additional meanings, becoming a “sign” or an “ideological product” in the words of Volosinov (1973, 9), who defines an ideological product as the following:
“Any ideological product is not only itself a part of a reality (natural or social), just as is any physical body, any instrument of production, or any product for consumption, it also, in contradistinction to these other phenomena, reflects and refracts another reality outside itself. Everything ideological possesses meaning: it represents, depicts, or stands for something lying outside itself. In other words, it is a sign. Without signs, there is no ideology.”148 (Volosinov, 1973, 9)
The ideological sign, in Volosinov’s definition, can be understood as a representation of reality. If we consider this notion in relation to architecture, we may say that architectural works can be seen as material representations of ideologies, shifts of ideologies, or the consequences of ideologies. In the case of architectural history texts, on the other hand, we may view them as the materialized representations of the past that are intertwined with ideologies, and with discourses surrounding those ideologies, which may be understood through the themes that are embedded in them.
Here, it is considered important to note that discourses are not merely ideologically based practices, however, they play an important role in the formulation and reproduction of ideologies.149 Furthermore, through use of different representational
147 Arnold, Dana., Altan Ergut, T. Elvan, & Turan Özkaya, Belgin. (2006). Rethinking Architectural Historiography. Routledge. p. xvii
148 Voloshinov, Valentin Nikolaevich., Matejka, Ladislav & Titunik, I.R (Translators). (1973). Marxism and the Philosophy of Language. Studies in language, Seminar Press, New York and London. p.9
149 Dijk, Teun A. van. (1998). Ideology: A Multidisciplinary Approach. SAGE Publications.
48
systems, people may learn, discuss, change or convey ideologies, as well as other meanings inscribed within their narratives to their/ other group members.150 In other words, discourses in architectural history, have the potential to create, change and reproduce ideologies, in material form and practice, or as discursive manifestations of ideologies.151
150 Dijk, Teun A. van. (1998). Ideology: A Multidisciplinary Approach. SAGE Publications.
151 Ibid.
49
CHAPTER 3
CONTEXT OF THE PRODUCTION OF MODERN TURKISH ARCHITECTURE (1984)
The analysis of a text, which is practiced through different systems of representations, can be seen related to various other disciplines, depending on the focus of the text. In the case of an architectural history narrative, the analysis may be tied with other fields, such as semiotics; history; politics; cultural studies; communication and media studies; or psychology.152 However, apart from the focus of the narrative, an important element of its analysis can be understood as the context/s in which it was produced, since it may play a significant role in the emergence of the final product. Here we may also remind the effective roles of the author and reader; the interpretation of which is also critical due to their role in the construction; production; and the reproduction of discourses; which should also be considered.
Teun A. van Dijk (1998, 211) defines context as “the structured set of all properties of a social situation that are possibly relevant for the production, structures, interpretation and functions of text…”153, and explains his definition by stating that “the setting and the various group memberships and positions of participants (e.g. age, gender, power) play a prominent role in the way discourses are shaped and understood, and how they function in the social situation.”154 Since one of the objectives of this study is to understand the themes and ideas that are being materialized in the specific case of
152 Taylor, Stephanie. (2013). What Is Discourse Analysis?. “What Is?” Research Methods Series. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
153 Dijk, Teun A. van. (1998). Ideology: A Multidisciplinary Approach. SAGE Publications. p.211
154 Ibid. p.211
50
Modern Turkish Architecture (1984), it is considered significant to examine the context it was produced in, to understand its actors; as well as the historical conditions and events surrounding its production, which might have played a role in the way it was constructed or produced. Consequently, in this chapter, the context of the production of Modern Turkish Architecture (1984) will be examined, using literary and visual research; archival documents; and interviews.
3.1. Historical and Political Events Leading to the Publication of Modern Turkish Architecture (1984)
Modern Turkish Architecture (1984) was published as the result of a photographic exhibition and seminar, that took place in 1982, which was about architecture in Turkey between the years of 1920-1980. The event was a collaboration between the University of Pennsylvania (Penn or Upenn) and the Middle East Technical University (METU), and was held in the university museum of Upenn, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in the United States of America. The collaboration between the two universities; and the historical conditions in the year of 1982, were significant factors in the publication of the book, alongside the actors who played a role in the process. In this part of the study, it is aimed to show connections between people and institutions, and events that led to the publication of the book. Before else, it is considered important to mention the historical context, to be able to situate the people; institutions; and their connections within it.
3.1.1. The Military Intervention of 1980; the Higher Education Law; and the Atatürk Centennial
The 1980s can be understood as a complex period in terms of social; political; cultural; and economic developments, due to the third military intervention in the history of Turkey, that occurred on 12 September 1980, which was headed by the then Chief of the General Staff Kenan Evren. Following the declaration of the military intervention, which was announced on the national channel, civil and political rights of people were limited; the parliament was dissolved; trade union confederations were closed; and the
51
leaders of political parties were arrested.155 The National Security Council (Milli Güvenlik Konseyi) declared martial law and Kenan Evren expressed that the intervention of the military was obligatory to provide peace in the country.156 The declared intention of the coup was to solve the political instability; end the fight between opposing left-wing and right-wing groups, which escalated in the late 1970s; prevent a possible civil war; restore the economy; and to bring unity and cohesion to the nation.157 Even though the politically motivated attacks were diminished at the rates of over 90 per cent following the military intervention,158 many revolutionaries and extremist nationalists were prisoned.159 Around 30,000 people were arrested by the end of the 1980, which grew up to 122,600 arrests after one year. In the year of 1982, 80,000 people were still prisoned, 30,000 of them waiting for their trials.160 Torture to the detainees and to the arrested people were widespread, especially during the custody period before the judicial process, which was raised from 15 days to 90 days at the time.161 Here, it should be noted that, Kenan Evren was convicted for his
155 Karacan, Elifcan. (2015). Remembering the 1980 Turkish Military Coup d‘État: Memory, Violence, and Trauma. Springer Vs.
156 Ibid.
157 Ibid.; Ahmad, Feroz. (1993). The Making of Modern Turkey. Routledge.
158 Zürcher, Erik. J. (2014). Turkey: A Modern History. I.B. Tauris.
159 Karacan, Elifcan. (2015). Remembering the 1980 Turkish Military Coup d‘État: Memory, Violence, and Trauma. Springer Vs.
160 Zürcher, Erik. J. (2014). Turkey: A Modern History. I.B. Tauris.
161 Ibid.; Karacan, Elifcan. (2015). Remembering the 1980 Turkish Military Coup d‘État: Memory, Violence, and Trauma. Springer Vs.
52
role in the 1980 military intervention, for his crimes against the state, in 2015.162 He was sentenced to life imprisonments and his rank was demoted to the rank of private.163
According to Ahmad (1993, 184), the 1980 military intervention had another goal with serious implications, which was “the political and institutional restructuring of the country” and to achieve that, the junta was “determined to de-politicise the urban youth who had come to play such an important role since the 1960s”.164 In addition to the new constitution of 1982; and the censorship of broadcasting and publishing, a Higher Education Law was announced in 1981 to implement radical changes, as ways to restructure economic, social and cultural life.165 According to Ahmad (1993, 185), the aim of the law was “to ‘de-politicise’ universities by purging all adherents of the centre-left and placing education in the hands of the ‘nationalist-conservatives’, in the 12 September regime.(Figure 1).”166
Tekeli (2010, 204) expresses that the implementers of the 1980 military intervention, who followed the ideology of the “The Turkish-Islamic Synthesis”, viewed university as an institution that needed to be tamed, which was reiterated in the speeches of the head of the coup, Kenan Evren, who expressed the biased viewpoints of the junta towards universities.167 According to Tekeli (2010, 205), the view of the Turkish-
162 Kandil, Hazem. (2016). The Power Triangle: Military, Security, and Politics in Regime Change. Oxford University Press.
163 Ibid.
164 Ahmad, Feroz. (1993). The Making of Modern Turkey. Routledge. p.184
165 Karacan, Elifcan. (2015). Remembering the 1980 Turkish Military Coup d‘État: Memory, Violence, and Trauma. Springer Vs.
166 Ahmad, Feroz. (1993). The Making of Modern Turkey. Routledge. p.185
167 Tekeli, İlhan. (2010). Tarihsel Bağlamı İçinde Türkiye'de Yükseköğretimin ve YÖK'ün Tarihi. Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları. p.204
53
Islamic Synthesis associated the problems of Turkey, with the deterioration of “National Culture”, that stemmed from the pressures of the cultural imperialism of the “West”, as well as other cultural attacks.168 In this view, Turkish-Islamic Synthesis, two sources of the “Turkish National Culture” were the core values that was carried from Central Asia, and from the religion of Islam.169 Obtaining technique and civilization would be enough to reach the level of development of the “West”, and the “National Culture” need not be changed.170 Lastly, the “National Culture” was viewed as a notion that should be spread systematically by the government.171 In line with these views, the National Security Council’s aim was to supervise university administration, which resulted in the establishment of the Council of Higher Education (Yükseköğretim Kurulu, or YÖK), whom appointed rectors and deans of the universities (Figure 1),172 and the acceptance of The Higher Education Law, numbered 2547, in which the main principles reflected the integration of the ideas of the “National Culture” in higher education as follows:
“ARTICLE 5.
Higher education is organized, planned, and programmed in accordance with the following basic principles:
a. To ensure that students develop a sense of duty in line with Atatürk's reforms and principles, loyal to Atatürk nationalism.
b. National culture integrated with universal culture, will be developed and fostered in keeping with Turkish mores and traditions so that the students develop a strong sense of national unity and solidarity…”173 (Resmi Gazete, 1981)
168 Tekeli, İlhan. (2010). Tarihsel Bağlamı İçinde Türkiye'de Yükseköğretimin ve YÖK'ün Tarihi. Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları. p.205
169 Ibid.
170 Ibid.
171 Ibid.
172 Zürcher, Erik. J. (2014). Turkey: A Modern History. I.B. Tauris.
173 T.C. Resmi Gazete. (November 6, 1981). The Higher Education Law. Number 17506, Law Number, 2547, Date of Acceptance: November 4, 1981. p. 6. The official gazette of November 6, 1981, which shows the law 2547 in Turkish, may be found in the official webpage of the official gazette. Available
54
Figure 1 - Newspaper Clipping with the Heading "Teaching staff of universities will not have affinities with politics", which outlines the upcoming Higher Education Law. The first article in the clipping (in the middle image) states that “The rector will be selected by the head of the state, from among the candidates that YÖK (Higher Education Council) proposes, which will symbolize the power of the state in the university.” Another article (in the right image) states that “The political impact of the university teaching staff is being lowered to zero with the new law. By this wat, no university teaching staff will have affinities with politics.” Source: Cumhuriyet Newspaper Archives (September 31, 1981) p.1 and 9
Similarly, the Article 4 of the law, in which the aims of higher education was outlined, regulated how academics should “educate the students”, through which they “will be loyal to Atatürk nationalism and to Atatürk’s reforms and principles”; and “will be in accord with the national, ethical, human, spiritual and cultural values of the Turkish Nation and conscious of the privilege of being a Turk”.174 As it can be seen in the mentioned clauses of articles 4 and 5, nationalistic elements were added to the university education, by a centralized council, where the academics were supposed to introduce these ideas to the students. The establishment of YÖK had further effects on the academic atmosphere, since lecturers, who expressed “even vaguely leftist (or in
from: https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/arsiv/17506.pdf. The translations were taken from the official website of the Council of Higher Education, which were not altered, and is available from www.yok.gov.tr
174 Ibid. p.2-3
55
some cases Islamist) views before September 1980, was liable to get into trouble”.175 Zürcher (2014, 280) expresses the impact of YÖK in the academic environment by the end of 1982 as follows:
“Late in 1982 more than 300 academics were dismissed, followed by a second wave of dismissals early in 1983. Many others resigned of their own accord because those fired also lost their pensions and the right ever again to hold a job in the public sector.”176 (Zürcher, 2014, 280)
The establishment of Higher Education Council, and the passing of law of 2547 received many criticisms from academics; thinkers; writers; and journalists of the time, specifically with views that administrative and scientific autonomies should not be evaluated separately, since the administrative autonomy, which became associated with the power of the state through the centralized council, also affects scientific autonomy.177 Another criticism was the probable vulnerability of universities in the following political regimes, in which the power given to YÖK might be abused, through the attachment of universities to a centralized power.178
175 Zürcher, Erik. J. (2014). Turkey: A Modern History. I.B. Tauris. p.280
In the scope of this quotation, Zürcher includes other professions as well, such as “respectable trade unionists, legal politicians, university professors, teachers, journalists and lawyers.” p.280
176 Ibid. p.280
177 Two newspaper articles of Cumhuriyet, titled “Üniversite ve Akademi yöneticileri YÖK için ne diyor?” (November 11, 1981); and “YÖK için ne dediler?” (November 9, 1981), shows the mentioned ideas and criticisms of professors from various universities, who hold positions such as rector; dean; head of the department and teaching staff. Another useful source was Uğur Mumcu’s newspaper article titled Özerlik ve Terör… (Autonomy and Terror…)(Cumhuriyet, November 8, 1981), in which he accepts that universities became a place of terror in the 1970s, but highlights that universities were not the only place of the terrorist attacks, rather it was seen in everywhere, including the institutions that were not autonomous and were connected to the state. Consequently, he asks, “which institution were not infiltrated by the terrorist attacks?”, and underlines that the source of that terror was not within the university, nor the country (Mumcu, 1981, 1 and 8). For a more detailed analysis on the subject, you may look at Tekeli, İlhan. (2010). Tarihsel bağlamı içinde Türkiye'de yükseköğretimin ve YÖK'ün tarihi. Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları.
178 Ibid.
56
There was another aspect of the 1980 military intervention, that should be mentioned here, which was the utilization of “Atatürk” and his ideas and his reforms, as part of the political expression, which was visible in the first sentences, of the first announcement of Kenan Evren on the 12 September, that was given prior to his speech on the national channel, where he stated the following:
“The Great Turkish Nation:
The Republic of Turkey, which was entrusted to us by the Great Atatürk, and is a whole body with its country and people, has been under intellectual and physical attacks to its existence; regime; and independence, with the provocations of external and internal enemies, as you have seen in the past years.”179 (Evren, 1980, p.6)
In other words, he related one of the primary causes of the military intervention to the threat against “Atatürk’s Turkey”, that is associated with the ideas and reforms of Atatürk. Furthermore, he included that various “perverted” and “reactionary” ideologies were produced and brought instead of “Atatürkism”, which was seen as the reason behind the condition of the country, at the edge of division and internal war, where various institutions such as educational institutions from primary schools to universities, administrative system, judicial bodies, internal security agency, labor organizations, and political parties; as well as people were under pressure, and being attacked.180 Here, considering that the junta followed the ideology of Turkish-Islamic Synthesis, it is possible to observe that the utilization of Atatürk as a figure; alongside his ideas, constituted secular-nationalist part of junta regime’s ideology, which according to Özyürek (2007, 96) led to an “admiration for Atatürk” after the 1980
179 T.C. Resmi Gazete. (September 12, 1980). Millî Güvenlik Konseyi'nin Bildirileri: Millî Güvenlik Konseyi'nin Bir Numaralı Bildirisi. Number: 17103, Accessed on 18.07.2021, Available from: https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/arsiv/17103.pdf. p.6
The first six pages of the official gazette of September 12, 1980, in Turkish, may be found in the APPENDICES. The complete document is 17 pages and encompasses the first eight announcement following the 1980 military intervention.
180 Ibid.
57
coup, that “evolved to veneration and reached its peak in the 1990s as a reaction to the rise of political Islam”.181
The effects of this view were also visible in the practices and obligations, such as “singing the national anthem” or “reading out loud the principles of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk” in schools, as “the symbols of the ideology of the new state established by the junta, which was basically nationalist and religious within the limits of laicism”; since while they were propagating Atatürkism, on the one hand, they were also establishing high schools that adopted religious education.182 The use of Atatürk imagery was also seen in public spaces, as statues of him were being erected throughout the country.183 The timing of these developments following the 1980 military intervention, coincided with the year of 1981, which was declared as “Atatürk Year”, also known as the “Atatürk Centennial”.
National Security Council’s law proposal and negotiations for celebrating the centenary of Atatürk's birth and for the establishment of a cultural center in Ankara, began on September 19, 1980,184 only one week after the announcement of the military intervention. The law was accepted on September 23, 1980, and became issued on September 26, 1980 through the official gazette, two weeks after the coup, with law number 2302. The aim of the law was described as follows:
“Article 1:
The purpose of this law, owing to the centenary of the birth of the founder of our republic Atatürk, is to remark, spread and cherish, the place and importance of the Turkish revolution in Turkish and human history; its greatness; its apprehension of
181 Özyürek, Esra. (2007). The Politics of Public Memory in Turkey. Syracuse University Press. p.96
182 Karacan, Elifcan. (2015). Remembering the 1980 Turkish Military Coup d‘État: Memory, Violence, and Trauma. Springer Vs. p.149
183 Ibid.
184 Sarınay, Yusuf. (2014). Türk Parlemento Tarihi: Milli Güvenlik Konseyi ve Danışma Meclisi (1980-1983). I. Cilt. TBMM Kültür, Sanat ve Yayın Kurulu Yayınları , 157.
58
unity, nationalism, laicism, and education; and Atatürk’s leadership in the national independence movements, his worldview, his apprehension on people and peace, and his characteristics as a statesman.”185 (Resmi Gazete, 1980)
Duties to “achieve that goal”, was listed in Article 2, as follows:
“a) Celebrate 1981 as the “Atatürk Year”; owing to the centenary of Atatürk’s birth; organize, encourage and support various meetings, discussions, and ceremonies in Turkey and abroad, with this purpose,
b) Present Atatürk’s apprehension and behavior through all kinds of publication; release; culture; art; and education tools, and help with its absorption,
c) Bearing Atatürk’s apprehension and behavior, carry out studies that will strengthen Turkish Nationalism, which develops, unifies, gathers, and integrates the sense of national unity, solidarity and integrity, thought and consciousness,
d) Ensure coordination and cooperation between official and private institutions and organizations that conduct all kinds of publications, publications, studies, researches and studies about Atatürk,
e) Establish the Atatürk Cultural Center as a gift to Atatürk’s memory, and as a symbol of the Republic, which will be founded in Ankara, in 1981.”186
As it can be seen, one of the first acts of the National Security Council, was to issue the law 2302, to celebrate the Atatürk Centennial, and establish the Atatürk Cultural Center, as a commemoration of it (Figure 2).187 It may be argued that the celebration of the “Atatürk Centennial”, the emphasis on Atatürk’s achievements and ideas, was suitable with the nationalist part of the junta’s ideology, which can be seen clearly in the aim and duties of the law 2302, since a direct relation was constructed between the “Turkish Nationalism” of the period, and the Atatürk Centennial, through various celebratory events and activities. Following the law, numerous publications;
185 T.C. Resmi Gazete. (September 26, 1980). Atatürk’ün Doğumunun 100 ncü Yılının Kutlanması ve Atatürk Kültür Merkezi Kurulması Hakkında Kanun. Number 17117, Law Number 2302, Date of Acceptance: September 23, 1980. p.1 Accessed on 18.07.2021, Available from: https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/arsiv/17117.pdf.
The first five pages of the official gazette of September 26, 1980, which shows the law 2302 in Turkish, may be found in the APPENDICES.
186 Ibid.
187 An architectural competition was opened for the design of the Ataturk Cultural Center in Ankara. The winning project belonged to Filiz Erkal and Coşkun Erkal. (Atatürk Kültür Merkezi Mimari Proje Yarışması. (1981). Mimar, (3), p.2-5)
59
conferences; performances were realized in 1981, which continued into 1982 as well, including the photographic exhibition and seminar that led to the publication of Modern Turkish Architecture in 1984. Even though the Atatürk Centennial officially began on January 5, 1981, the program, which included conferences; seminars; ceremonies; balls; dinners; receptions; dramatic performances; concerts; exhibitions; contests; and publications was launched on May 19, 1981, and continued for more than a full year, since many events and activities also took place in 1982, as well, in different countries.188
Some of the notable activities and happenings that occurred abroad, which found place in the 1981 accounts of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, were listed as follows:
“Cultural Activities
-Celebratory Activities for the 100the Anniversary of Atatürk’s Birth Abroad
* The period between 19 May 1981 and 19 May 1982 has been declared as ‘Atatürk Year’ by UNESCO.
* The house where Atatürk was born in Thessaloniki was repaired and was turned into a museum with a ceremony.
* Turkish Weeks and Turkish Days were organized in UNESCO Headquarters in Paris and in various countries.
* Exhibitions of ‘Atatürk and Turkey with Photographs’; ‘Ceramics’; ‘Contemporary Turkish Paintings’; and ‘Crafts’ were opened in many countries.
* Various conferences; symposia; colloquium and seminars were held on Atatürk and on Turkey.
* Many of our artists gave concerts abroad, and performed folklore shows.
* Many states in the United States of America have declared ‘Atatürk Days’, and published announcements of it.
* Major newspapers and magazines in some Western countries published special issues and supplements for the Atatürk year.
* Published works on Atatürk and Turkey from abroad have been purchased, translated and printed, and was distributed alongside other works prepared by the Ministry. More than 60 tons of them were distributed to our foreign representatives.
* Atatürk’s wax figure was placed to the Madame Tussauds Museum in Copenhagen in May 1981.
* Bangladesh, Egypt, Tunisia, Pakistan, Mauritania and Guinea have issued special Atatürk stamps due to the year of Atatürk.
* Atatürk Bust placed to Atatürk’s school Askeri İdadi, in Bitola City of Yugoslavia, was uncovered by our Minister of Foreign Affairs, on June 26, 1981, and on this occasion a photographic exhibition and folklore show was held.
188 Gülmez, Galip. (1982). Atatürk, Centennial Album = Atatürk, 100. Yıl Albümü. Federation of Turkish-American Societies.
60
* An Atatürk gift was given to the UN Secretary General, at the ceremony held in the UN on 30 September 1981, by our Minister of Foreign Affairs.
* Programs and films on Atatürk and Turkey were shown in the radio and televisions of various countries.”189 (Dışişleri Bakanlığı 1981 Tarihçesi, 1983, 51-52)
Figure 2 - The Winning Project for the Competition of Ankara Atatürk Cultural Center, which was opened as part of the Atatürk Centennial Celebration Program by the National Security Council, belonged to Filiz Erkal and Coşkun Erkal. Source: Atatürk Kültür Merkezi Mimari Proje Yarışması. (1981). Mimar, (3), p.4-5
In addition to these, in the 1981 publication Atatürk’s Republic of Culture, which was produced and published by the Office of the Ambassador for Cultural Affairs in New York, it is possible to see the emphasis given to Atatürk in relation to culture and arts, where Atatürk’s views on the subject in connection with the reforms in the 1930s were expressed, and the developments in culture at the time was explained as follows:
“The New Turkey was born in 1923 – and with it the new life of Turkish culture…The young Republic, in its President’s view, was not simply a homogenous nation-state dedicated to peace and progress but also a milieu of cultural change and creativity for the benefit of the Turkish nation and mankind…Like Victor Hugo, Atatürk conceived of the Republic as ‘the climate of civilization’. He summed up his unshakeable faith in a clear postulate: ‘Culture is the foundation of the Turkish Republic.’ Most of the reforms achieved by modern Turkey during Atatürk’s fifteen-year Presidency had as their objective this fundamental cultural concept. His, above all, was ‘The Republic
189 Dışişleri Bakanlığı 1981 Tarihçesi. (1983). İcra Sekteterliği. Dışişleri Bakanlığı Arşivi. Accessed on: 18.07.2021, Available From: http://diad.mfa.gov.tr/db-tarihce.tr.mfa
61
of Culture.’…Today Turkey is one of the world’s liveliest countries in the field of culture. She is the proud possessor of layer upon layer of civilization – Paleolithic, Bronze Age, Hittite, Phrygian, Lydian, Urartian, Greek, Persian, Roman, Byzantine, Seljuk, Ottoman…Far ahead of any country of her size, Turkey has more than 120 museums, including some of the world’s most spectacular, two full-fledged opera and ballet companies, 11 state-operated art galleries, two symphony orchestras, 7 state theatres in 4 cities, and two dozen independent theaters. Many Turkish productions of foreign plays are as competent as – and in some cases even better than – the originals. Turkish opera stars, principally Leyla Gencer, Suna Korad and Orhan Günek, have achieved impressive success in Europe. The major symphony orchestra was the only institution designated ‘Presidential’ at Atatürk’s time, which constitutes significant testament to Atatürk’s interest in Western classical music. Numerous Turkish pianists, violinists, and composers, too many to mention here, continue to delight audiences and critics alike in the farflung corners of the world…
Atatürk’s vision of a Republic of Culture has come true. Standing on a battlefield where he had won a major military victory, he stated: ‘Culture will elevate the Republic. The Turkish Revolution will secure for us the place we deserve in the civilized world.’ Since 1923, the Turkish Republic has evolved a culture which is both universal and national, rooted in tradition and dedicated to change – a synthesis of cultures, a bridge between the East and the West like the dramatic bridge over the Bosphorus linking Asia and Europe...”190 (Atatürk’s Republic of Culture, 1981)
One of the important happenings of the time, which found place in both Evren’s opening speech and the 1981 accounts of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, was UNESCO’s (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) declaration of 1981 as the Atatürk Centennial, to celebrate the hundredth anniversary of the birth of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, which decided to co-operate with the Turkish government on the intellectual and technical planes to celebrate Atatürk’s legacy. The following resolution regarding the Atatürk Centennial was taken in the general conference of UNESCO, which took place in Paris between 24 October to 28 November 1978:
“The General Conference,
Convinced that eminent personalities who worked for international understanding, co-operation, and peace, should serve as an example for future generations,
Recalling that the hundredth anniversary of the birth of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, the founder of the Republic of Turkey, will be celebrated in 1981,
190 The Office of the Ambassador for Cultural Affairs. Atatürk’s Republic of Culture. (1981).
There are no page numbers in the small publication that has sixteen pages of writing. It is expressed that it was produced and published by the Office of the Ambassador for Cultural Affairs, Republic of Turkey, Turkish Center, New York, U.S.A.
62
Bearing in mind that he was an exceptional reformer in all the fields coming within Unesco’s competence,
Recognizing in particular that he was the leader of one of the earliest struggles against colonialism and imperialism,
Recalling that he set an outstanding example in promoting the spirit of mutual understanding between peoples and lasting peace between the nations of the world, having advocated all his life the advent of ‘an age of harmony and co-operation in which no distinction would be made between men on account of colour, religion or race’,
1. Decides that Unesco shall co-operate on the intellectual and technical planes with the Turkish Government for the organization in 1980, at that Government’s financial expense, of an international symposium designed to bring out various aspects of the personality and work of Atatürk, the founder of the Republic of Turkey, whose action was always directed towards the promotion of peace, international understanding and respect for human rights;
2. Requests the Director-General to take the necessary steps for the implementation of this resolution.”191 (UNESCO, 1978, p.69)
In November 1981, The UNESCO Courier, which was published monthly by UNESCO, published an issue for Atatürk, with the title “Atatürk: The father of modern Turkey”. (Figure 3). The cover photograph of the issue, which was taken by Gordon Gahan, was explained as follows:
“Gathered round their teacher, Turkish schoolchildren wave books and portraits of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, the centenary of whose birth is being celebrated this year throughout the country. There is nor a village which does not cherish the memory of the great reformer who created modern Turkey.”192 (The Unesco Courier, November 1981, p.3)
The celebration in Turkey, the first ceremony related to celebrations was held in Anıtkabir, in Ankara (Figure 4) and the Atatürk Centennial officially began after
191 UNESCO. (1978). Records of the General Conference, 20th session, Paris, 24 October to 28 November 1978, v. 1: Resolutions. Accessed on: 18.07.2021, Available From https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000114032
192 The UNESCO Courier. (1981). Atatürk: The Father of Modern Turkey. Published monthly by UNESCO The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, UNESCO, Paris.
63
Kenan Evren’s speech, in which he honored and celebrated views and philosophies of Atatürk, at the Grand National Assembly of Turkey on 5 January 1981, through these words:
“In order to celebrate the centennial of the birth of its great founder in a commensurate manner, and to commemorate his sacred memory throughout the country, the Turkish Republic has, as you would recall, proclaimed the year 1981 as ‘The Year of Atatürk’ by a law promulgated by the National Security council.”193 (Evren, 1981)
Figure 3 - The Cover of The Unesco Courier dedicated to Atatürk, titled “Atatürk: The father of modern Turkey”, Source: The Unesco Courier, November 1981, Cover Photo: Gordon Gahan
193 You may find the full speech of Kenan Evren, from January 5, 1981, in APPENDICES
64
Figure 4 - Newspaper Clippings on the Atatürk Centennial Opening Ceremonies in Ankara, which are titled “3 separate ceremonies were held in Ankara” (Upper Left); and “Atatürk Year starts today” (Bottom Left). The article on the right, which is the continuation of the latter article states that Kenan Evren was to going to lay the foundation of the Atatürk monument for the garden of the Grand National Assembly of Turkey; 3 former presidents were to attend the ceremonies; Kenan Evren to present 10 artists from the Turkish State Opera and Ballet with the “Atatürk Art Award”; Minister of Culture and Minister of Foreign Affairs were to make speeches; there were to be a concert of marching music; various artists were to present pieces from art plays; and that ceremony will be broadcasted live starting from Anıtkabir on the national channel TRT. Source: Cumhuriyet Newspaper Archives (January 05, 1981)
According to the news from Cumhuriyet Newspaper, which can be seen in Figure 4, Kenan Evren also laid the foundation of an Atatürk monument for the Grand National Assembly of Turkey. In this speech, Evren also noted that “nations of the world are sharing our enthusiasm by expressing their sincere appreciation and admiration of and respect for Atatürk…”, where he also mentioned UNESCO’s resolution as well. Many important leaders and figures celebrated the centennial through their statements.194 Among them, we may mention the White House statement of Ronald Reagan, the
194 Examples of this can be seen in the statements of Karl Carstens, the president of Germany, who expressed that “The 100th Anniversary of the birth of Mustafa Kemal serves as an occasion for recalling the achievements of this great statesman…” (Gülmez, 1982, 145); or in the words of the NATO Secretary-General Joseph Luns, who stated that “You are celebrating the 100th anniversary of the birth of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, one of the major leaders of the Western world… In commemorating the Atatürk Centennial, I would like to express my warmest wishes to the Republic of Turkey and its people.” (Gülmez, 1982, 147)
65
president of the United States, which is significant for this study, since the photographic exhibition and seminar took place there, as follows:
“Beginning on May 19, Turkey will launch a year of celebration to commemorate the Centennial Anniversary of the birth of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the founder of the Republic of Turkey. Ataturk was a great national leader in times of war and peace. He was, and he remains, first in the hearts of his countrymen. For Turkey and its people, the Ataturk Centennial Year is as important an event as the 1976 Bicentennial was for US.
In observance of this centennial year, events are being planned in the United States and other countries to acknowledge the significance of Ataturk to the Western World. Indeed, the turbulence of our era calls to mind the enduring wisdom of Ataturk's goal—"Peace at Home, Peace Abroad."
The visit of Turkish Foreign Minister Turkmen in this centennial year gives us cause to take note of the great value and importance of Turkish-American relations. The United States of America and the Republic of Turkey have been firm friends and allies for more than a generation. Beginning with Harry Truman, every American President has viewed a strong and stable Turkey as an essential goal of American policy. This is no less the case in the Reagan administration. In recent years, the United States has been working vigorously with other nations to provide Turkey the resources necessary to regain economic health and to meet its important goals as a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. The United States fully supports the efforts of the Turkish Government to eradicate terrorism and to carry out basic reforms that will assure the long-term stability of Turkish democracy and the well-being of the Turkish people.
In commemorating the Ataturk Centennial, the United States and its people extend best wishes to the Republic of Turkey and its people.”195 (Ronald Reagan, President, United States, April 2, 1981)
Kenan Evren, in the Atatürk Centennial Albüm (100. Yıl Albümü), published by the Federation of Turkish-American Societies, stated his views, thanking to the United States and its people, Turkish people living there, while also presenting his ideas on “nation” and “unity”, with an emphasis on Atatürk, as follows:
“My Dear Fellow Citizens and Kinsmen,
195 Reagan, Ronald. (April 2, 1981). White House Statement Concerning the Centennial Anniversary of the Birth of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk of Turkey. Accessed on 18.07.2021, Available From: Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu
66
It gives me great pleasure to observe that there are also activities taking place in foreign lands commensurate with the meaning and significance attributed to the occasion as we commemorate at home, with great joy and exuberance, the centennial of the birth of our great leader Atatürk, to whom we owe everything…
Our great nation must make further united efforts along the path designated by Atatürk in order that the higher levels of contemporary civilization can be reached. In this respect, important duties will have to be assumed by our citizens abroad as well. Fully conscious of Atatürk’s principles, I am confident that they will shoulder these duties with enthusiasm. I believe that the feeling of ‘unity,’ manifested through solidarity and co-operation displayed by people who have the same common ideals and principles and who share the same values, beliefs and feelings, continues to transcend all barriers of geographical distance and physical separation...
I take this opportunity also to express my pleasure over the contributions made by the friendly Government of the United States and the American people for not only having shown interest in the celebrations undertaken for the Atatürk Year but also for having prepared a favorable atmosphere for the occasion, facilitating the work carried out for this purpose by the Turkish people in the United States...”196 (Evren In Gülmez, 1982, 4)
In the late 1970s, Turkey had difficulties in its relationship with the United States, which resulted in Prime Minister Bülent Ecevit adopting new approaches to foreign policy – he argued that “Turkey was shouldering an unfairly large burden with NATO and was over-dependent on the US”197 – where the government would be reducing its cooperation with the US and NATO. In the 1980s, the foreign policies with the superpowers began to change as Turkey started to re-engage in the western alliance, specifically after the Iranian revolution of February 1979, which made Turkey west’s only ally in the region.198 It is possible to observe this situation in the mentioned statements of Reagan about the Atatürk Centennial, who commemorated Mustafa Kemal Atatürk as a great national leader while giving a supporting ally message to Turkey.
196 Gülmez, Galip. (1982). Atatürk, Centennial Album = Atatürk, 100. Yıl Albümü. Federation of Turkish-American Societies. p.4
197 Hale, William. (2000). Turkish Foreign Policy since 1774. Routledge. p.117
198 Ibid. p.118
67
As both Reagan and Evren expresses, there were many events, for the Atatürk Centennial in the United States, which according to Ata Erim (1982, vi), the president of the Federation of Turkish-American Societies, served to do the following:
“The centennial activities created a unique opportunity for the Turkish people who reside in the United States to pay tribute to the ‘Father’ of the Turks. This rare occasion helped to bring the Turkish community together to honor our great leader and to re-dedicate itself to ‘Atatürkism’ and to its universal principles and teachings…Let us work unceasingly as individual ambassadors to promote a better understanding of Turkey and the Turks, our heritage, culture and good-will in this country in which many of us have found a new home.”199 (Ata Erim in Gülmez, 1982, p.vi)
Fifteen cities in the United States issued Atatürk Centennial proclamations mainly on nationally significant dates for Turkey, such as April 23, 1981 (International Children’s Day); May 19, 1981 (Youth and Sports Day); October 29, 1981 (Turkish Independence Day); and November 10, 1981 (Atatürk Remembrance Day).200 There were folk dance performances; piano and violin recitals; art exhibitions; movie productions and screenings; and, exhibitions and seminars that are related to architecture which included:
•Ataturk Symposium: “Turkish Arts and Architecture.” University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, May 21, 1981.
•“Istanbul: 25 Centuries of Its Life, Music, Poetry, Arts and Architecture.” An Atatürk Centennial Lecture by Ambassador Talat S. Halman, American-Turkish Society. United Nations, New York, May 5, 1982.
•“Turkish Architecture During the Atatürk Years” by Prof. Aptullah Kuran. Columbia University, New York, January 23, 1981.
•Exhibition and seminar on Turkish architecture, 1920-1980 by University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, March 12-13, 1982.201
199 Gülmez, Galip. (1982). Atatürk, Centennial Album = Atatürk, 100. Yıl Albümü. Federation of Turkish-American Societies. p.vi
200 Ibid.
201 Ibid.
The mentioned events are selected from the list of the Atatürk Centennial activities that took place in United States.
68
The state of the political relationship between Turkey and the United States made it possible to create a celebratory environment in the U.S., where the president Ronald Reagan made a statement about the Ataturk Centennial; fifteen cities made proclamations about Ataturk; and numerous activities and events took place. Looking at all the events and statements made by different leaders and figures, it is possible to observe that Atatürk Centennial was celebrated not only to honor Mustafa Kemal Atatürk but also to represent the achievements of Turkey in different fields, including architecture, to the world. Sandra Danforth and Frank Tachau (1982, 1) explain this by stating the following:
“… many of these papers at the Atatürk commemorative conferences represented attempts to provide a sound assessment of the Atatürk legacy and to pursue issues on which insufficient research has been done…Presumably, one ‘legacy’ of these assessments of Atatürk will be an even greater awareness of his contribution to scholarship in and about Turkey, from archaeology to linguistics to the social sciences.”202 (Danforth and Tachau, 1982, 1)
Among the activities that took place in the United States, the exhibition and seminar on Contemporary Architecture in Turkey, 1920-1980, was a representative event that showcased achievements of Turkey in the architectural field by situating architectural works in their various contexts, which later resulted in the book Modern Turkish Architecture (1984).
3.2. Institutions, Actors, and Connections
Examining the context of the production of Modern Turkish Architecture (1984), and the events that led to it, it is possible to observe two types of connections; first between the two universities, the Middle East Technical University (METU) and the University of Pennsylvania (Penn or Upenn); and secondly, between actors who contributed to the process. The former connection, between METU and Upenn, has a long history, that goes back to the 1950s, since Upenn participated in the foundation of METU,
202 Danforth, Sandra C., and Frank Tachau. (1982). Scholarly Meetings Held in Commemoration of The Ataturk Centennial. Middle East Studies Association Bulletin 16(2), 1-13. p.1
69
within the scope of the United Nations’ Technical Assistance program, which was founded to provide technical assistance to developing or under-developed countries.203
The establishment of a strong private sector in Turkey in the 1950s, had led to rapid industrialization, which caused migration to the major cities that consequently brought housing problems.204 In 1954, Mr. Charles Abrams, an American lawyer and housing expert, who was affiliated with the City Planning Department at the University of Pennsylvania,205 came to Turkey as a United Nations consultant to the Ministry of Public Works, and surveyed the housing and planning problems in the country, to report possible solutions.206 Abrams, who travelled around 4000 miles in different areas of Turkey,207 observed that there weren’t enough trained and strategically placed architect-planners to develop and practice the solutions he proposed.208 According to Scott Henderson (2000), Turkey only had two schools of architecture and less than six licensed city planners at the time.209
203 Payaslıoğlu, Arif T. (1996). Türk Yükseköğretiminde Bir Yeniliğin Tarihi: Barakadan Kampusa 1954-1964. Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi.
204 Bozdoğan, Sibel, & Esra Akcan. (2019). Turkey: Modern Architectures in History. Modern Architectures in History. Reaktion Books.
205 Sargın, Güven Arif. & Savaş, Aysen. (2016) ‘A University is a society’: an environmental history of the METU ‘campus’, The Journal of Architecture, 21(4), 602-629
206 Reed, Howard. (1975). Hacettepe and Middle East Technical Universities: New Universities in Turkey. Minerva, 13(2), 200-235
207 Payaslıoğlu, Arif T. (1996). Türk Yükseköğretiminde Bir Yeniliğin Tarihi: Barakadan Kampusa 1954-1964. Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi.
208 Reed, Howard. (1975). Hacettepe and Middle East Technical Universities: New Universities in Turkey. Minerva, 13(2), 200-235
209 Henderson, A., Scott (2000). Housing and the Democratic Ideal: The Life and Thought of Charles Abrams. Columbia University Press.
70
Accordingly, Abrams recommended the establishment of a new university to the United Nations,210 whose ideas found response, when he met Vecdi Diker,211 who introduced Abrams to Fatin Rüştü Zorlu, the acting Prime Minister of the time.212 Following this encounter, Zorlu asked Abrams to prepare a proposal,213 and a tentative budget.214 As a result of these developments, the United Nations, Upenn, and the Turkish government agreed on the establishment of a university, which was METU, and had the name of “Middle East Technical Institute” at the time, which began instruction on November 1, 1956.215 The Faculty of Architecture was the first to start education within the university, which could have provided a solution to the housing and planning problems by raising experts on the subject.
210 Abrams, Charles. (1964). Man's struggle for shelter in an urbanizing world. Cambridge, Mass., M.I.T. Press.
211 Vecdi Diker was working as an engineer at the time, but he had worked in the General Directorate of Highways, until 1951. He also became one of the members of the first Board of Trustees of METU. Röportaj: Vecdi Diker. (1993). ODTÜ’LÜ Dergisi, 2, ODTÜ Basım İşliği, Ankara.
212 Ibid.
In the interview Vecdi Diker expresses that he suggested the idea to establish a university in Ankara.
213 Reed, Howard. (1975). Hacettepe and Middle East Technical Universities: New Universities in Turkey. Minerva, 13(2), 200-235
214 Henderson, A., Scott (2000). Housing and the Democratic Ideal: The Life and Thought of Charles Abrams. Columbia University Press.
215 Reed, Howard. (1975). Hacettepe and Middle East Technical Universities: New Universities in Turkey. Minerva, 13(2), 200-235
Even though instruction began on November 1, 1956; the official opening of the Middle East Technical Institute was two weeks later, on November 15, 1956.
There are several studies you may look for more detailed information on the foundation of METU, the relations between Upenn, METU, and UNESCO. These include, Erdim, Burak. (2012). Middle East Technical University and Revolution: Development Planning and Architectural Education during the Cold War, 1950-1962. University of Virginia. (Ph.D. Thesis).; Yorgancıoğlu, Derya. (2010). “Re-constructing the Political and Educational Contexts of the METU Project”. Middle East Technical University. (Ph.D. Thesis).; Aktan, Acar. (2003). The Construction and Execution of Beginning Design Education at the Middle East Technical University Department of Architecture between 1956-2000. Middle East Technical University. (Master’s Thesis).; Uysal, Yüksel Yeşim. (2003). Survey on the System of Education at the Middle East Technical University Department of Architecture, 1956-1980. Middle East Technical University. (Master’s Thesis).
71
In accordance with Abrams’ suggestion, Upenn advised METU on different topics such as “programming the courses, aiding in the staffing of the professional and administrative personnel, and prescribing the requirement for entry and degrees”,216 through a survey group, which included G. Holmes Perkins, who was the head of the Department of Architecture at the University of Pennsylvania, and his associates from the department, Professors Leon Loschetter and Wilhelm von Moltke.217 According to Sargın and Savaş (2016, 611), “METU became the first such government-owned establishment in the Middle East, assigning to the Board of Trustees full power over its direction and operation, similar to that enjoyed by several state-owned educational institutions in the United States”.218
Afterwards, the United Nations provided six scholarships for Turkish academic staff to be trained in the University of Pennsylvania, who were selected by Leon Loschetter.219 The selected candidates for the program, who were expected to return and start teaching at the Faculty of Architecture in METU, were Adnan Taşpınar (Former Dean and professor of faculty of architecture of METU);220 Rauf Beyru (Former Dean and professor of faculty of architecture, who also took part in the
216 Abrams, Charles. (1964). Man's struggle for shelter in an urbanizing world. Cambridge, Mass., M.I.T. Press. p.204
217 Ahern, Joseph-James. (2017). A Guide to the School of Design. Office of the Dean Records. G. Holmes Perkins Administration 1945-1971. University of Pennsylvania., The University Archives and Records Center.; Sargın, Güven Arif. & Savaş, Aysen. (2016) ‘A University is a society’: an environmental history of the METU ‘campus’, The Journal of Architecture, 21(4), 602-629.; Reed, Howard. (1975). Hacettepe and Middle East Technical Universities: New Universities in Turkey. Minerva, 13(2), 200-235.
218 Sargın, Güven Arif. & Savaş, Aysen. (2016) ‘A University is a society’: an environmental history of the METU ‘campus’, The Journal of Architecture, 21(4), 602-629, p.611
219 Payaslıoğlu, Arif T. (1996). Türk Yükseköğretiminde Bir Yeniliğin Tarihi: Barakadan Kampusa 1954-1964. Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi. p.35
220 Bu Hafta. (2008). Bulletin, 927, Middle East Technical University. Accessed on: 18.07.2021; Available From: https://buhafta.metu.edu.tr/arsiv
72
forming of the Department of City and Regional Planning);221 Şükrü Kaya; Orhan Özgüner (Former Dean and professor of faculty of architecture of METU);222 Bülent Onaran; and Dündar Elbruz (Assistant professor of METU)223.224 It is possible to observe that the connection between the two universities, which began in the 1950s, continued, through various scholarships given to Turkish students; among which we see some authors of Modern Turkish Architecture (1984), as well. The connections in the organization of the event, and in the production of the book, however, does not remain on a solely institutional basis, rather it operates mainly through the connections of actors.
The first actor, who played a role in the production of Modern Turkish Architecture (1984) was Mehmet Kıcıman, who was the acting president of METU between June 1979 and July 1982. In an interview he made in 1999, Kıcıman described the period after the military intervention of 1980; the establishment of Higher Education Council (YÖK); and METU’s relations with the junta, as follows:
“…Then came the incident of September 12. I think the Secretariat-General of the National Security Council, called administrators of universities to meeting. I was the deputy chairman of the Inter-university Council at the time. They asked us to prepare a new university law. It was the summer of 1981. We worked day and night…A law that all universities agreed on was prepared. It was a contemporary draft law that provided a wide autonomy to the universities, and it did not have any relevance with the YÖK. Even METU and I.T.U., two universities who fundamentally had different views, agreed on this ground. Academies were also in this. However, one day we saw that Mr. Doğramacı, without our awareness, prepared a law, and the draft we prepared, meaning prepared by all the universities through joint efforts, was thrown into trash
221 Rauf BEYRU, Prof. (1923-2016). Official Biography Page of Faculty of Architecture; Department of City and Regional Planning, Middle East Technical University. Accessed on 18.07.2021, Available From: https://crp.metu.edu.tr/en/rauf-beyru-prof-dr-1923-2016
222 Interview with Prof. Dr. Orhan Özgüner on Pera Museum’s Official Youtube Channel. (2018). Sözlü Tarih: Öğrencileri Louis Kahn'ı Anlatıyor! "Orhan Özgüner". From: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHXMz1XxGcA
223 Dündar ELBRUZ, Asst. Prof. (1922-1973). Official Biography Page of Faculty of Architecture; Department of City and Regional Planning, Middle East Technical University. Accessed on: 18.07.2021, Available From: https://crp.metu.edu.tr/en/dundar-elbruz-asst-prof-1922-1973
224 Payaslıoğlu, Arif T. (1996). Türk Yükseköğretiminde Bir Yeniliğin Tarihi: Barakadan Kampusa 1954-1964. Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi. p.35
73
by the Council. By this way the YÖK law appeared…I visited the presidential residence to express METU’s importance for the country, and to explain that the future of Turkey was depended on the people who were raised in such universities. Afterwards, we gave a briefing to Evren Pasha at the office of the General staff. I don’t think any other university did…METU had great relations with all the ambassadors, as well as with the Prime Minister Bülend Ulusu. The martial law commander of Ankara at the time, Recep Ergun Pasha also helped…Not a single person was dismissed during my time. Those occurred during the time of Mehmet Gönlübol…”225 (Kıcıman, 1999, p.3)
In the same interview, Kıcıman expressed that the relations between students and academic staff were very well during his time, to which he added that “Academic staff and students went to field trips. This situation was very good in administrative sciences, and in architecture. There were 12.000 students in the 1983s. The ideal number of students for the campus was 18.000.”226 However, the documents obtained from the archives of the Faculty of Architecture, METU, shows that permissions from martial law command was required for site trips, and even for the field trips required for thesis studies (Figures 5 and 6). This situation was also applicable to various organized events, as in the example of the reception prepared for the METU graduates and academic staff, in the Faculty of Architecture (Figure 7).
Another document sent to METU, dated May 27, 1981, from the Prime Minister’s Office, for the greeting of the President, Kenan Evren, further shows the tension during the period, which reads as follows:
“Our Esteemed President will be greeted standing and facing the direction he is coming from, at anytime and anywhere.
Upon the honor of our Esteemed President, all guests and spectators in all kinds of meetings in closed halls and outdoors; in ceremonies; concerts; and performances, will greet our Esteemed President standing, and facing towards him, and keep their stance especially when our national anthem is playing.” (Figure 8)
225 Kıcıman Mehmet.; Gümrah, Fevzi.; and Görün, Fikret. (1999). Üniversitemizin 11. Rektörü Prof. Dr. Mehmet Kıcıman. ODTÜ’LÜ, 21. p.3
226 Ibid. p.4
74
Figure 5 - Internal Correspondence document from METU, dated February 2, 1981. The document was prepared and sent to rectorate in order to ask for permission from the martial law for a field trip in Ankara, for the thesis studies of a graduate student, in the Faculty of Architecture. Source: Archives of Faculty of Architecture, METU (The names, signatures, and numbers in the document were blacked out to protect the personal information of the people)
During that period, there was also the Atatürk Centennial, which was being celebrated by METU, as by other universities, and institutions. In the foreword for the general catalog of 1979-1981 of the METU, Kıcıman (1980, viii) highlighted the occasion by stating the following:
“A Message from the President
Dear Members of Middle East Technical University:
As we are all aware, our academic year 1980-1981 marks the period when preparations for the celebration of the centenary of the birth of the great leader Ataturk are in full swing. As always, the best gift that Turkish young people can offer to the memory of the Father of the Nation is to prove that they protect the trust he has left them. Let us, therefore, once more read together Ataturk’s Address to Turkish Youth and feel his message within ourselves as we commence the new academic session…”227 (Kıcıman, 1980, viii)
227 Middle East Technical University. General Catalog 1979-1981. Ankara – Turkey. (1980). Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey, University Catalog No:21
75
Figure 6 - The document on the top, dated 03.10.1980, shows correspondence between METU and Turkish Language Association (TDK), in which the request for students’ and academic staff’s visit to the Turkish Language Association and Turkish Historical Society buildings was approved, on the condition that permission is given by the martial law. The document on the bottom, dated 13.10.1980, and addressed to the martial law command, was prepared to ask permission for the visit, in accordance with the approval on the former document. Source: Archives of Faculty of Architecture, METU (The names, signatures, and numbers in documents were blacked out to protect the personal information of the people)
76
Figure 7 – Correspondence between METU and Martial Law Command, dated June 11, 1982. Document shows that martial law granted permission for the reception for METU graduates and academic staff in the Faculty of Architecture; and the opening of the second entrance gate of METU, while stating that gendarmerie regiment command will provide the necessary setup for the event. Source: Archives of Faculty of Architecture, METU (The names, signatures, and numbers in the document were blacked out to protect the personal information of the people)
77
Figure 8 - Document sent to METU, providing information on how to greet the president, dated May 27, 1981. Source: Archives of Faculty of Architecture, METU
Indeed, there were many different events within the scope of the Atatürk Centennial included in the “METU, 1981 Atatürk’s Birth’s 100th Year Celebration Program”, which can be seen as below:
“1. Travelling Atatürk Library: The library will consist of around 1500-2000 Turkish books, presenting the fundamental principles of the Turkish Republic, in a Kemalist holism.…
2. Traveling Video Show: A colorful video show that tells the story of the Atatürk Revolution, its principles, expansion, and the Kemalist structure of the Turkish Republic…
3. Exhibitions
78
3.a. Ankara: This exhibition, which will comparatively present the development of Ankara, the symbol of the Turkish Republic, from the 1920s to 1980s, will first take place in Ankara, and later will be disseminated in a manner that will travel around the whole country. (This work will be directed by Mr. Yıldırım Yavuz)
3.b. Stamps of Atatürk…
3.c. Bruno Taut (1880-1980): The exhibition prepared by the Berlin Academie der Künste for the 100th anniversary of the birth of the famous German architect, who worked as an architect under the command of the Ministry of National Education between 1936 and 1938 and died shortly after performing Atatürk Catafalque in November 1938, will be displayed at METU…
4. Scientific Meeting…
5. Publications
5.a. Temel ve Uygulamalı Araştırmalar Dergisi, Atatürk Yılı Özel sayıları.
5.b. Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi, Özel Sayısı (METU Journal of the Faculty of Architecture, Special Issues)
Content:
1. Atatürk’ün Selanik’teki Evi (Atatürk’s House in Thessaloniki)
2. Atatürk’ün Mimarları (Architects of Atatürk)
i. Ahmet Kemalettin Bey (1870-1927)
ii. M. Vedat Tek (1873-1943)
5.c. Ankara Kitapları (Ankara Books)
5.d. Gelişme Dergisi, Özel Sayısı
5.e. Atatürk Dönemi Ekonomik Olgu ve Düşünceler Tarihi, Selim İlkin
5.f. Atatürk Ders Kitabı
5.g. 10 Kasım 1980 Törenleri
6. Performances…
7. Art Exhibitions…
8. Concerts…
9. Conferences…
10. Sports Activities…
11. Monument…
12. Consultancy Services…
13. Original Research
13.a. Ankara: An original study that evaluates Ankara’s being the capital city and its planned development experiences. Dissemination of books and exhibition products containing these research results around the country. (This work will be directed by Mr. Dr. İlhan Tekeli)
13.b. Çorum Tarihi (History of Çorum): An original research to be financed by Çorum Municipality will be carried out with contributions from various departments of METU and other universities. (The study is in the protocol phase. Mr. Dr. Suha Özkan is the coordinator.)
14. Monumental Structures
14.a. Atatürk Deniz Bulgu Merkezi
14.b. Atatürk Kitaplığı”228
228 The program may be found in the APPENDICES. Some of the descriptions are excluded from this quotation, which may be seen in the program in Turkish. Titles of the publications were translated in parenthesis.
79
Here, it should be noted that the year of 1981, was also the 25th year of METU, which was memorialized through Kıcıman’s visit to the Atatürk’s Mausoleum (Figure 9), Anıtkabir, where he also wrote in the Book of Honor, that reads as follows:
“Great Leader Atatürk
As members of the Middle East Technical University, we repeat our oath to fulfill the duty of raising individuals with ‘free minds, clear consciences, filled with wisdom’, that you have given to Turkish teachers, in the end of the twenty-fifth year of our university, and we bow with respect in your spiritual presence.” (Figure 9)
The first connection that led to the organization of the event and seminar that took place in 1982, and later to the publishing of the book, took place between Mehmet Kıcıman, Suha Özkan,229 who graduated from METU as an architect in 1967; and taught there for 15 years, before becoming the vice-president of METU between the years of 1979 and 1982.230 In the second edition of Modern Turkish Architecture (1984), that was printed in 2005, Özkan explains that it all started when Mehmet Kıcıman, brought Özkan a book, which was published in Germany, that showcased the architectural works of the young republic of Turkey, which encompassed the photographs taken by Othmar Pferschy in 1936.231 Othmar Pferschy was an Austrian photographer, who was hired by the General Directorate of Press in 1935 to take photographs in Turkey, whose works were included in various publications;
229 Suha Özkan became the Associate Dean of the Faculty of Architecture in Middle East Technical University in 1977, where he was later appointed to the become the Vice-President between the years of 1979 and 1982. He also served as the Deputy Secretary General of the Aga Khan Award for Architecture between the years of 1982 and 2006 (Sources may be seen in Footnote 230 below). Here we may also note that after graduating from METU, Faculty of Architecture, Özkan completed his master’s degree in London: Architectural Association School of Architecture in 1971, and later his Ph.D. in Middle East Technical University in 1980 (Diyalog, Suha Özkan, 2002).
230 Suha Özkan. Biography. Bodrum Architecture Library Website. Accessed on 18.12.2020. Available from: https://mimarsuhaozkan.wixsite.com/bodrum/biography.; Salt Beyoğlu. (2020). ATÖLYE: ODTÜ: 'ARCH 101 BASIC DESIGN'. Accessed on 18.12.2020. Available from: https://saltonline.org/tr/2203/atolye-odtu-arch-101-basic-design.
231 Holod, Renata., Evin, Ahmet. & Özkan, Suha. (2005). Modern Turkish Architecture. Chamber of Architects of Turkey. (The second edition).
80
exhibitions, and postcards.232 Batuman (2008, 102) explains that Pherschy took around 16,000 photographs in two years’ time, which “would make the bulk of the archive of the Directorate, and would be used in government publications for decades.”233
Figure 9 - Mehmet Kıcıman writing in the Book of Honor, in Atatürk's Mausoleum (Left); His writing in the Book of Honor (Right). Source: Archives of Faculty of Architecture, METU
Even though the publication Kıcıman brought to Özkan is not specified in Modern Turkish Architecture (2005), it is believed to be the album prepared by the General Direction of the Press,234 titled “Fotoğrafla Türkiye”, as well as, “La Turquie En Image”; “Turkey in Pictures”; and “Die Türkei Im Bild”, which was published in 1937, “to give an idea of the features of the new Turkey”.235 The photographs in the album,
232 Batuman, Bülent. (2015). Gazes in dispute: visual representations of the built environment in Ankara postcards. The Journal of Architecture, 20(1), 21-46.; Batuman, Bülent. (2008). Photography at Arms: “Early Republican Ankara” from Nation-building to Politics of Nostalgia. Metu Journal of the Faculty of Architecture, 25(2), 99-117.; Deriu, Davide. (2013). Picturing modern Ankara: New Turkey in Western imagination. The Journal of Architecture, 18(4), 497-527.; Altan Ergut, Elvan. (2011). The Exhibition House in Ankara: Building(up) the ‘National’ and the ‘Modern’. The Journal of Architecture, 16(6), 855-884.
233 Batuman, Bülent. (2008). Photography at Arms: “Early Republican Ankara” from Nation-building to Politics of Nostalgia. Metu Journal of the Faculty of Architecture, 25(2), 99-117. p.102
234 The title, “General Direction of the Press” is taken from the book “Fotoğrafla Türkiye”.
235 Fotoğrafla Türkiye. (1937). Matbuat Umum Müdürlüğü, Ankara.
81
that was “printed at the Graphical Arts F. Bruckmann AG., Munich”, were taken by Othmar Pherschy, and were presented under 6 subheadings, that were “Ankara”; “Istanbul”; “Towns and Landscape”; “Archeology and Art”; “Economy and Constructive Work”; and lastly, “Man and Civilisation” (Figure 10).236 The album of 1937, printed in four languages (French; English; German; and Turkish), was intended as an international representation of Turkey, and included an informative section on Culture; Social Life; Economy; and Politics of Turkey at the time, comparing its differences to the Ottoman Empire.237
Figure 10 - Photograph of the Palace of Exhibitions (National Exhibition Hall) taken by Othmar Pherschy. The same photograph was used in Modern Turkish Architecture in Üstün Alsaç’s chapter (1984, p.100). Source: Fotoğrafla Türkiye. (1937). Matbuat Umum Müdürlüğü, Ankara.
236 Fotoğrafla Türkiye. (1937). Matbuat Umum Müdürlüğü, Ankara.
For more detailed information regarding the publication “Fotoğrafla Türkiye”, you may look at Bülent Batuman’s 2008 article, “Photography at Arms: “Early Republican Ankara” from Nation-building to Politics of Nostalgia”, in which he also examines the representational aspects of Pherschy’s photographs, and their relations to the nation-building processes.
237 Fotoğrafla Türkiye. (1937). Matbuat Umum Müdürlüğü, Ankara.
82
Özkan (2005, 2) expresses that Kıcıman’s project was to “re-photograph the same scenes almost half a century later”, which was exciting, and he became committed to the development of the idea. The involvement of the third actor, Renata Holod, leading to the production of Modern Turkish Architecture (1984), only came after Suha Özkan’s resignation from METU, which was not accepted by Mehmet Kıcıman, at least not until they found someone to replace him. In our interview, he shared his memories and expressed similar views to those of Mehmet Kıcıman, regarding the academic atmosphere following the coup, since he expressed that METU did not have a tense relationship with the martial law in general, and the academic staff and students had good communication. He also shared an anecdote, on Kenan Evren’s visit to the campus and on how things were shaped following Kıcıman’s project suggestion, as follows:
“Mehmet Kıcıman said, we should also do something, you have the capacity in the Faculty of Architecture, lets take these photographs in side-by-side albums. What was it like back then, what it is now…That’s how the process begun. But at the meantime, Kenan Evren upset me. We were actually together in some juries, and he had accepted by battle to keep METU’s instruction language in English, and the language of METU did not change. In other words, we did not have poor relations with the martial law, as the METU administration. But then when he visited, he had some blunt comments, not that it matters. Because we did not have any graffities or else on our walls. Because we had dialogues with the students, we asked them not to paint and they agreed. As we were walking, I was explaining, because Mehmet Kıcıman said, ‘you should explain, you know the president, also he should know that there is a young administration here’. And as I was explaining, I told him, ‘look, we do not have any graffities, they are all in the conditions as the architect built’. He turned to me and said, ‘you decorated well for me’. I slowed down, the group went along, I went back and went to my office, and gave my resignation letter…Following that, Mehmet Kıcıman did not accept my resignation, and asked me to stay until they could find someone to replace me, so I continued duty for five to six more months. Afterwards, I took my seventh-year leave and went to Upenn. I knew Renata Holod from before, but we were not very close. I told her about this project, and she said, you should organize an event on contemporary Turkish architecture instead.”238 (Interview with Suha Özkan, 9 July 2020)
238 Interview with Suha Özkan, 9 July 2020. Full interview in APPENDICES A2
83
This connection with Renata Holod,239 who was the Chair of the Department of Art History, started the process leading to the publication. Here, it should be noted that, Holod expressed, she had met most of the authors as part of her organizational trips to Turkey, when she was “organizing the Aga Khan Award for Architecture (AKAA), from 1978-1980.”240 Holod and Selcuk Batur had worked in Syria, “at the excavation project of Qasr al - Hayr al- Sharqi in Syria” (Figure 11).241 Furthermore, she explained that, “through Batur and his wife, Afife,” she met “several other of his colleagues when traveling to Turkey on the AKAA business.”242
Özkan (2005, 2) explains that, Renata Holod convinced Özkan to turn their project into an exhibition, seminar and a book, by sharing her complaints about the issue that “…despite the existence of many capable academics, there was no lasting document that displayed the accomplishments of Turks who were grappling with modernity and modern architecture”.243 Holod and Özkan, then persuaded the cultural department of the United States Embassy in Ankara, and they had two important supporters: Ahmet Evin,244 who was “the director of the Middle East Centre at the University of
239 Renata Holod was an Associate Professor, in Department of the History of Art, School of Arts and Sciences, in the University of Pennsylvania between the years of 1980-1993, where she continued working after becoming a professor in 1993. She was also a Steering Committee Member in Aga Khan Award for Architecture between the years of 1980-83, which she continued after 1993, while also assuming other positions in the organization. Renata Holod: College for Women Class of 1963 Term Professor Emerita in the Humanities. Official Website of University of Pennsylvania, History of Art, Accessed on: 18.07.2021, Available from: https://arth.sas.upenn.edu/people/renata-holod
240 Text Interview with Renata Holod, 12 August 2020. Full text interview in APPENDICES A4.
241 Ibid.
242 Ibid.
243 Özkan, Suha. A New Introduction for Modern Turkish Architecture. In Holod, Renata., Evin, Ahmet. & Özkan, Suha. (2005). Modern Turkish Architecture. Chamber of Architects of Turkey. (The second edition). p.2
244 Ahmet Evin was among members of the University of Pennsylvania between the years of 1977 and 1986, where he was also the director of the Middle East Center. He also worked for the Aga
84
Pennsylvania”; and Talat Halman, “the Turkish Ambassador to UNESCO in New York”.245 In our interview, Ahmet Evin described how he got involved in the process as follows:
“The 100th year of Atatürk’s birth, 1981. At the time, various centers at various universities were conducting activities…An exhibition of Modern Turkish Architecture was made with this seminar, thanks to Suha, who was the vice president of METU at the time. He had the resources and by utilizing them, he organized this photographic exhibition, by using the archives and mostly by sending photographers. You know I am not an architect, so why this exhibition? It happened like this. The centers in America, meaning regional centers, are interdisciplinary and their academic staff consists of people from various suitable disciplines, as much as possible, which creates a wide educational and intellectual field. One of the important people there was Renata Holod, whom I previously knew from Harvard, where she was completing her Ph.D…Renata Holod began working as the convener of the Aga Khan Architecture Award. Also, very importantly, Talat Halman was the Ambassador of culture, accredited to the United Nations, in New York. He also provided financial support, due to the Atatürk year…Among the people, İlhan Tekeli were friends with Selim İlkin and so was I. I also knew Afife Batur, through his husband Selçuk Batur. And when Suha Özkan got involved, METU’s part became very significant. Suha, knew the architectural field very well. The event, and the book of their conferences, occurred through the selection of the people, who could properly fill the seminar program.”246 (Interview with Ahmet Evin, 10 August 2020)
The connection to Talat Sait Halman was significant, even though, he had some concerns on what would be displayed as modern architecture of Turkey in the earlier stages of the project, where he questioned if they were going to display gecekondus (squatter housing), which may be understood as a representational concern. After hearing views of Renata Holod, Ahmet Evin and Suha Özkan, that “Turkey had plenty
Khan Network and the Aga Khan Trust for Culture (France and Switzerland) between 1986 and 1992. He taught in other Universities including University of Hamburg; Bilkent University and Sabancı University. Ahmet Evin. Official Website of Sabancı University. Accessed on 15.08.2020, Available from: http://myweb.sabanciuniv.edu/aevin/.; Holod, Renata., Evin, Ahmet. & Özkan, Suha. (2005). Modern Turkish Architecture. Chamber of Architects of Turkey.
245 Özkan, Suha. A New Introduction for Modern Turkish Architecture. In Holod, Renata., Evin, Ahmet. & Özkan, Suha. (2005). Modern Turkish Architecture. Chamber of Architects of Turkey. p.2
246 Interview with Ahmet Evin, 10 August 2020. Full interview in APPENDICES A3.
85
of modern architecture that could be presented with pride”,247 Halman became “the greatest supporter of the project”248, and also provided financial support, as Evin have also expressed.
Figure 11 - 1966 Excavation Project of Qasr al - Hayr al- Sharqi in Syria, led by Oleg Grabar. “Pictured, top row, from left: Mahmud (kitchen help); Selçuk Batur; Renata Holod; unknown; Peter Pick; Ali (foreman); the head cook; Neil MacKenzie. Seated center: Khalid al-As'ad (Director of the Palmyra Museum). Bottom row: William Trousdale; Robert Hamilton; Oleg Grabar; Linda Rhodes; Douglas Braidwood”. Source: 1966 excavation campaign led by Oleg Grabar: archaeology team and house team. Archnet. Available from: https://archnet.org/media_contents/97249
Talat Sait Halman was the first Minister of Culture of Turkey and he remained in office for five months in 1971, during the first Erim Cabinet, since Ministry of Culture was abolished in the second Erim Cabinet, whose duties were transferred to the Ministry
247 Özkan, Suha. A New Introduction for Modern Turkish Architecture. In Holod, Renata., Evin, Ahmet. & Özkan, Suha. (2005). Modern Turkish Architecture. Chamber of Architects of Turkey. p.2.
248 Ibid. p.2
86
of National Education, also in 1971.249 Following the military intervention, in November 1980, Halman was appointed as the Ambassador of Cultural Affairs, under the auspices of the Turkish Foreign Ministry, by İlter Türkmen, who was the Minister of Foreign Affairs, at the time.250 Warner (2017, 239) expresses that it was rather a difficult time, in terms of the escalated violence, since there was a “dramatic rise in Armenian terrorism, primarily targeting Turkish diplomats, killing at least thirty over two decades and wounding many others.”251 She exemplifies this by pointing to the death of Evner Ergun, who was a friend of Talat Halman, that “worked at the United Nations headquarters in New York before being transferred to the UN office of human rights in Vienna”, and was killed in 1984 in Vienna, “when a bomb planted in his car by the Armenian Revolutionary Army exploded”.252 Indeed, there were many terrorist attacks organized by the ASALA (Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia), which included the assassination of Kemal Arıkan, who was the Turkish Consul-General of Los Angeles, on January 28, 1982, roughly one and a half months prior to the exhibition and seminar that led to the publication of Modern Turkish Architecture (1984), which was held in March.253
Nevertheless, Talat Sait Halman served as the Ambassador of Cultural Affairs between the years of 1980 and 1982, which coincided with the Atatürk Centennial (Figure 12). In his foreword to the Centennial Album, Halman (1982, 1-2) commented on the achievements of Atatürk, as well as on the ideology of the period, as follows:
249 Turan, Şerafettin. (1999). Türk Devrim Tarihi V: Çağdaşlık Yolunda Yeni Türkiye (27 Mayıs 1960 – 12 Eylül 1980). Bilgi Yayınevi. p.256; Warner, Jayne. L. (2017). Turkish Nomad: The Intellectual Journey of Talat S. Halman. I.B.Tauris.
250 Ibid.
251 Warner, Jayne. L. (2017). Turkish Nomad: The Intellectual Journey of Talat S. Halman. I.B.Tauris. p.239
252 Ibid. p.239-240
253 Ermeni İddiaları ve Tarihi Gerçekler. (2000). Dışişleri Güncesi, 8. Dışişleri Bakanlığı.
87
“Atatürk: The Enduring Triumph
At the outset of the second century since his birth, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk stands as a triumphant and transcendent figure. Saviour of his nation’s sovereignty. Undefeated commander. Pioneer of anti-colonialism. Staunchest foe of imperialism at home and abroad. Creator of a republic. Transformer of the political, legal and socio-economic system. Cultural modernizer. Inspiration for education and the arts. Spell-binding orator. Advocate of fundamental freedoms and human rights. Language reformer. Humanist and international peacemaker. Model for the leaders of emancipation and emerging nations. The hero of a twentieth century renaissance…
As it has become abundantly clear one again during the Centennial of his birth, Atatürk remains the hero par excellence for all times – for the Turkish nation and the world at large…
A true measure of Atatürk’s success can be found, along with many other factors, in the enduring quality of his ideas. Of the world statesmen who emerged in the 1920s and 1930s, very few still influence their nations the way Atatürk continues to exert his impact on present-day Turkey. Of those who offered new ideologies in the same decades, none commands any national following or even respect. Only the ideology of Atatürk – first known as ‘Kemalism,’ later as ‘Atatürkism’ – remains the fundamental state ideology.
…As the eloquent messages of Gen. Kenan Evren, Head of State, and Adm. Bülend Ulusu, Prime Minister, bear testimony, Atatürkism has gained new power in the Turkey of the 1980s…
…The Atatürk Centennial has proven once again that the world, from Kings and Presidents to school children, revere the great Turkish leader…”254 (Talat Sait Halman, 1982, 1-2)
In line with Halman’s words, the Prime Minister Bülend Ulusu (1982, 6), also commented on the ideology of the period, as follows:
“…Today as well, our country Turkey, leaving behind the crises-ridden and disquieting years, the stresses of which were felt by all of us, with the Constituent Assembly having also commenced its work, has now entered a new era when new democratic institutions will be established on strong foundations in a context of peace and security. The outstanding feature of this new era is the commitment to Atatürkism, that is, to the principles and guidelines of Atatürk that pave the way for the Turkish
254 Halman, Talat Sait. “Foreword”. In Gülmez, Galip. (1982). Atatürk, Centennial Album = Atatürk, 100. Yıl Albümü. Edited by Galip Gülmez. Federation of Turkish-American Societies. p.1-2
88
nation to attain prosperity and happiness in unity and integrity and that illuminate all development and progress based on his contemporary views…”255
Figure 12 - Talat Sait Halman announcing the beginning of the Atatürk Centennial at the Annual Luncheon of the American Turkish Society, on June 1, 1981, in New York City. From left to right, Talat Sait Halman; Ahmet M. Ertegün; and Henry A. Kissenger. Source: Warner, Jayne. L., 2017, p.241.
As it can be seen in both Talat Sait Halman’s, and in Bülend Ulusu’s statements, Atatürk Centennial, was not only seen as a way to celebrate the achievements and ideas of Atatürk, and the accomplishments of Turkey since the 1920s, but it was also viewed as a platform to spread a message of unity, and to underline an aspect of the new “nationalism” in the 1980s, that was based on the principles of “Atatürkism”, following the years of political and financial instability, terrorism, and fights between opposing groups. Furthermore, in Talat Sait Halman’s 1981 statements, we see that, “Atatürkism”, in his views, “remains the fundamental state ideology”, as he presents the ideas of Atatürk, whom he portrays as a hero.
In our interview, İlhan Tekeli, who is the author of the first chapter of Modern Turkish Architecture (1984), “The Social Context of the Development of Architecture in
255 Ulusu, Bülend. “Message from H.E. Mr. Bülend Ulusu, Prime Minister”. In Gülmez, Galip. (1982). Atatürk, Centennial Album = Atatürk, 100. Yıl Albümü. Edited by Galip Gülmez. Federation of Turkish-American Societies. p.6
89
Turkey”, provided another way of looking at the events of 1981, as he questioned the intentions of the activities in the Atatürk Centennial in general, while excluding their exhibition and seminar, and stated the following:
“I know about the 1981 celebrations; it was still a state celebration. Now, Suha found a niche, within the state celebrations and achieved this. But in the 1981 period, where did the 1980 military intervention tried to gain legitimacy? From Atatürk. And that’s why they exaggerated it, but their exaggeration was not found very sympathetic in the homeland. An activity that the military is conducting, means the celebration activities of the coup group. Is it an activity of Atatürk love, or is it an activity of gaining legitimization for himself?”256 (Interview with İlhan Tekeli, 18 June 2020)
If we continue with the inclusion of the remaining actors in the process of production of Modern Turkish Architecture (1984), we see that Suha Özkan (2005, 2) was a key figure as he expressed that Renata Holod, “left the academic organization of the project”, almost exclusively to him, with the condition to “use the project as a way to give opportunities to a younger generation of academics”.257 The contributors, he explained, “were those young academics who were most active in the 1970s and 1980s”.258 In our interview, he also explained that Renata Holod truly believed in the young talents, and that he selected people who knew their fields profoundly, which included İlhan Tekeli,259 who “had the intellectual depth to keep them all together”.260 Tekeli expressed his side of the events, in our interview, as follows:
256 Interview with İlhan Tekeli, 18 June 2020. Full interview in APPENDICES A1.
257 Özkan, Suha. A New Introduction for Modern Turkish Architecture. In Holod, Renata., Evin, Ahmet. & Özkan, Suha. (2005). Modern Turkish Architecture. Chamber of Architects of Turkey. p.2
258 Ibid. p.2
259 İlhan Tekeli was among members of the Faculty of Architecture, specifically of the Department of City and Regional Planning, in the Middle East Technical University, which he started teaching in 1970 and continued until he retired. (İlhan Tekeli'nin Kendi Kaleminden Biyografisi. İlhan Tekeli Şehircilik Kültürü Vakfı Official Website. Accessed on 09.08.2020. Available from: https://ilhantekelivakfi.org/ilhan-tekelinin-kendi-kaleminden-biyografisi/)
260 Interview with Suha Özkan, 9 July 2020. Full interview in APPENDICES A2.
90
“Suha Özkan has a very active personality. I’ve known him since he was a student here (METU, Faculty of Architecture). Suha believes that, there is a modern architecture that cannot be presented abroad, and I think, he has set himself this a mission, in a sense. Looking at his later doings in life, we see that he made this a mission to himself, which he accomplished well. This was one of the early examples of this. We were taking a bus ride together, I do not recall where to, and Suha and I sat side by side, where he told me about this. I mean, he told me they were doing this, and I was not involved at that point. While we were talking, I explained him how such a work could be done. I mean, to present this, you needed to explain the context of Turkey, so that how these came out of it, could be seen. Suha found that sensible and asked if I would join, which I accepted…But it was a responsibility to present the opening paper in an international meeting. And since I am not an architectural historian, I did some readings on architectural history, which had to be done with such a responsibility.”261 (Interview with İlhan Tekeli, 18 June 2020)
İlhan Tekeli graduated from the Istanbul Technical University (ITU) as a Civil Engineer in 1960 and completed his master’s degree in the Department of City and Regional Planning in METU, in 1964. He received another master’s degree from Upenn, in 1966, where he also took a class from Charles Abrams.262 In relation to that, Tekeli expressed that “he attended his class, as he was among the founders of METU”.263 Abrams was very pleased, since Tekeli was amongst the first outcome of that project.264 Following his return, Tekeli completed his Ph.D. in the City and Regional Planning Department at ITU, in 1968.265 Consequently, Tekeli’s studies in the 1970s, and early 1980s, were not focused on the architectural history of Turkey, however, considering the intertwined relations between the city; politics; society;
261 Interview with İlhan Tekeli, 18 June 2020. Full interview in APPENDICES A1.
262 İlhan Tekeli'nin Kendi Kaleminden Biyografisi. İlhan Tekeli Şehircilik Kültürü Vakfı Official Website. Accessed on 09.08.2020. Available from: https://ilhantekelivakfi.org/ilhan-tekelinin-kendi-kaleminden-biyografisi/
263 Interview with İlhan Tekeli, 18 June 2020. Full interview in APPENDICES A1.
264 Ibid.
265 İlhan Tekeli'nin Kendi Kaleminden Biyografisi. İlhan Tekeli Şehircilik Kültürü Vakfı Official Website. Accessed on 09.08.2020. Available from: https://ilhantekelivakfi.org/ilhan-tekelinin-kendi-kaleminden-biyografisi/
91
culture; and architecture, we may see the compliance between his chapter, “The Social Context of the Development of Architecture in Turkey”, and his research areas.
Here, we may mention one of his many articles, published in 1981, titled “İslam Mimarisi Diye Bir Kategori Bilimsel Olarak Temellendirilebilir mi?” (Can the Category of Islamic Architecture be Scientifically Based?), within which Tekeli discussed and criticized the meaning of the term “Islamic Architecture”, and stated that it can be understood more of an ideological category, rather than a scientific one.266 He also stated that, people who still thought Ziya Gökalp’s dualist cultural theory was valid, might be finding a basis for that category (Islamic Architecture).267 His approach in this article, provides us insight on Tekeli’s approaches, in which he was questioning how people viewed the notion of “culture”, as well as the “meanings” attributed to the “categories of architecture”, in 1981.
Another actor in the project, whom Suha Özkan wrote two chapters with, is Yıldırım Yavuz. In an obituary article for Yıldırım Yavuz, Suha Özkan describes how they met, in 1963, the year when the new building of METU Faculty of Architecture was opened. Özkan (2019, ix) began his words, by pointing to İsmet İnönü’s opinions on “bare concrete”, appreciating Behruz Çinici’s innovation at the age of 28 and found a portion of the success in himself.268 Indeed, İnönü visited the campus several times that year, including the opening of the academic year, on October 1, 1963 (Figure 13 and 14). At the time, the building of the Faculty of Architecture, was the only erected building in the campus. In the opening ceremony, İnönü spoke after Kemal Kurdaş, and expressed that all the buildings and facilities were to be completed in the best way
266 Tekeli, İlhan. (1981). İslam Mimarisi Diye Bir Kategori Bilimsel Olarak Temellendirilebilir mi?. Mimarlık, 168, 19(6), 2-3.
267 Ibid.
268 Özkan, Suha. (2019). Yıldırım Bir Dost, Bir Önder. In Obituary/ Anma. (2019). METU Journal of the Faculty of Architecture (2), v- xxix. p.ix
92
possible.269 The yellow and white stained glasses, that “colored” the bare concrete building were much acclaimed, which were made by Nâzan Zadil ve Sevim Payzın.270
Figure 13 - Photographs from İsmet İnönü's visit to the METU Campus, with Kemal Kurdaş, who was the president of METU between the years of 1961 and 1969. Source: Archives of Faculty of Architecture, METU
Figure 14 - İsmet İnönü's note for the opening ceremony, dated October 10, 1963. The note reads as follows: “We saw and learned about the rapid development of METU at the opening of 1963. I am very glad. I congratulate President Mr. Kemal Kurdaş; administration; and the faculty members. Source: Archives of Faculty of Architecture, METU
269 Tüli’den haberler. (1963). AKİS, 484. (5 Ekim 1963). Accessed on: 22.12.2020, Available From: İnönü Vakfı Website: http://www.ismetinonu.org.tr/yayinlar/
270 Ibid.
93
If we return to Yıldırım Yavuz, we see that he was among the members of the Faculty of Architecture, in METU, where he taught between the years of 1962 and 1982, following his graduation as an architect from METU, in 1961.271 After receiving his master’s degree at METU, he did a second master’s at Upenn, where he became a student of Louis Kahn, which he described in an interview as follows:
“Some of the students who enrolled in the Middle East Technical University, Faculty of Architecture in 1956, in the first year of the school, began to be sent to America, after they graduated, after the 1960. Among the first students who went were people such as Kemal Aran and Doruk Pamir. Some of these people directly went to Philadelphia, and became the students of Louis Kahn, who was teaching at the University of Pennsylvania. Upon their return, they became faculty members of METU, in the Faculty of Architecture. Between the years of 1964 and 1965, I got a second master’s degree from the University of Pennsylvania, which took place in Louis Kahn’s studio…”272 (Yıldırım Yavuz, 2018)
As it can be seen, Yıldırım Yavuz, similar to İlhan Tekeli, has also spent time in the University of Pennsylvania, which shows the continuing relations between the two universities. As we have seen in the “METU, 1981 Atatürk’s Birth’s 100th Year Celebration Program”, Yavuz was also working on an exhibition that focused on the development of Ankara, “the symbol of the Turkish Republic”, between the years of 1920 and 1980. Yavuz completed his Ph.D. studies at Istanbul Technical University, where he was working on “Mimar Ahmet Kemalettin Bey ve Ulusal Türk Mimarisi Akımı” (Architect Kemalettin and the National Turkish Architecture Movement).273 His advisor was Doğan Kuban, who was the head of the History of Architecture and Restoration program, where Afife Batur, another author of Modern Turkish Architecture (1984), was also working. Yavuz completed his Ph.D. thesis in 1981, with
271 TMMOB Mimarlar Odası Ankara Şubesi. (2019). Prof. Dr. Yıldırım Yavuz’u Kaybettik. Published on 11 September 2019. Accessed on 22.12.2020. Available from: http://www.mimarlarodasiankara.org/index.php?Did=10293
272 PeraMuzesi. “Sözlü Tarih: Öğrencileri Louis Kahn'ı Anlatıyor! - Yıldırım Yavuz.” YouTube, 22 Jan. 2018. Accessed on 22.12.2020., Available From: www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wa4q1g7Oteg.
273 Mimarlık Tarihi ve Restorasyon Kürsüsü Çalışma Raporu (1.4.1974-31.3.1975); Mimarlık Tarihi ve Restorasyon Kürsüsü Çalışma Raporu (1.5.1977-30.4.1978). Accessed on 29.12.2020, From: http://katalogtarama.cekulvakfi.org.tr/
94
the title “Mimar Kemalettin ve Birinci Mimarlık Dönemi” (Architect Kemalettin and the First Architectural Period).274
In an earlier article that has been published in 1973, which was titled, “Cumhuriyet Dönemi Ankarası’ında Mimari Biçim Endişesi” (Architectural Form Concerns in the Republican Period of Ankara),275 Yavuz stated that “It would be unjustifiable to think of an art that has not been affected by the political and economic events throughout history, which develops isolated from the social environment”, which gives an idea on Yavuz’s approach to architectural history, where architectural works are understood in relation to the various historical contexts they were built in. In another article of 1976, titled, “Western Effects on Turkish National Architecture During the Second Constitutional Period: (1908-1918)”, we see that Yavuz associated the architectural production of the Late Ottoman Empire, with “Turkish Nationalism”, which he viewed was an “outcome of European Nationalism”.276
Lastly, we know from the mentioned articles, and his exhibition work, that Yıldırım Yavuz’s research areas were mainly focused on the architectural production of the Late Ottoman Empire; architecture in the early Republican times; and the works of the “First National Style”, with a specific attention on Mimar Kemalettin Bey, and on Ankara, in the 1970s and in the early 1980s. Bringing this together with Suha Özkan’s studies at the time, among which was his article published in 1973, titled “Mimar Vedat Tek (1873-1942)”, we understand the reasons behind Yıldırım Yavuz and Suha Özkan writing the first two chapters of Modern Turkish Architecture (1984), on the
274 Yavuz, Yıldırım. (1981). Mimar Kemalettin Bey (1870-1927). Metu Journal of the Faculty of Architecture, 7(1): 53-76.
275 Yavuz, Yıldırım. (1973). Cumhuriyet Dönemi Ankarası’ında Mimari Biçim Endişesi. Mimarlık, 121-122, 26-44.
276 Yavuz, Yıldırım. (1976). Western Effects on Turkish National Architecture During the Second Constitutional Period: (1908-1918). Metu Journal of the Faculty of Architecture, 2(1), 9-34.
95
architectural production of the “Final Years of the Ottoman Empire”, and of “The First National Style”.
Two other actors, that need to be mentioned here, are Afife Batur, the author of the fourth chapter, “To Be Modern: Search for a Republican Architecture”, and Selçuk Batur, both of whom graduated from ITU, Faculty of Architecture. Ersen Gürsel, who is an architect with EPA Mimarlık Ofisi, where Selçuk Batur also joined in 1993,277 and is a friend of Selçuk Batur since high school described, how Afife Batur and Selçuk Batur met, by stating the following:
“When I met Afife Batur in 1962, she was an assistant in the ITU History of Architecture and Restoration program.278 Selçuk Batur, my friend from high school, entered the same program, that year. Both were hardworking, curious, and successful, and soon after that they got married.”279 (Gürsel, 2019, 13)
Afife Batur completed her Ph.D., with her thesis advisor Doğan Kuban. Selçuk Batur also entered the Ph.D. program in ITU, however he did not complete his thesis (Figure 15).280 While, the two have performed some of their studies together, they also worked separately. One example of that was Selçuk Batur’s work in the Project of Qasr al - Hayr al- Sharqi in Syria, which was led by Oleg Grabar, where he also met and worked
277 Arel, Ayda.; Gürsel, Ersen.; & Özkan, Suha. (2005). Selçuk Batur için Mimarlık Yazıları. TMMOB Mimarlar Odası.
278 According to Günkut Akın, Afife Batur became an assistant in the Architectural History program of ITU in 1960. When Batur became an assistant, Doğan Kuban was the head of the program. Akın, Günkut. “Afife Batur: Bir Cumhuriyet Kadını”. In Profil: Afife Batur (1933-2018). (2019). Arredamento Mimarlık, 329, 48-68.
279 Gürsel, Ersen. (2019). Afife Batur’un Geçmişle Günceli Barıştıran Kültür Anlayışı. Mimarlık, 405, 13. p.13
280 As it can be seen in Figure 15, Selçuk Batur worked on “19. Yüzyıl Osmanlı Camileri” (19th Century Ottoman Mosques) in his Ph.D., with Doğan Kuban as his advisor, according to Mimarlık Tarihi ve Rölöve Kürsüsü Çalışma Raporu (1.4.1971-31.3.1972) (1971-1972 History of Architecture and Restoration Program Report of ITU). However, his thesis could not be found in the ITU Library system, suggesting that he did not completed his thesis. Furthermore, following year’s reports of the Architectural Program did not include Selçuk Batur’s study.
96
with Renata Holod (Figure 11). Doğan Kuban, who was also in ITU at the time, explains his role in Selçuk Batur’s involvement in that project, as follows:
“I took him to the Harvard University excavations in Syria, in the September of 1964. He was my assistant in the first season of excavation. He worked with a selection of American and foreign researchers and young archaeologists…In later periods, he continued to work as the excavation architect, in excavations that I couldn’t be a part of. I know he left an extraordinary impression on a famous teacher like Oleg Grabar.”281 (Kuban, 2005, 7)
Selçuk Batur continued working in other excavation projects; wrote many articles, some of which are co-authored with Afife Batur; founded a printing house called “Reyo Matbaacılık”; and he made many translations, including the works of Siegfried Giedion; Vincent Scully; Erwin Panofsky; and Amos Rapoport.282 Here, it is important to note that some of his translations were also co-authored with Afife Batur.
On the other hand, while Selçuk Batur began the excavation project that continued until 1969, Afife Batur studied conservation and restoration between the years of 1964 and 1965 in Torino, Italy, before returning to ITU, where she continued working until her retirement in 1998.283 Afife Batur obtained various positions in the Chamber of Architects of Turkey, including the Vice Chairman of the Central Executive Board, and the Chairman of the Istanbul Büyükkent Branch; organized exhibitions; wrote numerous articles; as well as important books on the architectural production in Turkey. Among her books, it is important to mention A Concise History: Architecture in Turkey during the 20th Century (2005), as it is one of the few books written in English, that covers a broad timeline of the architectural production in Turkey, which
281 Kuban, Doğan. “Selçuk Batur”. In Arel, Ayda.; Gürsel, Ersen.; & Özkan, Suha. (2005). Selçuk Batur için Mimarlık Yazıları. TMMOB Mimarlar Odası.
282 Arel, Ayda.; Gürsel, Ersen.; & Özkan, Suha. (2005). Selçuk Batur için Mimarlık Yazıları. TMMOB Mimarlar Odası.,
283 Ağır, Aygül. (2019). Afife Batur’un Çalışmalarına Retrospektif Bakış. Anma. Mimarlık, 406, 17-22.; Atasoy; Zehra Betül. (2013). Mimarlık Tarihi Söyleşileri: Afife Batur. Accessed on 29.12.2020, Available From: https://www.arkitera.com/soylesi/mimarlik-tarihi-soylesileri-afife-batur/
97
begins with the foundation of the Republic (1923) and continues until the 2000s. While her work in the 1970s, included topics such as Restoration; Conservation; and Education, alongside Late Ottoman Architecture, it is possible to observe that one of her research areas was the architectural production of the early Republican period (Figure 16). Nevertheless, in many of her writings, it is possible to observe that she saw politics and ideologies as part of the architectural profession, as she understood architecture as part of the society, and culture.284
Figure 15 - Report of ITU History of Architecture and Survey Program showing Selçuk Batur in the Ph.D. program with Doğan Kuban as his advisor. Source: Mimarlık Tarihi ve Rölöve Kürsüsü Çalışma Raporu (1.4.1971-31.3.1972). Accessed on 29.12.2020, Available From: http://katalogtarama.cekulvakfi.org.tr/
284 This is also applicable in the case of Modern Turkish Architecture (1984), since under one of the subheadings, “Ideology, Expression, Symbol, and Style” in her chapter directly makes this connection. It is also possible to view this in her articles, including Batur, Afife. (1975). Tarihi Çevre Korumasında Siyasal ve İdeolojik Boyutlar. Mimarlık, 13(5), 14-17.; Batur, Afife. (1978). Türkiye'de "Sürekli Eğitimin" Genel Durumu. Mimarlık, 155(2), 39-40.; Batur, Afife. (1978). Toplu Konutun Tarihsel Gelişimi ve İki Örnek. Mimarlık, 156(3), 22-24.
98
We may observe Batur’s views on architectural history in and around the 1980s, from an interview published on Mimarlık, in 1985,285 which took place between Afife Batur and Atilla Yücel, who is also among the authors of Modern Turkish Architecture (1984), as follows:
“Atilla Yücel: … You are an architectural historian. In the meantime, you are teaching 20th Century Architecture lessons. You are also working on the recent architecture of our country. What do you think does the knowledge of history and architectural history add to the contemporary and operational critique? Is there a possibility of an evaluation that does not have a historical dimension - for example a purely descriptive / positivist / structuralist critique? Is it possible?
Afife Batur: I would like to answer the second of the questions you asked me. Because I think the answer to the first question is hidden in the second. Is there an opportunity to evaluate without a historical dimension, for example a purely descriptive criticism? For me, the historical exclusionary approach of structuralism, or pure description is not valid. A criticism approach in which the two are reconciled and combined should be valid. But paradoxically, although the historical dimension is undeniable, a purely descriptive type of writing has developed in the history of architecture in our country, even though it is set out from the historical dimension. I cannot see a purely structuralist criticism valid either. I once tried such an approach in my own work. In the end, I saw that, when not completed with the dimension of history, the structuralist or descriptive work on the object alone, is a limited work that only appeals to its technicians…”286 (Yücel & Batur, 1985, 27).
In other words, we may say that Afife Batur, while examining and criticizing an object, or an architectural work, valued the historical dimension, as well as the various contexts it was built in.
If we return to Selçuk Batur, we see that one of his most significant works, in which he worked with Afife Batur, was the journal titled, Çevre: Mimarlık ve Görsel Sanatlar Dergisi. Çevre was published between the years of 1979 and 1980, and it was a product
285 Here, it is important to note that the interview took place between Atilla Yücel as the Interviewer and the interviewees Emin Mahir Balcıoğlu; Afife Batur; Bülent Özer; and Zeki Sayar. Anonymous. (1985). Söyleşi: Türkiye’de Mimarlık Eleştirisi. Mimarlık, 211, 23(1).
286 Anonymous. (1985). Söyleşi: Türkiye’de Mimarlık Eleştirisi. Mimarlık, 211, 23(1). p.27
99
from Reyo Matbaacılık’s period.287 Selçuk Batur, explains the aim and contents of the journal, in a 1980 newspaper clipping as follows:
“The need to publish ÇEVRE was born out of the presence of knowledge and talent in a wide platform ranging from architecture to urban planning in Turkey, the branch of engineering, to industrial design, and to visual arts. We saw that the most significant obstacle that prevents this knowledge to be transformed into a diversity of approaches and richness is the lack of communication in this field. We publish ÇEVRE mostly for this reason, to establish national and international communications between various professions that are involved in the formation of the environment.
Our main purpose, even though we are far from it now, since this is also dependent on other social transformations, is to convey our knowledge in these subjects; to spread the corruptions to those who live in this environment but cannot participate in its formation, in our current social organization; and to ensure the participation of the people in the formation of the environment and its adaptation to the nature…”288 (Batur, 1980, 7)
Figure 16 - Newspaper Clipping of Afife Batur from 1983, stating that she was among the staff of ITU Architectural History program, and that her research is mainly focused on the 19th and 20th century architecture, specifically Late Ottoman Architecture, and on the architecture of the Early Republican Period. Source: Ağa Han Mimarlık Ödülleri üstüne söyleşi?. (September 13, 1983). Cumhuriyet Newspaper Archives. Accessed on December 27, 2020, Available From: https://www.cumhuriyetarsivi.com/
287 Arel, Ayda.; Gürsel, Ersen.; & Özkan, Suha. (2005). Selçuk Batur için Mimarlık Yazıları. TMMOB Mimarlar Odası.
288 Batur, Selçuk. (1980). Dergilerimiz: Çevre. Cumhuriyet Newspaper Archives. (March 27, 1980). Accessed on: 27.12. 2020, Available From: https://www.cumhuriyetarsivi.com/
100
In the same clipping, we see that following Selçuk Batur, as the publishing director, the editorial board consisted of Erkan Güngören, Ersen Gürsel, Suha Özkan, Atilla Yücel and Yıldız Sey, in addition to Afife Batur (Figure 17). In other words, four of the authors of Modern Turkish Architecture (1984), as well as Selçuk Batur, was already working together, in the year of 1980. Selçuk Batur’s last remarks in the clipping, provides insight on his views, regarding the intellectual approaches of the last governments, approximately six months before the military intervention, as follows:
“I would like to state that, despite the consciously implemented ‘cultural degeneration’ policies of the last governments, and the difficulties we faced especially in the finding of papers, our one-year experience, and the interest given to the journal, have raised our hopes on this issue and it is very encouraging.”289 (Batur, 1980, 7)
Figure 17 - Newspaper Clipping on the Çevre Journal. Source: Batur, Selçuk. (1980). Dergilerimiz: Çevre. Cumhuriyet Newspaper Archives. (March 27, 1980). Accessed on: 27.12. 2020, Available From: https://www.cumhuriyetarsivi.com/
289 Batur, Selçuk. (1980). Dergilerimiz: Çevre. Cumhuriyet Newspaper Archives. (March 27, 1980). Accessed on: 27.12. 2020, Available From: https://www.cumhuriyetarsivi.com/
101
Continuing with the actors of Modern Turkish Architecture (1984), next we see Üstün Alsaç, who is the author of the fifth chapter, “The Second Period of National Architecture”. Üstün Alsaç also completed his Ph.D., in ITU, with Doğan Kuban as his advisor, similar to Yıldırım Yavuz; and Afife Batur. As it can be seen in Figure 15, Selçuk Batur and Üstün Alsaç were both in ITU History of Architecture and Restoration Program in 1971-1972, where Afife Batur was also working (Figure 15).290 In the 1972-1973 education year, on the other hand, we see that Yıldırım Yavuz also joined the program, working on his Ph.D. (Figure 18). Üstün Alsaç’s Ph.D., on “20. Yüzyıl Türkiye Mimarisi” (20th Century Turkish Architecture), was later published from Karadeniz Technical University in 1976, with the title, Türkiye’deki Mimarlık Düşüncesinin Cumhuriyet Dönemindeki Evrimi (Development of Architectural Thought in Turkey of the Republican Period).
In his thesis, as well as in his 1973 article, which he wrote during his Ph.D., we see that Alsaç, among other topics, pointed to regional values in architecture, to argue that a synthesis between the rational and regional was achieved between the “Western models”, and the conditions of Turkey in architecture, in the “Second National Architecture” period.291 In other words, we see that some of his views on the “Second National Style”, was formed in the early 1970s, which was later reflected in Modern Turkish Architecture (1984).
The next actor of Modern Turkish Architecture (1984), Ahmet Mete Tapan, who wrote the sixth chapter of the book, titled, “International Style: Liberalism in Architecture”, also completed his Ph.D. in ITU, 1972, however, unlike previously mentioned people attending the History of Architecture and Restoration Program, in ITU, Tapan was in the Construction Sciences program, where he completed his Ph.D. thesis, titled,
290 Mimarlık Tarihi ve Rölöve Kürsüsü Çalışma Raporu (1.4.1971-31.3.1972). Accessed on 29.12.2020, Available From: http://katalogtarama.cekulvakfi.org.tr/
291 Alsaç, Üstün. (1973). Türk Mimarlık Düşüncesinin Cumhuriyet Devrindeki Evrimi. Mimarlık, 121, 11-12, 12-25. p.22; Bölgeselliğe dönüş: İkinci ulusal mimarlık akımı (1940-1950). In Alsaç, Üstün. (1976). Türkiye’deki Mimarlık Düşüncesinin Cumhuriyet Dönemindeki Evrimi. KTÜ. Baskı Atelyesi.
102
Betonarme Büyük Boyutlu Prefabrike Elemanlarla Çok Katlı Konut Üretiminde Tasarım Kısıtlamaları Üzerine Bir Araştırma (A Research on Design Constraints in Multi-Story Housing Production with Reinforced Concrete Large-Sized Prefabricated Elements), in 1973.292 Even though Tapan may seem to be an outsider to the History of Architecture and Restoration Program, we see that in 1973, he published a book, titled “50 Yılın Türk Mimarisi” (50 Years of Turkish Architecture),293 with Metin Sözen, who was among the staff of the program, alongside Doğan Kuban and Afife Batur.294 In other words, despite his Ph.D. focus, we may view Mete Tapan, as part of the ITU circle, which involved many of the actors of Modern Turkish Architecture (1984). We may also note that, Tapan became an assistant in the Faculty of Architecture of ITU in 1969, where he worked until retiring as a professor in 2006.295
Atilla Yücel, author of the seventh chapter of the book, titled, “Pluralism Takes Command: The Turkish Architectural Scene Today”, shares a similar background, as he also completed his Ph.D. in ITU in 1977, as well as his bachelor’s and master’s degrees.296 He was a staff member of the Faculty of Architecture of ITU, between 1965 and 2002, with the exclusion of the 1972 and 1974.297 Atilla Yücel’s Ph.D. thesis was
292 Tapan, Mete. (1973). Betonarme büyük boyutlu prefabrike elemanlarla çok katlı konut üretiminde tasarım kısıtlamaları üzerine bir araştırma. (Ph.D. Thesis). Istanbul Technical University.
293 Sözen, Metin. & Tapan, Mete. (1973). 50 Yılın Türk Mimarisi. İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları 122.
294 Mimarlık Tarihi ve Restorasyon Kürsüsü Çalışma Raporu (1.4.1972-31.3.1973). (1.4.1972-31.3.1973). Accessed on 02.01.2021, From: http://katalogtarama.cekulvakfi.org.tr/
295 Mete Tapan CV. ITU Alumni Website. Accessed on: 02.01.2021, Available From: http://itumd.org.tr/i/uploads/file/375%20Mete%20Tapan.pdf
296 CV of Atilla Yücel (updated in 2017). Official Website of MArS Architects. Atilla Yücel Detaylı Özgeçmiş, 2019. Accessed on: 01.02.2021. Available from: http://mars-architects.com/images/pubImages/AY2017.pdf
297 Ibid.
During that break, Atilla Yücel completed his military service.
103
titled, Kentsel Konut Topluluklarının Tasarlanmasında Sosyal Sistem İçeriğinin Değerlendirilmesi / Bir Kuram (1977) (Evaluating the Content of the Social System in the Design of Urban Housing Communities / A Theory). He had other studies on the theory of architecture, among which we may mention his two articles, the first, from 1973, titled, Mimarlıkta Metodoloji/Sistemli Yaklaşımlar ve Mimarlık Eğitimi (Methodology/ Systematic Approaches in Architecture and Architectural Education),298 which was followed with the 1982 article, Mimarlıkta İdeolojiler, Yenilikçi Tasarım ve Tarih (Ideologies in Architecture, Innovative Design, and History).299 In these articles, Yücel questioned the ideology of architecture, and stated that “the primary goal of architectural criticism is to develop its own scientific theory and criticism tools, while also being humble and cautious, when discussing the ‘moral’ boundaries of professional customs and the environment, especially of the ‘yesterday’”.300
Atilla Yücel wrote numerous articles; and many books; as other authors of the Modern Turkish Architecture (1984) did, and also worked as an architect, and won many awards. If we look at his works around the 1980s, we see that in the 1979-1980 education year, Yücel was a guest lecturer at METU, in the seminars of “Architectural Semiology” and “Typological Analysis”, within the scope of the class “Meaning in Environment”.301 He was conducting a research on the 19th century rowhouses in Istanbul, with Afife Batur and Nur Fersan, in that period (Figure 19).302 He was also a
298 Yücel, Atilla. (1973). Mimarlıkta Metodoloji/Sistemli Yaklaşımlar ve Mimarlık Eğitimi. Mimarlık, 114 (4), 22-28.
299 Yücel, Atilla. (1982). Mimarlıkta İdeolojiler, Yenilikçi Tasarım ve Tarih. Mimarlık, 176 (2), 16-19.
300 Ibid. p.19
301 İ.T.Ü. Mimarlık Fakültesi Mekan Örgütlenmesi ve Donatımı Kürsüsü 1979-80 Dönemi Kürsü Çalışmaları Raporu. Accessed on 01.02.2020, Available From: http://katalogtarama.cekulvakfi.org.tr/
302 İ.T.Ü. Mimarlık Fakültesi Mekan Örgütlenmesi ve Donatımı Kürsüsü 1979-80 Dönemi Kürsü Çalışmaları Raporu. Accessed on 01.02.2020, Available From: http://katalogtarama.cekulvakfi.org.tr/; Batur, Afife.; Fersan, Nur; Yücel, & Atilla. 19th Century Row-
104
member of the technical review committee for the First Aga Khan Award for Architecture program (Tunisia, March 1980).303 In 1979, he was a consultant of the Ministry of Rural Affairs and Cooperatives for the Resettlement Project of Beritan Nomadic Community, with Yıldız Sey and Mete Tapan.304 Here, we may also remember that, he was part of the editorial team of the Çevre journal, where he also wrote. In other words, we may see that Atilla Yücel was connected to many of the actors, through various projects, works and studies.
Yıldız Sey, who is the author of the last chapter of the book, titled, “To House the New Citizens: Housing Policies and Mass Housing”, described his relations with Atilla Yücel, as follows:
“While Atilla was joining the Faculty of Architecture as a student, I left my job at the Istanbul Opera House after 3 years (in 1962) and began to work as an assistant at ITU Faculty of Architecture. Our first encounter with Atilla took place in Prof. Dr. Lütfi Zeren’s Yapı Projesi course,305 in which I was an assistant. The prominence of Atilla in discussions during the class and the fact that he showed himself and his talent, was an indication that he would start to take part in the future studies. He was assigned as an assistant in Bina Bilgisi-1 course,306 in 1962. Thus, we took our place in the faculty as two friends in the same status. Afterwards, other assistants joined to the faculty, and various conversations took place in the departments of different fields, and mostly
Houses in Istanbul. The Aga Khan Award for Architecture. Seminar II. Çekül Vakfı, Accessed on 02.01.2020, From: http://katalogtarama.cekulvakfi.org.tr/
Batur, Yücel and Fersan, also published an article on their research in 1979, titled “İstanbul’da Ondokuzuncu Yüzyıl Sıra Evleri – Koruma ve Yeniden Kullanım İçin Bir Monografik Araştırma -. O.D.T.Ü. Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi, 5(2).
303 Ibid.; CV of Atilla Yücel (updated in 2017). Official Website of MArS Architects. Atilla Yücel Detaylı Özgeçmiş, 2019. Accessed on: 01.02.2021. Available from: http://mars-architects.com/images/pubImages/AY2017.pdf
304 Ibid.
305 The course name is not translated.
306 The course name is not translated.
105
in the corridors of Taşkışla.307 I must say that in the 1960s, Taşkışla was a place that enabled talks and discussions, which grew with the participance of small groups, that led to the development of new ideas, and most importantly, it was a place, where the togetherness in our faculty could be sustained…”308 (Sey, 2018, 10)
Figure 18 - Report of ITU History of Architecture and Restoration Program showing Üstün Alsaç and Yıldırım Yavuz in the Ph.D. program with Doğan Kuban as their advisor. Source: Mimarlık Tarihi ve Rölöve Kürsüsü Çalışma Raporu (1.4.1971-31.3.1972). Accessed on 29.12.2020, Available From: http://katalogtarama.cekulvakfi.org.tr/
307 Taşkışla was built as a Military Hospital, and as a school of Military Hospital, by the architect Williams James Smith and his assistant Ottoman master-builder İstefan, between 1846 and 1852. Taşkışla was transformed into the Faculty of Architecture of ITU in 1944. (ITU, Faculty of Architecture Website, Accessed on: 01.02.2020, Available From: https://mim.itu.edu.tr/
308 Sey, Yıldız. (2018). Mimarlığı Meslek Değil, Hayat Olarak Gören Atilla Yücel. Mimarlık, 404, 10. p.10
106
Figure 19 - Cover page of the Preliminary Report on the 19th Century Row-Houses in Istanbul, showing that Atilla Yücel and Afife Batur worked together on this project, with Nur Fersan. The report was part of the 1978 Seminar of the Aga Khan Award for Architecture, which took place in Istanbul. Source: Çekül Vakfı, Accessed on 02.01.2020, Available From: http://katalogtarama.cekulvakfi.org.tr/
Yıldız Sey, also a graduate of ITU, completed her Ph.D., with her thesis titled, Çift Eğrilikli Yüzeylerin Akustik Dizaynının Kontrolunda Bir Metod: Analitik Grafik Metod (A Method for Controlling the Acoustic Design of Double Curvature Surfaces: Analytical Graphic Method), in 1966. In addition to her guest lecturer positions in various universities, she was also a member of the ITU Faculty of Architecture, until she retired as a professor. Besides her earlier mentioned works, in Çevre journal, and in the Ministry of Rural Affairs and Cooperatives for the Resettlement Project of Beritan Nomadic Community with Atilla Yücel and Mete Tapan, she also wrote a book with Tapan, titled, Değerlendirmede Temel Sorunlar ve Mimarlıkta Değerlendirme (Fundamental Problems in Evaluation and Evaluation in Architecture), which was published in 1976.
107
Even though her main research area was on architectural acoustics, we see that Sey worked on housing in Turkey, in the 1970s, which can be seen in her article with Atilla Yücel, titled, Türkiye’de Köy Konutu Sorununun Kapsam ve İçeriği, Çözüm Alternatiflerinin Belirlenmesinde Temel Strateji ve Yöntem Sorunlarının Tartışılması (Scope and Contents of Village Housing Problem in Turkey, Discussion of Strategy and Method Problems to Determine Alternative Solutions);309 in Mete Tapan’s article, titled Deprem Sonrası Konut Üretimi (Housing Production After Earthquake)310 for which Tapan; Yıldız Sey; Eşher Berköz; and Atilla Yücel conducted research trips to the eastern cities of Turkey (Van, Erzurum, Bingöl, Mul, Mardin); and in her participation to programs and panels, such as Afet Bölgelerinde Konut Sorunu (Housing Problem in Disaster Areas);311 and İstanbul’un Konut Sorunu (Housing Problem of Istanbul),312 in 1979.
As it can be seen through the background of the authors, even though METU and the Upenn was significant in the organization of the exhibition and seminar that led to the publication of Modern Turkish Architecture (1984), ITU was also an important factor, since many of the younger generation of academics Suha Özkan included in the event were people that shared the second half of the 1960s, and the 1970s together there, where they conducted researches and/or co-authored studies with each other in the
309 Sey, Yıldız. & Yücel, Atilla. (1972). Türkiye’de Köy Konutu Sorununun Kapsam ve İçeriği, Çözüm Alternatiflerinin Belirlenmesinde Temel Strateji ve Yöntem Sorunlarının Tartışılması. Mimarlık, 107 (9), 42-49.
310 Tapan, Mete. (1975). Deprem Sonrası Konut Üretimi. Mimarlık, 142 (8-9), 11-12.
311 Sey, Yıldız. (1979). Afet Bölgelerinde Konut Sorunu. TRT İstanbul Radyosu Eğitim Programı. In İ.T.Ü. Mimarlık Fakültesi Yapım ve Yapı Sistemleri Kürsüsü: 1980 Nisan – Yıllık Çalışma Raporu. Accessed on 02.01.2020, Available From: http://katalogtarama.cekulvakfi.org.tr/
312 Sey, Yıldız. (1979). İstanbul’un Konut Sorunu. 30. Dünya Şehircilik Günü dolayısıyla düzenlenen İstanbulun Şehircilik Sorunları Paneli. In İ.T.Ü. Mimarlık Fakültesi Yapım ve Yapı Sistemleri Kürsüsü: 1980 Nisan – Yıllık Çalışma Raporu. Accessed on 02.01.2020, Available From: http://katalogtarama.cekulvakfi.org.tr/
108
Taşkışla, first as students, then as assistants, and later as members of the Faculty of Architecture.
However, as Suha Özkan (2005) explains, the actors mentioned so far, were not the only contributors in the project.313 Among the people, who played important roles in this project, were Cüneyt Budak, who was a student,314 and Necati Yurtseven and Mehmet Ali Erkin, who were working for the photograph laboratory of METU, Faculty of Architecture, at the time. According to Özkan (2005, 2), “Necati Yurtseven did the photography”, and Budak “guided the field trips”.315 Yurtseven, who began working in METU in 1977 and retired in 1998, explained that he went to Istanbul with Cüneyt Budak, who was an assistant at the time.316 He expressed that after they took the photographs, for which they needed to get permission from the authorities, especially for the military areas, Budak and Özkan organized the exhibition.317 In our interview, Özkan explained that Cüneyt Budak should be remembered for the exhibition, and expressed that he took the cover photograph of the book with Budak,
313 Holod, Renata., Evin, Ahmet. & Özkan, Suha. (2005). Modern Turkish Architecture. Chamber of Architects of Turkey. (The second edition).
314 Cüneyt Budak completed his bachelor’s degree in METU, in 1980, where he later completed his master’s (1983), and his Ph.D degrees (2003). (Cüneyt Budak. In Kent, Kültür, Çevre, Mimarlık ve Demokrasi için Mimarlara Mektuplar. 131-142. (2010). TMMOB Mimarlar Odası İstanbul Büyükkent Şubesi.) Cüneyt Budak’s Ph.D. thesis was titled, World architecture: Local Practices and Their Global Context. (2003).
315 Özkan, Suha. A New Introduction for Modern Turkish Architecture. In Holod, Renata., Evin, Ahmet. & Özkan, Suha. (2005). Modern Turkish Architecture. Chamber of Architects of Turkey. (The second edition). p.2
Here it should be noted that in our interview, Suha Özkan expressed that Necati Yurtseven and Mehmet Ali Erkin were the people who organized the photographic exhibition. While Özkan and Yurtseven expressed that Necati Yurtseven was among the people who took the photographs, it is unclear if Mehmet Ali Erkin also went to site trips for photographing. However, he is listed among the contributors of photographs in the draft program of the exhibition.
316 Phone interview with Necati Yurtseven, 5 January 2021.
317 Ibid.
109
which became an iconic photograph of Şark Kahvesi (Sedat Hakkı Eldem, 1948-1950).318
The last two people that should be mentioned here are Sibel (Dostoğlu) Bozdoğan and Salih Memecan, who both completed their bachelor’s and master’s degrees in METU Faculty of Architecture and were pursuing their Ph.D. studies at the Upenn.319 In an interview, which was published in 2009, Sibel Bozdoğan explained how she went to Upenn for her doctorate, as follows:
“…As you may know, METU Architecture, and the University of Pennsylvania has a sister school status. Most of the faculty staff had studied there. We got very good knowledge on the architecture of Europe and America…My going to do my Ph.D. is coincidental. Since we are doing a biography here, which involves private lives, let me give you some more detail. At that period, I got married. It was not such a planned thing, but suddenly I thought, ‘Let me apply for a Fulbright scholarship’. When I got the Fulbright, I said, ‘Ok, I will go to do a doctorate’, but I knew very little, which is what I say now, looking back. I knew about Berkeley, and even though I wrote Berkeley, Fulbright told me, you are going to the University of Pennsylvania. I noticed afterwards that, Berkeley actually wanted me, but Fulbright sent me there, because Penn gave more money, and also Penn had a relationship with METU…”320 (Bozdoğan, 2009, 386)
Similar to Bozdoğan, Salih Memecan also went to the University of Pennsylvania through a Fulbright scholarship (Figure 20).321 Considering Bozdoğan’s statement, it is possible to view the two student’s doctorate studies in the Upenn, as a continuation of the connections between two universities. Renata Holod and Ahmet Evin (1984, 2005) expressed that, Bozdoğan and Memecan played an important role in the
318 Interview with Suha Özkan, 9 July 2020. Full interview in APPENDICES A2.
319 Holod, Renata., Evin, Ahmet. & Özkan, Suha. (2005). Modern Turkish Architecture. Chamber of Architects of Turkey. (The second edition).
320 Bozdoğan, Sibel. (Interviwers: Düzenli, Halil İbrahim. & Deniz, Faruk). (2009). Sibel Bozdoğan ile Ankara-Amerika Hattında Mimarlık Tarihçiliği ve Cumhuriyet Dönemi Mimarlık Tarihi Araştırmaları Üzerine. Türkiye Araştırmaları Literatür Dergisi, 7(13), 381-404. p.386
321 Frantz, Douglas. (2000). MEDIA; A Long-Distance Look at Life in Turkey. The New York Times. Published on: May 15, 2000; Accessed on: 03.01.2020; Available From: https://www.nytimes.com/2000/05/15/business/media-a-long-distance-look-at-life-in-turkey.html
110
organization of the exhibition; as well as in the preparation of seminar papers.322 Furthermore, Salih Memecan had also done the graphic design of the book.323
Figure 20 - A Newspaper Clipping from The Daily Pennsylvanian (A non-profit daily newspaper of the University of Pennsylvania), on Salih Memecan and his cartoons, dated October 2, 1981
In addition to the mentioned actors, Holod and Evin (1984) acknowledged several other people from Upenn for their help in the process, which include the “Acting Provost Louis Girifalco”; and Dean Robert H. Dyson, who was the “Acting Director of the University Museum”.324 They also thanked, Cecil Striker,325 who was the
322 Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press.; Holod, Renata., Evin, Ahmet. & Özkan, Suha. (2005). Modern Turkish Architecture. Chamber of Architects of Turkey. (The second edition).
323 Ibid.
324 Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press. p.vi
325 Here, it should be noted that Renata Holod expressed that Cecil L. Striker, “had a long - term project of restoration, conservation, study, and publication of Kariye Cami in Istanbul”, and that he knew
111
Chairman of the History of Art Department; and Thomass Naff, who was the Director of the Middle East Center, for their “moral and logistic support”.326 Lastly, the editors recognized the helps of David Underwood, in the editorial tasks.327 We can observe that it was through the efforts, contributions and connections between these actors, as well as the relations between different universities, the photographic exhibition and seminar on Contemporary Architecture in Turkey, 1920-1980 could be organized, and the book could be published, in the highly eventful historical conditions of the time.
3.3. The Photographic Exhibition and Seminar on Contemporary Architecture in Turkey, 1920-1980
The Contemporary Architecture in Turkey, 1920-1980, was a collaborative activity of the Middle East Technical University and the University of Pennsylvania, as briefly mentioned earlier, which consisted of two events that took place in the Upenn University Museum, that were, a two-day seminar on March 12 and 13, 1982, and a photographic exhibition that was held between March 12 and March 23, 1982. In the 2005 edition of Modern Turkish Architecture (1984), Suha Özkan described the event as follows:
“The two-day seminar was an important turning point in the history of University of Pennsylvania. All the sessions were well attended, even overcrowded with many participants having travelled long distances. The highlight was the sudden appearance of Robert Venturi and Denise Scott-Brown, who remained throughout the seminar and made numerous contributions., who remained throughout the seminar and made numerous contributions. Their participation was especially important, even though they were the ‘Superstars’ of American architecture and lived and worked in Philadelphia, no one had seen them on the university campus for over a decade. Their support greatly enhanced the caliber of the seminar. Through this participation a friendship developed between us that I have cherished over the past decades.
Doğan Kuban; Apdullah Kuran; Selçuk and Afife Batur. Holod expressed that, she had met the people through him. Text Interview with Renata Holod, 12 August 2020. Full text interview in APPENDICES A4.
326 Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press. p.vi
327 Ibid.
112
The exhibition was of the best quality that could be achieved within the constraints of the photographic laboratory at the Middle East Technical University. While it lacked the finesse to be expected of an international level exhibition in the early 1980s, it had an authentic, vernacular feel, reflecting what could be accomplished at the time in Turkey on a low budget.”328 (Özkan in Holod, Evin, & Özkan, 2005, 3)
Renata Holod, described the atmosphere of the event as fine and cordial, while also expressing that she was the one who invited Robert Venturi and Denise Scott-Brown, due to her “association with the UPENN School of Design, and their status as notable architects in Philadelphia, and because of the organization of the AKAA.”329 Furthermore, she did not remember having any negative feedbacks about the event, and stated that “the exhibition and conference were a first at UPENN and elsewhere”.330 Similarly, Ahmet Evin, even though he did not recall any specific moments, commented that the seminar was highly interesting, intense, and efficient.331
The reception and the opening of the exhibition took place after the presentations of the seminar on March 12, 1982 (Figure 21). Both the seminar program, and the invitation for the exhibition had a photograph of Ankara Palas printed on them, which was built between the years of 1924 and 1927, and was categorized as an example of the “First National Architectural Style”. In other words, the building that was selected to grab the attention of the audience of the event, was an architectural work that was built almost sixty years before the exhibition, in the early years of the republic. The selected photograph of Ankara Palas, which seems to be taken by the Sébah & Joaillier studio as part of their Album of Ankara (Figure 22).
328 Özkan, Suha. A New Introduction for Modern Turkish Architecture. In Holod, Renata., Evin, Ahmet. & Özkan, Suha. (2005). Modern Turkish Architecture. Chamber of Architects of Turkey. (The second edition). p.3
329 Text Interview with Renata Holod, 12 August 2020. Full text interview in APPENDICES A4.
330 Ibid.
331 Interview with Ahmet Evin, 10 August 2020. Full interview in APPENDICES A3.
113
In a letter, addressed to Ms. Gale Tomas from the University Museum and dated January 7, 1981, Renata Holod described the event, and its objective as follows:
“As part of the Atatürk Centennial Celebrations, the University of Pennsylvania together with the Middle East Technical University are organizing an exhibition and seminar on Turkish Architecture, 1920-1980. The exhibition will be opened on March 11, 1982, and the seminar will take place between March 11-13, 1982. The objective of the exhibition and seminar will be to acquaint the North American audience of architects and architectural historians with the changing architectural face of Atatürk’s Turkey and to place these changes into the broader framework of the history and theory of architecture in general. Turkey can serve as a significant case-study for these issues that are of crucial importance in the developing countries of today: the nature of national architectural development, the impact of the so-called international styles, the influence of architectural education and the changes in building technology.”332 (Figure 23)
Continuing her words, Holod also provided information regarding the organization of the event through the following statements:
“At the seminar, a group of architectural historians and critics will present views on architectural change in Turkey, its products and its sources. To do so efficiently and economically, our Turkish colleagues will prepare background essays on the major trends and key architects of this century. These will be available to the participants of the seminar beforehand. The presentations will not replicate the published essays but each contributor will briefly remind the audience of the salient points and visual data. Discussions will take place under general topics such as sources of design and style, changes in building technology, development of architectural education, role of building codes and master plans…”333 (Figure 23)
We can see several significant points in this letter regarding the exhibition and the seminar. First of them is the point on the “changing architectural face of Atatürk’s Turkey”, which implies that the architectural change occurs in connection with Atatürk and accomplishments that were achieved following the proclamation of the republic, in association with him. A similar point is later reflected in Modern Turkish Architecture (1984) as well, since in the introduction, Holod and Evin (1984, 3) stated that the book “concentrates on the architecture and the architectural profession of the
332 The quotation is taken from Renata Holod’s letter, which was obtained from the archives of the Penn Museum archives.
333 Ibid.
114
Turkey which Atatürk created”.334 Here, we can see a distinction between the pre-1920s, and the post-1920s since the event was focused on the latter. In other words, the phrase “changing architectural face of Atatürk’s Turkey” is also associated with the change from the Ottoman Empire to the Republic, and therefore with the ideologies of the corresponding periods.
Figure 21 - Invitation for the exhibition on Contemporary Architecture in Turkey 1920-1980, Source: Penn Museum Archives
334 Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press. p.3
115
Figure 22 - Ankara Palas Hotel, Source: Sebah & Joaillier Studio, Album of Ankara, Kanaat Kütüphanesi, Salt Research
The second point in this letter is the objective of the event, which can be understood in twofold, which are the representation of Turkey and its past through the architectural works that highlight “major trends and key architects”; and to acquaint the North American audience with the architectural production of a developing country as a case study, to better understand “the nature of national architectural development”, and “the impact of the so-called international styles” among other factors. Hence, the main objective of the event can be understood as to gain insight into the changes in a developing country through their architectural works, specifically in terms of the handling of “national architectural” developments, and “international styles”, and their products; and the factors that contributed to that change, such as architectural education, or building codes, and most significantly the establishment of the nation-state. This objective can be better understood through a letter from the university museum, where the photographic exhibition is described as “The major transformation
116
of Turkey into a modern, technologically developed country recorded in a series of photographs of individual buildings” (Figure 24).
Figure 23 - Letter from Renata Holod to Gale Tomas, dated January 7, 1981. Source: Penn Museum Archives
Even though the exhibition and seminar was part of the Centennial Activities, Danforth and Tachau (1982, 1) expresses that there were different types of events, which they categorized as “(I) special conferences directed exclusively at an assessment of the
117
Atatürk legacy, (II) sections about Atatürk included in conferences of broader scope, and (III) conferences occasioned by the centennial but basically dealing with unrelated topics.”335 Danforth and Tachau (1982, 13) categorized the seminar, under “Unrelated Topics”, which falls in line with İlhan Tekeli’s and Suha Özkan’s descriptions in our interviews, as they both expressed that the focus of this seminar was not on Atatürk, but rather on the architecture of Turkey.336 In our interview, Suha Özkan expressed the aim of the seminar, and its relation to the 1980s’ historical conditions as follows:
“…The 100th year event, the century that developed with the birth of Atatürk, I mean the military power would not exclude Atatürk in anyway, so much that he (Kenan Evren) was trying to take pictures similar to Atatürk’s, from the window of a train and such. But what they were doing was mostly the opposite of Atatürk’s principles, they strengthened Imam-Hatip schools; they put religion forward, and so on. They weren’t sincere. I believe there was an American agency guiding them, because I was in a jury with Kenan Evren in 1979, for the Atatürk monument in front of the National Assembly. He was a completely different person at the time…For example, he did not approve of the statues that portrayed Atatürk as a chauvinist; soldier; or warrior. He said, Atatürk’s greatest work is the Grand National Assembly, he should be civilian and peaceful there, there is no place here for war, horses, or anything. There were very successful projects. Actually, I left without seeing too much of that period.337… The event, as İlhan Tekeli also said,338 was something that explained how architecture was shaped through the structuring of the society and politics…”339
335 Danforth, Sandra C., & Tachau, Frank. (1982). Scholarly Meetings Held in Commemoration of The Ataturk Centennial. Middle East Studies Association Bulletin, 16(2), 1-13. p.1
336 Ibid.; Interview with Suha Özkan, 9 July 2020. Full interview in APPENDICES A2.; Interview with İlhan Tekeli, 18 June 2020. Full interview in the APPENDICES A1.
İlhan Tekeli’s views on the subject was mentioned earlier in relation to the Atatürk Centennial.
337 Here, Suha Özkan expresses that he did not spent a long period of time in Turkey in the 1980s, due to his work in the Aga Khan Architecture Award.
338 Here, Suha Özkan refers to İlhan Tekeli’s views on the Atatürk Centennial from our interview, which I shared with him. In our interview, Tekeli expressed that Suha Özkan found a niche among the “state celebrations” of the time, to achieve this event, where the focus was on architecture. Interview with İlhan Tekeli, 18 June 2020. Full interview in APPENDICES A1.
339 Interview with Suha Özkan, 9 July 2020. Full interview in APPENDICES A2.
118
In line with Özkan and Tekeli’s views, Ahmet Evin also shared his opinions on the subject, as a Turkish academic living in the United States, as follows:
“…There was also a dilemma for the United States. People in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee340 are generally against undemocratic coups, however, the State Department was not taking a stand against it. And, therefore in America, there was not the idea that this military regime was trying to present itself. But still, I expressed to somewhat reckless colleagues in America, that this should not be an occasion of Turkey’s political publicity, and that we, as academic institutions, should conduct out debate by doing things that could highlight Turkey’s issues. I stated that, Turkey’s, or the government of Turkey’s self-promotion is supposed to be done through that government’s media…”341
Figure 24 - The description of the "Photographic Exhibition: Architecture of Turkey 1920-1980 by the University Museum. Source: Penn Museum Archives
340 United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.
341 Interview with Ahmet Evin, 10 August 2020. Full interview in APPENDICES A3.
119
Özkan’s (2005, 3) explanation in the new introduction of the book, gives a clear idea regarding the objective of the book, as well as on the intentions behind the exhibition and seminar, since he states that they “have aimed to display the accomplishments of modern Turkish architecture with a particular emphasis on the way it has addressed national economic and social priorities.”342 Lastly, in our interview, Holod defined the objective of the event, as to “present hitherto unstudied and poorly known architecture of the 19th and 20th centuries to an American professional public.”343
Considering these statements; as well as the documents from the museum archives, we may state that, while the seminar was among the Atatürk Centennial activities, its objective surpassed a celebration of Atatürk and his ideas, rather, it was a representation of the past that addressed an international audience, with the intention to highlight the accomplishments of Turkey in the architectural field, while placing them within their larger social, political, and economic contexts. Here, it should be noted that, in the invitation letter of Renata Holod, which is dated February 19, 1982, we may see that there was a change in the dates of the exhibition, since the seminar dated between 11 and 13 March, 1982, was changed to take place on March 12 and 13, 1982 (Figure 25). However, the first part of the previous letter, where the objective of the event was explained, was mainly kept the same.344 Despite the change in the dates, we can see that the announcement of the university from March 2, 1982, still listed the exhibition to take place between March 11 and March 21 (Figure 26). Lastly, it is important to mention that the exhibition was re-opened between November 1 and 30, 1982; as part of MESA (Middle East Studies Association) meetings (Figures 27 and 28).
342 Holod, Renata., Evin, Ahmet. & Özkan, Suha. (2005). Modern Turkish Architecture. Chamber of Architects of Turkey. (The second edition). p.3
343 Text Interview with Renata Holod, 12 August 2020. Full text interview in the APPENDICES A4.
344 In the announcement of the Turkish Studies Association Bulletin of 1982, the objective of the event was also expressed through these words. Meetings and Exhibits. (1982). Turkish Studies Association Bulletin, 6(1), 32-33. p.33
120
Continuing with the event, it can be seen in the program (Figure 29) that the seminar was opened with the presentation of Renata Holod, one of the editors of the book, which was titled “Architectural Precedents”, on March 12, 1982.345 Her speech was followed with the first session of the day, which began with İlhan Tekeli’s presentation, “The People and the Time: The Social, Economic, and Political Context”. In our interview, İlhan Tekeli shared his memories from his presentation as follows, through which we see that Talat Halman, and Emel Doğramacı, the sister of İhsan Doğramacı, who was the president of the Council of Higher Education of Turkey between the years of 1981 and 1992, attended the exhibition and seminar:
“I remember that scene at the University of Pennsylvania. I'm talking on the stage. I had a blackboard behind me too. I'm talking by drawing on it. Of course, my English is an English learned practically as a student. But I was so enthusiastically engaged in this work that I spoke without looking at the paper. Talat Halman and Emel Doğramacı were at the meeting. Of course, it was a crowded thing, but I remember the reactions of them. They came to me asking ‘Where did you learn English?’, to which I responded, ‘no, I did not learn from anywhere’”.346
According to the program, Yıldırım Yavuz and Suha Özkan’s first essay was to be presented in the same session with İlhan Tekeli. However, in our interview, Özkan expressed that their two papers were presented together by Yıldırım Yavuz, meaning that the first essay “The Built Environment in 1900: Final Years of the Ottoman Empire” was presented alongside the second one, “Finding a National Idiom: The First Period of Turkish National Architecture, 1923-1930” essays were handled together. Özkan shared an anecdote from their presentation as follows:
“Yıldırım (Yavuz) presented our papers, he presented two of them together. At the end of each presentation, Brian Taylor, who passed away and was one of the editors of Mimar, made criticisms. Brian Taylor’s criticism was a bit accusing. I mean, he told Yıldırım, ‘your English is poor, your terminology is wrong’…Very aggressive.
345 In the preliminary program of the seminar, Renata Holod’s presentation was nonexistent. Rather, a “greetings” section was included, as the opening of the seminar. The preliminary program of the seminar, which was obtained from Penn Museum Archives, can be seen in APPENDICES.
346 Interview with İlhan Tekeli, 18 June 2020. Full interview in the APPENDICES A1.
121
Yıldırım is a very sensitive person. Moreover, Yıldırım’s English is the best in the Middle East community. I mean he was educated in Talas-Tarsus347, he studied in United States. Anyways, upon this, Denise Scott Brown went on the stage, there was a huge applause of course, since it was their first time in the University of Pennsylvania after a 10-year break. She said, these people brought here, to us, knowledge, it is no one’s right to treat them poorly. You may process, examine, question that knowledge, but you cannot insult. Furthermore, she said to Brian, I can tell you the eight grammatical errors you made in your talk, within the language criticism you made…”348
Figure 25 – (Left) Invitation Letter by Renata Holod, dated February 19, 1982, where the dates of the exhibition are changed to March 12 and 13, 1982; (Right) Note showing that the date for the exhibition will be changed to March 12. Source: Penn Museum Archives
347 Here, Talas-Tarsus refers to Tarsus American College (TAC). According to Baykan Günay (2019), Yıldırım Yavuz graduated from TAC in 1957. Günay, Baykan. (2019). Yıldırım Hoca ve Mimarlığın Bağlamı. In Obituary/ Anma. (2019). METU Journal of the Faculty of Architecture (2): v- xxix
348 Interview with Suha Özkan, 9 July 2020. Full interview in APPENDICES A2.
Suha Özkan mentions a version of this anecdote in the Obituary (2019) for Yıldırım Yavuz. Özkan, Suha. (2019). YILDIRIM BİR DOST, BİR ÖNDER. In Obituary/ Anma. (2019). METU Journal of the Faculty of Architecture (2): v- xxix
122
Figure 26 – Announcement for the photographic exhibition, as included in the University of Pennsylvania Almanac. Source: Almanac. (March 2, 1982). On Campus, March 2- March 14, Exhibits. University of Pennsylvania Almanac, 28 (22), 1-4. p.2
Figure 27 - Document showing that the exhibition was planned in two parts, first between March 9-21, 1982 and later between October 26 to November 21, 1982. The dates of both exhibitions were later changed. Source: Penn Museum Archives
123
Figure 28 - (Left) Renata Holod's letter to Gregory Possehl, the Associate Director of the University Museum, dated July 25, 1982, where it is expressed that the exhibition will be “re-installed for at least two weeks as of November 1, 1982 for the MESA meetings.”; (Right) Note showing that the exhibition will be re-opened in November. Source: Penn Museum Archives
Suha Özkan believes that Venturi and Scott Brown came to have a feel of the architectural atmosphere/ environment in the East of Istanbul.349 In line with his views, İlhan Tekeli expressed the following:
“Of course, Venturi's participation is important. Now, how can this be interpreted? Why did Venturi come to the event? This is a sealed box, and in it there are some people from Turkey, who will tell somethings. Presumably, Venturi has an opposing position to the dominant paradigm. And a peripheral country goes there and does an event. He would have wondered if there was anything there. Since it was not a usual thing to organize such a meeting, from another country, I believe he went to the meeting out of curiosity.”350
349 Interview with Suha Özkan, 9 July 2020. Full interview in APPENDICES A2.
350 Interview with İlhan Tekeli, 18 June 2020. Full interview in the APPENDICES A1.
124
The last presentation of the day on March 12, 1982, following İlhan Tekeli’s, and Yıldırım Yavuz and Suha Özkan’s, was Afife Batur’s speech, titled “To be Modern: Search for a Republican Architecture, 1930-1940”. In other words, before the opening of the photographic exhibition,351 in the first day of the seminar, the architectural production of the “Final Years of the Ottoman Empire”; “The First Period of Turkish National Architecture”; and lastly the period between 1930 and 1940, which Batur defines as “Republican Architecture”, was discussed. Before continuing with the photographic exhibition, we may look at the presentations of the second day of the seminar, March 13, 1982, which continued within the chronological organization and began with Üstün Alsaç’s presentation titled, “New Historicism: The Second Period of Turkish National Architecture, 1940-1950”; that was followed with, Meta Tapan’s “International Style: Liberalism in Turkish Architecture, 1950-1960”. The last session of the day covered Atilla Yücel’s presentation, “Pluralism Takes Command: Turkish Architectural Scene From 1960 to the Present”, and Yıldız Sey’s “To House the New Citizens: Housing Policies and Mass Housing”. Looking at the program, it can be understood that the audience of the seminar, who visited the photographic exhibition on March 12, 1982, became familiarized with the architectural production until the 1940s in Turkey.
In the exhibition program, which consists of two pages, we see descriptions for 67 photographs (Figure 30 and 31). In addition to those descriptions, there are five photographs of different buildings; an introductory text; and short writings that describe different periods of architectural production. Following the introduction text, the photographs are categorized under five periods, which are “Finding a National Idiom: The First National Style 1920-1930”; “To Be Modern: Search For a Republican Architecture 1930-1940”; “New Historicism: The Second National Style 1940-1950”; “International Style: Liberalism in Turkish Architecture 1950-1960”; and “Pluralism Takes Command: Architectural Scene Between 1960 and the Present”.
351 In the preliminary program of the seminar, we can see that the opening of the photographic exhibition was planned to be on March 11, 1982, which was changed. The preliminary program of the seminar, which was obtained from Penn Museum Archives, can be seen in APPENDICES.
125
Figure 29 - Program of the Seminar, “Contemporary Architecture in Turkey, 1920-1980”. Source: Penn Museum Archives
126
One of the first points that can be discussed in relation to this program, is the exclusion of “The Built Environment in 1900: Final Years of the Ottoman Empire” and the handling of the residential works under these categories, by not including “To House the New Citizens: Housing Policies and Mass Housing” as a separate section. In relation to the exclusion of the architectural production in the final years of the Ottoman Empire, we can see that the “First National Style” is dated between 1920 and 1930 in the exhibition program, whereas in the seminar essay it is dated between 1923-1930. In Modern Turkish Architecture (1984), the separation between the architectural production in the final years of the Ottoman Empire and the works of the “First National Style” is related with the proclamation of the republic in 1923.352 However, as it can be seen in the book, the dates of the buildings that are categorized as the works of the “First National Style”, go earlier than the 1920s, which suggests that the 1920s, which is associated with the foundation of the nation-state; the proclamation of the republic; and with Atatürk, specifically considering that the exhibition and seminar was part of the Atatürk Centennial activities, were used in the periodization to imply that, 1920s were the beginning of “Contemporary Architecture in Turkey”, as suggested in the exhibition title.
In line with this view, we can see that the final years of the Ottoman Empire was included to provide a contextual background in the seminar, but photographs of buildings from that period were excluded, which gives a clear idea regarding the scope of the exhibition. Further points regarding the focus on the period between 1920 and 1980, and its associations with the foundation of the nation-state and Atatürk, may be seen in the introduction text of the program, which can be seen below:
“Introduction
Turkey today is a republic. For six centuries, it had been the center of the Ottoman Empire extending from the Balkans to Egypt, from Mesopotamia to North Africa. In 1923, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk called the Turkish Republic to life, limiting its boundaries to the heartland. It was a metamorphosis from an empire with continuous political and cultural traditions to a nation state designed along western constitutional lines. It was a quest for modernity foreshadowed in institutions, organizations and ideas of past decades. Universities, technical schools, railways, industries and banks
352 Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press.
127
were being established. The modern professions began to be formed. European laws and lifestyles were gradually being adopted. And, a search for a particular Turkish identity commenced.
The reforms of Atatürk touched every aspect of life: language, calendar, law, property, taxes, clothing. The republic, through its centralized educational and cultural activities, sought to form its citizens into a secular egalitarian society. A newly designed school system, village, town and city clubs, films and newspapers were all agents of change. As a result Turkey was permanently transformed.
The public face of the new society can be easily read in its buildings. They are not only places for its activities but their form, the details of their decoration, and even their plans communicate its aspirations. Within the six decades of the republic, several styles can be identified but two constants remain. First is the quest for a particular Turkish architecture, an evocation of familiar forms, even in new materials of construction. Second is the quest for modernity, a desire to participate in the international idioms of architecture. These are two strands of the story, intertwining and coming to the fore in alternating rhythms.
This exhibition is an attempt to illustrate, in architectural terms, the results of the decision to establish a new nation state. How this state fared politically and economically seems to be reflected in the image chosen for its buildings, be they public or private. Many notable and interesting buildings exist, few could be chosen. Many talented practitioners could be singled out in a profession which has grown from two professional architects to its present size of twelve thousand registered members. Constraints allowed a small but, it is hoped, a representative sample.”353
In this introduction, first of all the mentioned connection between the nation-state, Atatürk, and the context of the exhibition can be clearly viewed, since the included architectural works are expressed to be the “results of the decision to establish a new nation state”. Next, we can see that the establishment of the nation-state is defined as a “metamorphosis”, and as a “transformation”, which is connected with Atatürk, who is portrayed as the figure that “called the Turkish Republic to life”, and whose reforms “touched every aspect of life”. This “transformation” from the empire to the republic, is expressed to be in line with “western constitutional lines”, since “European laws and lifestyles were gradually being adopted”. The “quest for modernity” in the text can be seen as associated with Atatürk reforms, and the establishment of the nation-state alongside new institutions and organizations, that are associated with the “West”.
353 The text is taken from the program of the photographic exhibition. Source: Penn Museum Archives
128
The next point in this introduction is the representational aspect of architecture, since it is stated that “the public face of the new society can be easily read in it its buildings”; and that the “exhibition is an attempt to illustrate, in architectural terms, the results of the decision to establish a new nation state”, whose political and economic processes are viewed to be “reflected in the image chosen for its buildings, be they public or private”. This representation, according to the text, operates through function since they serve for the activities of the society; as well as through form; details of decoration; and even their plans. In other words, architecture is expressed to be a representation of society, which is “transformed” through the establishment of the nation-state, and practices in relation to it, that are defined as in line with the ideas and practices of the “West”.
Regarding the architectural production between 1920 and 1980, it is stated that there are “several styles”, however, “two constants remain”, that are the “quest for a particular Turkish architecture”; and the “quest for modernity”; which are described as “intertwining and coming to the fore in alternating rhythms”. Suha Özkan resembles these intertwined shifts to a pendulum in the introduction of the draft program,354 as follows:
“…The religious and cultural heritage, belonging to the east, whereas the scientific, technical and economic affairs, depending almost exclusively on the west, caused the pendulum of culture and art to swing continuously between the two poles of the Orient and the Occident.
When we take the developments between 1923 and 1980 of the architectural scene into consideration, this movement, like a pendulum, can be observed as the governing pattern in the process. In cases where western modes of thought and forms of expression were exercised, the endeavor is to become universally valid, progressive and accepted, whereas the local forms of expressions are always reactions against the international indifference and meaninglessness. The meaning was believed to lie in the cultural heritage of Anatolia. The latter practices can be regarded as searches for identity. When we investigate Turkish architecture under the republican regime, for the period between its constitution in 1923 and the present, this duality of universality as opposed to identity can well be the guiding motive of our point of view.
354 The draft program of the photographic exhibition, that has an introduction written by Suha Özkan in 1982, was obtained from the Penn Museum Archives, which can be seen in APPENDICES.
129
A periodization, taking this pattern into consideration, seems to be appropriate to divide a long period covering the past 57 years in five major slices which become notable in terms of the duality mentioned above…”355
While this text did not appear in the final program of the photographic exhibition, it provides insight regarding the periodization of the exhibition; seminar; and the book, which Özkan relates with the duality between universality and identity. Continuing with the introduction in the final program, we can see that the development of the profession of architecture in Turkey were expressed to be grown out of two professional architects, to a size of twelve thousand registered members at the time. Even though their names were not included in the text, the mentioned two architects here are thought to be Vedat Tek, and Kemalettin Bey. The photograph of Ankara Palas, which was a work of Vedat Tek and Kemalettin Bey, and was included in both the invitation for the exhibition (Figure 21), and the program of the seminar (Figure 29), separates the introduction text, and the small description for the first architectural period, “Finding a National Idiom: The First National Style 1920-1930”, in the final program of the exhibition (Figure 30 and 31). The short text for the works of the “First National Style”, provided information on the architectural production for the period between 1920 and 1930, and was placed above the descriptions of 12 building in the exhibition program, as follows:
“Finding a National Idiom: The First National Style 1920-1930
The decision to transfer the capital from İstanbul to Ankara broke the ties with the Ottoman past. The new capital was to represent the modern state. To accomplish the task, four architects were called upon, Vedat Bey, Kemalettin Bey, İsmet Hikmet Bey and Guilio Mongeri. In İstanbul, they had already developed an architectural idiom, known as the first national style, to accommodate new institutional buildings to the environment of the old capital. Transferred to Ankara, this style became identified with the new republic although it was composed of familiar forms, which, ironically, harkened back to Ottoman architecture.”356
355 The quotation of Suha Özkan (1982) is taken from the introduction text of the draft program, which was obtained from the Penn Museum Archives. The words were underlined in the text, as it can be seen in APPENDICES.
356 The text is taken from the program of the photographic exhibition. Source: Penn Museum Archives.
130
Figure 30 – The first page of the final program of the exhibition, "Contemporary Architecture in Turkey, 1920-1980. Source: Penn Museum Archives
Figure 31 - The second page of the final program of the exhibition, "Contemporary Architecture in Turkey, 1920-1980. Source: Penn Museum Archives
131
In this text, we can see the emphasis on the cities of Istanbul and Ankara, since the former is associated with the “Ottoman Past”, and the latter with the “modern state”. The proclamation of Ankara, as the “new” capital city, as opposed to Istanbul that is tied with the “past”, can be seen to signify this change. In accordance with this idea, we see that 11 buildings from Ankara, and one from Izmir, were included as representations of the “First National Style”, even though it is stated to be developed in Istanbul by four main architects, Vedat Tek; Kemalettin Bey; İsmet Hikmet Koyunoğlu; and Guilio Mongeri, and then “transferred” to Ankara. In other words, included photographs in the exhibition stressed a connection between the architectural works of the “First National Style”, and the “new” capital, which was further emphasized through the statement that “this style became identified with the new republic”, despite the utilization of “familiar forms” of Ottoman architecture. Here, we may look at the descriptions of the architectural works, which can be seen in Table 1, to gain a better understanding on the representation of the “First National Style”, and on the period between 1920 and 1930.
Table 1 - Descriptions of the Architectural Works of the "First National Style" in the Exhibition Program357
Architectural Work
City
Year
Architect
Description in the Exhibition Program
1
Headquarters of the People’s Republican Party
Ankara
1926
M. Vedad Tek
An excellent example of Tek's personal style, symmetrical, with its axis oriented to the main street; its pink rubble walls were accented with articulated windows topped by tile tympana.
2
Railroad Station at Gazi Çiftliği
Ankara
1926
A. Burhanettin Tamcı
An example of the first national style marked by its prominent eaves. Though small, particularly important, because it was the station of Atatürk's model farm.
357 The descriptions are taken from the program of the photographic exhibition. Source: Penn Museum Archives.
132
Table 1 - Descriptions of the Architectural Works of the "First National Style" in the Exhibition Program (Continued)
3
National Movie Theater
İzmir
1926
Tahsin Sermet
Popularly known as the Elhamra Movie Theater, this building was built as part of the cultural policy to propagate ideas of modernization and national identity. Its dome and the details of its decoration are part of the idiom of the first national style. Presently used as a National Library Branch.
4
Ottoman Bank Headquarters
Ankara
1926
Guilio Mongeri358
The introduction of new institutions brought new building types. This bank is built along the lines already known in the old capital, İstanbul.
5
Agriculture Bank Headquarters
Ankara
1926-1929
Guilio Mongeri
The prestige building of the era, built around a central hall; an early use of reinforced concrete.
6
İş Bankası Headquarters
Ankara
1928
Guilio Mongeri
Located on a difficult triangular plot, this building utilizes the corner for an entrance composition. A reinforced concrete skeleton has been draped with an artificial stone finish. Accents from the Ottoman past can be found in its pointed arches, carved mouldings and a large portal.
7
State Monopolies General Directorate
Ankara
1928
Guilio Mongeri
On the same street as the earlier Mongeri buildings, erected for one of the major institutions of the time.
358 Architect Giulio Mongeri’s name, in the exhibition program, was listed as Guilio Mongeri. The names were not changed to keep with the originality of the document.
133
Table 1 - Descriptions of the Architectural Works of the "First National Style" in the Exhibition Program (Continued)
8
Ankara Palas Hotel
Ankara
1927
M. Vedat Tek, Ahmed Kemalettin359
Constructed as the social club and guest house for the Republican People's Party, it became the prestige hotel of Ankara. Popular for its modern conveniences, it was nevertheless the epitome of the first national style. Presently occupied by government offices. The original plans were by Vedat Tek; Kemalettin realized the project in accordance with his own ideas.
9
Evkaf Apartmanı
Ankara
1928
Ahmet Kemalettin
A housing block with forty rental apartments, shops and an auditorium built of reinforced concrete.
10
Gazi Teacher’ Training College
Ankara
1927-1930
Ahmet Kemalettin
The pioneering higher education institution in Ankara. A boarding school built with a college campus in mind.
11
The Turkish Hearth Building (Türkocağı)
Ankara
1927-1930
A. İsmet Hikmet Koyunoğlu360
The center for nation-building activities containing a large auditorium, a library on Turkish arts and history, studio classrooms, meeting rooms and exhibition halls. Centrally planned, built of reinforced concrete with an elaborately decorated stone cladding.
359 The architect Ahmed Kemâleddin’s name, in the exhibition program, was used as Ahmed Kemalettin or Ahmet Kemalettin. The names were not changed to keep with the originality of the document. Here we may also state that in scholarship, the architect’s name is often used as Kemalettin Bey, or Kemaleddin Bey.
360 The architect Arif Hikmet Koyunoğlu’s name, in the exhibition program, was listed as A. İsmet Hikmet Koyunoğlu. The name was not changed to keep with the originality of the document.
134
Table 1 - Descriptions of the Architectural Works of the "First National Style" in the Exhibition Program (Continued)
12
Ministry of Health
Ankara
1926-1927
Teodor Post361
The building introduces the new republican style into the new capital; no carving, no recall of historical images, just a massive presence built in a new area, Sıhhiye.
In Table 1, we can see that there are formal descriptions on the selected examples of the “First National Style”.362 Among them, the emphasis on the use of reinforced concrete grabs the attention, since it is repeated in four different examples, that are Agriculture Bank Headquarters; İş Bankası Headquarters; Evkaf Apartmanı; and The Turkish Hearth Building (Türkocağı). When compared with the descriptions in the draft program of the exhibition,363 it can be seen that this aspect of the buildings, the use of reinforced concrete, were all added in the finalization of the program, meaning that this was an aspect that wanted to be highlighted.
Aside from the formal descriptions, we can see associations with the nation-state, which is constructed through the function of the building. An interesting example of this is the description of the National Movie Theater, which is the only example that is not located in Ankara, where it is expressed that the building was “built as part of the cultural policy to propagate ideas of modernization and national identity”. Here, we can understand that the descriptions imply that some of the architectural works, such as a movie theater, was utilized to make changes in the social structure, in line
361 The architect Theodor Jost’s name, in the exhibition program, was listed as Teodor Post. The name was not changed to keep with the originality of the document.
362 For example the symmetry; “pink rubble walls”, and “articulated walls topped by tile tympana” in relation to Headquarters of the People’s Republican Party; “pointed arches”; carved mouldings”; the large portal; and artificial stone finish in relation to İş Bankası Headquarters; and also the central planning and “decorated stone cladding” in relation to The Turkish Hearth Building (Türkocağı).
363 The draft program, which was obtained from the Penn Museum Archives, can be seen in APPENDICES.
135
with the process of “modernization” in the early years of the republic. Another example, that should be mentioned is, Ankara Palas Hotel, whose photographs were utilized in the invitation of the exhibition, and in the programs of both the exhibition and the seminar. We can see that the building, which was stated to be the “epitome” of the “First National Style”, is not described through its formal characteristics, rather its function was highlighted, since it was “constructed as the social club and guest house for the Republican People’s party”, and then became a prestige hotel, and was “popular for its modern conveniences”. Another significant example here, is the The Turkish Hearth Building (Türkocağı), which is defined as “the center for nation-building activities”, with various spaces designed for these purposes.
In addition to the use of the function of a building, to construct relations between the nation-state and the architectural production in the period between 1920 and 1930, we can also see associations with Atatürk, as a key figure, was also utilized, which can be seen in the example of the Railroad Station at Gazi Çiftliği. It can be seen in the description that the significance of the building was paralleled with Atatürk, as it was stated that “Though small, particularly important, because it was the station of Atatürk’s model farm”. It should be noted that this emphasis on Atatürk did not exist in the draft program of the exhibition, and therefore was highlighted consciously.
However, it can be seen that the associations in these descriptions are not limited to those of the nation-state and Atatürk, due to the formal characteristics of the “First National Style”, which “ironically, harkened back to Ottoman architecture,” as it was expressed in the text for the period between 1920 and 1930. Consequently, we can also see that parallels were drawn between the example of the “First National Style”, and the “Ottoman Empire”. Examples of this can be seen in the descriptions of Ottoman Bank Headquarters, which is expressed to be “built along the lines already known in the old capital, Istanbul”; and also in the descriptions of the İş Bankası Headquarters, where it was stated that “Accents from the Ottoman past can be found in its pointed arches, carved mouldings and a large portal”.
136
Here, it is considered important to mention the example of the Ministry of Health, since it is included as the last example of the “First National Style”. However, as it can be seen in its description, where it is stated that the building “introduces the new republican style into the new capital; no carving, no recall of historical images…”, this example is treated as a transitional work of architecture between two different periods, since it is expressed to be built between 1926 and 1927, but does not have the formal characteristics of the “First National Style”, and therefore is not associated with the “Ottoman past”, rather is seen in line with the “Republican Style”. From another perspective, this also shows that the architectural works that were categorized under either architectural movement, existed side by side in the 1920s, and since the works of the “First National Style” had already became a part of the urban fabric, this co-existence continued. Before continuing with the next period, it should be noted that 1 out of 12 buildings included in the “First National Style” part, the Evkaf Apartmanı, is a residential example, that also houses shops and an auditorium, which was described very briefly.
Following the descriptions of the Ministry of Health, we can see the next short text describing the architectural production between the years of 1930 and 1940, as follows:
“To Be Modern: Search for a Republican Architecture 1930-1940
The ornate forms of the first national style were soon not representative of the modernity of the state and of its membership in the greater European community. New images were necessary. These were first supplied by architects of the Modern Movement, such as Egli and Balmumcu. Cut stone facades, ornamentation, tiles and domes disappeared, to be replaced by the cube-like forms and the simplified detailing of constructivism. But this style did not go far in communicating the institutional grandeur which was sought. The ponderous forms of Germany, first brought to Ankara by Holzmeister, were considered more appropriate for the public areas of the capital. The introduction of the apartment block completed the change in the built environment.”364
In this text, the representational aspects of architectural works are highlighted, since the forms of the “First National Style” were expressed to be in contradiction with the
364 The text is taken from the program of the photographic exhibition. Source: Penn Museum Archives.
137
“modernity of the state”, and that “new images were necessary”. Furthermore, it is stated that an “institutional grandeur” was sought in architecture, which was not achieved through “cube-like forms and the simplified detailing of constructivism”, but rather through the “ponderous forms of Germany”. Here, it can be seen that Ernst Egli and Şevki Balmumcu are put forward as architects of the “Modern Movement”, whereas the “Germanic forms” that were considered “more appropriate” for the “new” image of the “new” capital is associated with Clemens Holzmeister. It is possible to find the descriptions of 13 buildings in the exhibition program corresponding to the period between 1930 and 1940, in Table 2.
Table 2 - Descriptions of the Architectural Works of the Period Between 1930 and 1940 in the Exhibition Program365
Architectural Work
City
Year
Architect
Description in the Exhibition Program
13
Exchequer and Audit Department
Ankara
1928-1930
Ernst Egli
One of the three Appeal Courts, this building is an early example of the Modern Movement in Turkey.
14
Supreme Court of Appeal
Ankara
1933-1935
Clemens Holzmeister
A colonnaded stone portal with a wide pyramidal stairway is placed within a monumental facade. The image is reminiscent of nationalist architecture built elsewhere in Europe, widely exploited throughout the Quarter of the Ministries; this one is unique with its open top and fluted stonework.
15
National Exhibition House
Ankara
1933-1934
Sevki Balmumcu
An outstanding example of the constructivity style in Turkey, later remodeled into the Opera House with revivalist aspirations by P. Bonatz.
365 The descriptions are taken from the program of the photographic exhibition. Source: Penn Museum Archives.
138
Table 2 - Descriptions of the Architectural Works of the Period Between 1930 and 1940 in the Exhibition Program (Continued)
16
İsmet Paşa Vocational School for Girls
Ankara
1930
Ernst Egli
A simple straightforward horizontal mass with two sturdy towers on the ends; a pioneering example of modernism in Ankara.
17
Girls Vocational School for Higher Education
Ankara
1930
Sabri Oran
The colonnaded upper gallery forms an original frieze to define the upper edge of the building and is used as a recreation area.
18
Observatory of İstanbul University
İstanbul
1934-1936
Arif Hikmet Holtay
A bold expression developed through the influence of modernism, the accepted canon of the Republican Regime.
19
Üçler Apartment Block
İstanbul
1935
Seyfi Arkan
A residential block in one of the most prestigious quarters of quarters of İstanbul. Modernism--called collogiually kübik then-- was acknowledged appropriate to reflect modern life-style.
20
Bank of the Provinces
Ankara
1937
Seyfi Arkan
The modernism was the acknowledged image by the state: Arkan, the most prolific and the most successful practitioner, assumed the role of 'state architect'.
21
Central Station
Ankara
1935-1937
Şekip Akalın
The station terminates one of the major axes of the city. The Station Plaza is defined by the Vocational School for Railroad Personnel by A. Kemalettin and the Night Club by S. Akalin.
22
Central Station Night Club
Ankara
1935-1937
Şekip Akalın
The third element and landmark of the Station Plaza. The Square forms the gate of the new capital.
23
Tüten Apartment Block
İstanbul
1936
A. Denktaş
Circular and curvilinear lines both in the plan and in the openings mark this building as an example of cubist architecture.
139
Table 2 - Descriptions of the Architectural Works of the Period Between 1930 and 1940 in the Exhibition Program (Continued)
24
Ankara University Faculty of Letters
Ankara
1937
Bruno Taut
Bruno Taut's last work. The elongated facade of this institution serves as a monumental boundary line of the main axial street.
25
Sümerbank Headquarters
Ankara
1937-1938
Martin Elsaesser
Offices of the financing institution of state textile industries. Concave entrance facade defines Ulus Square, heart of the city then.
In Table 2, we can see formal descriptions of the selected architectural works were provided.366 While there are associations with the Republican Regime, here we can see the emphasis is mainly on “modernism”, which was the “new image” of the state, as it was included in the text describing the period between 1930 and 1940. It can be seen that “modernism” is expressed in connection with architectural works, through the mentioning of the “Modern Movement”; “cubist architecture”; and “constructivism”, but also by pointing to the “state” and the “modern life-style”. The examples of the former can be seen in the descriptions of Exchequer and Audit Department, which is defined as an “early example of the Modern Movement in Turkey”; National Exhibition House, that is viewed as an example of the constructivist style; İsmet Paşa Vocational School for Girls; which is defined as a “pioneering example of modernism in Ankara”; and Tüten Apartment Block, which is expressed to be an “example of cubist architecture” due to its formal characteristics. Among these examples, the National Exhibition House holds an important place, since it is the only building visualized in the exhibition program. Here, it should be noted that, while it is expressed that the building was later “remodeled into the Opera House with revivalist
366 We may exemplify this, through the “colonnaded stone portal with a wide pyramidal stairway”; the building having an “open top” and “fluted stonework” in relation to the Supreme Court of Appeal; “A simple straightforward horizontal mass with two sturdy towers on the ends” in relation to İsmet Paşa Vocational School for Girls; “The colonnaded upper gallery” in relation to Girls Vocational School for Higher Education; “Circular and curvilinear lines” in relation to Tüten Apartment Block; “The elongated facade” in relation to Ankara University Faculty of Letters; and also the “Concave entrance facade” in relation to the Sümerbank Headquarters.
140
aspirations,” in the description, the photograph included in the program shows the building before its conversion was made.
Regarding the latter points, the construction of the idea of “modernism” in relation to the “state” and to the “modern life-style”, three examples come forward, starting with connections with the state, we can point to the example of the Observatory of Istanbul University, where it is stated that the building was “influenced” by modernism, which is “the accepted canon of the Republican Regime”.367 This idea is further strengthened in the example of the Bank of the Provinces, since it was stated that “The modernism was the acknowledged image by the state”, and that Seyfi Arkan “assumed the role of ‘state architect’”. In these examples, we can see that the descriptions made connections between the “state” and/or the Republican Regime and through that with political ideology, and architectural production. In other words, the architectural works were viewed as representations of the corresponding ideologies of the period. Regarding the issue of the “modern life-style”, we can mention the Üçler Apartment Block, where it is expressed that “Modernism…was acknowledged appropriate to reflect modern life-style”. Here, we may note that out of the 13 buildings included in this section, 2 of them were residential buildings.
Another point in the descriptions, which is in line with the short text on the period since it mentions the search for an “institutional grandeur”, is the issue of “monumentalism”. A significant example of this is the building of the Supreme Court of Appeal, a building of Holzmeister in line with the short text on the period, which is expressed to have a “monumental facade”. Another point in relation to this example is the connections drawn between the building, and the “nationalist architecture built elsewhere in Europe”, implying that it had revivalist characteristics that were in line with the examples in Europe, but was different than the revivalist tendencies in Turkey,
367 In the draft program, the building was described as “A bold expression developed through the influence of modernism which became the governing style for the correct image of the Republican Regime,” however, the phrase "the governing style for the correct image of the Republican Regime", was replaced with "the accepted canon of the Republican Regime". In both draft and final versions of the exhibition program, it is possible to observe a correlation was constructed between "the influence of modernism" and the "Republican Regime", and therefore political ideology.
141
such as the utilization of formal characteristics of Ottoman Architecture in the preceding period. Another example on the issue of “monumentalism” can be seen in the description of Ankara University Faculty of Letters, which was expressed to serve “as a monumental boundary line”.
In the descriptions of the included architectural works in this period, we may see that any association with the past, at least with the “past of Turkey”, was avoided. This can be seen clearly in the example of the National Exhibition House, where Şevki Balmumcu’s approach is praised as an “outstanding example”, which was converted with the “revivalist aspirations” of Paul Bonatz. The use of the photograph, before it was converted, can be seen to support this idea, as well. In addition to this example, we can see a difference of descriptions between the draft and final program of the exhibition for the Girls Vocational School for Higher Education,368 since in the draft version, the building was described by stating that “The colonnaded upper gallery forms an original frieze to define the upper edge of the building which happens to be a traditional necessity,” whereas in the final version, the phrase "happens to be a traditional necessity" was replaced with "used as a recreation area", drawing attention to function as opposed to "tradition". The last issue that should be mentioned here is the variety of architects in the examples, which contradicts the short text on the period between 1930 and 1940, where only three names were put forward.
Looking at the last included architectural work within the period between 1930 and 1940, Sümerbank Headquarters, we can see that it was described very neutrally, and was not included as a transitional building. Following Sümerbank Headquarters, the exhibition program continues with the short text of the next period between 1940 and 1950, the “Second National Style”, where only 6 architectural works were included, as follows:
“New Historicism: The Second National Style 1940-1950
368 The draft program, which was obtained from the Penn Museum Archives, can be seen in APPENDICES.
142
The reactions to imported monumentality was spearheaded by Eldem and Onat who turned to traditional forms for inspiration. Their school did not seek to revive and repeat but to understand the concepts behind the forms. Proportions, plans and elements of the entire architectural heritage from the house to the great Ottoman complexes were used to evolve a new idiom in contemporary materials.”369
In this text, the first point that draws the attention is correlated with the preceding period, where it was expressed that an “institutional grandeur” was sought after and was linked with the “ponderous forms of Germany, first brought to Ankara by Holzmeister”. Here, we can see a strengthening of that idea, since it was expressed that the “turn” to “traditional forms for inspiration” was related with the “reactions to imported monumentality”, implying that the architectural forms of the period between 1930 and 1940 had associations with the “West”. Continuing with the “Second National Style”, we see two architects, Sedad Hakkı Eldem and Emin Onat, being put forward, as the one who “spearheaded” the reactions and turned to “traditional forms”. Next, we see that the text explains that the aim of the architectural movement was not to “revive and repeat but to understand the concepts behind the forms”, meaning that it was viewed as a type of interpretation of the “entire architectural heritage”, encompassing an array of different building types, from different periods. The idea of this interpretation is even more clear in the last section of the text, where it is expressed that the “proportions, plans and elements” of that heritage was “used to evolve a new idiom in contemporary materials”, and therefore carrying both “traditional” and “contemporary” characteristics. Despite the categorization of this movement as the “Second National Style”, it can be seen that the text did not draw any parallels with the nation-state, rather, the nationality was associated with “traditional forms”, specifically those of the Ottoman architecture. For further discussion on the issue, we may look at the descriptions of 6 buildings in the exhibition program corresponding to the period between 1940 and 1950, which can be seen in Table 3.
369 The text is taken from the program of the photographic exhibition. Source: Penn Museum Archives.
143
Table 3 - Descriptions of the Architectural Works of the "Second National Style" in the Exhibition Program
Architectural Work
City
Year
Architect
Description in the Exhibition Program
26
State Railways Headquarters
Ankara
1941
Bedri Uçar
The German monumental style promoted by Holzmeister is repeated here in all of its key elements.
27
İstanbul University Faculty of Arts and Sciences
Istanbul
1944
Emin Onat and Sedad H. Eldem
A building that symbolizes a new epoch in Turkish architecture: the monumental Ankara style has been softened by the addition of overhangs, a regional feature typical for Istanbul.
28
Atatürk’s Mausoleum
Ankara
1944
Emin Onat and Orhan Arda
Winner of an international competition. The Avenue of Lions leads to a large rostrum on which stands the mausoleum, itself inspired by ancient temple architecture.
29
Ankara University Faculty of Science
Ankara
1947
Emin Onat and Sedad H. Eldem
Another attempt parallel with the practice executed in Istanbul University. Various details of traditional architecture were used to cure the period of the indifference of the previous decade.
30
State Opera House
Ankara
1948
Conversion by Paul Bonatz
The progressive constructivism of the earlier version had been transformed in this rebuilding into an inventory of historic architectural details.
31
Taşlık Coffee House
Istanbul
1950
Sedad H. Eldem
The architect had utilized the forms of residential architecture, particularly that typical for summer residences built along the Bosporus. It is considered to be directly inspired by the Amcazade Huseyin Pasa residence of mid-eighteenth century.
Looking at the description of the State Railways Headquarters, which is expressed to “repeat” the “German monumental style promoted by Holzmeister”, we can view this example has a transitional role, between the architectural production of the preceding period, and the “Second National Style”. Considering that as well, we can see that the
144
number of examples for this period is fewer, compared to former periods. Contrastingly, two photographs in the exhibition program, out of five, belongs to architectural works from the “Second National Style”. First of those, Taşlık Coffee House, is not placed within the corresponding period, rather, it is the main visual of the program, operating as a cover photograph for the exhibition. In other words, it functions together with the title, “Contemporary Architecture in Turkey 1920-1980”, as a representative visualization of it. Here, it should be noted that the photograph was later used in the cover of Modern Turkish Architecture (1984), as well. Looking at the descriptions of the Taşlık Coffee House, we see that the building is expressed to be utilizing “forms of residential architecture”, specifically the characteristics of the “typical summer residences built along the Bosporus”. Furthermore, it is stated that it was “considered to be directly inspired by the Amcazade Hüseyin Paşa residence of mid-eighteenth century”. In this description, we do not see any direct connections with the “contemporary” aspects of the building, despite the earlier version of it in the draft program, where it was stated that the building was a “A contemporary interpretation of Amcazade Hüseyin Paşa's summer residence on the Bosphorous…”.370 Indeed, an overview of the descriptions for the included examples from the period between 1940 and 1950, we can see that the main emphasis is on the historical and/or regional associations of the architectural works, rather than their contemporaneity.
Examples of this can be seen in the descriptions of Istanbul University Faculty of Arts and Sciences, which “symbolizes a new epoch in Turkish architecture”, with the softening of the “monumental Ankara style” by adding overhangs, that is expressed to be “a regional feature typical for Istanbul”. Similarly, we can see that the Ankara University Faculty of Science is described to have “various details of traditional architecture”. In this description, we also see a criticism of the architectural works of the 1930s, since it was stated that those details were “used to cure the period of the indifference of the previous decade”, implying the existence of a homogenous architectural language in the preceding decade. Here, it should be noted that the
370 The draft program, which was obtained from the Penn Museum Archives, can be seen in APPENDICES.
145
description for the Istanbul University Faculty of Arts and Sciences in the draft program has a similar expression, since it was stated that the “building symbolizes a new epoch in Turkish architecture: diversion from the international indifference towards a re-definition of national forms of expression in architecture”, however, the phrase on the “international indifference” was removed for the final exhibition program.
Another example of the emphasis on the historical and/or regional associations, is the State Opera House, which was converted from the National Exhibition House that was included in the period between 1930 and 1940. Contrary to the example of the Ankara University Faculty of Science, we can see a criticism of the “Second National Style”, since it was transformed “into an inventory of historic architectural details”, from the “progressive constructivism of the earlier version”, which can be interpreted to describe a motion of going “backwards”. This idea is even more clear in the description of the building in the draft program, where it is stated that “The main current of nationalist revivalism takes over the progressive constructivism of S. Balmumcu in the hands of P. Bonatz to turn into a gallery of architectural details revived for the sake of a dignified make up for an esteemed activity of art, i.e. opera.”371
The last example, Atatürk’s Mausoleum, is expressed to be “inspired by the ancient temple architecture”, which in the draft program was referring to the “Hittite Temples”, showing that the historical associations of the architectural works of the “National Architectural Movement” were not limited to the “Ottoman past”.372 Furthermore, in the draft program, it was expressed that the wall-reliefs of the Atatürk’s Mausoleum depicted “the story of Turkish strife for independence and modernism”.373 However, both descriptions were removed for the final program,
371 The draft program, which was obtained from the Penn Museum Archives, can be seen in APPENDICES.
372 Ibid.
373 Ibid.
146
resulting in a rather neutral expression of the building. Here, it should be noted that the second photograph of the “Second National Style”, belongs to Atatürk’s Mausoleum, which is placed over its description, showing the “large rostrum on which stands the mausoleum”. Lastly, it should be noted that, the buildings included in this section are either from Ankara, or Istanbul, similar to the previous periods, with the exception of National Movie Theater in Izmir. Contrary to them, however, in this section no residential examples were included.
Following the description of the Taşlık Coffee House, the next period between 1950 and 1960 was described, through the following short text:
“International Style: Liberalism in Turkish Architecture 1950-1960
Major investment in construction programs by the government throughout the country developed and supported a modern building industry. All the techniques for building a skyscraper suddenly became available in Turkey. They were not long in being used in all their, by now, familiar variations. They became the image of modernity.”374
In this brief text, we can see that it was first pointed to the “construction programs by the government”, which was expressed to be the reason behind the development and support for the “modern building industry” in this period. Next, we can see that “skyscraper” and its variations were defined as the main trend in architecture, which are expressed to “became the image of modernity”. Similar to the descriptions of the former periods, here too, we can see architecture being treated as “representation”, which for this specific period is a “representation of modernity”. In this section of the program, we can see descriptions of 8 photographs in Table 4.
Looking at the descriptions of the photographs, we first see that one of them was an “Airview of Istanbul”, where the change in the “urban tissue bordering the Golden Horn” was related with the “introduction of the Atatürk Boulevard”,375 which had the
374 The text is taken from the program of the photographic exhibition. Source: Penn Museum Archives.
375 The route of Ataturk Boulevard began to be formed as early as 1923-1924, to widen the road in the area. The boulevard was opened with its current gauge in 1943 Güncüoğlu, Süleyman Faruk. (2010). İstanbul’ın Fethi Sonrası Kurulan İlk Semt: “Saraçhane”. Güzel Sanatlar Enstitüsü Dergisi, 22, 27-82.
147
“new governmental and commercial complexes” on it sides. The remaining buildings included as examples of the period, are all selected from Ankara and Istanbul, and no residential works were included. Indeed, aside from the Istanbul City Hall, that was a municipality building; Etibank Headquarters, which was not a privatized until the 1990s;376 and the air view photograph of Istanbul, it can be seen that the examples of architectural works in this section mainly belonged to private companies or institutions. The largest part in this section was given to Hilton Hotel, which was described as an “important model for hotels”. While it was stated that, an “international hotel form” made its appearance through this building, the utilization of features and/or details from “past architectures”, such as overhangs and internal courts, were also highlighted though one of the architects of the project, Sedad Hakkı Eldem.
Table 4 - Descriptions of the Architectural Works of the Period Between 1950 and 1960 in the Exhibition Program377
Architectural Work
City
Year
Architect
Description in the Exhibition Program
32
Hilton Hotel
Istanbul
1952, later addition in the late 1960s
Skidmore, Owings and Merrill with Sedad H. Eldem
An international hotel form makes its appearance in Turkey and becomes an important model for hotels. The public areas of the hotel were designed by Eldem to take advantage of the magnificent view on the Bosporus, utilizing overhangs and internal courts he had appropriated from past. Subsequent addition of eleven bays changed the proportions of the original building, which was a tower of rooms on a base for public functions.
376 Etibank was established by the instruction of Atatürk in 1935, which was privatized in the 1990s). Polatoğlu, Mehmed Gökhan. (2019). Atatürk Dönemi’nde Maden ve Enerji Alanında Kurulan Bir İktisadi Devlet Teşekkülü: Etibak. Tarih Araştırmaları Dergisi, 38(66), 444-478.
377 The descriptions are taken from the program of the photographic exhibition. Source: Penn Museum Archives.
148
Table 4 - Descriptions of the Architectural Works of the Period Between 1950 and 1960 in the Exhibition Program (Continued)
33
Istanbul City Hall
Istanbul
1953
Nevzat Erol
Its columnar base, its free form roof structures, its grid facade and recessed windows introduce the international style into the heart of the old city. The winner of a national competition.
34
Etibank Headquarters
Ankara
1955-1960
Tuğrul Devres and Vedat Özsan
State bank financing mining and metallurgy building placed perpendicular to the main axis of the city activated a nationwide interest in architecture with its concave facades.
35
Grand Hotel of Ankara
Ankara
1958-1965
E. Saugey
'The' Hotel for Ankara situated on the main boulevard opposite the houses of the Parliament. The facade treatment and angularity in plan are commonly associated with F. L. Wright.
36
Sheraton Hotel
Istanbul
1958-1974
AHE Mimarlık
The irregular topography and corner site on the Taksim Park was the opportunity for a dynamic angular tower and base, generated out of a play with triangular forms.
37
An Airview of Istanbul
Istanbul
-
-
The urban tissue bordering the Golden Horn has been changed by the introduction of the Ataturk Boulevard. Flanking the roadway are new governmental and commercial complexes.
38
Complex of Retail Shops
Istanbul
1959
Doğan Tekeli, Sami Sisa and Metin Hepgüler378
New premises for retail trade and small wholesalers were planned in a complex of low rise buildings organized around courts to blend with the small scale urban fabric.
378 Metin Hepgüler’s name was left out in the exhibition program.
149
Table 4 - Descriptions of the Architectural Works of the Period Between 1950 and 1960 in the Exhibition Program (Continued)
39
Emek Office Block
Ankara
1959
Enver Tokay and İlhan Tayman
The first curtain wall building in Turkey is also the first prestige commercial headquarters in Ankara. Colloquially known as the skyscraper it is the trademark of the new central business district of the city.
However, an overview of the descriptions for the period between 1950 and 1960 shows that the main emphasis was on the “international” architectural characteristics that were reflected through formal explanations, which can be viewed as in line with the short text on this period. An example of this can be seen in the description of the Istanbul City Hall, which was expressed to “introduce the international style into the heart of the old city” with its “columnar base, its free form roof structures, its grid facade and recessed windows”, in addition to the description of the Hilton Hotel, as mentioned. It can be argued that this “international” aspect in architecture was viewed in connection with the idea of the “West”, which can be exemplified through the description of the Grand Hotel of Ankara, whose “facade treatment and angularity in plan” was expressed to be “commonly associated” with Frank Lloyd Wright. Here, we may point to the Emek Office Block, which was defined as the “first prestige commercial headquarters in Ankara”, while pointing to it being known as “the skyscraper”. It should be noted that, a mosque seen in the background of Emek Office Block was included in the description in the draft program, which was described by stating that “The mosque in the background is the revivalist Grand Mosque of Ankara which generated a lot of polemics nationwide” and was removed in the final program.379 Lastly, we can see that no photographs of buildings from the period between 1950 and 1960, were included in the exhibition program.
379 The draft program, which was obtained from the Penn Museum Archives, can be seen in APPENDICES.
150
Continuing with the last period between 1960 and 1980 included in the exhibition, we can see that 28 architectural works were included, which means that around 40% of the examples were built after the 1960s. The short text that introduced the architectural works in that period can be seen below:
“Pluralism Takes Command: Architectural Scene Between 1960 and the Present
The number of architects and the number of buildings make it difficult to identify an overriding concern for a single architectural image. Instead, there are many, tied to the personalities of individual architects. Yet the two constants, the quest for particularity and the quest for international currency, continue to the present.”380
As expressed in the title of this period, in this short text, we can see that the emphasis is on a pluralistic architectural environment. However, it is also stated that the two constants – that were previously described as “the quest for a particular Turkish architecture”, and “the quest for modernity” in the introduction of the exhibition program – as the “quest for particularity” and the “quest for international currency”. We may look at the descriptions of the architectural works from this period in the program, to understand which architectural aspects were highlighted, that can be seen in Table 5, as follows:
Table 5 - Descriptions of the Architectural Works of the Period Between 1950 and 1960 in the Exhibition Program381
Architectural Work
City
Year
Architect
Description in the Exhibition Program
40
Middle East Technical University Faculty of Architecture
Ankara
1962-1963
Altuğ Çinici and Behruz Çinici
Planned along a central axis, the dynamic new university campus utilizes exposed concrete (beton brut) extensively. The Faculty of Architecture displays pavilion-type planning and brings in details of the Japanese interpretation of new brutalism.
380 The text is taken from the program of the photographic exhibition. Source: Penn Museum Archives.
381 The descriptions are taken from the program of the photographic exhibition. Source: Penn Museum Archives.
151
Table 5 - Descriptions of the Architectural Works of the Period Between 1950 and 1960 in the Exhibition Program (Continued)
41
Anadolu Club
Ankara
1962-1965
Ertur Yener
Vertical massing separates individual functions. Detailing quotes from several different styles within the contemporary idiom.
42
Social Security Council Offices
Istanbul
1963-1970
Sedad H. Eldem
Built in a triangular sloping site, this complex departs from the typical office block to use a series of step-like units, harmonizing with the surrounding İstanbul houses. Corbels, cantilevers, eaves and sun shades are the referents to the past within a modern structure.
43
Istanbul Chamber of Commerce
Istanbul
1963
Orhan Şahinler
The most powerful Chamber of Commerce in the country is housed in a building which fits into the waterfront of the Golden Horn with its small-scaled, cantilevered facade and horizontal silhouette.
44
Agricultural Products Office Headquarters
Ankara
1964
Vedat Özsan, Cengiz Bektaş, and Oral Vural
A new image for building in the Ministries District. Its precast curtain walls with a new detailing and the massing of its parts around a small entrance plaza became a significant model for future office buildings.
45
Istanbul University Central Library
Istanbul
1964-1981
Şandor Hadi and H. Başçetinçelik
A simple bold facade conveys the implicit messages of the Turkish architectural heritage which Istanbul University consistently maintained.
46
Military Museum
Istanbul
1964
Nezih Eldem
A container-look designed to protect and develop the surviving elements of the old military school.
47
State Waterworks General Directorate
Ankara
1964
Behruz Çinici, Teoman Doruk, and Enver Tokay
The glass curtain walls dispel the massiveness of the double corridor plan.
152
Table 5 - Descriptions of the Architectural Works of the Period Between 1950 and 1960 in the Exhibition Program (Continued)
48
Residence of the Ambassador of India
Ankara
1965
Sedad H. Eldem
One of Eldem's searches for regionalism; attempts at bridging the traditional and the modern. The accurate proportioning, meticulous detailing and long lasting finishes remain a point of interest.
49
Istanbul Advertising Company
Istanbul
1965-1969
Günay Çilingiroğlu and Muhlis Tunca
A low mass with its multiple bays surrounds a historic mausoleum in a protective embrace.
50
Middle East Technical University Faculty Housing
Ankara
1967
Altuğ Çinici and Behruz Çinici
L-shaped houses arranged around a courtyard to pay architect' due respect to traditional houses. This respect is further reinforced by reviving many of the vernacular details.
51
Stad Hotel
Ankara
1965-1970
Doğan Tekeli and Sami Sisa
The landmark of the sports center in Ankara. The tripartite vertical massing streamlines the exposed reinforced concrete into a building of slender proportions.
52
Atatürk Cultural Center
Istanbul
1965-1970
Hayati Tabanlıoğlu
An ornamental wall for Taksim Square, the transportation node of Istanbul; dark colors for the aluminum oxide finished and tinted glass were chosen to impart status to the building.
53
Turkish Historical Society
Ankara
1966
Turgut Cansever and Ertur Yener
The functions of the building have been planned around a skylit courtyard. Spatial values of the earlier medrese have been translated into contemporary materials and forms.
54
Ministry of Defense Dormitory
Ankara
1967
Şevki Vanlı
Dormitories accommodate students whose parents are Ministry of Defense personnel. The angular breaks define a plaza where the skyline is a flat plane.
153
Table 5 - Descriptions of the Architectural Works of the Period Between 1950 and 1960 in the Exhibition Program (Continued)
55
Hacettepe University Cafeteria
Ankara
1969
Eren Boran
The cantilevered room (cumba) with its blinds, a traditional module, is the central concept. This reinterpretation is an important example of the contemporary regional mode.
56
Karadeniz Technical University Sports Hall
Trabzon
1972-1976
Erkut Şahinbaş and Akgündüz Eronat
A wedge-shaped large span building on the endless slopes of the Black Sea coast provides a strong expression in accord with the setting.
57
Turkish Language Society
Ankara
1972-1978
Cengiz Bektaş
Offices built for the society founded by K. Atatürk and financed from his own foundation. The white projecting columns and mirrored glass with accurately detailed projecting floors distinguishes it as one of the important examples of modern Turkish architecture.
58
Güleryüz House
Aydın
1973
M. Yıldırım Yavuz
An exposed brick building defined in bold lines. The textural and structural qualities of the building materials, brick and reinforced concrete, are given particular attention.
59
State Highways Department Offices
Istanbul
1973-1976
Mehmet Konuralp and Salih Sağlamer
The dual functions of the complex are clearly expressed. Massive reinforced concrete marks the service tower while the offices tower is clothed in black glass held in black aluminum finishes. A prestigious landmark at one of the major intersections of the Istanbul highway system.
154
Table 5 - Descriptions of the Architectural Works of the Period Between 1950 and 1960 in the Exhibition Program (Continued)
60
Apartments at Göztepe
Istanbul
1974
Mehmet Konuralp
A cast-in-site skin of reinforced concrete envelops each of the two blocks. They stand at different levels but have common stairs. The successful proportioning of these elements has served to convey the overall impact of the building in spite of later thoughtless additions.
61
Tercüman Newspaper Offices
Istanbul
1974
Günay Çilingiroğlu
An attention-getting image for a popular newspaper has been sought through a floating horizontality. The cantilevering floors carried by eight massive loadbearing elements are taken to the structural unit.
62
The Bank of Pious Foundations General Directorate
Ankara
1974-1978
Erdoğan Elmas, Zafer Gülçur, and Ertur Yener
Headquarters of the bank that finances cultural heritage; seeks to revitalize various building components taken out of the traditional context.
63
Lassa Tire Factory
Izmit
1975-1977
Doğan Tekeli and Sami Sisa
The largest tire factory in the country, shaped with aesthetics of rounded corners and built with new petro-chemical products. Manifests a new, different, strong image, introducing a contemporary image into meaningless, often jerry-built industry building.
64
State Petro-Chemical Industries Headquarters
Ankara
1975-1978
Edip Önder Us and Yüksel Erdemir
Executive, meeting and office functions are defined in three independent masses and different expressions are sought for each. Presently, the building is used by the Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources.
155
Table 5 - Descriptions of the Architectural Works of the Period Between 1950 and 1960 in the Exhibition Program (Continued)
65
Is Bankası General Directorate
Ankara
1976
Yılmaz Sargın and Ayhan Böke
The tapering silhouette of the bank tower is an example of the formalistic concerns of its decade. The high quality of its construction and finishes are also part of the image of the bank.
66
An Office Building at Karaköy
Istanbul
1977
Günay Çilingiroğlu
An example of a new 'neat' building style with exposed reinforced concrete and black oxidized aluminum with black tinted glass.
67
Alarko Offices
Istanbul
1980
Sedad H. Eldem
Three sturdy masses on the Istanbul Freeway provide a strong point of reference which make the buildings memorable landmarks.
An overview of the descriptions for the architectural works from the period between 1960 and 1980, shows that the included examples were explained mainly by pointing to their architectural characteristics, whether by describing their “modern” features or to their “historical” associations. It can be seen that these ideas are often practiced by pointing to the forms; functions; and construction materials of buildings,382 where different degrees of “particularity” and “internationality”, the two mentioned constants, were put forward. While there are many examples that solely highlight the “internationality” of the included architectural works,383 it can be seen that a
382 Aside from the utilization of forms and functions, we can see an emphasis on the materials of construction in descriptions, such as the use of the exposed concrete in the descriptions of the Middle East Technical University, Faculty of Architecture; the Stad Hotel; the State Highways Department Offices; and the Office Building at Karaköy; in the use of aluminum or aluminum oxide finishes in the descriptions of the Atatürk Cultural Center; and the State Highways Department Offices; and also in the use of glass in the descriptions of the Turkish Language Society; and the State Waterworks General Directorate.
383 Examples of this can be seen in the descriptions of the Istanbul Chamber of Commerce, which is defined through its “cantilevered façade and horizontal silhouette”; the Stad Hotel, whose “tripartite vertical massing streamlines the exposed reinforced concrete into a building of slender proportions”; the Ministry of Defense Dormitory, that was described by stating that the “angular breaks define a plaza where the skyline is a flat plane”; or the Tercüman Newspaper Offices, where an “attention-getting image … has been sought through a floating horizontality”. The numbers of these examples can be raised in numbers.
156
significant amount of architectural works was expressed to have “contemporary”; “international”; and/or “modern” characteristics; as well as, “traditional”; “historical”; or other “particular” associations. On the other hand, none of the architectural works were defined solely through their “particularity”, meaning that they were all portrayed to reflect a degree of “contemporaneity”.
Among the many examples that highlight different degrees of both “particularity”, and “internationality”, we may point to the descriptions of the Social Security Council Offices, whose “corbels, cantilevers, eaves and sun shades” were expressed to be “referents to the past within a modern structure”; the Residence of the Ambassador of India”, which was describes as “one of Eldem’s searches for regionalism”, that “attempts at bridging the traditional and the modern”; the Turkish Historical Society building, where it was expressed that “spatial values of the earlier medrese have been translated into contemporary materials and forms”; or Hacettepe University Cafeteria, whose central concept is expressed to be the “cantilevered room (cumba) with its blinds, as traditional module” and is viewed as an “important example of the contemporary regional mode”.384
In other words, it can be seen that the general tone of the architectural field, following the 1960s, was expressed to be “modern” and “contemporary”, which was visible in their formal descriptions, while “particular” characteristics, such as “regional”; “vernacular”;385 or “traditional” features, was also highlighted, as a way to show the “pluralistic” architectural environment. While it can be seen that the “particularity” of an architectural work, was not defined necessarily through its “nationalistic”; or “revivalist” tendencies,386 we can see that the idea of the “Turkishness” of architecture
384 The numbers of these examples can be raised in numbers.
385 An example of the inclusion of “regionalism” may be seen in the Residence of the Ambassador of India. The “vernacular details” were mentioned in relation to the Middle East Technical University Faculty Housing.
386 We can see that different tendencies were pointed out, which was expressed to be “tied” with the “personalities of individual architects”. An example of this can be seen in the descriptions of the
157
was emphasized in connection to some examples. One of them, that can be mentioned here, is the description of the Turkish Language Society building, which was expressed to be an institution “founded by K. Atatürk and financed from his own foundation”. Continuing, we can see some of the architectural characteristics of the building was pointed out, and it was stated that “The white projecting columns and mirrored glass with accurately detailed projecting floors distinguishes it as one of the important examples of modern Turkish architecture”. Here, it can be argued that the inclusion of Atatürk, as a significant figure in this description, may be contributing to the construction of the idea or an image of a “modern Turkish architecture”, while mentioned architectural characteristics, materialize that notion. Another example, where we may see the connections between the idea of “Turkishness” and architecture is the Istanbul University Central Library, whose “simple bold façade” was expressed to convey “the implicit messages of the Turkish architectural heritage…” Here too, we can see a connection between the “modern” through the formal attributes of the building, and “Turkishness” through the “Turkish architectural heritage”, that can be understood as a very broad definition.
Continuing with the included examples in the exhibition following the 1960s, we can see that, most of the architectural works were from Ankara and Istanbul, with 3 exceptions out of the 28 buildings, that are Karadeniz Technical University Sports Hall in Trabzon; Güleryüz House in Aydın; and Lassa Tire Factory in Izmit.387 Among the 28 examples, 3 of them, or 4 if we were to include the Residence of Ambassador of India among them, were residential projects.388 The only photograph from the period that was included in the exhibition program belonged to the State Highways
Middle East Technical University, Faculty of Architecture, which was expressed to bring in “details of the Japanese interpretation of new brutalism”.
387 Here, it can be noted that the description of the Lassa Tire Factory involves a criticism, since it was expressed that the building “manifests a new, different, strong image, introducing a contemporary image into meaningless, often jerry-build industry building”.
388 The three residential projects in the program were Middle East Technical University Faculty Housing; Güleryüz House; and the Apartments at Göztepe.
158
Department Offices, which was described as a “prestigious landmark”, by pointing out to its architectural characteristics. Considering the emphasis of the “skyscraper” in the preceding period between 1950 and 1960, and the photograph of State Highways Department Offices, we may argue that the image served as a representational tool that highlighted the “modern” and “contemporary” tone of architecture after the 1950s.
Following the descriptions of the buildings in the period between 1960 and 1980, the contributors and organizers of the exhibition were highlighted in a brief text, through the following statement:
“This exhibition is sponsored by the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs through H.E. Talat S. Halman, Cultural Ambassador-at-Large. Prepared by Suha Özkan with assistance of Cüneyt Budak and Salih Memecan. Photographs by Mehmet Ali Erkin, Christopher Little, Yıldırım Yavuz and Necati Yurtseven”.389
While most of the names in this statement, as well as their connections and participation in the event was mentioned earlier, we may note that Christopher Little was an official photographer to His Highness the Aga Khan between the years of 1980 and 1983.390 Considering the photograph date; as well as its inclusion in the book, Modern Turkish Architecture (1984), it is thought that the following photograph of the Turkish Historical Society, or a very similar version of it,391 was included in the exhibition (Figure 32), which was described by stating that “The functions of the building have been planned around a skylit courtyard. Spatial values of the earlier medrese have been translated into contemporary materials and forms.”
389 The text is taken from the program of the photographic exhibition. Source: Penn Museum Archives.
390 Website of Christopher Little. Accessed on 17.04.2021; Available from: https://christopherlittle.com/life/; Official Website of Aga Khan Award for Architecture, Accessed on 17.04.2021; Available from: https://www.akdn.org/architecture/project/turkish-historical-society
391 The photograph of Turkish Historical Society in Modern Turkish Architecture (1984) has a slight difference of the people
159
Here, we can highlight several points regarding the seminar and photographic exhibition, “Contemporary Architecture in Turkey 1920-1980”, which was organized as part of the Atatürk Centennial activities, as follows:
1) Both the seminar and the photographic exhibition had chronological organizations. Five periods of architectural production were identified within the timeline between 1920 and 1980, in accordance with the shifts in two main constants, as stated in the introduction of the exhibition program, that were the “quest for a particular Turkish architecture” and the “quest for modernity”. While the photographic exhibition was organized around this periodization, the seminar included sections that were addressing the “Social, Economic, and Political Context”; and the architectural production in the “Final Years of the Ottoman Empire”. A section for residential architecture was reserved in the seminar, which separated “housing”, from the public works of architecture. We can see that the photographic exhibition was more focused on the architectural production between 1920 and 1980, where seven of the included architectural works, out of sixty-seven, was residential examples. Furthermore, no residential works from the periods between 1940 and 1950, and 1950 and 1960, were included. Here, we can state that the mentioned shifts between the “Turkish architecture” and “modernity” was represented mainly through public works of architecture.
2) Few contextual information and its impact on the architectural production, was included in the descriptions of the periods, as well as the short texts that described different periods, in the program of the photographic exhibition. However, in line with its aim, which was defined as an “attempt to illustrate, in architectural terms, the results of the decision to establish a new nation state”, it can be seen that, the proclamation of the republic; Turkey’s “metamorphosis”, or “transformation” into a nation-state, that was “designed along western constitutional lines”, in the 1920’s; the role of Atatürk as a key figure, and his reforms in different fields were emphasized. Since contextual information on the remaining four periods were left out, we can argue that the portrayal of the development of architectural production in Turkey, was associated directly with
160
the establishment of the nation-state, which fits the main intent of the exhibition, as mentioned.
Figure 32 – (Left) Turkish Historical Society, Photograph Taken by Christopher Little, 1981. Source: Archnet, accessed on 19.07.2021; Available from: https://archnet.org/sites/28/media_contents/9401.; (Right) Turkish Historical Society as used in Modern Turkish Architecture (1984), Photograph Taken by Christopher Little, Source: Modern Turkish Architecture (1984).
3) In the exhibition program, architecture, was viewed and expressed as the representation of two main notions. First of them, as expressed in its introduction section, was the representation of society, since it was stated that “the public face of the new society can be easily read in its buildings”. In other words, the “transformation” in the architectural field, was paralleled to the “transformation” of
161
the society, whose collective identity was “formed” through the Atatürk reforms, as well as educational and cultural activities. Corresponding to this idea, we can see that many educational buildings; architectural works that house cultural activities; as well as buildings of cultural institutions were included among the works that were exhibited. It can be argued that this representation of society through architecture, was also a representation of “modernity”, one of the mentioned constants, showing a linear process of development in the nation-state, whose formation was discussed in relation to the “West”. In other words, the architectural works were expressed to be representations of the society; “modernity”; as well as the modern lifestyle. The reflections of that development process were not limited to the mentioned places for cultural and educational activities; and institutions, but also to its transportation buildings; governmental and commercial complexes.
On the other hand, architecture was viewed and portrayed as a representation of the “national” identity, the second mentioned constant. In the exhibition, this aspect was expressed as a reaction against “international indifference”, as a way to differentiate “Turkish” architecture, from else. This “Turkishness” of architecture, was also handled as a “particularity”, and was reflected in the descriptions by pointing to the use of “familiar”; “national”; “traditional”; “regional”; or “vernacular” forms, not only in the descriptions of architectural works from the early 1920s, the period of the “First National Style”, but in many examples from different periods. While we do not see expressions matching this idea in the period between 1930 and 1940, they have existed in the draft program of the exhibition, which was later removed.392 Here, it should be stated that while the utilization of these forms were included heavily in the descriptions of the architectural works that were built after the 1940s, they are viewed as “interpretations” of “national”; “traditional”; “regional”; or “vernacular” forms, since the buildings are also expressed to be “contemporary” and/or “modern”, in their form; material; organization; or techniques of construction. In other words, they are
392 An example of this is the description of Girls Vocational School for Higher Education in the draft program, which was mentioned earlier.
The draft program, which was obtained from the Penn Museum Archives, can be seen in APPENDICES.
162
portrayed as “modern architecture” with “particular Turkish” characteristics, resulting in the distinct category of “modern Turkish architecture”.
4) The architectural works that were included in the photographic exhibition was mainly from Ankara and Istanbul. While there may be a practical reason behind this, since the photographs were taken mainly for this exhibition and required a significant field work, in addition to the academic efforts and contributions; the main reason behind it can be understood as correlated with the idea of the representation of “society” and “modernity”. The descriptions and short texts show that, the cities of Istanbul and Ankara, the former associated with the “Ottoman Empire”, and the latter “representing” the “new” capital of the “modern state”, was utilized as places of cultural; educational; societal; economic; governmental, and most significantly, architectural development.
Before continuing with the architectural historiographical context in which Modern Turkish Architecture (1984) was produced, it is important to mention that all the authors attended the seminar and photographic exhibition in the University of Pennsylvania. Some of the papers had slightly different titles in comparison to the book chapters, which may be seen in Table 6. The main observable difference between the titles, is the inclusion of dates, since, as opposed to chapter titles of the book, the examined years of architectural production were included in the paper titles of the seminar.
Table 6 - Comparison Between the Titles of Seminar Papers, and Chapters of Modern Turkish Architecture (1984)
Author/s
Paper Title for the Seminar393
Chapter Title for Modern Turkish Architecture (1984)
Renata Holod
Architectural Precedents
Introduction (with Ahmet Evin)
393 Title of seminar papers were taken from the exhibition program, which was obtained from the Penn Museum Archives, that can be seen in APPENDICES.
163
Table 6 - Comparison Between the Titles of Seminar Papers, and Chapters of Modern Turkish Architecture (1984) (Continued)
İlhan Tekeli
The People and the Time: The Social, Economic, and Political Context
The Social Context of the Development of Architecture in Turkey
Yıldırım Yavuz and Suha Özkan
The Built Environment in 1900: Final Years of the Ottoman Empire
The Final Years of the Ottoman Empire
Yıldırım Yavuz and Suha Özkan
Finding a National Idiom: The First Period of Turkish National Architecture, 1923-1930
Finding a National Idiom: The First National Style
Afife Batur
To Be Modern: Search for a Republican Architecture, 1930-1940
To Be Modern: Search for a Republican Architecture
Üstün Alsaç
New Historicism: The Second Period of Turkish National Architecture, 1940-1950
The Second Period of Turkish National Architecture
Mete Tapan
International Style: Liberalism in Turkish Architecture, 1950-1960
International Style: Liberalism in Turkish Architecture
Atilla Yücel
Pluralism Takes Command: the Turkish Architectural Scene between 1960 and the Present
Pluralism Takes Command: The Turkish Architectural Scene Today
Yıldız Sey
To House the New Citizens: Housing Policies and Mass Housing
To House the New Citizens: Housing Policies and Mass Housing
3.4. The Architectural Historiographical Context
The historiographical context in which Modern Turkish Architecture (1984) was produced can be understood by examining two main lines of architectural history writings in Turkey, which are the writings on the architectural production of the Ottoman Empire, and the ones of Turkey, after the proclamation of the republic. The publications on these two areas provide insight regarding the ideas that were previously embedded in various discourses, which may be playing a role in the construction of the narrative/s of Modern Turkish Architecture (1984) that are mainly focused on the architectural production after the 1920s, but begins by looking into the architecture in the “Final Years of the Ottoman Empire” in Yıldırım Yavuz and Suha
164
Özkan’s chapter. In this part of the thesis, the aim is to overview the themes and discourses that were already embedded in the books and studies that were produced before the publication of Modern Turkish Architecture (1984), to be able to understand if they were utilized in the book as well. In doing so, in this section, themes that were embedded in the historiography on Ottoman architecture, and on Turkey, will be examined, by looking at the scholarship published before 1984, as well as the historiographical studies that identified different themes and discourses in them. Here, some of the existing studies on “Ottoman Architecture” as a category, that were published before 1984, should be mentioned, considering that Modern Turkish Architecture (1984) involves a look on the “Final Years of the Ottoman Empire”.
3.4.1. Themes in the Architectural Historiography on the Ottoman Empire
Ottoman Architectural Historiography can be understood as an established scholarship, whose periodization is mainly based on the historical progression of the Ottoman Empire in its different eras of rise, growth, stagnation, and decline periods, in various books, which according to Katipoğlu (2014, 7), have been structured by giving titles to these periods, such as ‘golden age’; ‘apogee of power’; or ‘age of decentralization’ or the era of ‘decline’”.394 Accordingly, we can observe various themes were utilized to portray architectural production in different periods of Ottoman Empire, to describe architectural works that were built in diverse contexts. Before continuing, we may question “Ottoman architecture” as a category in the architectural historiography, since we can speak of diverse and heterogenious works of architecture built during different periods of the Ottoman Empire, and since the term fixes that idea or image of that category. While there are early studies and books documenting and writing about Ottoman architecture/s from European perspectives, Usûl-i Mi'mârî-i Osmânî, which is often viewed as the beginning of the architectural
394 Katipoğlu Özmen, Ceren. (2014). Re-Thinking Historiography on Ottoman Mosque Architecture: Nineteenth Century Provincial Sultan Mosques. Middle East Technical University. (Ph.D. Thesis).
Katipoğlu (2014, 7) specifically points to four significant studies, that are Bernard Lewis’s The Emergence of Modern Turkey (1968); Halil İnalcık’s The Ottoman Empire: The Classical Age 1300-1600 (1973); H.A.R. Gibb and Harold Bowen’s Islamic Society and the West (1950); and Stanford Shaw’s History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey (1976).
165
history in Turkey, is a significant example in terms of the representation of the “self” in the Ottoman architectural historiography.395
Usûl-i Mi'mârî-i Osmânî, which roughly means “Ottoman Architectural Styles” was produced under the leadership of the Minister of Education İbrahim Edhem Pasha, as a representational book that was prepared in three languages (Ottoman Turkish; French; and German), and published in 1873, to be showcased in the World Exposition in Vienna.396 Ahmet Ersoy (2007, 120) expresses the significance of the book by stating that the “authors of the Usûl were the first to locate Ottoman architecture within the broader context of cultural history and examine its course with respect to long-term changes in the history of the Ottoman Empire.”397 According to Ersoy (2000, 205), authors of the Usûl, “…defined and presented the Ottoman architecture of the past, with the expected claims for universal validity, as a viable and remedial model to be embraced by the contemporary architects of the Ottoman as well as the western world.”398
395 According to Kuban (2007), the first author that identified Ottoman architecture as a category was Fischer von Erlach, in his book Entwurf Einer Historischen Architektur, published in 1721. Another book that predate Usûl-i Mi'mârî-i Osmânî, according to Kuban (2007) is Charles Texier’s Description de l'Asie Mineure (1839-49). Kuban provides a detailed historiography on Ottoman Architecture in his book, Osmanlı Mimarisi (Ottoman Architecture). Kuban, Doğan. (2007). Osmanlı Mimarisi. YEM Yayın.
396 Oyalıoğlu, İlhan., Gündoğdu, Raşit., Ekici, Cevat., & Önal, Ebul Faruk. (2015). Osmanlı Mimarisi. Usûl-i Mi'mârî-i Osmânî. Çamlıca.; Cephanecigil, Vesile Gül., & Günkut Akin. (2010). Geç Osmanlİ ve Erken Cumhuriyet Dönemi Türkiyesinde Milliyetçilik ve Mimarlık Tarihi. ITU Journal Series A: Architecture, Planning, Design 9 (2), 29–40.; Durmuş, Serap., & Şengül, Öymen Gür. (2017). Mı̇marliğin Metı̇nsel Temsı̇lı̇nde Retorı̇k İnşa: Usûl-İ Mı̇’mârî-İ Osmanî. METU Journal of the Faculty of Architecture 34 (1), 107–31.; Ersoy, Ahmet A. (2000). On the Sources of the “Ottoman Renaissance:” Architectural Revival and its Discourse During the Abdülaziz Era (1861-76). Harvard University. (Ph.D. Thesis).; Nalbantoğlu, Gülsüm. (1988). The Birth of an Aesthetic Discourse in Ottoman Architecture. METU Journal of the Faculty of Architecture, 8(2), 115-122.
397 Ersoy, Ahmet. (2007). Architecture and the Search for Ottoman Origins in the Tanzimat Period. Muqarnas, 24, 117-139. p.120
398 Ersoy, Ahmet A. (2000). On the Sources of the “Ottoman Renaissance:"Architectural Revival and its Discourse During the Abdülaziz Era (1861-76). (Ph.D. Thesis). Harvard University. p.205
166
The book, which consisted of thirteen chapters, focused on eight specific architectural works, which were located in Istanbul; Edirne; Bursa; and Konya, that were formally described. 189 plates were utilized to endorse these descriptions, which mostly consisted of plans, sections, and detail drawings. If we look at the eight works that were selected to represent the “architectural styles” of Ottoman architecture, which were described in corresponding chapters by pointing to the era of their construction; the actors who played a role in the process; and most of all to their architectural characteristics; organizations; materials; and ornamentations, we see that, four of them are the works of Mimar Sinan (Architect Sinan),399 while another work is being described in relation to him.400 Continuing with the remaining three works, we see that the Green Mosque (Yeşil Cami) in Bursa, which was built in the fifteenth century during the reign of Mehmed I, is viewed as a precursor of “Ottoman Architectural Style”; while the last two works located in Istanbul, Ahmed III Fountain and Azap Kapı Fountain, both built in the eighteenth century, were included as later examples of the “Ottoman Architectural Styles”.
In the descriptions of Ahmed III Fountain, it is possible to observe an emphasis on “Ottoman architecture”, since the fine and beautiful art of the fountain “shows the skills and talents of Ottomans”.401 Furthermore, the “fountain” as a building type, and
399 The included works of Mimar Sinan are the Süleymaniye Mosque in Istanbul (16th century); Selimiye Mosque in Edirne (16th century); The Tomb of Kanuni Sultan Süleyman in Istanbul (16th century); Şehzade Mehmed Tomb (Tomb of Şehzade Mehmed the son of Kanuni Sultan Süleyman) in Istanbul (16th century).
400 New Mosque (Yeni Cami) in Istanbul, whose construction began in the 16th century but was completed in the seventeenth century, is among the eight selected works. In the book, the architect of New Mosque is expressed to be Arnavut Mimar Hoca Kasım (Albanian Architect Hoca Kasım), who was “an acquaintance and fellow townsman of the famous Mimar Sinan” (Ovalıoğlu et.al., 2015, 113). Furthermore, in the same sentence, it is stated that even though Arnavut Mimar Hoca Kasım could have given the desired and needed amount of size to the interior of the building, he couldn’t have made it grand from the exterior, specifically due to issues during the construction (Ovalıoğlu et.al., 2015, 113).
401 Ovalıoğlu, İlhan.; Gündoğdu, Raşit.; Ekici, Cevat.; & Önal, Ebul Faruk. (2015). Osmanlı Mimarisi. Usûl-i Mi'mârî-i Osmânî. Çamlıca. p.125
167
its ornamentation are highlighted as characteristics of “Eastern” art and architecture.402 This emphasis becomes even more significant through the descriptions of Azap Kapı Fountain, which can be seen below:
“Ahmed III had brought several engineers from France for the practice of new architectural techniques… However, since this situation led to French architects coming to Turkey with the eagerness to get rich, many French architects have come to Turkey. With this practice, Ottoman architects also showed closeness to the ornamentation techniques of the Europeans and began to implement this style. This situation, which can be stated with sadness, caused the Ottoman architects to forget the fine art, beauty and old ways and rules that they applied in Ottoman buildings…Just like the plants and trees of a specific climate that cannot grow in a different climate, it is blissful that European architecture method also could not settle in Turkey. Structures built with these methods remained only in numbers built by European architects.”403 (Ovalıoğlu et.al., 2015, 132-133)
Even though only eight architectural works were selected for Usûl-i Mi'mârî-i Osmânî, we can see two significant issues of discussion, which continues to be seen in the architectural historiography of Ottoman architecture on different periods, that can be summarized as the prominence of Mimar Sinan, and the idea of “Ottomanness” and/or “Turkishness” of architectural works, in their relation to the “West”. Necipoğlu (2007, 142) expresses the former by stating that “Sinan was first hailed as the ingenious codifier of an original dynastic style, worthy of universal status, in the Usûl-i Mi'mârî-i Osmânî (Fundamental Principles of Ottoman Architecture)…”404 However, we see that this was not limited to this specific book, since Mimar Sinan, as the “genius”, “Turkish” architect, became a significant part of the studies that focused on the
402 Ovalıoğlu, İlhan.; Gündoğdu, Raşit.; Ekici, Cevat.; & Önal, Ebul Faruk. (2015). Osmanlı Mimarisi. Usûl-i Mi'mârî-i Osmânî. Çamlıca. p.125-126
403 Ibid. p.132-133
404 Necipoğlu, Gülru. (2007). Creation of a National Genius: Sı̇nan and the Historiography of "Classical" Ottoman Architecture. Muqarnas, 24, 141-183. p.142
168
“classical period” of Ottoman architecture, since his works occupied “the highest point”.405
Gülru Necipoğlu (2007) points to various texts on Ottoman architecture, that were published after the Usûl-i Mi'mârî-i Osmânî, such as Ahmet Cevdet’s Tezkiretü’l Bünyan (Istanbul, 1315/ 1897); Auguste Choisy’s L’art de bâtir chez les Byzantins (1883); Cornelius Gurlitt’s Die Baukunst Konstantinopels (1907),406 and Heinrich Glück’s essay Türkische Dekorationskunst (1920); to emphasize Architect Sinan’s glorification in these texts,407 as well as to highlight the beginnings of the canonization of “Sinan”, and his works in architectural historiography. Numerous monographs and works continued to highlight the “modern myth of Sinan as the Turkish genius” for decades,408 in which the architectural production of the “classical age” of Ottoman architecture became synonymized with him and his architecture.409
According to Gürkaş (2010, 17), the emphasis on Sinan and the demonstration of the “modernity”, and “rationality” of his works, as well as their utilization in architectural
405 Necipoğlu, Gülru. (2007). Creation of a National Genius: Sı̇nan and the Historiography of "Classical" Ottoman Architecture. Muqarnas, 24, 141-183. p.172
406 Kuban (2007, 12) expresses that Gurlitt, who was an architectural history professor in Dresden University, prepared the three-volume book, by incorporating a photograph collection with his students’ survey studies, who were learning about the Byzantine and Ottoman architectural works of Istanbul.
407 For a more detailed analysis on the subject, you may look at Necipoğlu, Gülru. (2007). Creation of a National Genius: Sı̇nan and the Historiography of "Classical" Ottoman Architecture. Muqarnas, 24, 141-183.
408 Morkoç. Selen Bahriye. (2006). A Study of Ottoman Narratives on Architecture: Text, Context and Hermeneutics. University of Adelaide. (Ph.D. Thesis). p.96
409 Kuban, Doğan. (2007). Osmanlı Mimarisi. YEM Yayın.
Kuban (2007, 17-18) lists some of the significant works on Sinan as, Ahmed Refik Altınay’s Mimar Sinan: Hazine-I Evrah Vesihalarına Nazaran Sinan, which was first printed in 1924 and was published in 1931 as a book; İbrahim Hakkı Konyalı’s Mimar Koca Sinan, Valifiyeleri, Hayır Eserleri, Hayatı (1948); Sai Mustafa Çelebi’s Tezkiretü'’l – Bünyan; Ömer Lütfi Barkan’s Süleymaniye Cami ve İmareti İnşaatı (1550-1557) (1972).
169
history, are correlated with the efforts to “prove and highlight that Turks has a ‘beautiful’ and ‘competent’ architecture as the Westerners”,410 which may be understood in relation to the second mentioned issue in the Usûl-i Mi'mârî-i Osmânî, the emphasis on the “Ottomanness” and/or “Turkishness” of architecture in their relation to the “West”. We can observe that this idea reflected through the comparisons between the classical age of Ottoman Empire that often encompasses a timeline from the fifteenth century (after the conquest of the Constantinople in 1453) to the eighteenth century, which mostly incorporates Sinan as a significant figure, and the following decades of Ottoman architecture that covers a timeline from the eighteenth century to the beginnings of the twentieth century, which is often associated with the “westernization” process of the empire. The emphasis on the idea of “Ottomanness” and/or “Turkishness” can be said to operate in two different ways, or as a combination of them, in the architectural historiography. First observable way is the construction of a “Ottoman” and/or “Turkish” architecture, as a distinct category, in its relations to “Islamic” architecture, and/or “Western” architecture;411 and the second is conveying the idea of the “loss” of the “old”, “classic”, and/or “authentic” Ottoman architecture, due to “European” effects, which is usually tied with foreign architects or craftsmen, as actors.412
Regarding the former, the construction of a “Ottoman” and/or “Turkish” architecture, Nalbantoğlu (1989, 60) expresses that this was the first time, when “Ottoman
410 Gürkaş, Tayfun. (2010). Türkiye’de Mimarlık Tarihi Yazımı: Konuşmaya Başlarken Susmak. Yildiz Technical University. (Ph.D. Thesis).
411 Ersoy (2007, 17) expresses that, “…the Usûl constitutes a significant early response to Western Orientalist categorizations of Islamic art and architecture.” ,
412 According to Gürkaş (2010, 2), the discourse regarding the foreign and non-muslim architects is an example of negation. According to him, in the nationalist writings of architectural history, once the architectural works of foreign and non-muslim architects are seen and expressed as corruptions of our architecture, the notion becomes fixed and does not allow for further, different readings of them.
170
architecture was to be codified along aesthetic principles”,413 in which the “Ottoman past” was to sought to be re-evaluated, in accordance with the principles of “governing contemporary western architectural theory” that were the “national character and architectural order”.414 Furthermore, she underlines one of the important aspects of the Usûl-i Mi'mârî-i Osmânî, as the “beginning of a nationalistic ideology that was to dominate architecture in the coming decades”, in addition to the raising historical awareness of “Ottoman as well as Western architectural aesthetics”; and to the formulation of a “universally recognizable identity for Ottoman architecture”.415 Here, we may state that, Usûl-i Mi'mârî-i Osmânî was one of the precursors that evaluated and formulated a category on Ottoman architecture based on “nationalistic” ideas, in connection with the “Western” principles of architectural history, which in turn can be argued to have an impact on “architectural ideology” in connection with “nationalistic” ideologies of the period, as well as on the writing of architectural history of Ottoman architecture.
An early example of this can be seen in Architect Kemalettin’s 1906 essay titled Mimari-i Islam,416 where he examines the works of “Islamic architecture”, mainly through examples of “Arabic architecture” in different geographies, and compares their characteristics to those of “Turkish Architecture”s, which according to him, were developed in relation to the learning experiences of Turks in Anatolia, such as the ones from architectural works of Seljuk; Byzantine; Greek; and Ottoman civilizations.417
413 Nalbantoğlu, Gülsüm Baydar. (1989). The professionalization of the Ottoman-Turkish architect. University of California. (Ph.D. Thesis). p.60
414 Ibid. p.62
415 Ibid. p.66
416 Architect Kemalettin’s essays were compiled together by İlhan Tekeli and Selim İlkin, and was published as a book titled Mimar Kemalettin’in Yazdıkları (Writings of Architect Kemalettin), in 1997.
417 Mimar Kemalettin. (1906). “Mimari-i İslam. Hüdevendigar Vilayeti Salname-i Resmisi, 33. Defa, Bursa, 142-187”. In Tekeli, İlhan. & İlkin, Selim. (1997). Mimar Kemalettin’in Yazdıkları. Tisamat Basım Sanayii.
171
Another key person in terms of conveying of the idea of “Turkishness” can be understood as Celal Esad Arseven,418 whom according to Bozdoğan (2007) was the most paradigmatic figure in the shaping of the republican nationalistic views on the Ottoman and the pre-Ottoman Turkish art and architecture, through his book Türk Sanatı (Turkish Art)(1928).419 Bozdoğan explains that beginning with his book, and with the formulation of Turkish History Thesis of 1932,420 Arseven “played a leading role in establishing the Turkishness of Ottoman architecture as its originary and defining character”.421
Turkish History Thesis, which emerged in the beginning of the 1930s, was a significant development, since it was the formulation of the official history of the new nation-state that responded to the need of a “Turkish” centered history, where its processes of “nationalization”; “modernization”; and “secularization” were highlighted.422 According to Ersanlı (2002, 115-116), this new official line in historiography was based on six main assumptions:
418 We see that Celal Esad Arseven, was among the first architectural historians of the republic, who taught in the Academy of Fine Arts (Sanayi-i Nefise Mektebi) between the years of 1920 and 1941, and his book, Constantinople de Byzance à Stamboul (1909), was the earliest book written by a Turkish author, which according to Necipoğlu, (2007, 161) utilized Usûl-i Mi'mârî-i Osmânî for the section on Ottoman architecture. Arseven authored many books and booklets on art; architecture; and city planning, including, Eski İstanbul abidat ve mebanisi: şehrin tesisinden Osmanlı fethine kadar (1328/ 1912) originally published as Constantinople, de Byzance à Stamboul (Eyice, 1972); Istılahat-ı mimariyye (1324/ 1908); Eski Galata ve binaları (1329/ 1913), and Türk Sanatı (1928)
Eyice, Semavi. (1972). Celal Esad Arseven (1875-1971). Türk Tarih Kurumu, Belleten, XXXVI, 142, 173-201.
419 Bozdoğan, Sibel. (2007). Reading Ottoman Architecture Through Modernist Lenses: Nationalist Historiography and the ‘New Architecture’ in the Early Republic. Muqarnas, 24, 199-221.
420 Ibid. Sibel Bozdoğan (2007) expresses that Celal Esad Arseven was among the scientific committee members that formulated the Turkish History Thesis.
421 Ibid. p.202
422 Satan, Ali. (2013). Avrupamerkezcilik ve Türk Tarihi Tezi. Human & Society / İnsan ve Toplum, 3(6), 333-342.
172
“1. Ottoman history is insufficient to explain the origins of the people of the new Republic; for while modern Turkey is a national state, Ottoman society consisted of a wide variety of ethnic groups.
2. Turkic history goes back to pre-Ottoman and pre-Islamic times; Central Asian Turks migrated to Anatolia and the Middle East in general, thus establishing links between their old and new homes.
3. Turkic peoples have created the most ancient civilization of the world, which has influenced all other notable cultures.
4. The Turks have no connection with the 'yellow race' or with the Mongols; quite to the contrary, as Aryans, they belong to the white race.
5. Except during the period of expansion between 1450 and 1600, Ottoman political life showed grave defects; in the later stages, and especially during the last two centuries of the Empire's existence, 'corruption' was rife.
6. A revolutionary break therefore became necessary, politically as well as culturally.”423 (Ersanlı, 2002, 115-116)
Ersanlı (2002) explains that even though, Turkish historians in the early Republican period had various approaches to the Ottoman world, which involved various interpretations of “Turkish Nationalism”, most historians followed the official line of history, especially after the second half of the 1930s.424 The first ideas on Ottoman identity, from a republican point of view, were also developed during the 1920s and particularly in the 1930s, when the new nation-state “distanced” itself from the Ottoman past.425 However, the “discontinuity” between the Ottoman Empire and the republican regime constituted a problem, since the Turks, the people of the newly founded nation-state, required a national identity as historical subjects, which was solved by utilizing Ziya Gökalp’s “value-oriented history”, that promoted “the ideal of a broadly defined Turkic community”.426
423 Ersanlı, Büşra. “The Ottoman Empire in the Historiography of the Kemalist Era: A Theory of Fatal Decline”. In Adanır, Fikret, and Suraiya Faroqhi. (2002). The Ottomans and the Balkans: A Discussion of Historiography. Ottoman Empire and Its Heritage. Brill. p.115-116
424 Ibid.
425 Ibid.
426 Ibid.
173
Accordingly, Ottoman architecture was re-framed from a republican point of view, which according to Bozdoğan (2007, 202), occurred through “the establishment of a Turkic genealogy for it – a national ‘essence’ distinguishing it from Byzantine as well as other Islamic architectures and linking it to the much longer history of Turkic peoples going back to prehistoric civilizations of Central Asia”.427 She explains that, in the republican writings, Ottoman history was “nationalized”, and that “Ottoman architecture became a ‘Turkish’ architecture’…”.428 Examples of identifying “Ottoman architecture” as “Turkish architecture”, can be seen in many writings, specifically in the articles of the first architectural journal of Turkey Mimar (1931-1935), whose name was later changed to Arkitekt in 1936.429 According to Bozdoğan (2007, 210), writings produced in the republican period, on Ottoman architecture, relied on “conceptual, analytical, and methodological premises”, specifically on typology, which allowed authors “to situate Ottoman forms within a national discourse”.430 However, in their identifications of a “Turkish architecture”, it is possible to observe that many authors utilized Eurocentric categories and definitions of architecture, as ways to differentiate Turkish art and architecture, from else, which corresponds to the formulations in Usûl-i Mi'mârî-i Osmânî.431 In this process we can see that binary oppositions, such as the one between the “Western” and the
427 Bozdoğan, Sibel. (2007). Reading Ottoman Architecture Through Modernist Lenses: Nationalist Historiography and the ‘New Architecture’ in the Early Republic. Muqarnas, 24, 199-221. p.202
428 Ibid. p.202
429 Among these examples, we can mention B.O. Celal. (1932). Mimar Sinan ve Ekolü. Mimar, 4(16). 111-112; Bedrettin Hamdi & Behçet Sırrı. (1932). Mimar Sinan’ın Aziz Ruhuna: Türk Mimarisi. Mimar, 4(16), 114-115.; B.O. Celal. (1933). Türk Sanatı. Mimar, 7(31), 219-220.; Aptullah Ziya. (1934). Sanatta Nasyonalizm. Mimar, 2(38), 51-54.; Abidin Mortaş. (1941). Modern Türk Mimarisi. Arkitekt, 05-06(126), 115-116.; Özışık Talat. (1946). Mimar Koca Sinan. Arkitekt, 03-04(171-172), 71-73.; Tahsin Öz. (1957). Süleymaniye’nin İnşasının 400 üncü Yıldönümü. Arkitekt, 04(289), 167-171.
430 Bozdoğan, Sibel. (2007). Reading Ottoman Architecture Through Modernist Lenses: Nationalist Historiography and the ‘New Architecture’ in the Early Republic. Muqarnas, 24, 199-221. p.210
431 Ibid.
174
“Oriental”,432 began to come forward as well, as ways to construct difference between the “self” and the “other”.
Here, we may continue with the second issue of discussion that can be seen in Usûl-i Mi'mârî-i Osmânî, conveying the idea of the “loss” of the “old”, “classic”, and/or “authentic” Ottoman architecture due to “European” correlations, a notion which Shirine Hamadeh (2007, 186) defines as “the belief in the foreign (Western) contamination of Ottoman art (and, more generally ‘Islamic’ art) from the eighteenth century onward”.433 According to Hamadeh (2007, 187), Arseven played a significant role in the dissemination of this idea in the architectural historiography of Turkey, similar to his significancy in the establishing of the “Turkishness” of “Ottoman architecture”, as he deplored “not simply the loss of the principles of Ottoman art but also the loss of its national distinctiveness”.434 We can see early examples of this notion in the articles of the journal Mimar. Among them, we may refer to an anonymous article (1933-9-10, 263), where it was expressed that degenerated arts were the dominant art during these times such as baroque and empire (ampir), and the following was stated:
“Although it showed Islamic and Arabic influences, Ottoman art was an entity of its own. It was so advanced that it raised masterminds in the field of art which can be only understood today. However, this grand art was shaken to the core with the influences of western art, brought through the projects by the French ambassador to the sultan in Sâdabat, during the Tulip period.”435
432 Bozdoğan, Sibel. (2007). Reading Ottoman Architecture Through Modernist Lenses: Nationalist Historiography and the ‘New Architecture’ in the Early Republic. Muqarnas, 24, 199-221.
433 Hamadeh, Shirine. (2007). Westernization, Decadence, and the Turkish Baroque: Modern Constructions of the Eighteenth Century. Muqarnas, 24, 185-197. p.186
434 Ibid. p.187
435 Anonymous. (1933). Cumhuriyetin On Senelik San'at Hayatı. Mimar, 9-10, 263-264.
175
In another article by B.O.Celal (1932,33), it was stated that “In the last century of Ottoman Empire, national art was replaced with western art in the forms of baroque, rococo, and renaissance.”436 Similarly, Aptullah Ziya (1934-2, 51-52) stated the following,
“Tulip period was followed with the baroque period, when we were fully under the influence of Europe… An art with a confused character, that did not know what it expressed was dominant in the country… Abdülâziz period was a time when the country started to collapse completely, there were no more baroque, no more empire, the country had arrived at a state where it couldn’t even imitate anymore.”437 (Aptullah Ziya, 1934-2, 51-52)
While the idea of this “contamination” of Ottoman architecture through “Western influences” can be traced in many books,438 here we may note that, the notion was re-interpreted in relation to a process of “Westernization”, which was viewed as the “principal agent of architectural change in the eighteenth century”, in the 1970s.439
As a summary, it is possible to observe that “nationalist” views in the writing of architectural historiography was already established in the late nineteenth century, as it can be seen in the example of Usûl-i Mi'mârî-i Osmânî, which brought dualities such as the “Oriental” and the “West” alongside them, as part of the evaluations and discussions on the relations between the Ottoman Empire and the “West”. In these
436 B.O.Celal. (1932). Ankara Tayyare Abidesi Münasebetile. Mimar, 2, 33-34.
437 Aptullah Ziya. (1934). Sanatta Nasyonalizm. Mimar, 2, 14-20. p.51-52
438 The “Western influences” on Ottoman architecture in the eighteenth century and onwards, were mainly presented as Baroque or Rococo in the architectural historiography of Turkey. One of the earlier works we can see this presentation is Doğan Kuban’s essay, Türk Barok Mimarisi Hakkında bir Deneme (1954), where he analyzes the characteristics of “Ottoman architecture”, mainly in the eighteenth century, in relation to Baroque and Rococo, and to “foreign” artists, engineers, and architects who “brought them”. Kuban, Doğan. (1954). Türk Barok Mimarisi Hakkında bir Deneme. Istanbul Technical University. (Ph.D. Proficiency Essay).
439 Hamadeh, Shirine. (2007). Westernization, Decadence, and the Turkish Baroque: Modern Constructions of the Eighteenth Century. Muqarnas, 24, 185-197. p.194
176
discussions, the “Ottomanness” and/or “Turkishness” of architecture became a significant part of the narrative of “Ottoman architecture”, in which Architect Sinan and his works; and the architectural production in the “classical” period of Ottoman architecture was praised; and the “Western influences” following that era was viewed as “contamination” of the “Ottoman architecture”. It is possible to observe that this “nationalist” writing of architectural history continued to have a place in writings that focused on the period after the proclamation of the republic, with the re-interpretation; re-contextualization of some of these notions; and with the addition of “new” concepts to the equation.
3.4.2. Themes in the Architectural Historiography of Turkey
Prior to the publication of Modern Turkish Architecture (1984), there were not many books that encompassed as many different periods of architecture in Turkey, since architectural history studies gained its momentum only after the 1960s, whose number began to grow increasingly after the 1970s.440 In those studies, the proclamation of the republic in 1923; and the change from the Ottoman Empire to the new nation-state marked historical turning points. The main architectural production between the early 1900s and 1930s, which corresponded to these changes, were often viewed as the works of the “First National Architectural Movement”. While there are studies that focus solely on the architectural production of the “First National Style”, the descriptions and construction of the architecture of the period began to hold a significant place in many architectural history books that examined later periods, as well, in which it functioned as a ground of comparison to what preceded and followed it, while also providing a contextual background. In other words, the writings on the architecture of the “First National Architectural Movement” worked as a transitional tool to identify a “new” national identity, as it was historically positioned in a timeline between the Empire and Republic, and ideologically between “Nationalism”; “Westernization”; and “Modernization”.
440 Altan Ergut, Elvan. (2009). Cumhuriyet Dönemi Mimarlığı: Tanımlar, Sınırlar, Olanaklar. Türkiye Araştırmaları Literatür Dergisi, 7(13), 121-130.
177
According to Elvan Altan Ergut (1998, 123) “The ‘First National Architectural Movement’ represents the usage of formal elements with explicit reference to “Ottoman classical architecture”, where in the ideological atmosphere of Turkey of the period, the approach to architecture could be understood as a “kind of reconciliation between Turkey and the ‘West’”.441 This reconciliation was compatible with the ideology of “Turkish Nationalism”, which came to take a significant place in the architectural historiography of Turkey, alongside the dualist cultural theory of Ziya Gökalp,442 who was the chief ideologue of the Committee of Union and Progress (CUP) and a member of its central committee Merkez-i Umumi.443 Ziya Gökalp’s views on two concepts, Hars (Culture) and Medeniyet (Civilization),444 which can be seen in his book Türkçülüğün Esasları (The Principles of Turkism), were used to construct a basis of “Turkish Nationalism”. In his dualist cultural theory, Gökalp expresses that Hars carries “national” traits and defines it as a colorful corpus of religious; moral; judicial; intellectual; aesthetical; linguistic; financial; and scientific lives of a nation.445 On the other hand, he defines Tezhib or Medeniyet, to have an
441 Altan Ergut, T. Elvan. (1998). Making a National Architecture: Architecture and the Nation-State in Early Republican Turkey. (Ph.D. Thesis). Binghamton University, State University of New York. p.123
442 Tunaya (1988, 11) provides a list of other important figures under Ziya Gökalp’s leadership, who also contributed to the formulation of Turkish Nationalism, as “Akçuraoğlu Yusuf; Ömer Seyfettin; Hamdullah Suphi (Tanrıöver); Köprülüzade M. Fuat; Ahmet Agayef (Ağaoğlu); Tekin (M. Kohen); and Kazım Nami (Duru).
443 Tunaya, Tarık Zafer. (1988). Türkiye’de Siyasal Partiler. Cilt:I İkinci Meşrutiyet Dönemi 1908-1918. Hürriyet Vakfı Yayınları. (The Second Edition).
444 The two mentioned terms are often explained and described as “Culture” and “Civilization”. However, according to Cumbur (1981), Ziya Gökalp separated the French term “culture” to have two different meanings, which can be translated as Hars (Culture) and Tezhib (Self-Improvement or Intelligentsia Culture), often translated as Medeniyet (Civilization). In other words, the two can be understood as different forms of culture. Cumbur, Müjgan. (1981). Atatürk ve Milli Kültür. Kültür Bakanlığı Yayınları.(Second Edition); Gökalp, Ziya. & Devereux, Robert (Translator). (1968). The Principles of Turkism. Leiden, E.J. Brill.; Arslan, Mahmut. (2004). Ziya Gökalp’te Kültür ve Uygarlık Anlayışı. Türkiye’de Sosyoloji – Ziya Gökalp Sempozyumu, Istanbul.
445 Gökalp, Ziya. (1968). Türkçülüğün Esasları.Varlık Yayınları. (Seventh Edition). The book, written in Ottoman Turkish, was first published in the early 1920s. The hijri date for the publication was 1339, corresponding to 1920-1921, even though various sources express that the book came out in 1923.
178
internationalist character, which is a common corpus of social lives of people from many nations belonging to the same place.446According to Gökalp (1968), it is “Turkism’s duty” to find the Turkish culture (hars), which remains among the folk, and to obtain the Western civilization (Tezhib or Medeniyet) in full and infuse it in to the national culture (hars).447
In other words, in the narratives of the “First National Architectural Movement”, with the utilization of the ideology of “Turkish Nationalism”,448 the idea of the “West” and its influence on architectural production was re-framed, since it was no longer viewed as a “corruption”, which we saw in relation to the descriptions of the eighteenth century “Ottoman architecture”, but rather it was expressed as a source of knowledge
446 Gökalp, Ziya. (1968). Türkçülüğün Esasları.Varlık Yayınları. (Seventh Edition).
Gökalp exemplifies this by stating that there is a western civilization (Tezhib or Medeniyet) among all European nations, in which separate cultures (Hars) exists, such as an English; French; or German culture. Furthermore, he expresses that hars (culture) cannot be taken from elsewhere since it stems from national bonds, while civilization (Tezhib or Medeniyet) is rooted mainly in knowledge (1968, 35).
447 Ibid. p.40
448 We observe that there are many studies utilizing “Turkish Nationalism”, and Ziya Gökalp’s formulation, as ways to understand the ideological atmosphere of the period and its impact on the social and cultural arenas, including the field of architecture. An earlier example of this can be seen in Metin Sözen and Mete Tapan’s (1973, 99) approach, who stated that “Turkism movement” started with Ziya Gökalp, and affected the “…formation of architectural works, where some Turkish architects, completely away from the developments in Europe in the 1905s, with a Neo-Classical attitude, copied the decorative architectural elements of classical Ottoman religious buildings, and tried to create a “national architecture”. Metin Sözen (1996, 13) continued a similar attitude afterwards, as he argued that “The strengthening and dispersing of Ziya Gökalp’s economical; political; philosophical; judicial; religious; and lingual ideas in time… provided the means for a suitable arena for the field of architecture.” This can also be seen in İnci Aslanoğlu’s (2010, 18) narrative, who asserts that Ziya Gökalp’s ideas were very significant, due to the advocacy of a “National economy”, after 1914. She also states that according to Gökalp, “civilization”, not “culture”, was to be taken from Europe, and the common values that constructed a nation was “culture and religion”. Another comparable approach is Sibel Bozdoğan’s (2001, 35) inclusion, in which she also views Ziya Gökalp as the chief ideologue of “Turkish Nationalism”, whose “well-known distinction between culture and civilization…was a significant theme in preparing the context within which the idea of a national style in architecture was elaborated.” She also mentioned that Gökalp’s views, on “culture” and “civilization”, in which “civilization could be borrowed from the West, culture had to reside in the nation’s own people and history” (p.35). Lastly, we may mention Afife Batur’s (2005, 8) views, who argues that the ideology of the Committee of Union and Progress, and later interpretations of this idea, “finds its own expression in the discourse of the national architecture even as a ready formula.”
179
and technology. In line with this, it is possible to observe that, the works of the “First National Architectural Movement” were represented through a framework of “Nationalism” that emphasized their “Turkishness”. An earlier example of this may be seen in Bülent Özer’s Ph.D. thesis, Rejyonalizm, Universalizm ve Çağdaş Mimarimiz Üzerine Bir Deneme (An Essay on Regionalism, Universalism and Our Contemporary Architecture) (1964),449 where he expressed that the architects of the “First National Style”, specifically Kemalettin Bey and Vedat Tek, was the first people who opposed the “universal form importation”, and sought ways to “Turkify” and “Nationalize” architecture, in Istanbul, which was “invaded with eclectic examples in the second half of the nineteenth century”.450 In other words, Özer viewed the architectural works of the “First National Style” as a reaction against the “Eclectic” architecture with a “Western origin”, in an atmosphere where the “authentic”, “classical” Ottoman architecture was “lost” or “corrupted”, as previously discussed.
A similar construction may be seen in Üstün Alsaç’s Ph.D. Thesis, Türkiye’deki Mimarlık Düşüncesinin Cumhuriyet Dönemi’ndeki Evrimi (Development of Architectural Thought in Turkey of the Republican Period), which was published in 1974, and begins with an introduction that outline the historical conditions leading to the idea of a republican Turkish architecture, starting from the process of “Westernization” in the Ottoman Empire, in the eighteenth century,451 which according to him, continued in the nineteenth century, with influences from the
449 In his thesis, Özer (1964) evaluated the notions of regionalism and universalism, and discussed the concept of eclecticism, in their relations to the architectural production of Turkey, from the 1930s, to the 1960s.
450 Özer, Bülent. (1964). Rejyonalizm, Universalizm ve Çağdaş Mimarimiz Üzerine Bir Deneme. (Ph.D. Thesis). İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi Mimarlık Fakültesi.p.44
451 Alsaç, Üstün. (1976). Türkiye’deki Mimarlık Düşüncesinin Cumhuriyet Dönemindeki Evrimi. KTÜ. Baskı Atelyesi. p.9
180
architectures of the “West”, specifically through the impact of foreign architects, or of architects with an Armenian origin.452
In Alsaç’s study, it is possible to observe the negative attitude towards the nineteenth century architecture of the Ottoman Empire, which he defines as a chaos of form and shape due to foreign architects’ interpretations of Turkish-Islamic architecture.453 In addition to that, we can also see the re-framed look to the “influences” of the “West” – even though he states that the “First National Architectural Movement” was influenced by the nineteenth century architectural thoughts of Europe, and is based on the idea that “traditional architectural forms can be adapted to the contemporary architectural functions”, with the appearance of a “new selective Turkish classicism”454 – since according to Alsaç (1976, 15), the architecture of the period had a hybrid characteristic, that emerged by bringing the architectural elements of the “Turkish” and “Western” together, which he related to the transition process that Turkish society was going through, in a time when the new architectural necessities were not definite.455 Furthermore, he expressed that the architectural production followed the idea of a “National architecture”, during the “demise” of the Ottoman Empire, when Ziya Gökalp was introducing his ideas on “Turkism”, by searching for a “new architectural language”, a “national synthesis” that would respond to the symbolic, unifying needs of the society.456
452 Alsaç, Üstün. (1976). Türkiye’deki Mimarlık Düşüncesinin Cumhuriyet Dönemindeki Evrimi. KTÜ. Baskı Atelyesi. p.9
453 Ibid.
454 Ibid. p.11
455 Ibid. p.15
456 Ibid. p.16
181
In another example, İnci Aslanoğlu (2010), in Erken Cumhuriyet Dönemi Mimarlığı 1923-1938 (Early Republican Period Architecture 1923-1938), which was first published in 1980,457 viewed the “First National Style”, as an outcome of the ideological atmosphere of nationalist ideals that are related with Ziya Gökalp’s ideas on Turkism,458 meaning that she also contributed to the discourse where “national” characteristics can be surfaced from within, and certain characteristics can be “taken” from the “West”. Lastly, Metin Sözen (1984), in Cumhuriyet Dönemi Türk Mimarlığı (Republican Period Turkish Architecture), which was published the same year as Modern Turkish Architecture, also expressed that the architectural production in the nineteenth century had a superficial and chaotic appearance, due to foreign architects’ interpretations in bringing the developments of the West, and the “Turk-Islam” values, together, that he related to the “Westernization” process in the eighteenth century, and later with the Tanzimat era in the nineteenth century.459 Continuing with the period of “First National Architecture”, Sözen also contributed to the “nationalist” discourse, as he expressed the ideas of Ziya Gökalp prepared the ground for a “National” architecture.460
As it can be seen in these examples, the narratives of the “First National Architectural Movement” was constructed with the emphasis on “Turkishness”, and the preceding works of architecture built by the “foreign architects” were expressed as “Orientalist”; “eclectic”; “chaotic”; or “corrupted”, which was seen in connection with the process of “Westernization”. Turkish architects were mostly put forward in architectural
457 İnci Aslanoğlu’s Erken Cumhuriyet Dönemi Mimarlığı 1923-1938 was based on her Ph.D. Thesis, 1923-1930 Erken Cumhuriyet Dönemi Mimarlığı: Sosyal, Ekonomik, Kültürel Ortam Değişimi ve Mimarlığa Yansıması (Evaluation of Architectural Developments in Turkey within the Socio-Economic and Cultural Framework of the 1923-38 Period)
458 Aslanoğlu, İnci. (2010). Erken Cumhuriyet Dönemi Mimarlığı. 1923-1938. Bilge Kültür Sanat. 1980, 2001, 2010. p.30
459 Sözen, Metin. (1984). Cumhuriyet Dönemi Türk Mimarlığı. Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları. p.4
460 Ibid.
182
history writings, specifically Vedat Tek and Kemalettin Bey, to construct a relationship between ideologies and architectural production of the period, in which “West” was a source of knowledge and technology, and the “essence” of “Turkishness” was reflected through the elements of “classical Ottoman architecture”, in line with the ideology of “Turkish Nationalism”, and Ziya Gökalp’s ideas.
When we look at the architectural history writings that focus on the period between 1930 and 1940, on the other hand, we see that the emphasis on “nationalism” shifts to “modernity”, which is correlated with the changing ideological atmosphere following the proclamation of the republic. In these studies, we often see a direct relation being constructed with the ideology of the period, as the architectural production is linked with the nation-building process, and therefore with the ideology of the nation-state, which accepts a “linear and progressive modernity process”.461
This linkage between ideology and architecture raises a main issue of “difference”, through which a “new national identity” is being defined, that is expressed to be represented through the medium of architecture. This construction of difference can be seen in the architectural history studies that focus on the architecture of the 1930s in two main ways. First, is the dichotomy between the “old” and the “new”, which signifies a difference of “belongingness” to whether to the “Ottoman Empire”, or to the “new” nation-state, Turkey. Secondly, the “West” becomes a point of reference for different practices including architecture, in which a power relation arises between the “West” and its “other”, Turkey.
The former issue, the dichotomy between the “old” and the “new” manifests itself in the construction of the connections drawn between the “First National Architectural Movement” and the idea of “Turkishness”, which are often put aside to highlight a “new” period of architecture, in which the former works of architecture are now seen
461 Boyacıoğlu, Bilgen. (2003). The Construction of Turkish Modern Architecture in Architectural History Writing. Izmir Institute of Technology. (Master’s Thesis). p.50; Dündar, Bilgen. (2011). Against Style: Re-Reading “New Architecture” in Early Republican Period in Turkey (1931-1940). Izmir Institute of Technology. (Ph.D. Thesis).
183
as to belonging with the “old”, and related with the heritage of the Ottoman Empire. The distinction between the architecture of the “First National Style” and its immediate precedents, in the writings that focus on the 1930s, starts to blur, as it is seen as a continuation of the “old”,462 in comparison to the architecture of the “new” nation-state, which differs in terms of both architectural characteristics, and architectural ideology. The change of the capital city from Istanbul to Ankara, is utilized to reflect this dichotomy, and Ankara becomes the location of the “new” architecture, as opposed to Istanbul, which is expressed to be in connection with the “Ottoman past” and heritage.
The latter issue, definition of the “self” with reference to the “West”, can be seen related to the nation-building process, which is constructed in an intertwined way with “modernity” that is often associated with the process of “modernization” and the “West”. However, as Dündar (2011, 2) expresses, ideas in these texts, often reflect “Eurocentric conceptualizations of modernization, modernity, and modernism in architecture”, at least until the 1980s,463 and in this conceptualization, as Bozdoğan (2001, 8) states, modern architecture “was assumed to be an exclusively European category that non-Western other could import, adopt, or perhaps resist but not reproduce from within”.464 Similarly, Bülent Tanju (1999) argues that understanding and viewing the “West” as an object from which certain characteristics465 can be taken is an essentialist construction that presupposes a homogenized and fixed idea of
462 For example, Sözen and Tapan (1973, 105-106) viewed the architectural production of the “First National Style” as a continuation of the revivalist architecture in the preceding period, that aimed to reflect a “National consciousness”, by utilizing a “solely aesthetic, subjective, and individualistic approach” in the creation of a “National architecture”.
463 Dündar, Bilgen. (2011). Against Style: Re-Reading “New Architecture” in Early Republican Period in Turkey (1931-1940). Izmir Institute of Technology. (Ph.D. Thesis). p.2
464 Bozdoğan, Sibel. (2001). Modernism and Nation Building: Turkish Architectural Culture in the Early Republic. University of Washington Press. p.8
465 The term characteristics can be understood both as architectural features, but also as other qualities, such as technology, knowledge, or information, as in the case of “Turkish Nationalism”.
184
culture, that can be seen correlated with the processes of “nationalism” and “modernization”.466
While the architectural history of the republic began to be written in the 1960’s, and grew after the 1970s,467 as mentioned earlier, formations of these issues can be seen in the writings of the 1930s. The first publication on the subject is Celal Esad Arseven’s book, Yeni Mimari (New Architecture) (1931),468 which was based on André Lurçat’s book on “new architecture”, as it is noted in the title page of the book.469 Yeni Mimari was not an architectural history book, rather it highlighted and even guided the contemporary architecture of the time, by explaining when, where and how it began, and by outlining its formal features. Here, it should be mentioned that there is a section in Arseven’s book, where he evaluated former architectural works, titled Bizde mimarlık, which can roughly be translated as, “our architecture” or “architecture of us”, in which, it is possible to observe a similar pattern to some of the previously mentioned books on Ottoman architecture, as Arseven expresses that, “our architecture” was harmonious until two centuries ago, but began to be lost due to the “European” influences brought by foreign masters and foreman, which resulted in the Istanbul of the time.470
466 Tanju, Bülent. (1999). 1908-1946 Türkiye Mimarlığının Kavramsal Çerçevesi. Istanbul Technical University. (Ph. D. Thesis).
467 Dündar (2011, 1) expresses that architectural historians who produced between the years of 1973 and 1983 can be accepted as the “first generation of architectural historians of modern Turkish architecture”, and points to the works of Üstün Alsaç, Metin Sözen, Mete Tapan, and İnci Aslanoğlu, who “established the theoretical groundwork of ERP architecture”.
Here we may include that according to Elvan Altan Ergut (2009, 124), İnci Aslanoğlu was the first to use “Early Republican Period” (ERP) term.
468 Altan Ergut, Elvan. (2009). Cumhuriyet Dönemi Mimarlığı: Tanımlar, Sınırlar, Olanaklar. Türkiye Araştırmaları Literatür Dergisi, 7(13), 121-130.
469 Esat, Celâl. (1931). Yeni Mimari. İstanbul: Agâh-Sabri Kitaphanesi.
According to Altan Ergut (2005), the mentioned book of André Lurçat is thought to be Architecture (1929), even though the full reference is not provided in Celal Esad Arseven’s Yeni Mimari (1931).
470 Esat, Celâl. (1931). Yeni Mimari. İstanbul: Agâh-Sabri Kitaphanesi.
185
Another point that can be mentioned on Arseven’s book is that, he portrayed new architecture as belonging to the “West”, not only by placing its historical roots in Europe, but also because he has a subheading titled, Yeni mimari bize de gelmiştir (New architecture arrived to us as well), under which he identified the “new architecture” of Ankara as similar to it.471 However, he also stated that the new architecture would not be alien to us, since Turkish architecture, among the architectures of other nations, is rational and is adaptable to contemporary architecture.472 In other words, Arseven portrayed the new architecture, as a suitable architecture for the new nation-state, expressing that it responded to the new necessities of the new society.473 We may also say that the emphasis on the “new”, which was addressing architecture, but also the “modern” way of living, contributed to the dichotomy between the “West” and its “other”, since the “new” was associated with the “West”; the process of “Modernization”; and the idea of development, as opposed to “old”, that was tied to the “past”, in his book.
It is possible to find similar ideas on “new architecture” and its connections to the contemporary needs of the society; development; “modernization”; and the “West”, in articles of the period in Mimar (1931-1935), later named Arkitekt (1936).474 Here it is
471 Esat, Celâl. (1931). Yeni Mimari. İstanbul: Agâh-Sabri Kitaphanesi.
472 Ibid. p.8-9
473 Ibid.
474 For example, Aptullah Ziya (1931, 14), explained that the twentieth century changed the social life in the world, as well as in Turkey, and stated the following: European architects put forward a new architecture. “Modern architecture was the real architecture. The architect was inventing a different character, a different architecture for each building, according to the economical, sanitary and constructional necessities”. Similarly, Samih Saim (1931, 44) stated, “Many urbanists have conceptual studies on the conditions and forms that cities of today and future should have, according to the course of needs, economic and social developments”; Behçet and Bedrettin (1933, 200) expressed, “New architecture was born to obtain the neglected, out of necessity, it did not born for ornament or for arrogance”. We also see that, Behçet Ünsal (1935, 186) stated that “the new technique requires investigation tours to “Western” cities”; and in another article Ünsal (1937, 219) mentions that urbanism was shaped under a dominant, called technique, that affected the life conditions, and expresses that “After the developments in the nineteenth century, which provided developments in every field and created the civilization today, old European cities had to transform their appearances.”
186
important to note that, while there were many articles on the “new” and “modern” architecture, there were also discussions regarding what “national architecture”, and the idea of “Turkishness” in architecture was.475 In other words, we see that since its early conceptions, the concept of “Modern” and its associations with the “West”; played an important role in the construction of the definitions of the “new architecture”, while simultaneously, the discussion on the “Turkishness” of architecture began, in relation to various interpretations of the “National”.
The reflections of these discussions began to be seen in the architectural history publications after the 1960s. In the architectural history texts that focus on the period of the 1930s, we see that the architectural production, as well as its various contexts and actors, such as their location, architect, or symbolic values, were often utilized to show that architecture of the time operated as a way to represent the ideologies of the state, which in the case of 1930s is related with the nation-building processes, and “modernity”. An example of this may be seen in Özer’s Ph.D. thesis, where he expresses that in the 1930s, Turkish architecture was dominated by foreigners “again”, in theory and in practice,476 whose “main duty was to transform Ankara into a Western capital city”, as the representation of the newly founded government.477 While the dichotomy between the “old” and the “new” is not very visible in Özer’s thesis, it is possible to see that the distinction between “Us” and “Them” is prominent, as the architectural production shifts between the “Regional”, that he equates with the “National” and “local” in several sections, and the “Universal”, which he views as the
475 For example, In the first issue of Mimar, Architect Şevki (1931, 12) stated, “Turkish architecture does not owe its Turkishness to the pointed arches or to the ceramic work of Kütahya. The base of this country’s architecture is the simplest lines, purest colors, clearest and honest organization and construction.” Also, Arif Hikmet (1931) expressed, our old architecture was simple, honest, rational; Bedrettin Hamdi and Behçet Sırrı (1932, 115) stated that “Turkish architecture was never carried away with ornament, Turkish architects sought the beauty in their buildings in the suitability of proportion, with ration and harmony”; and lastly, Behçet and Bedrettin (1934, 20) said that “In the construction of a modern and national art, we need to stay away from tradition and express ourselves.”
476 Özer, Bülent. (1964). Rejyonalizm, Universalizm ve Çağdaş Mimarimiz Üzerine Bir Deneme. (Ph.D. Thesis). İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi Mimarlık Fakültesi. p.51
477 Ibid. p.52
187
“importation” of “Western architecture”, that is not fully compatible with the necessities of the Turkish society in the 1930s.478
Metin Sözen and Mete Tapan (1973) also pointed to the influence and activities of foreign architects and experts in the 1930s, where we see that they viewed their effect on the architectural production as a process, specifically due to the educational roles of them, through which developments in the architectural arena, mainly in terms of its form, occurred.479 Furthermore, they also argued that some of the architectural works of the period was a “repetition of the West”.480 Similarly, Üstün Alsaç defined the architectural production of the 1930s, as a “Rationalist-Functionalist Architectural Movement”, which he related to a process of “Westernization” in the republican period, that began with Turkish architects’ “conscious monitoring” of the “West”, where the ideas of the Bauhaus were widespread, during a time when they were questioning how the new architecture of Turkey should be, following the excitement of the Atatürk reforms.481 Alsaç viewed “Turkish architecture” tied with the “Western architecture”,482 which according to him stemmed from various reasons, including the import of construction materials; mass media publications which brought the ideas of “Western” architectural thoughts; the educational openness to the “West”, in terms of sending students to “Western” countries and bringing foreign instructors to Turkey; and the role of foreign architects, whom contributed to the architectural field through
478 I Özer, Bülent. (1964). Rejyonalizm, Universalizm ve Çağdaş Mimarimiz Üzerine Bir Deneme. (Ph.D. Thesis). İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi Mimarlık Fakültesi. p.52
479 Sözen, Metin. & Tapan, Mete. (1973). 50 Yılın Türk Mimarisi. İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları.
480 Ibid. p.197
481 Alsaç, Üstün. (1976). Türkiye’deki Mimarlık Düşüncesinin Cumhuriyet Dönemindeki Evrimi. KTÜ. Baskı Atelyesi. p.20-21
482 Ibid. p.124
188
theory; practice; and education.483 However, according to Alsaç (1976, 142), despite all the influences, “Turkish architectural thoughts were initiated and developed by Turkish architects”,484 through which Turkish architecture began to lose its “receiver” characteristics that existed in the nineteenth century and in the first years of the republic, and attained the level of a “giver” instead.485
Lastly, we may exemplify Sözen’s (1984) views, who stated that there are two types of architecture following the period of the “First National Architecture”, the first being the continuation of the “National Architecture” in a limited architectural field, and the other being, “International Architecture”, which was compatible with the reforms of the government, and followed a “rational-functionalist movement influenced by the West”.486 In his evaluation of the 1930s, Sözen handled the works of foreign and local architects separately, while providing information on prominent names and their works, to state that the architecture of the period was shaped in relation to external factors, and that Turkish architects were focused on “keeping up” with the other countries, and “surpassing” the works of foreign architects in Turkey.487
As it can be seen in these examples, whose numbers may be increased, architectural history texts that focused on the architectural production of the 1930s, produced strong connections with the idea of the “West” as an object and construct; process of “modernization”; and their “representation” in the architectural form in Turkey. Actors, specifically foreign, non-muslim and/or “Turkish” architects; cities of
483 Alsaç, Üstün. (1976). Türkiye’deki Mimarlık Düşüncesinin Cumhuriyet Dönemindeki Evrimi. KTÜ. Baskı Atelyesi.
484 Ibid. p.142
485 Ibid. p.144
486 Sözen, Metin. (1984). Cumhuriyet Dönemi Türk Mimarlığı. Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları. p.168
487 Ibid. p.177
189
architectural works; specifically, the “new” capital Ankara, and historical turning points, such as the proclamation of the republic, and reforms in different fields, became representational tools, which were utilized to draw the connections between the architecture and the state. Here, we may also note that the emphasis on “Turkishness” in the preceding period, left its place to an “internationalist” definition of national identity, which can be understood as the “nationalist” attitude of the time, that was associated and constructed through and in relation to the idea of the “West”. However, in the writings of the upcoming period, the 1940s, these notions were about to be re-interpreted again, in relation to the works of the “Second National Architectural Movement”.
It can be seen that in the architectural history writings which encompasses the works of the “Early Republican Period”, the 1930s, included its immediate precedents, the works of “First National Architectural Movement”, to provide background information as a way to position the “International” architecture of the period. This inclusion, as previously mentioned, provided the contextual and ideological atmosphere of the period before the 1930s, and also served as a ground of comparison on various subjects, including the idea of “Turkishness” and different interpretations of “Nationalism”; the relations with the “West”, and the actors who played a role in the representation of them. However, it can also be seen that these studies also incorporate how the transition from the “International” to the “Second National” occurred, incorporating turning points that resulted in a search for a “historical” basis.
The main turning points in these studies can be viewed as, Atatürk’s death; the beginning of the World War II and the use of local construction materials as one of its consequences; reactions against foreign architects; and Sedad Hakkı Eldem’s “National Architecture Seminar”.488 In the descriptions of the 1940s, we can see that
488 Among the studies that incorporate several of these reasons behind the change of architectural production in the 1940s, we can mention Tapan and Sözen (1973), who described the works of the “Second National Style” as a reaction against the architecture of the 1930s and related it to the “National Architecture Seminar” of Sedad Hakkı Eldem. Similarly, Alsaç (1976) related Atatürk’s death; “Nationalist” ideology of the period with regards to its earlier interpretations (Alsaç discusses the ideology of “Nationalism” in this period by pointing to Atatürk’s ideas on nationalism, national art and architecture, the official ideology in the 1930s, and the influences of Atatürk reforms on the society,
190
the “West” remains as a reference point, while these historical conditions and happenings creates a shift in the architectural production, that portrays the architecture of the period as both “national” and “modern”. In these studies, it is possible to observe that the use of the “West” as a reference point, which operates in two main ways, first is the continuation of the “modern”, which is linked with the processes of “Modernization” and the architectural production of the 1930s, that is constructed in relation to the “West”; and secondly, we see the mentioning of “neo-classical” tendencies in Europe in the 1930s, through which a “neo-classical” architectural tendency in Turkey is explained.489 In other words, we see that “modern” with its “International” and “Western” meaning associations remained as part of the architectural discourse that focused on the “Second National Architectural Movement”. However, the notion of “nationalism” was re-interpreted in the architectural history narratives that focused on the 1940s, which differed from the “nationalism” that was seen related to the “First National Architectural Movement”, and from the “internationalist” understanding of “nationalism” in the 1930s, since it involved both the idea of “Turkishness” and “modern” as part of its definition.
as well as by looking at the nationalist ideas in Europe in the 1930s, and their reflections in architecture); and the beginning of the Second World War. Sözen (1984), who placed the “Second National Architecture” between 1940 and 1950, also pointed to Atatürk’s death; the beginning of the World War II; Sedad Hakkı Eldem’s “National Architecture Seminar”; reactions against foreign architects; and the use of local construction materials.
489 Tapan and Sözen (1973, 194) states that “It is a fact that, in addition to the use of the decorative elements of the old Ottoman classical buildings, the formal features of civil architecture and their internal organizations, in the formation of new products, the eclectic tendencies in countries such as Germany and Italy, where the oppression regimes of the day were dominant, also affected our architectural products.” Similarly, Alsaç (1976, 31) points to the new nationalist movements in Europe that started in the 1930s, to express that monumentalist architecture became a propaganda tool to show the power of the state. While he does not draw a relationship between the power, propaganda, and architecture in the case of Turkey; Alsaç (1976, 32) expresses that Turkish architects also adopted nationalist tendencies, which was not against their own thoughts in terms of its basic principles. İnci Aslanoğlu (2010, 66) expresses that “international style has left its place to neo-classical style in the western world, specifically in Germany.” While she also mentions similar tendencies in Russia; Italy; France; Britain; and United States of America, Aslanoğlu (2010, 67) adds that “A formalist Neo-classical attitude was imported to Turkey by foreign architects.” Lastly, we see that Sözen (1984, 243) also points to the developments in Europe, specifically in Germany and in Italy, that began in the 1930s, to give insight regarding the atmosphere of the time.
191
In the writings of the “Second National Architectural Movement”, we see that Sedad Hakkı Eldem; his “National Architecture Seminar”;490 and the idea of the “Turkish House” that was constructed in relation to it, was utilized, both to express the architectural characteristics of the movement; and its “Turkishness”, which is often correlated with the use of elements of Ottoman civil architecture that was viewed as “rational”; “simple”; “functional”; and therefore “already modern”,491 rather than the incorporation of "classical Ottoman architectural features, as in the case of the “First National Architectural Movement”.492 Bozdoğan (2005, 44) explains Eldem’s approach to “his ideal of a ‘national’ architecture”, by stating that, he “is not advocating a reclamation of tradition at the expense of modernism; rather he is deeply committed to a reinterpretation of the Turkish House in modern terms, or more precisely, in the language of the epoch-making material: reinforced concrete”.493 Furthermore, she expresses how Eldem’s abstracted idea of a “Turkish house” operates as a “type”, as follows:
490 Sedad Hakkı Eldem, established his “National Architecture Seminar” in 1934, at the Academy of Fine Arts, where he and his students documented numerous buildings by doing survey drawings.
Here it is important to note that Dündar (2011, 73-74) expresses that Ernst Egli “initiated the National Architecture Seminar in 1933 with his assistants Sedad Hakkı Eldem and Arif Hikmet (Holtay)”, and that the seminar “was mostly attributed to Eldem only by Sözen, Tapan, and Aslanoğlu.”
491 Early examples of viewing the “modern” characteristics of “Turkish architecture” can be seen in the articles in Mimar, later Arkitekt.
Dündar (2011, 80) also expresses that Eldem’s search for a new architecture that “belonged to the region…was based on the belief that Turkish house had been intrinsically modern”.
Here, we may also note Uğur Tanyeli’s (2017, 360) views, who expresses that the “modern” aspects of the mentioned “Turkish architecture”, in architectural history writings, often focus on the morphological features of the “Turkish House”, while excluding the daily practices that are correlated with those architecture, such as sitting on the floor while eating, which contradicts the idea of the “modern”, in its associations with the “West”.
492 According to Alsaç (1976, 34-35), the architectural works of the “Second National Architectural Movement”, which was based on the traditional civil architecture of Turkey, differed from the “First National Architectural Movement”, which utilized the symbolic forms of “monumental Ottoman-Turkish architectural elements”, and the “Western architectural thought”. In other words, Tanyeli (2017) points to the utilization of distinct architectural features, in the definition of a “modern Turkish architecture” in architectural history writings.
493 Bozdoğan, Sibel. The Turkish House Reappraised. In Bozdoğan, Sibel.; Özkan, Suha.; & Yenal, Engin. (2005). Sedad Eldem: Architect in Turkey. Literatür. (Third Edition). 1987, 1989, 2005.
192
“On one hand, the idealized Turkish House, abstracted from hundreds of individual examples, draws Eldem close to a notion of ‘type’ as the logic of form derived from reason and use…At the same time, from these measured drawings of numerous examples, he produces a matrix of all possible plan types – all possible variations of houses classified according to the shape and location of the hall or sofa…”494 (Bozdoğan, 2005, 45)
Here, we can see that, the “idealized Turkish House” in Bozdoğan’s terms, functions as an architectural category that defines “Turkishness” through its “modernity”. Tanyeli (2001, 19), expresses this by stating that “Eldem developed an architectural thought where the technical and technological components of Western civilization can be taken, while avoiding an attachment to architectural styles that are rooted in the West”.495 While other architects and their works finds a place in the narratives of the “Second National Architectural Movement”, it is significant to underline how an actor, Sedad Hakkı Eldem, and his works, were employed in the construction of a relationship between the “modern” and the “national”, through the category of the “Turkish House”.
In the architectural history texts, which encompasses the architectural production after the 1950s, it is possible to observe that the emphasis on the “national” and “modern”, shifts to the “International Style”, which is mainly defined through the “modern”, but also includes other tendencies through various interpretations of it. This shift, in the texts, are often correlated with the changes in the ideological atmosphere after 1945, and more specifically with the changing political and economic conditions after the year of 1950, when Democrat Party was elected within the multi-party regime system, whom gained its power through popular sovereignty, and demanded the political initiative to come from the public.496 According to Feroz (1993, 105), the economic policies of Democrat Party was different from the previous regime, and “the
494 Bozdoğan, Sibel. The Turkish House Reappraised. In Bozdoğan, Sibel.; Özkan, Suha.; & Yenal, Engin. (2005). Sedad Eldem: Architect in Turkey. Literatür. (Third Edition). 1987, 1989, 2005. p.45
495 Tanyeli, Uğur. (2001). Sedad Hakkı Eldem. Boyut. p.19
496 Ahmad, Feroz. (1993). The Making of Modern Turkey. Routledge.
193
Democrats soon became the spokesmen for private enterprise and individual initiative and that won them the support of the businessmen as well as the liberal intelligentsia”.497 The economic policies of the Democrat Party resulted in the emergence of a market-oriented economy, which gave power to the private sector, and this change had an impact in various fields, including architecture, which was a change that was reflected in the architectural historiography of Turkey.
The election of Democrat Party and their financial policies were not regarded as the only reason behind the changes in architectural production, in the architectural history writings. Rather, the change to the “Second National Architectural Movement”, was expressed as the result of a series of events, including the ending of the World War II, which caused significant political changes around the world, including Turkey.498 According to Gürel (2016, 1) after the World War II, “modernism became entangled with the politics of modernization, industrialization, urbanization, and the onset of decolonization”, which was “mediated through the flow of post-war aid and technical expertise”.499 The series of events that found place within the architectural history writings that encompassed the 1950s may be summarized as, Turkey becoming a member of the United Nations in 1945; which was followed with the foreign aid of Marshall Plan (1947), which “provided funds for agricultural, industrial, military, and motor transportation development and modernization”;500 Turkey’s participation in the Korean War (1950-1953) and the admission to NATO (1952), which can be interpreted as a manifestations of “Turkish foreign policy’s firm alliance with the US”;501
497 Ahmad, Feroz. (1993). The Making of Modern Turkey. Routledge. p.105
498 Gürel, Meltem. (2016). Mid-Century Modernism in Turkey: Architecture Across Cultures in the 1950s and 1960s. Routledge. p.1
499 Ibid. p.1
500 Ibid. p.2
501 Gürel, Meltem. (2016). Mid-Century Modernism in Turkey: Architecture Across Cultures in the 1950s and 1960s. Routledge. p.2
194
dependency on foreign credit; and lastly the processes of industrialization and urbanization, which had direct influences in the urban fabric, and architecture; while also resulting in migration to big cities.
Architectural history writings on the post-1950s period, incorporated associations with the “West”, and the developments in the private sector that led to a shift since private companies, institutions, and partnerships also began to guide the tendencies in architecture as well. The reflection of the latter may be seen in the diversity of architectural works, specifically in terms of building types, since architectural history narratives of the post 1950s, incorporated a large number of hotels; banks; offices; and dwellings, compared to their inclusions in the earlier decades.
An example of the former, the connections with the “West” may be seen in Alsaç’s (1976, 41) study, as he views one of the reasons behind the weakening of the “national architectural movement”, an “English Architecture Exhibition” that opened in Ankara in 1944, which he views significant in terms of showing Turkish architects that “interesting architectural thoughts existed in countries other than Germany”.502 Furthermore, he expresses that after the World War II, there were developments in the architectural thoughts of the West, and exemplifies these by mentioning the works of architects, such as Mies van der Rohe; Walter Gropius; Marvel Breuer; Frank Lloyd Wright; and Le Corbusier, in addition to mentioning the tendencies to use bare concrete in Japan in connection with “Brutalism”.503 According to Alsaç (1976, 43), there was an overall pluralistic architectural environment in the post-1950s, which he relates Turkish architects’ conscious viewing of these different architectural thoughts and practices, evaluating their environment, and utilizing them as much as the
502 Alsaç, Üstün. (1976). Türkiye’deki Mimarlık Düşüncesinin Cumhuriyet Dönemindeki Evrimi. KTÜ. Baskı Atelyesi. p.41
503 Ibid. p.42
195
conditions of Turkey sufficed.504 Here, it should be noted that Alsaç (1976) examines the periods of 1950-1960; and the 1960-1973 separately, which he relates with the military intervention of 1960.505 Even though he argued that, the architecture of the period (the 1960s) was not significantly different from the architectural production of the 1950s in terms of form,506 he expressed that Turkish architects became concerned with the problems of the society after the 1960s, such as the issue of squatter buildings; housing for disaster areas; and bringing infrastructural services to large masses of people, which he viewed in connection to the new discussions on social and financial problems that could be made more actively, after the new constitution went into effect.507
Another example on the connections with the “West” can be seen in Sözen and Tapan’s (1973) book, since in their evaluation of the period after the 1950s, they expressed that the relationship between Turkey and the “West” continued, and stated that “After the 1950s, our architectural practices included various behaviors, efforts to copy the products of famous architects,508 construction of large-scale industrial buildings, urban studies and campus planning.”509 Regarding the issue of periodization, Metin Sözen (1984) stated that the tendency in the architectural history of Turkey, was to separate the period as 1950-1960, and the post-1960s, however, he expressed that, it would be
504 Alsaç, Üstün. (1976). Türkiye’deki Mimarlık Düşüncesinin Cumhuriyet Dönemindeki Evrimi. KTÜ. Baskı Atelyesi. p.43
505 Ibid.
506 Ibid. p.48
507 Ibid. p.47
508 The architects they refer to are Le Corbusier; Mies van der Rohe; Frank Lloyd Wright; Walter Gropius; Richard Neutra; Skidmore, Owings and Merrill (Sözen and Tapan, 1973, 281).
509 Sözen, Metin. & Tapan, Mete. (1973). 50 Yılın Türk Mimarisi. İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları. p.281
196
more accurate to evaluate them together, since he viewed that the 1950s was a turning point in the architectural history of Turkey, that separated the “architecture as a means of the state until the first half of the twentieth century”, and the pluralistic environment that fed from various sources, resulting in different tendencies, such as “Rationalist-Purist”; “Brutalist”; the “Search for Independent Forms”;510 and the “Re-interpretation of Traditional Architectural Values”.511
In summary, looking at the two lines of architectural historiography on the architectural productions of the Ottoman Empire and of Turkey, we can see that ideologies of the period, specifically “Nationalism”; “Westernization”; and “Modernity”; and “Liberalism” after the 1950s, has been important factors in the representations of the past in different texts until 1984, when Modern Turkish Architecture was published. Tanyeli (2017, 413) expresses a similar point by stating that “the disciplines of history of art and architecture has come to being through nationalism for a long time, which still continues for a significant group.512” One of the main reasons behind can be understood as the effort to define the self,513 in comparison to “others”, which may be associated with “Islamic”; “Ottoman”; or “Western” identities. We can see that the “self”, and the idea of “Turkishness”, was re-constructed time after time, while constituting these differences, by utilizing different themes, concepts, and actors that are related with architectural works in corresponding periods.
In the construction of these histories, it can be argued that architectural works that were positioned within their contextual settings, also became representational objects,
510 Sözen (1984) expresses that Turkish architects were influenced by both Expressionist, and Organic Architecture.
511 Sözen, Metin. (1984). Cumhuriyet Dönemi Türk Mimarlığı. Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları. p.276
512 Tanyeli, Uğur., & Fındıklı, Erhan Berat. (2017). Toplumsal Hafıza, Mimarlık, Tarih ve Kuram: Uğur Tanyeli ile Söyleşi. Everest Yayınları. p.413
513 Ibid.
197
serving as components of a “whole” in different narratives, that form a “metanarrative”, in Jean-François Lyotard’s terms.514 The utilization of the same and/or similar architectural works in these different narratives resulted in the “canon”515 of architectural history of Turkey, which according to Camille (1996), “is not made up of the actual objects but only of representations of those objects”.516 Furthermore, we can see that the contexts surrounding these architectural works, such as their cities;517 architects;518 clients;519 as well as their symbolic associations and
514 Jean-François Lyotard defines metanarrative as an “apparatus of legitimation” of knowledge and/or of science.
Lyotard, Jean-François. (1984). The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge. Manchester University Press. 1979, 1984. p.xxiv
515 According to Steiner (1996, 217) the canon is “a structuring structure which is in a continuous process of reproducing itself, mediating its identity through market forces, and negating the social conditions of its production by covering the tracks of its arbitrary and subjective formations.” B. Steiner, Christopher. Can the Canon Burst? In Michael, Camille.; Çelik, Zeynep.; Onians, John.; Rifkin, Adrian.; & B. Steiner, Christopher. (1996). Rethinking the Canon. The Art Bulletin, 78(2), 198-217. p.217
516 Camille, Michael. Prophets, Canons, and Promising Monsters. In Michael, Camille.; Çelik, Zeynep.; Onians, John.; Rifkin, Adrian.; & B. Steiner, Christopher. (1996). Rethinking the Canon. The Art Bulletin, 78(2), 198-217. p.198
517 An example of the utilization of location, can be seen in the representations of Ankara as the “face” of the “new” nation-state, as opposed to Istanbul, which was viewed as associated with the “Ottoman past”. Furthermore, we can see that architectural works mainly from big cities such as Ankara; Istanbul; and Izmir, are being incorporated in the texts, which represents a fragment, as opposed to a “whole”.
518 Examples of the utilization of architects, whether through their nationalities, or architectural ideologies, that can be mentioned here are the negative associations with the foreign architects, eighteenth century onwards, who are expressed to “corrupt” “Ottoman” or “Turkish” architecture; the role of Turkish architects in the “First National Architectural Movement”, who are stated define the architectural thoughts of the period in relation to ideologies of the period; the emphasis on the foreign architects in the 1930s, whose works are attributed as the face of the “modern movement” in Turkey; or the prominence of Sedad Hakkı Eldem in the “Second National Architectural Movement”, which is defined in relation to his studies on the “Turkish House” and through his interpretations of the type that results in a discourse of the “national/modern”.
519 An example of the clients that can be mentioned here is the constructed difference between the “state”, and the “private sector” and the individuals, and which is reflected in the shift in the 1950s, since architecture is expressed to be in connection with the ideologies prior to that but becomes the face of “pluralism”; “industrialization”; or “urbanization” afterwards.
198
social aspects,520 also contributed to that metanarrative, in which an image of a “Nationalist” past was being constructed. Consequently, looking at these architectural history writings, it is considered significant to question the image that was being continuously reproduced in them, since they may have contributed to a homogenous, fixed representation of the past, and of the architectural culture of Turkey.
520 An example of this can be seen in the inclusion of specific architectural works, specifically the ones that has ideological associations, as in the cases of National Assembly buildings; presidential residences; or Atatürk’s Mausoleum. A significant example of the social aspects can be the inclusion of Ankara Palas, which is often defined through the “modern life-style” it inhabited. The new building types, which affect the daily lives of people, such as theaters, railroad stations, or offices, also exemplify this situation.
199
CHAPTER 4
REPRESENTATION IN THE NARRATIVE/S OF MODERN TURKISH ARCHITECTURE (1984)
In the context of production of Modern Turkish Architecture (1984), we saw the social and political background of the period, the 1980s, when the book was published. The photographic exhibition and seminar that led to the emergence of the book, was interwoven with various historical conditions directly or indirectly, and showed how different actors came together and constructed a representation of the past that focused on the architectural history of Turkey. The actors who constructed this representation were the younger generation of academics of Turkey in the 1980s, specifically affiliated with two universities, Middle East Technical University, and Istanbul Technical University. They constructed their texts through specific perspectives, while utilizing available sources and documents to them. We may say that this resulted in a variety of narratives in the book in terms of approaches of the authors to the evaluation of different periods and subjects, even though we come across similarities between chapters.
Consequently, in this study, each chapter of the book is viewed as a narrative in itself, through which the authors explain a particular subject, in their own framework, whether that be the social context of the development of architecture and architectural profession in Turkey as in İlhan Tekeli’s thematic chapter; the development and problems of the housing in Turkey as in Yıldız Sey’s thematic chapter; or the architectural production in Turkey in a specific period as in the texts of remaining chapters (Figure 33). Even though, all these narratives can be considered as representations of different periods themselves, in the case of the Modern Turkish Architecture (1984), they are viewed as part of a larger narrative, the book, which can be seen as a representation of the past that is constructed in the 1980s.
200
Figure 33- Table of Contents of Modern Turkish Architecture (1984), Source: Modern Turkish Architecture (1984)
While there are differences between the chapters in terms of approach and content, it is possible to observe that there are also recurring themes, some more prominent than the others, related to the architectural production of Turkey. Despite their variety of topic and focus, these themes are intertwined with each other, and play an important role in the construction of an image of the architectural production in Turkey between the years of 1920s and 1980s. The aim of this chapter is to examine how these various themes were intertwined within the narrative of Modern Turkish Architecture (1984), to understand their connections and roles in the representation of the past.
201
The analysis, in this part of the study, is structured around themes, that were derived from the book through a critical reading of it. In the consideration of the included notions, it was seen that Ideologies, emerged as a prominent theme, which is viewed as a flexible concept referring to a broad range of system of ideas in this study, since they were encompassing, or was intertwined with the architectural themes that emerged from the book. Throughout the book, there are three identifiable prominent ideologies, which are in connection with the architectural works, and the contexts surrounding them. Therefore, in this chapter, first ideological themes will be examined; next, architectural themes that are intertwined with these ideologies will be discussed. The examination of these two main lines of themes of representation, will be followed with a look on the visual representation, to understand how they may be contributing to the construction of an image of the past in the narrative/s. Lastly, exclusions of different subjects, from the narrative/s will be questioned to understand what is accepted as given, or as common knowledge; what is left out; and if those exclusions have any impact on the representations.
4.1. Ideological Themes of Representation: “Nationalism”, “Modernity”, and “Liberalism”
There are numerous debates regarding the definitions; attributes; and practices of the three concepts – “nationalism”; “modernity”; and “liberalism” –, their geography specific characteristics; their social, cultural and political aspects; and their ideational systems,521 in different fields including, political sciences; humanities and social sciences, sociology, psychology, and philosophy. There are different views regarding their characteristics, questioning if they can be viewed as “distinct” or “full” ideologies; as “thin-centered ideologies” or as “companions of ideologies”.
521 Here the term “ideational system” refers to the unique structures of ideologies, since different ideologies deploy and assemble their core concepts in different manners, through which ideologies operate, shaping and directing communities in distinct ways. (Steger, Manfred, B. Ideologies and Social Imaginaries. In Freeden, Michael.; Sargent, Lyman Tower.; & Stears, Marc. (2015). The Oxford Handbook of Political Ideologies. Oxford University Press.
202
“Modernity” among these three, is often viewed as an ideational system, rather than an ideology, with the consideration that it did not produce a distinct political movement.522 A similar debate also exists for the notion of “nationalism” or we may say “nationalism/s”, and “liberalism” on whether it can be viewed as a distinct ideology or not, even though most of its definitions include ideology, partially or fully.523 This questioning can be said to stem from the “core conceptual structures” of these ideologies, which “permit a far fuller range of responses to socio-political issues”, that results in their different variants, in different contexts.524 Looking at the notion of “modernity”, we can see that it accompanied “nationalism”; and “liberalism” in idea and in practice, since both ideologies shared a “modernist” perspective that sought to transform the society through political changes and social improvements.525
522 Conversi, Daniele. (2012). Modernism and Nationalism. Journal of Political Ideologies, 17(1), 13-34.
523 We can mention some of the different views on the topic of “Nationalism” from some of the key texts among others, as follows: Anthony D. Smith (1988, 18), who was a historical sociologist, viewed nationalism “as an ideology and movement” dating back to the later eighteenth century, but argued that nations, more specifically the “national sentiment” originated earlier, around the late fifteenth or sixteenth centuries. Ernest Gellner (1983, 126), who was a social anthropologist, deemed the concept rather unimportant, since the key idea was simple and easy, and therefore anyone could come up with it. What mattered for Gellner was, the conditions of life, in which nationalism is a compelling or an absurd idea. Eric Hobsbawm (1990), who was a historian, viewed nationalism as a historical process that is related to periods and outlined its transformation from a political movement to a mass ideology. Benedict Anderson (2006), who was a political scientist and historian, argued that the nation is an imagined community whose members do not know or meet each other, for the most part, and challenged the idea of Nationalism, through which the imagined community, the nation, was created. John Breuilly (1993), who is a professor of nationalism and ethnicity, pointed to the relations between nationalism and politics, and therefore with the power of the state, and discussed how nationalism operated as politics. Homi Bhabha (1990), who was a literary and cultural critic, approached the notion of nationalism through the cultural systems that produced the nation, rather than political ideologies, and therefore his understanding of a nation is not fixed, or singular, which in turn makes his understanding of nationalism as ambivalent. Among these different debates, Michael Freeden (1998, 750), who is a theorist of ideology, views nationalism as a thin-centered ideology, since for it to be viewed as a full ideology, “the core of nationalism, and the conceptual patterns it adopts, will have to be unique to itself alone; and in order to be a full ideology it will need to provide a reasonably broad, if not comprehensive, range of answers to the political questions that societies generate”.
524 Freeden, Michael. (1998). Is Nationalism a Distinct Ideology?. Political Studies, XLVI, 748-765. P.752
525 Schwarzmantel, John. (1998). The Age of Ideology: Political Ideologies from the American Revolution to Postmodern Times. Macmillan Press LTD.
203
According to Schwarzmantel (1998, 5), there were three significant features of the social context, in which modern ideologies, including “nationalism” and “liberalism” emerged, which he explains as follows:
“First, modernity meant a society in which industrial production was constantly growing and drawing in the larger part of the population, even though the progress of industry was uneven and varied in speed and extent from country to country…Second, the epoch of modernity involved the formation and creation of large nation-states, and in turn the nation-state, originating in Western Europe, was the terrain of modernity. The modern nation-state combined three functions that offered its members an identity (cultural and political) within a clearly defined community: a single economic unit (the national market), political sovereignty (the state protecting its national citizens),I and cultural unity and identity…Third, the modern epoch was the era of class politics, stemming from the industrial structure of society. Modernity was an age in which large and increasingly well-organised social classes engaged each other in conflict although this was not necessarily or at all times a violent confrontation…”526 (Schwarzmantel, 1998, 5)
The interest towards the complex relationship between nationalism and modernity, in terms of their “modern”527 meanings, can be traced to their “origins” and “time of emergence”, which is mainly accepted to be Europe, that is often associated with the political and historical construct of the “West”, during the late eighteenth century. The concept of “modernity” can be understood tied with other concepts, including “modern”; “modernism”; and “modernization” and their different meanings. According to Heynen (1999, 10), the three levels of the meaning of the concept of “modern”, “the current; the new; and the transient”, are all present in the notion of “modernity”, that is often viewed as a “Western” concept itself, which she defines as the “attitude toward life that is associated with a continuous process of evolution and transformation, with an orientation towards a future that will be different from the past and from the present”.528 “Modernism” on the other hand, can be understood as the
526 Schwarzmantel, John. (1998). The Age of Ideology: Political Ideologies from the American Revolution to Postmodern Times. Macmillan Press LTD. p.5
527 The term “modern” here is being used to refer to the late modern period, specifically the period after the French Revolution.
528 Heynen, Hilde. (1999). Architecture and Modernity: A Critique. MIT Press. p.11
204
responses towards the “experience of modernity”, which can be seen in the cultural tendencies of the society or through materializations of artistic movements as in the case of architecture.529
If we look at the ideational aspect of the concept of modernity, we may look at Shmuel Noah Eisenstadt’s (2000, 3) views, where he states that the “cultural and political program of modernity” has “distinct ideological as well as institutional premises”; and there are multiple modernities in different geographies; societies; and cultures, in different periods, even though the idea first developed in the West.530 These distinctions often arise from the geography specific processes of “Modernization”, which can mainly be defined as a process of social development, that is operated through various mechanisms, such as industrialization; urbanization; advancement in mass communication; democratization; the rise of powerful nation-states; and lastly an expanding world market, that can also be described as an integration to the capitalist system in the case of “peripheral countries”, as İlhan Tekeli does in Modern Turkish Architecture.531
Considering the definitions of “Modern”; “Modernism”; and “Modernization”; and the dynamics between them; as well as Eisenstadt’s views, it is possible to understand that “modernity”, encompasses different meanings of the concept of “modern”; a
529 Heynen, Hilde. (1999). Architecture and Modernity: A Critique. MIT Press.
530 Eisenstadt, Shmuel Noah. (2000). Multiple Modernities. Daedalus, 129(1), 1-29. p.3
531 Heynen, Hilde. (1999). Architecture and Modernity: A Critique. MIT Press.; Tekeli, Ilhan. The Social Context of the Development of Architecture in Turkey. In Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press.
Here, it should be mentioned that Tekeli uses a “centre-periphery model” in his chapter, which can be understood as key model utilized in dependency theories that were developed after the 1960s, to understand the “peripheral” countries’ developmental processes, through their relations to the “center”, which refers to Western Europe or North America, as they were accepted as the center of the World Market. For a more detailed account on “center-periphery model”, you may look at Shils, Edward (1975). Center and Periphery. Essays in Macrosociology. University of Chicago Press.; and Mardin, Şerif. (1973). Center-Periphery Relations: A Key to Turkish Politics?. Daedalus, 102(1). Here, we may note that Mardin (1973) formulates his ideas around Shil’s 1961 essay, “Center and Periphery”.
205
progressive and continuous progress in the “modern times”, which is achieved through the processes and mechanisms of “Modernization”, in accordance with the specific contexts of its geography. “Modernity”, in the case of Turkey, which operates through a process of “modernization”, that is also defined as a “project of modernization” in connection with the developments following the establishment of the nation-state, can be viewed as associated to political ideas, since it is utilized in and through political ideologies, such as “nationalism”, in which “national progress” emerges as one of the significant ideas and becomes part of the “modernity in Turkey”. Furthermore, practices from the framework of “modernity”, namely developmental processes that are linked with the idea of a “modern nation-state”, such as democratization or industrialization, are incorporated as a part of the national progress, through the ideology of “nationalism”. While the debate on whether modernity was the ideational force behind nationalism or the other way around, continues, it is possible to state that “nationalism”, which may be considered as one of the most prominent ideologies of the modern times, cannot be conceived separately from the idea of “modernity”.
On the other hand, if we look at the connections between “modernity” and “nationalism” and “liberalism”,532 we can see that the latter two insisted on the modernist notion of progress. Schwarzmantel (1998, 64) explains this by expressing that both “liberalism” and “nationalism” were “seen as distinctively modern in the following way: they all envisaged the creation of a new subject of politics, a new way of organizing social life on the basis of the transformations that were typical of modernity”.533 However, their “core” ideas and values differed, since while “liberalism” emphasized the idea of “individualism” and “sought to set the individual free from tradition and arbitrary state power, and from the grip of any collective
532 According to Schwarzmantel (1998, 68), “Liberalism, in its broadest sense, was a philosophy or set of ideas that gave primacy to the idea of individual freedom, the freedom of the individual as the supteme social unit, untrammeled by interference from the state, other individuals or society as a whole, freedom from the ‘tyranny of the majority’…”
533 Schwarzmantel, John. (1998). The Age of Ideology: Political Ideologies from the American Revolution to Postmodern Times. Macmillan Press LTD. p.64
206
body”;534 “nationalism”, prioritized the “nation” and a sense of “national identity”.535 In that sense, nationalism was viewed both “modern” and “anti-modern”, since it involved the practices of “modernity”, while also utilizing “tradition” and memories of the past, that were often used to construct myths or symbols for the “national identity”.536 In other words, while “nationalism” provided a sense of “unification” under the protection of the state; “liberalism” focused on the “liberty” of the individual.
The discussion on viewing these three concepts – “Nationalism”; “Modernity”; and “Liberalism” – as ideologies or not, is beyond the scope of this study. However, their relationships, the impact of their political; cultural; and social formulations on architecture; and its representation in the narrative of Modern Turkish Architecture (1984), is an important part of this analysis. Even though these three notions might not have full and fixed morphologies; or have not necessarily produced political movements, and are open to interpretations and configurations,537 in this study, they are considered as various types of ideologies, in a broader and flexible sense, since they can be viewed as ideational systems with observable and identifiable patterns, that accompany political concepts or are practiced through them.
Here, we may examine how these ideologies, “Nationalism”; “Modernity”; and “Liberalism” were integrated into the narrative/s of Modern Turkish Architecture (1984). Among these three concepts, it is possible to observe that “Nationalism” and “Modernity” have various versions, meaning that they were re-interpreted in different periods, however, their discussions; formulations; and re-formulations are continuous throughout the narrative/s of Modern Turkish Architecture (1984). On the other hand,
534 Schwarzmantel, John. (1998). The Age of Ideology: Political Ideologies from the American Revolution to Postmodern Times. Macmillan Press LTD. p.81
535 Ibid.
536 Ibid.
537 Freeden, Michael. (1998). Is Nationalism a Distinct Ideology?. Political Studies, XLVI, 748-765.
207
we see that the idea of “Liberalism” comes forward as a dominant notion only after the 1950s, in the book. Therefore, it is considered more suitable to first discuss the former two concepts, and then continue with the latter.
In the narrative of Modern Turkish Architecture (1984), it is possible to observe four different versions of “Nationalism” and “Modernity”, which roughly meets the following periods: “Final Years of the Ottoman Empire to 1923”; “1923-1940”; “1940-1950”; and “1960-1980”. Considering the periodization of the book and their uses in the narratives, the variants of different nationalism/s in different periods will be referred to as “Turkish Nationalism”; “1930s Nationalism”; “1940s Nationalism”; and “Nationalism in the post 1950s”.538 Corresponding to these, four variants of “modernity” can also be seen in the book, which will be referred to as, “Disguised Modernity”; “Republican Modernity”; “Nationalist Modernity”; and “Pluralist Modernity”, with regards to the treatment of the notion of “modernity” in the narratives. Here, it is important to note that these are categorizations are constructed and included in this study, to understand and discuss, how ideologies may be interwoven with the narratives of architectural history on different periods, through the specific example of Modern Turkish Architecture (1984).
Starting with the first categorical pair, “Turkish Nationalism” and “Disguised Modernity”, which corresponds to the period between the Late Ottoman Empire and the proclamation of the Republic in 1923, the inclusions of these formulations of ideologies may be discussed through the two consecutive chapters of Yıldırım Yavuz and Suha Özkan, “The Final Years of The Ottoman Empire”, and “Finding a National Idiom: The First National Style”; Renata Holod and Ahmet Evin’s “Introduction”; and İlhan Tekeli’s thematic chapter, “The Social Context of the Development of
538 In the narratives, the term “Turkish Nationalism” is used in Introduction; İlhan Tekeli’s chapter; and in Yıldırım Yavuz and Suha Özkan’s chapter. The next interpretation of “Nationalism” is used in accordance with İlhan Tekeli’s (1984, 16) formulation, where he defines the transition from “Turkish Nationalism” to “Nationalism” in the early years of the republic, as a “re-interpretation that occurred in the 1930s”. The terms “1930s Nationalism”; “1940s Nationalism”; and “Nationalism in the post 1950s” are being used in accordance with the periodization in the narrative of Modern Turkish Architecture (1984).
208
Architecture in Turkey”. Authors539 introduce the notion of “Turkish Nationalism”, in their narratives, by looking at its historical formations, starting from the ideologies that predate it, which are “pan- Ottomanism540” and “pan-Islamism541”,542 whose disappearance makes way for the appearance of “Turkish Nationalism”.543 Yavuz and Yıldırım (1984, 35) constructs a relationship between “Turkish Nationalism” and the mentioned disappearing ideologies, as follows:
“As the Empire began to lose territory and disintegrate, particularly following the Russo-Turkish war of 1877-1878, all intellectual energies were focused on formulating programs and ideologies which could provide the means to save it. Pan-Ottomanism, pan-Islamism and nationalism were proposed in turn, the latter in partial reaction to the formation of nation states in the Balkans. Turkish nationalism, which
539 The “authors” here refer to Renata Holod; İlhan Tekeli; Yıldırım Yavuz and Suha Özkan, since they all include the notion of “Turkish Nationalism” in their chapters.
540 Pan-Ottomanism can be defined as the ideology that intended to being peoples of the Ottoman Empire together, under an Ottoman identity, which was an attempt to unite minorities and people from different nationalities, including Turks, Arabs, Greeks and Albanians. (Snyder, Louis. L. (1990). Encyclopedia of Nationalism. Paragon House.)
541 Pan-Islamism can be defined as a religio-political ideology that intends to unite the followers of Islam as a Muslim community within the Ottoman Empire. (Snyder, 1990)
542 The prefix “pan”, which was used in Greek to mean “all” or “whole”, is used in modern times with other terms to express a group of people’ belonging to a nationality; religion; or race, as in the cases of pan-Islamism; pan-African; or pan-Turkism. (Webb, Anne. C. (1879). A Manual of Etymology: Containing Latin & Greek Derivatives: with a Key, Giving the Prefix, Root, and Suffix. Philadelphia: Eldredge & Brother.)
Here we may also note that, Snyder (1990, 305) defines pan-movements as “the grouping together of and organized activities by a people working concertedly to enhance and promote their solidarity, and bound together by a common or a kindred language, the same historical traditions, and/or geographical proximity.”
543 Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press.
209
evolved out of pan-Ottomanism, had been reinforced by pan-Turkism544, which stressed cultural and linguistic unity.”545 (Yavuz and Özkan, 1984, 35)
As these ideologies disappear, we see the ideology of “Turkish Nationalism”, which according to Tekeli (1984, 13) was espoused by the Committee of Union and Progress (CUP), after “the bankruptcy of pan-Ottomanism and pan-Islamism”, following the loss of the Balkans in the Balkan War of 1912; and the Albanian uprising.546 We encounter the ideas of the “West”, and “consumption”, through Holod and Evin’s (1984, 5) descriptions, where they first point to the secret Young Ottoman society, that was founded by the younger intelligentsia in the Ottoman Empire, as a reaction towards the Tanzimat elite in 1865, who “behaved ostentatiously and displayed a pattern of conspicuous consumption and Westernized manners resembling the ways of a Western haute bourgeoisie”.547 Members of the reformist intelligentsia later formed the “secret cells of the Committee of Union and Progress”, which was followed by the Young Turk revolution in 1908, and the Balkan Wars (1911-1913), and afterwards “Turkish nationalism” became the “viable policy and ideology” of the time.548
544 Pan-Turkism can be defined as an ideology that called for the union of people of Turkic origins under the Ottoman flag. (Bal, 2004); (Zürcher, 2014)
545 Yavuz, Yıldırım. & Özkan, Suha. The Final Years of the Ottoman Empire. In Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press. p.35
546 Tekeli, Ilhan. The Social Context of the Development of Architecture in Turkey. In Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press. p.13
547 Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press. p.5
548 Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press. p.5
The Young Ottomans, a secret society, was established in 1865, calling for “greater political participation and representative government” (Holod & Evin, 1984, 5). They influenced the first constitution of 1876 and the establishment of the parliamentary regime, which was the result of a series of events starting with the deposition of Abdülaziz, through a coup; the ascension of Sultan Murat V, who assured to declare a constitution but did not fulfill that promise by listening to Grand Vizier Rüştü Paşa instead of the Young Ottomans, and later become an alcoholic, which led to his descent from the throne, when Abdülhamid II became the new sultan (Riedler, 2011; Zürcher, 2014). Abdülhamid II abolished the parliament and shelved the constitution, asserting the Russo-Turkish War as a pretext, since the Russian army were almost at Istanbul (Holod & Evin, 1984). Afterwards, he
210
An important actor of the narrative is Ziya Gökalp, whose previously mentioned views on Hars (Culture) and Medeniyet (Civilization) were utilized to portray “Turkish Nationalism”. An example of this can be seen in İlhan Tekeli’s (1984, 13) narrative, where he first points to Ziya Gökalp’s dualist cultural theory consisting of “civilization” and “culture”, where “Ottoman modernization would be based on adopting European civilization while retaining Turkish identity and the Islamic religion.”549 Additionally, Holod and Evin (1984, 5) comments on Ziya Gökalp’s formula as follows:
“There would be in effect a dichotomy between a Turkish culture, identity and solidarity and an internationalist orientation to achieve social and scientific progress. Gökalp’s formula ultimately called for an amalgam of Western civilization, Turkish polity and society, and Islam as the individual’s personal belief.”550 (Holod and Evin, 1984, 5)
Considering Holod and Evin’s statement, in which these two types of culture are interpreted as “a Turkish culture, identity and solidarity” (Hars), and “an
“began to implement autocratic practices” (Holod & Evin, 1984), and “ruled as an absolute monarch for 30 years” (Zürcher, 2014, 76), until the Young Turk revolution that occurred in 1908. The Young Turk movement itself was divided between Liberals and Unionists, despite their combined forces to overthrow the Hamidian Regime (Ahmad, 1993). The Liberals mainly consisted of people from the upper classes of Ottoman society, who were “well educated, westernized, cosmopolitan, and comfortable with a foreign culture” (Ahmad, 1993, 33). On the other hand, while Unionists were also constitutionalists, they differed from Liberals in terms of being mainly a group of people, who “suffered the consequences of progressive integration into the world market due to the erosion of the indigenous economy” (Ahmad, 1993, 34). In 1889, the Unionists founded Committee of Union and Progress (CUP), as a secret organization to overthrow Abdülhamid II, which was then called İttihad-ı Osmanî Cemiyeti (Ahmad, 1993; Örs, 2013). After the rebellion in the army in June and July of 1908, which was led by CUP, Abdülhamid II “was forced to restore the constitution he had shelved for 30 years” (Ahmad, 1993, 2). The political program of the Committee of Union and Progress, aimed to change and transform the suffering under Sultan’s rule, by incorporating features such as religious freedom; free education; and land for the peasants, in it.
549 Tekeli, Ilhan. The Social Context of the Development of Architecture in Turkey. In Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press. p.13
550 Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press. p.5
211
internationalist orientation to achieve social and scientific progress” (Tezhib),551 and also İlhan Tekeli’s explanation of the dualist cultural theory, it is possible to observe a direct relation between “Nationalism”; and the “West”, which is constructed in and through the ideology of “Turkish Nationalism”, since, it incorporated a “Nationalist” and an “Internationalist” aspect, the former existing in the “Nation”, and the latter may be taken from the “West”.
While the concept of “Turkish Nationalism” is clearly articulated in the narrative/s of Modern Turkish Architecture (1984), we do not see a direct reference to “modernity”, rather, we see an expression of a “disguised modernity”, which is constructed through a relation with the “West”; its “civilization” and lifestyle, that is identified through a process “Westernization”, and to a lesser extent constructed in connection with the process of “Modernization”. We can see that a parallel between the definition of “modernity” of the period; “Turkish Nationalism”; and Ziya Gökalp’s ideas were drawn to offer explanations on the architectural production. An example of this may be seen in İlhan Tekeli’s (1984, 13) statements, who explains the emergence of the “First National Style”, in relation to the ideology of the period, by first expressing that “when the political developments of the Ottoman Empire produced a nationalist movement, they at the same time coopted an already existing architecture and dubbed it the First National Architectural Movement”, and then exemplifying this through architectural works. Here, we can underline that in relation to the architectural works he exemplifies, Tekeli (1984, 13) points out that “modern structural systems”, such as steel and reinforced concrete, were employed in the construction of those buildings.552 In connection with Ziya Gökalp’s dualist formula, and “Turkish Nationalism”, he also states that, “While the organization of functions and masses was borrowed from the West, elements such as arches, columns, mouldings, cantilevers, and overhangs,
551 Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press p.5
552 Tekeli, Ilhan. The Social Context of the Development of Architecture in Turkey. In Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press. p.13
212
derived from the examples of classical Ottoman architecture, were used in the treatment of the exterior”.553
In Tekeli’s statements, we can highlight two significant matters. First, we can see that he points to the use of “modern structural systems”, in other words the use of “modern” techniques and information in relation to the “First National Architectural Movement”, which is associated with the “West”, which may be understood as the technology and knowledge that can be “borrowed” from “them” in connection with the ideology of “Turkish Nationalism”. In line with these views, he also points to an “Ottoman modernization” that predates the foundation of the nation-state, that “would be based on adopting European civilization”. Considering these statements, we can argue that a variant of “modernity” was included in the narrative of Modern Turkish Architecture (1984), even though it was not necessarily highlighted, since it was mentioned rarely, which was therefore identified as a “Disguised Modernity”. Next, in Tekeli’s statements, we can also see that the “First National Style” was associated with “classical” period of Ottoman architecture, as opposed to its later formulations, which can be discussed in relation to the “uncorrupted” image of the Ottoman architecture in the classical period, which was mentioned in relation to the architectural historiography in the previous chapter.
Here it is important to note that, “modernity”, or “modernization” for that matter; and the concepts of “Westernization” are different from each other, since “Westernization” has negative connotations and is often being used to refer to a “process of social change where societies convert to the customs and practices of Western civilization”,554 with the implications of an “assimilation” in production or in social organizations, in which “western standards” can be seen as a point of reference, and causes inequalities
553 Tekeli, Ilhan. The Social Context of the Development of Architecture in Turkey. In Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press. p.13
554 Bozkurt, Umut. (2012). Westernization. The Wiley-Blackwell Encyclopedia of Globalization, G. Ritzer (Ed.). (Wiley Online Library).
213
between the culturally continuous “West” and its “Westernizing” other.555 “Modernity”, on the other hand, is charged with positive connotations since it is viewed related to the ideas of progress; development; and/or improvement, ideal social orders; knowledge and production, and is viewed as a coherent whole, despite the different experiences of modernity in various geographies. Hence, “modernization” is viewed as a positive process in the discourses that view “modernity” with a totalizing vision of a “modern” future, where developments and improvements of society; ways of living; and their expressions, are celebrated.
While the two terms – “Westernization” and “Modernization” –, are not synonymous, it is possible to observe their interchangeable uses in various discourses, which might be stemming from a question of internalization, in which the progress or the expressions of that progress, such as the works of architecture, are viewed as assimilations or as internalized materializations, in which the former is understood as a result of “Westernization” and the latter is of “Modernization”. Here, we may question, if Gökalp’s dualist theory serves as a foundation for the discourses that view the expressions of “civilization” as assimilations, taken or borrowed from the “West”, which can be seen as associated with the processes of “Westernization”, contrary to discourses that view it in relation to the process of “Modernization”, as in the case of İlhan Tekeli’s approach to the works of architecture in the late Ottoman Empire in the Modern Turkish Architecture (1984).556
555 Von Laue, Theodore H. (1987). The World Revolution of Westernization. The History Teacher, 20(2), 263-279.
556 Tekeli, Ilhan. The Social Context of the Development of Architecture in Turkey. In Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press.
In his later studies, İlhan Tekeli also categorizes the “modernity” of the period as “Ottoman Modernity”, and “Shy Modernity”. Tekeli, İlhan. (2010). The Story of Istanbul’s Modernisation. Architectural Design, 80(1), 32-39.; Kadir Has Üniversitesi, Şehir Konuşmaları/City Talks II: “Kenti Temsil Biçimleri: Yeni Yaklaşımlar”. Interview with İlhan Tekeli. Interviewer B. Elvan Erginli. Youtube, 6 December 2016. Accessed on: 19.07.2021, Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnhW7SbQX7M&t=1630s.
214
Another important question, and a problematic of identifying the architectural production in the late Ottoman Empire period, more specifically the last two decades of the twentieth century, through a process of “Westernization” and therefore in relation to the “West”, can be viewed as a disregarding of the developmental processes of the geography in different fields including architecture; as well as that geography’s intercultural relations; and hybridizations that might have occurred throughout time due to those connections. Shirine Hamadeh (2004, 34) expresses a similar point on the Ottoman context to explain geography specific developments, specifically in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, by stating the following:
“While many contemporary critics saw these changes as signs of the breakdown of social order and the decline of the empire, they can also be viewed as symptomatic of what, in the distant context of Europe, is now known as the early modern period. Greater mobility among social and professional groups led to new social and financial aspirations, increasing material wealth, changing habits of consumption and of recreational and cultural practices, and the wearing out of stable marks of distinction. These patterns became integral to the social landscape of the city and began to crystallize in its physical fabric.”557 (Hamadeh, 2004, 34)
She continues by questioning if “our understanding of the concept of ‘early modern period’” is “pertinent only to Europe”, and that in the Ottoman context, “changing attitudes, tastes, and practices resonated with some of the transformations that unfolded in contemporary European cities.”558 Furthermore, Hamadeh (2004, 46) states that,
“…some of the developments that unfolded in the decades of architectural modernization and westernization…from the1820s to the 1960s, were rooted in changes that cannot be squarely identified with western influences but rather grew for the most part out of their own social climate.”559 (Hamadeh, 2004, 46)
557 Hamadeh, Shirine. (2004). Ottoman Expressions of Early Modernity and the "Inevitable" Question of Westernization. Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, 63(1), 32-51. p.34
558 Ibid. p.46
559 Ibid. p.46
215
Considering Hamadeh’s approach, and other formulations of the Late Ottoman Empire, it is possible to speak of a disguised “modernity” in the narrative/s of Modern Turkish Architecture (1984), which describes some of the developments of the late Ottoman Empire, through Ziya Gökalp’s dualist cultural theory, where the “civilization” is “borrowed” from the “West”. Even though in the narrative of Modern Turkish Architecture (1984), there is a separation between the architecture in the final decades of the Ottoman Empire and the “First National Style”, the connection between the latter and “Turkish Nationalism” is still observable, since we see the “national” and “Turkish” aspects on the one side, and the “European formations” and technology, on the other. From a narratorial point of view, this might be being used to construct difference to what comes in the next period, since the idea of the “modern”, can be, and is often expressed through a construction of difference with its “other”, the “non-modern”.
This brings me to the next categorical pair, ideologies of the next period in the Narrative of Modern Architecture (1984), “1930s Nationalism” and “Republican Modernity”. Since this period can be dated roughly between the proclamation of the republic and the 1940s, it takes place in various chapters in the book, including İlhan Tekeli’s; Yıldırım Yavuz and Suha Özkan’s; and mainly Afife Batur’s chapter, “To Be Modern: Search for A Republican Architecture”. A major turning point in the history of Turkey, the War of Independence (1919-1923); and the proclamation of the Republic (October 29, 1923), is situated between the two consecutive chapters of Yıldırım Yavuz and Suha Özkan, “The Final Years of The Ottoman Empire” and “Finding a National Idiom: The First National Style”, in which they evaluate the architectural production of Turkey that took place roughly ranging from the Late Empire; to the 1930s. We see a separation between these chapters, in the year of 1923, which marks the end of the Ottoman Empire, and the beginning of the newly founded nation-state. This turning point also marks a shift in ideology, since “The nation-state, itself, generates ideology: The ideology of the nation-state”560, as Max Skidmore (1992, 63) puts it.
560 Skidmore, Max, J. (1992). Ideologies and the nation-state. History of European Ideas, 15(1-3): 61-66. p.63
216
The ideology of the new nation state can be viewed as related to the social aspect of ideologies which was mentioned earlier, in terms of who belongs to the group of that nation or not.561 In other words, there is a shift in belonging, from “Ottomanness” to “Turkishness”, in the identity of the group members. Yavuz and Yıldırım (1984, 51), reflects this shift of regime, in the beginning of their second chapter, through the following statement:
“There followed a series of reforms carried out by a group of dedicated nationalists headed by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk to build a nation-state on the ruins of the Ottoman Empire. An attempt was made to break all association with the past, …”562 (Yavuz & Özkan, 1984, 51)
The change in the regime can be read from two phrases above. First, “The ruins of the Ottoman Empire” can be seen as a powerful metaphor, which implies the ideational death of the Empire, which now only exists as cultural remains, instead of physical ruins.563 This metaphor is further strengthened with the statement, “an attempt was made to break all associations with the past”, as these phrases indicate that something “new” is to be built upon the “old”, something different than the Ottoman Empire; something that is identified with the “new” nation-state, and with the new national identity. There is another significant event related to this shift, Ankara’s declaration as the new capital of Turkey, which finds place between the break of Yıldırım and Özkan’s (1984, 51) chapters, as follows:
“The most important event of the early 1920s which had lasting effects on the development of modern Turkish architecture was the declaration of Ankara as the new
561 Dijk, Teun, A. van. (1995). Discourse semantics and ideology. Discourse and Society, 6(2), 243-289.
562 Yavuz, Yıldırım. & Özkan, Suha. Finding a National Idiom: The First National Style. In Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press. p.51
563 Ginsberg, Robert. (2004). The Aesthetics of Ruins. Rodopi.; Hell, Julia. & Schönle, Andreas. (2010). Ruins of Modernity. Duke University Press.
217
capital. Ankara as the new capital, replacing the imperial city of Istanbul, which was too closely associated with the Ottoman past.”564 (Yavuz & Özkan, 1984, 51)
While the shift in the capital from Istanbul to Ankara will be discussed in relation to city and architecture, here it is important to mention it as part of the change in ideology as well, since the city itself became a symbol, as the seat of the government, and as the face of the new ideology, another interpretation of “Nationalism” that is associated with the republican regime.565 According to Tekeli, who defines the transition as a “re-interpretation” of “Nationalism” that occurred in the 1930s, “1930s Nationalism” did not utilize Ziya Gökalp’s “dualist” cultural theory, since it was replaced with a “monist” one, that aimed to integrate ethnic and religious differences, under a primary identity, “a Turk”.566
Gürcan (2010, 148), points to two major points on “1930’s Nationalism”,567 which are “complete independence and going forward in parallel with the modern civilization by maintaining and developing the special character of the Turkish society.”568 He adds that, “objective of reaching the modern civilization”, consisted of “providing secularism, economic development and democratization.”569 In other words, instead
564 Yavuz, Yıldırım. & Özkan, Suha. Finding a National Idiom: The First National Style. In Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press. p.51
565 As previously mentioned, there are various terms to describe the “Nationalism” that was formulated in accordance with the ideas of Atatürk, as a key figure; and practices that applied in relation to that ideology. Definitions of this formulation of “nationalism” includes “Atatürk Nationalism”; “Kemalism”; “Atatürkism” or “Official Nationalism” in different sources.
566 I Tekeli, Ilhan. The Social Context of the Development of Architecture in Turkey. In Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press.
567 Gürcan (2010) uses the term “Atatürk Nationalism” to refer to the ideology of the period.
568 Gürcan, Efe Can. The Evolution of Turkish Nationalism: An Unconventional Approach. In Glass, William. & Burbick, Joan. (2010). Beyond Imagined Uniqueness: Nationalisms in Contemporary Perspectives. Cambridge Scholars Publishing. p.148
569 Ibid. p.148
218
of the two elements of the “Turkish Nationalism” that were hars (culture) and medeniyet (civilization), in this formulation of “nationalism”, we see a “unified” or “monist” national identity, that combines hars and medeniyet, as well as “an internationalist orientation”, by demonstrating development in different fields, and by aiming to become “parallel” with the modern civilization, instead of taking medeniyet from elsewhere.570
In addition to the use of national symbols, such as the Turkish flag, or the national anthem; Atatürk reforms served as an important expression of the ideology of the period, that were aimed to “secularize” and “modernize” political; cultural; social; economical; and educational institutions of the Republic. These reforms, which started with the “Abolition of the Ottoman Sultanate” in 1922, continued under the leadership of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, until his death in 1938. Reforms, which were viewed as a part of the process, or a part of the “project of modernization”, became an inherent part of the architectural history narratives that examine related periods of architectural production in Turkey. This was due to the effects of this process on social and cultural arenas; but also because of its impact on the architectural ideology, since architecture was also affected during this process and became an expression of the ideology, as “modern architecture”. Elvan Altan Ergut’s (1984, 155) explains this relationship between the ideology of the period and “modern architecture” in Turkey as follows:
“…this was how nationalism of the period in Turkey defined 'national' – by identifying it with 'international' via the 'West'. The aim of the state was to create a 'nation' as 'civilized' as (and as similar to) contemporary 'western nations' in order to be internationally recognized. Similarly, the nationalist aim of creating 'the new architecture of Turkey' was accepted as dependent on making it 'international' by applying what was developed in the 'West', generally accepted as representative of the 'modern' and contemporary. This is why 'modern architecture' as developed in western countries at that time became a reference point for architectural production in Turkey.”571 (Ergut, 1998, 155)
570 Here I am referring to Ziya Gökalp’s notion of Hars and Medeniyet in Türkçülüğün Esasları.Varlık Yayınları.
571 Altan Ergut, T. Elvan. (1998). Making a National Architecture: Architecture and the Nation-State in Early Republican Turkey. (Ph.D. Thesis). Binghamton University, State University of New York. p. 155
219
Here, it is important to mention Batur’s (1984, 76) ideas from her chapter, “To Be Modern: Search for A Republican Architecture”, on the same relation, where she states, “The orientation towards modern architecture was perceived as the prerequisite for modernization, and for attaining the transition from an Islamic-Eastern cultural basis to a Western one”.572 We see in Batur’s expression that she implies a change in architectural identity from “national” to “international”; while also creating a difference between the old “Islamic-Eastern” culture, and the new one, “West”. While the architectural reflection of this new ideology will be discussed later, it is possible to observe that, “1930’s Nationalism” was directly related to an “internationalist modernity”, that in this study was categorized as a “Republican Modernity”, which was to be achieved through series of reforms in all spheres, with the aim to “reach the level of contemporary civilization”, to become “parallel” with the “West”, as opposed to being “assimilated” by it. Consequently, it is possible to speak of “modernization” and “modernity” as notions that are directly in relation with the “nationalist ideology” of the period, which included the ideas of development and progress inherent in them.
In the narrative of Modern Turkish Architecture (1984), we see a re-interpretation of “Nationalism” takes places in relation to the period of the 1940s, which may be viewed to be in an in-between state. The term “in-between”, in this context, refers to two different types of in-betweenness in ideology. First type of in-betweenness, may be discussed in relation to Üstün Alsaç’s chapter, “The Second Period of National Architecture”, where architectural production is expressed to have both “Nationalist” and “Internationalist”, orientations. In Alsaç’s chapter, we see two significant ideology-related turning points being included to explain the transition from “1930s Nationalism” to “1940s Nationalism”, which are Atatürk’s death (1938); and the beginning of World War II (1939). The last major happening, according to Alsaç, is
572 Batur, Afife. To Be Modern: Search for A Republican Architecture. In Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press. p.76
220
the “Seminar on National Architecture”, that began to be thought in 1934 by Sedad Hakkı Eldem,573 as it will be discussed.
In the beginning of his narrative, Alsaç (1984, 94) states that “For the first fifteen years of the Republic, Atatürk’s opinions and actions had the weight of law,”574 which can be seen as an exemplification of Atatürk’s key role in the “process of modernization”. Atatürk’s death in 1938, combined with the second turning point Alsaç mentions, the beginning of the World War II, became the “catalysts for the reappearance of regional tendencies in architecture”.575 He expressed that, the World War II brought an economic crisis, that also affected the construction program; by ending the import of building materials that were essential for modern construction, such as steel; glass; and cement.576 Alsaç (1984, 95) also mentions the psychological effect of war by asserting that “Nationalism was called upon to create internal cohesion and to withstand external pressures.”577 He strengthens this connection by stating that after the war ended, there was a “return to an internationalism”, which continued in the 1950s.578 In other words, Alsaç points to the unifying aspect of “nationalism”, that was needed during a time of economic crisis; external pressure; as well as during a time of loss due to Atatürk’s death, which he tied with the architectural production of the 1940s.
573 Marinov, Tchavdar. “The ‘Balkan House’: Interpretations and Symbolic Appropriations of the Ottoman-Era Vernacular Architecture in the Balkans”. In Daskalov, Roumen Dontchev.; Mishkova, Diana.; Marinov, Tchavdar.; & Vezenkov, Alexander. (2017). Entangled Histories of the Balkans - Volume Four: Concepts, Approaches, and (Self-)Representations. Koninklijke Brill NV.
574 Alsaç, Üstün. The Second Period of National Architecture. In Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press. p.94
575 Ibid. p.95
576 Ibid.
577 Ibid. p.95
578 Ibid. p.95
221
Unlike the relationship between “Turkish Nationalism”, and “1930’s Nationalism”, where the former was replaced with the latter as seen in the narrative of Modern Turkish Architecture, there is no abandonment of the “nationalist” or the “internationalist” orientation in the transition from the “1930s Nationalism”, to the “1940s Nationalism”, as they were both inherent in the ideology of the period. İlhan Tekeli (1984, 22) portrays the transition to this variant of “Nationalism”, in relation to the architectural production, through the following statement:
“Within the ideology of the Republic there was no nostalgia for the Ottoman past. Therefore, it was necessary to go further back. The Seljuk period proved to be more acceptable and more fruitful. And, because of the official History Thesis extended ‘Turkishness’ all the way back to Hittite and Mesopotamian civilizations, it was now possible to go back to these periods in the search for monumentality as was the case with the Atatürk Mausoleum.”579 (Tekeli, 1984, 22)
In other words, the idea of “Turkishness” was also different in this formulation of “Nationalism”, since the relationship with a heritage, or a cultural past, was not constructed only through the “Ottoman” identity, and identifications from earlier periods were utilized instead, which according to Tekeli was related to the incompatibility of the “Ottoman past” with the ideology of the Republic. As a result, the ideology in the 1940s, can be viewed in an in-between state, carrying both “nationalist” and “internationalist” characteristics, which was also reflected in the architectural production, as it will be discussed.
This brings me to the second type of in-betweenness, which is not specifically mentioned in the narrative of Modern Turkish Architecture (1984) but can be inferred from its general structure. Looking at the ideological orientations, we can identify two main periods, in terms of architecture and its relations to ideology, as it is reflected in the book. The first period starts with the late years of the Ottoman Empire around the 1890s and continues into the establishment of the nation-state with the foundation of the Republic of Turkey in 1923, and proceeds until the 1950s. The second period on
579 Tekeli, Ilhan. The Social Context of the Development of Architecture in Turkey. In Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press. p.22
222
the other hand, starts within the multi-party regime, when Democrat Party was elected in 1950, and continues until the 1980s, where the narrative completes. In the first period, we see a continuous discussion between “nationalism” and the idea of “modernity”, as well as their different interpretations.
Until the 1950s, in different periods, we see shifts in ideologies, starting with a “nationalist orientation”; that changes into an “internationalist orientation”; which then changes into another formulation of “nationalism” that has an “internationalist aspect”. However, following the 1950s, after the election of Democrat Party, a different shift in ideology, where liberal policies in various spheres began to be implemented, began, as previously mentioned. We may look at Üstün Alsaç’s (1984, 101) concluding remarks, to understand changes in ideology from 1940s to 1950s, where he states the following:
“The ideas of a nationalism in architecture were discredited at the end of World War II. It was not only that the defeated ideology caused the waning of the Second National Movement, but that the reinforcement of national feelings was no longer necessary. Turkey opened itself to the world after a long and unwilling isolation: the end of the war activated commercial life…An overall liberalism was beginning to appear. Architecturally it manifested itself in a new internationalism that would dominate the next decade…”580 (Alsaç, 1984, 101-102)
In the statement above, we see that Alsaç portrays the “1940s Nationalism”, as a defeated and discredited ideology at the end of the decade; since Turkey was closed to the world during the 1940s due to the effects of the war and the depression; and where the unification through a national belongingness was viewed to become unnecessary.581 While Alsaç’s concluding remarks may give us an idea on why the “1940’s Nationalism” was fading, Mete Tapan’s opening statements in his chapter, “International Style: Liberalism in Architecture” provides the reader with new
580 Alsaç, Üstün. The Second Period of National Architecture. In Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press. p.101-102
581 Ibid.
223
developments in the 1950s, which provides explanations towards the new concepts that emerge from the narrative.
Tapan begins with his narrative with a new turning point in the history of Turkey, that being the establishment of the multi-party system in 1946, and the elections of 1950, when Democrat Party was elected and came to power as the first opposition party against Republican People’s Party.582 According to Mete Tapan (1984, 106), the first and foremost significant change that had an important effect on the architectural production, which occurred after the election in 1950, was the emphasized the role of the private sector, which marked a shift in development strategies, during a time when, “the government was controlled by the interests of an underdeveloped bourgeoisie which nevertheless adopted Western models for its course of action.”583 In other words, he underlined the relationship between the policies of the government, which gave emphasis to the private sector, and the consumer, who, according to Tapan, was the bourgeoisie of Turkey that had a rapid growth in the rate of capital accumulation, at least compared to their Western counterparts.584
While the general architectural tone of the period between the 1950s and the 1980s can be described to have an internationalist orientation in ideology; since Turkey became more involved with the “West” for economical purposes, to attract the “Western” interest to bring foreign capital into the country, the discussion on “nationalism” also
582 Tapan, Mete. International Style: Liberalism in Architecture. In Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press.
The Republican People’s Party is the oldest political party of Turkey after the foundation of the Republic, that was named Halk Fırkası (People's Party), and was founded by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk in 1923. The name of the party was later changed to Republican People’s Party (RPP), which ruled under the single-party system until 1946. In 1945, the president of Turkey at the time and the leader of the RPP, İsmet İnönü, who was also the first prime minister of Turkey, encouraged the establishment of new political parties, after the World War II have ended. (Toker, 1990.; Turan, 1999)
583 Tapan, Mete. International Style: Liberalism in Architecture. In Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press. p.106
584 Ibid.
224
continued, in which “Islam” was beginning to be utilized to challenge earlier definitions and re-definitions of it, which intensified after the 1970s and 1980s.585 In other words, after the 1950s, “Islam” became a part of the ideology of different governments, which grew even more after the 1970s, however, in the narrative of Modern Turkish Architecture (1984), this aspect of the ideology is not very detailed, rather, there is an emphasis on the role given to the private sector, as it had a direct impact on architecture. Considering the emphasis on liberal economic policies; and the “internationalist” tendencies in architecture; it can be seen that “Nationalism in the post-1950s”, as an ideology is rather put aside in the narrative of the book, since in relation to the architectural production, other notions, such as consumer tastes; and pluralism, were highlighted in line with the ideology of “Liberalism” instead. Consequently, the ideology of the 1940s, can be viewed as a threshold, or a period of transition, between the single-party and multi-party regimes; which carried “internationalist” aspects due to the relations with the “West”; “Nationalist” aspects in relation to the new formulations of “Nationalism”; which after the 1950s also acquired “liberal” aspects due to the political attitudes of the Democrat Party; and due to the role of the private sector in architecture.
Tapan (1984) lists several other factors that affected the development of Turkey during the 1950s, that directly and/or indirectly affected the architectural production, which includes the dependency on foreign credit; urban growth rate; migration towards the big cities; the foreign aid of Marshall Plan (1947); Turkey’s participation in the Korean War (1951); and the admission to NATO (1953).586 According to Tapan (1984) through these developments and the policies of the government, Turkey became fully integrated to the international economic system, which led to greater foreign
585 Ahmad, Feroz. (1993). The Making of Modern Turkey. Routledge.; Tanıl, Bora. (2003). Nationalist Discourses in Turkey. South Atlantic Quarterly, 102 (2/3), 433-451.
586 Tapan, Mete. International Style: Liberalism in Architecture. In Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press.
225
dependency over the years.587 Tekeli (1984, 24) includes several other remarks that Tapan left out in his chapter, such as Democrat Party’s new interpretation of populism; a change in the meaning of the “West”, since it used to refer to Europe but after the war, “the United States emerged as the leader of the West”; Democrat Party’s aim to “make Turkey a small America”; the importance of the architectural competitions during the 1950s; and perhaps most importantly, “the impossibility of continuing a national architecture in a peripheral country integrated politically and economically into the international order”.588
Despite the turning points in the 1960s and the replacement of Democrat Party’s liberal policies, the “nationalist” ideology continued in Turkey, even though it is not emphasized in Atilla Yücel’s chapter, “Pluralism Takes Command: The Turkish Architectural Scene Today”, as well. In Yücel’s chapter, we can see the strengthening of the concepts of “populism” and “consumerism” as an outcome of the “liberal” policies, in relation to architecture, resulting in a pluralistic environment of architecture. In addition to these, we see İlhan Tekeli (1984, 27) mentioning a diffusion of “Social Consciousness”, in relation to architectural production, after the 1960s, a concept that Yücel also points out through the leftist criticisms in the period.589
Yücel (1984) starts his narrative, through the turning point of the military intervention of 1960. According to Yücel (1984), following the coup of 1960, there were closer ties with the West that stemmed from multilateral economic relations with them; and the new constitution aimed rapid industrialization and a more equitable distribution of
587 Tapan, Mete. International Style: Liberalism in Architecture. In Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press.
588 Tekeli, Ilhan. The Social Context of the Development of Architecture in Turkey. In Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press. p.24-25
589 Ibid. p.27; and Yücel, Atilla. Pluralism Takes Command: The Turkish Architectural Scene Today. In Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press. p.123.
226
income.590 The changes in the country had intellectual and social impacts, since “as a result of rapid urbanization a consumer society began to form”, that was “more widespread than in the 1950s”, as Yücel (1984, 120) points out.591 However, in relation to rapid urbanization and the negligence of the agricultural sector, migration to big cities continued during this time, causing crowdedness and housing problems. Yücel (1984) lists some of the major problems in the 1960s, that occurred despite the goals of the Five-Year Plans made in that period, as urban growth; housing; environmental and ecological problems; rapid changes in culture and values.592
As he continues into the 1970s, Yücel points to oil crisis and the growing anarchy of the late seventies that was influenced by the events of May 1968, which led to the military intervention of 1980, due to the culmination of these problems.593 There are various interpretations of “Nationalism” between the 1950s and 1980s, including the emergence of “Conservative Nationalism”; “The Turkish-Islamic Synthesis”, and the “left-of-center” socioeconomic policies of the RPP, however, they are not emphasized within the narrative/s of Modern Turkish Architecture (1984). The main impact of ideology between the 1950s and 1980s, in the book, occurs through the economical ideology that is based on industrialization, when an important role was given to the private sector and the market, which had direct influences in the architectural sphere, since it led to a market oriented architecture, through the changes occurring in the control of the capital, and changes in the patrons of architecture, which gradually
590 Yücel, Atilla. Pluralism Takes Command: The Turkish Architectural Scene Today. In Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press.
591 Ibid. p.120
592 Yücel, Atilla. Pluralism Takes Command: The Turkish Architectural Scene Today. In Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press.
593 Ibid.
Here, it should be noted that, in addition to the two coups of 1960 and 1980 that Atilla Yücel mentions, there is also the 1971 Turkish military memorandum (12 Mart Muhtırası), which was an ultimatum towards the government. (Turan, Şerafettin. (1999). Türk Devrim Tarihi V: Çağdaşlık Yolunda Yeni Türkiye (27 Mayıs 1960 – 12 Eylül 1980). Bilgi Yayınevi.)
227
increased until the 1980s. Looking at Mete Tapan’s and Atilla Yücel’s narratives, we can see that “liberalism” and the consequences of liberal policies were highlighted, rather than “nationalism”, and the general architectural ideology was reflected to be “modern” in a pluralistic environment, showing different interpretations of architectural ideology.
According to Gellner (1983) the ideology of “Nationalism” demands a cultural homogeneity, that is imposed on the populations, through the mechanisms of the state, which is required for economic and political stability of the “nation”.594 The idea of the unified; and homogenous society in “Nationalism”, constructs the polarization between “Us” and “Them”, through the identificatory processes of the group members.595 However, neither the culture; nor the society, are fixed; passive; and unified concepts, rather they are diverse; and responsive towards political; social; and cultural alterations that occur within the nation, deeming them as active and heterogenous notions, that are open to changes. Consequently, we see that formulations of “Nationalism” were re-interpreted in relation to the historical conditions, changing the “national” and “cultural” identities, as well as the structure of the society.
As it can be seen above, there are at least four alternative forms of “Nationalism” that can be read from the narrative of Modern Turkish Architecture (1984), that were categorized as “Turkish Nationalism”; “1930s Nationalism”; “1940s Nationalism”; and “Nationalism in the post-1950s”, in this study. These nationalisms was highlighted or in the case of “Nationalism in the post-1950s” were not focused on, in the book, in connection with their role in the shaping of the architectural production of different periods, as they affected the ways of living of the society, through correlated ideas of modernity.
594 Gellner, Ernest. (1983). Nations and Nationalism. Cornell University Press.
595 Dijk, Teun A. van. (2006). Ideology and Discourse analysis. Journal of Political Ideologies, 11(2), 115-140.
228
These different versions of “Nationalism” and “Modernity”, while forming versions of society, through the ideological impositions and practices, affected the architectural production, alongside other mechanisms, such as law; education; culture; and industry. Therefore, versions of both ideologies, - “Nationalism” and “Modernity”, and the change in politics to “Liberalism” after the 1950s, became the backbone of the narrative/s, around which architecture circulates, by either transforming; or transitioning into various forms. The factor of country’s openness or closedness to the world in different views of “Nationalism”; “Modernity” and “Liberalism”, strengthened the polarizations between “Us” and “Them”, making the “West”, as well as different definitions of “Turkishness”, an inherent part of the discussion in Modern Turkish Architecture (1984).
In other words, just as these alternative forms of “Nationalism” and “Modernity”; and the shift to “Liberalism”, affected the ways of living, and architecture in history; they also played an important role in the shaping of the narrative of architectural production in the book, through the representations of their formulations that are being used to describe and explain architecture/s of different periods. The exemplifications of these representations can be found in various forms in the narratives, which constitutes the remaining themes that emerge from Modern Turkish Architecture (1984) in this study, which will be discussed as architectural themes of representation.
4.2.Architectural Themes of Representation
In the previous section, ideologies as encompassing themes in the narrative of Modern Turkish Architecture (1984) was discussed. It was also mentioned that architectural production was used as the representation of these ideologies or consequences of those ideologies, in the book, while also contributing to a representation of the past, since architecture is the focus, around which other themes are circulating. However, this representation does not solely operate through the selection and inclusion of architectural works, rather it is constructed around other themes that surround architecture, which are reflected through descriptions and explanations in different
229
chapters. Here, we can identify three main themes of architecture that are in connection with each other, which can be listed as the city/s of architecture, where the site; geography; or city of an architectural work arise from the narrative as a theme that contributes to the representation, specifically through its relations with ideologies; building types of architecture, where we see a separation between the public and residential works of architecture in their inclusion and treatment within the book; and lastly, prominent architectural works; and architects, where works of architecture are put forward that may be conveying symbolic meanings, and where architects are being used as key figures that play a role in the routing of the narrative/s. In this part of the thesis, I will be examining the mentioned three themes of architecture, in relation to their interrelated categories of ideologies, to understand how these themes work in the representation of a past within the narrative of the book.
4.2.1. City/s
The first prominent architectural theme, which is connected to architectural production and to ideologies in the narrative of Modern Turkish Architecture, is the “city” or “city/s”. In the construction of the narratives of the chapters, it is possible to observe that authors mainly included architectural works from the big cities, which were described by highlighting their architectural features in detail, even though architecture from other cities were mentioned as well. The cities of Istanbul and Ankara, former being the Ottoman and the latter Republican capital, were emphasized among others, in their relations to ideologies; society; and architecture, but also in their relationships with each other. The first emphasis on “cities”, in Modern Turkish Architecture (1984), is in the narratives of Yıldırım Yavuz and Suha Özkan’s two chapters, titled “The Final Years of The Ottoman Empire” (Second Chapter) and “Finding a National Idiom: The First National Style” (Third Chapter), in which they examine “First National Style”. The titles of the chapters may portray the idea that architectural production changes between these chapters, however, the “First National Style” is continuous between the two, as it begins in the former chapter, and completes at the end of the latter. The separation of the chapters is directly related with historical turning points, which are the War of Independence (1919-1923); the proclamation of
230
the Republic (October 29, 1923); and Ankara’s declaration as the new capital of Turkey (October 13, 1923), which are included in the beginning of the third chapter of the book.
In other words, the separation of the two chapters reflects a change in the regime, and in ideologies; rather than a change in the architectural production, as the mentioned events marks the end of the Ottoman Empire, and the beginning of the newly found nation-state. On their political decision to separate the chapters, despite the continuum of the architecture, Suha Özkan, in our interview expressed that the decision mainly belonged to Yıldırım Yavuz and that he agreed, after Yavuz’s initiative to approach the subject this way, but also commented that a shift in the regime, is reflected through architecture,596 which occurred in the 1930s, rather than the 1920s due to the historical conditions of the country.
Looking at the main difference between chapters, we see that shift in the regime is materialized in the narrative through by the selections of authors; in terms of the cities of architectural production, where they create a distinction between architectural works from Istanbul and Ankara. This can be shown through their selections of architectural works, since in their second chapter, “The Final Years of The Ottoman Empire”, Yavuz and Özkan (1984), solely use buildings from Istanbul, including 14 specific buildings or building complexes they described in detail, and then in the third chapter, they use buildings from Ankara, describing 12 buildings or building complexes in detail. Even though they mention 3 buildings from Istanbul in the third chapter, they place them among the buildings of the late Empire.
The construction of difference using “cities”, can be seen directly related to ideologies, specifically to “Nationalism” and “Modernity”, which is reflected in their descriptions that emphasize the significance of declaration of Ankara as the new capital, as follows:
596 Interview with Suha Özkan, 9 July 2020. Full interview in APPENDICES A2.
231
“The most important event of the early 1920s which had lasting effects on the development of modern Turkish architecture was the declaration of Ankara as the new capital. Ankara as the new capital, replacing the imperial city of Istanbul, which was too closely associated with the Ottoman past…During the early years of the Republic, the face of Ankara was transformed by a vast building program whose aim was to adorn the new capital with monumental government buildings symbolizing the victory and ambitions of the new state.”597 (Yavuz & Özkan, 1984, 51)
In this statement, first, we see that the War of Independence and the proclamation of the Republic, is secondary events compared to Ankara’s declaration due to its impact on the architectural production. Secondly, their emphasis on the difference between the “old” and the “new”, the Ottoman Empire and the Republic, is constructed through the city, since Ankara becomes the new capital, as opposed to Istanbul, that is associated with the Ottoman past. Thirdly, Yavuz and Özkan (1984), refers to the representational aspect of architecture, in which government buildings were to become the representations of the new state, since “the architecture and urban design sponsored by the state carries an undeniable political agenda…”598 Furthermore, there is the implication that Ankara itself was becoming a symbol, as the seat of the government, in which its new “face”, or image was being transformed by architecture.
Here, it is possible to observe a direct relationship between “city building” and “nation building”, since Ankara, as the new “modern” capital, represented the “national” and “modern” identity of Turkey, through the utilization of architecture, as it is reflected in Yavuz and Özkan’s chapters. This can also be seen in İlhan Tekeli’s statements where he points to Ankara’s symbolic meaning and refers to the upcoming transformation of the capital city and expresses that “The development of Ankara as a
597 Yavuz, Yıldırım. & Özkan, Suha. Finding a National Idiom: The First National Style. In Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press. p.51
598 Vale, Lawrence J. “Capital Architecture and National Identity”. In Minkenberg, Michael. (2014). Power and Architecture: The Construction of Capitals and the Politics of Space. Berghahn Books. p.31
232
modern city, which was identified with success of the Republican regime, presented the architectural profession with a major challenge.”599
As it can be seen in Yavuz and Özkan’s; and Tekeli’s descriptions, Ankara’s significance is underlined, as the symbol of the “nation” and “modernity”. However, it is possible to observe that this idea is being constructed in the narrative of Modern Turkish Architecture, through the comparison of two cities, that are Istanbul, and the “old Ankara”. The comparison with Istanbul, constitutes the first construction of difference, which is reflected through the replacement of the capital, since it is being defined through its “Ottomanness” in the narrative, which can be seen in the phrases of the “Ottoman Istanbul”, and “the capital city of centuries”, in İlhan Tekeli’s (1984, 10) descriptions,600 or, “the imperial city of Istanbul” as in Yavuz and Özkan’s.601 In other words, the two regimes were contrasted in the narratives, to highlight their differences, in terms of both architectural production, but also of their political and social contexts, through the utilization of cities, with Ankara being the symbol of that change.
The second construction of difference, which is between the “new” and the “old” Ankara, can also be seen related to the representation of ideologies, as the “new” Ankara, is identified with the “modern” and “national”, following the years of the proclamation of the Republic. This contrast is visible in Afife Batur’s chapter, “To Be Modern: Search for A Republican Architecture”, where she dedicates a subheading to the city, titled “The Foundation of Ankara”. As opposed to Yavuz and Özkan’s chapters, where the main focus is on the development of Ankara as a “modern capital”,
599 Tekeli, Ilhan. The Social Context of the Development of Architecture in Turkey. In Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press. p.10
600 Ibid. p.10
601 Yavuz, Yıldırım. & Özkan, Suha. Finding a National Idiom: The First National Style. In Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press. p.51
233
in her chapter, Batur points to the construction and building program, through which the author reads a difference between the old and the new city.602 In this comparison, we see that Batur (1984, 71) refers to the “common opinion of both native and foreign observers”, where the old Ankara is described in a poor condition, and the construction of the new Ankara, out of its old state, is seen as courageous.603
Another point that should be mentioned in relation to “The Foundation of Ankara”, is that Batur mentions the Jansen Plan of Ankara (1932), which is included as a separate section at the very end of the book. The inclusion of the Jansen Plan as a separate section is curious, since even though other city plans were mentioned throughout the book, it is the only plan to be included in this manner. In the interviews, a clear answer towards the reason behind this decision could not be found, since the interviewees did not recall it entirely, but commented that “maybe there were supposed to be other plans604; or maybe it was included as a rare document.605 Aside from the reason/s behind it, and considering the importance of Ankara as the “modern capital” within the narrative, the inclusion of the plan of Ankara of Hermann Jansen (1932) as a separate section, can be viewed as a component that further puts an emphasis on the city (Figure 34).
In Batur’s narrative, even though, she includes or mentions architectural works from different cities including İzmir; İstanbul; Yalova; and Zonguldak, the capital city, Ankara, is still conveyed as the main place of architectural production, which she defines as “Republican Architecture”, and relates it directly to the “official” ideology
602 Batur, Afife. To Be Modern: Search for A Republican Architecture. In Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press.
603 Ibid. p.71
604 Interview with Renata Holod, 12 August 2020. Full interview in APPENDICES A4.
605 Interview with Suha Özkan, 9 July 2020. Full interview in APPENDICES A2.
234
in the beginning of subheading 3, by stating that building activities of the period were “dependent upon the etatist economy” and by its nature they represented “official ideology,” which may be understood as compatible the “symbolic” aspect of Ankara.606 Before going into the 1940s, we may note that Afife Batur’s inclusion of architectural works, in terms of their cities, is not as sharp as the distinction between Yavuz and Özkan’s two chapters. However, we see that Ankara emerges as a prominent “figure” in her narrative, specifically through the subheading dedicated to it, in addition to the prominent works of architecture.
Figure 34 - The Hermann Jansen Plan of Ankara (1932) which is placed separately at the end of the book Source: Modern Turkish Architecture (1984)
The emphasis on Ankara, begins to fade in the beginning of the 1940s, as we do not see a specific reference to it by Üstün Alsaç. Indeed, we do not see specific mentioning of any city, even though the architectural works included in his chapter were selected mainly from Ankara and Istanbul, except for three architectural works, from Adana,
606 Batur, Afife. To Be Modern: Search for A Republican Architecture. In Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press. p.75
235
Eskişehir, and Çanakkale.607 This aspect can be viewed parallel to the connections with ideologies of “1940s Nationalism”; and “Nationalist Modernity” as categorized earlier, which does not directly associate with a singular “place”, city, but rather, its examples can be seen in various locations, including Istanbul and Ankara. In other words, Üstün Alsaç (1984) does not construct his narrative around “a city”, or “cities”, rather it revolves around an idea, in which two or more separate identities, the “National” and the “International”; the “Turkish”; and the “Modern” come together.
Looking at the chapters that examine the architectural production between the 1950s and the 1980s, we don’t see a prominent city coming forward, rather with industrialization; and with the commercial buildings’ construction in relation to the liberal policies, the “big cities”, as the “places of industry” and “places of capital” come forward. This is reflected in Mete Tapan’s chapter, “International Style: Liberalism in Architecture”, where he examines the architectural production in the 1950s, as he points to big cities as the places where the urban growth occurs; the migration changes the urban texture; and where the capital is located.608 It is also visible in his inclusion of architectural works, since, from the 16 mentioned architectural works/ complexes, 10 are from Istanbul, 5 are from Ankara, and 1 is from Adana. . The emphasis on big cities proceeds in Atilla Yücel’s chapter, “Pluralism Takes Command: The Turkish Architectural Scene Today”, since the mentioned factors continue growingly, which is visible in the inclusion of architectural works in his chapter, as their main locations are the big cities, starting with Istanbul and Ankara, and continuing with others such as Izmir, Adana, even though he also includes works from holiday villages of different cities.609
607 Alsaç, Üstün. The Second Period of National Architecture. In Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press.
608 Tapan, Mete. International Style: Liberalism in Architecture. In Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press.
609 Yücel, Atilla. Pluralism Takes Command: The Turkish Architectural Scene Today. In Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press.
236
As a summary, we can observe that the “cities” of architecture within the narrative of Modern Turkish Architecture, can be viewed inherently connected with the ideologies of “Nationalism”; “Modernity”; and “Liberalism”, the former two being tied with Istanbul and Ankara, since Ankara’s “modern capital” definition also includes a contrast with Istanbul, and the latter being tied to “big cities”, through processes of industrialization, as well as commercialization, in relation to the emphasized role of the private sector, and liberal economic policies of the governments after the 1950s. This brings me to the second theme, that is connected to architecture and to ideologies, which is the public and/or residential building types of architecture.
4.2.2. Public and/or Residential Building Types
Yıldız Sey’s thematic chapter, “To House the New Citizens: Housing Policies and Mass Housing”, which is the last chapter of the book, is a critical examination of “Turkish” residential architecture. In Sey’s narrative, there is a similar structure to the book’s, as she follows a chronological order as she evaluates housing problems; laws; and architectural production from the 1920s to the 1980s, after providing a brief background on housing activities in the Ottoman Empire.610 Sey’s narrative show that residential architecture, was as much as affected by the ideologies of various periods, specifically by the government policies on housing; as well as financial conditions. On the other hand, we also see that various residential buildings or complexes were included in the other chapters of the book. This situation brings out the question of the reasons behind the separation between “Public” and “Residential” architecture, in the narrative of Modern Turkish Architecture (1984).
Re-considering the included architectural works in chapters, we see that there are two main types of buildings in the book, which are “Public” and “Residential”. The former, “Public Works”, is a rather comprehensive type, as it has sub-types under it, which can
610 Sey, Yıldız. “To House the New Citizens: Housing Policies and Mass Housing”. In Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press.
237
be listed as: “governmental buildings”; “educational buildings”; “commercial buildings”; “military buildings”; and “religious buildings”. We may also mention squatter buildings, as an alternative building type, as well.
In many architectural history books, in which residential architecture is not the focus, we do not see a specific separation of the “public” and the “residential”, however, we may observe that the former are often the backbones of the narrative, while significant exemplifications of the latter are included.611 In Modern Turkish Architecture (1984), we see a materialized expression of this separation through Sey’s thematic chapter. This also means that the narrative of the book, is being performed mainly through the public works of architecture. One of the main reasons behind this is seen as ideologies, since public works, specifically in the case of government buildings are representational of the power and the state, by carrying “nationalistic” or “modernist” meanings, which are experienced by communities, rather than individuals as in the case of residential buildings.
While public buildings take the center stage, we also see that some types of architectural works are being left out in the narrative of the book, as in the case of religious buildings, which are left out, other than the ones in Yavuz and Özkan’s first chapter, “The Final Years of the Ottoman Empire”, and İlhan Tekeli’s mentioning of the Kocatepe Mosque in his thematic chapter, “The Social Context of the Development of Architecture in Turkey”. This exclusion may be seen related with the symbolic meanings of religious architecture, that might not be compatible with the “intentions” of the book, as well as the seminar, since its aim was to present the “contemporary” architecture of Turkey, after the foundation of the republic, whose ideology, “1930s Nationalism”, did not incorporate “Islam” or “religion” in the definition of its “national identity”. This brings me to the architectural works, architects, and symbolic meanings in the book, as the third architectural theme.
611 We may include Sözen, Metin. & Tapan, Mete. (1973).; Sözen, Metin. (1996).; Bozdoğan, Sibel. (2001); Batur, Afife. (2005) as exemplifications of this.
238
4.2.3. Architectural Works, Architects, and Symbolic Meanings
The selection and inclusion of architectural works and the prominence of architects within the text, as well as symbolic meanings that are associated with architecture and various actors may provide insight regarding the representational intentions, decisions behind selection processes, as well as historiographical approaches. In Modern Turkish Architecture (1984), we can see that ideologies played an important role in the formation of narrative/s, and we can identify four main categories of architecture, or “styles” that are correlated with them, which can be defined as (1) “National Architecture”; (2) “Republican Architecture”; (3) “National/ Modern Architecture”; (4) “Pluralist Modern Architecture”,612 even though there are variations and different architectural treatments within those four types. Here, it should be noted that, while these categories are organized with regards to the narratives of the book, where they are mainly treated under separate chapters that do not clearly interrelate and express a clear continuation, in this study, changeovers between them are not viewed as breaks, rather they are seen as processes of transition, that were portrayed in connection with ideologies through financial, political, social, cultural, and technological effects of them.
Starting with the first category, “National Architecture”, we may point out that the term itself can be understood as a political concept, which is being used to identify the architectural production of a period or periods, through various definitions of “nationality”, and “Turkishness”. Elvan Altan Ergut (1999, 31), questions the meaning of “national” categories of architecture, and criticizes the appropriation of heterogeneous architectural products into a “nationally” unified category in nationalist discourses as follows:
“The basic assumption in these categorizations is the acceptance of a relationship between architecture and a specific 'nation', a specific quality that is attributed to architectural products as representative of a 'national identity'. In other words, the
612 These categorizations are named in connection with their uses in Modern Turkish Architecture (1984) and corresponds to the periodization of the book.
239
assumption is that each 'nation' has its own distinctive art/architecture that is evidence of, and implicitly supportive for, the powerful existence of the 'nation'. This depends on nationalist ideology's definition of the 'nation' as a real entity by attributing a homogeneous, unified and stable 'national identity' to each 'nation'. When 'national architecture' is taken as representative of such a 'national identity', it is similarly accepted as both synthetic and stable. The only problem then becomes one of defining what 'national architecture' is by finding out certain characteristics that formulate the meaning of 'national' in architecture. The focus is, consequently, on architectural forms; and the search is for finding out the appropriate 'style' to represent the 'nation'.”613 (Altan Ergut, Elvan, 1999, 31)
However, as it can be understood from the re-definitions of “Nationalism”, and of the “nation”, in the narrative/s of Modern Turkish Architecture (1984), the formulations of national identity/s are not fixed and homogenous, rather they are re-interpreted in accordance with the historical conditions, which deems it as a flexible; diverse; heterogeneous; and complex concept. Consequently, the term “national architecture”, may also have various interpretations, as in the case of architectural production in Turkey, and their uses in architectural history can be understood as a notion that is related with ideologies. It should be noted that, in the “national” categorizations of architectural production, as Ergut (1999, 31) explains, buildings are, consciously or often unconsciously, accepted to convey “national” meanings, which can be utilized in the narrative/s’ of the book, through representations of architecture as symbolic objects.614
While mentioned categorizations of architectural production above, can be understood as “national”, since they were produced within the various contexts of the “nation”, which are shaped in relation to definitions of “national” identities and formulations, we see that two of them are named after this concept, as the First and Second “National Architectural Movement/s”. The “First National Style”615, in Modern Turkish
613 Altan Ergut, T. Elvan. (1999). The Forming of the National in Architecture. METU Journal of the Faculty of Architecture, 19(1-2), 31-43. p.31
614Ibid. p.31
615 Various titles have been used to define the architectural movement, which include, “National Architecture Renaissance”; “The First National Style”; “Ottoman Revivalism”; and “Turkish Neoclassical architecture”.
240
Architecture (1984), is examined in the two chapters of Yıldırım Yavuz and Suha Özkan, which are titled, “The Final Years of The Ottoman Empire” (Second Chapter) and “Finding a National Idiom: The First National Style” (Third Chapter), where the authors focus on the architectural production of Turkey, starting with the period of the Late Empire, and continuing roughly until the 1930s. Since the architectural movement of concern is in a continuous state between the second and third chapters, they will be analyzed together, in this section.
In the second chapter, “The Final Years of the Ottoman Empire”, Yavuz and Özkan (1984, 34) start their narration as early as the Treaty of Karlowitz (1699), to provide the reader with background information on the period of “Ottoman Westernization”, which they state, “propelled Ottoman society through a series of social and cultural transformations which resulted in the emergence of modern Turkey.”616 After providing information on different political, social, cultural and even educational events that occurred in the last hundred years of the Ottoman Empire, and after explaining the emergence of “Turkish Nationalism”, they express that “During the earlier part of the nineteenth century, the most obvious European influences, besides those in military and technical matters, could be observed in life patterns and architecture.”617 In relation to that, Yavuz and Özkan (1984), explains that the neoclassical architecture was spread across Europe, which Palmer (2020, 27) defines
616 Yavuz, Yıldırım. & Özkan, Suha. The Final Years of the Ottoman Empire. In Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press. p.34
617 Ibid. p.35
Yavuz and Özkan (1984) makes this statement in line with the political, military and educational developments within the Empire, which includes Tanzimat reforms, that occurred in the last hundred years, the period they defined as “Ottoman Westernization”.
241
as “the primary vehicle for the promotion of the mid-18th century revival of classicism called Neoclassicism”618, and it became popular in Istanbul at the time.619
In this part of the narrative, foreign architects or architects with foreign origins take the center stage, for several reasons, which Yavuz and Özkan (1984, 35) lists as follows, “various European architects and military engineers…had been recruited to design the edifices required for the New Order”; the members of the Imperial Guild of Ottoman Architects…lost their jobs to foreign and minority architects”; and “Court architects were chosen from among Armenians…or they were directly recruited from Europe”.620 Role of foreign architects or architects with foreign origins, within the narrative of the late Ottoman Empire, is also reflected in İlhan Tekeli’s (1984, 10) words, who state that “The public face of Istanbul had been shaped by the influences from abroad”, and points to similar names with Yavuz and Özkan (1984).621
August Jasmund and Alexandre Vallaury are the main architects of the narrative of the late Empire, even though Yavuz and Özkan (1984) mentions several other architects such as the Balyan Family; Philippe Bello; Raimondo d'Aronco; Otto Ritter and Helmuth Cuno. The first building of the second chapter, is August Jachmund’s Sirkeci Railroad Terminal (Figure 35), which was first opened in 1890, and is described as a “perfect example of oriental eclecticism” by Yavuz and Özkan (1984, 36), and is criticized as follows:
618 Palmer, Allison Lee. (2020). Historical Dictionary of Neoclassical Art and Architecture. Rowman & Littlefield.
619 For a detailed account of Istanbul and its architecture in the nineteenth century, among other sources you may look at: Çelik, Zeynep. (1993). The Remaking of Istanbul: Portrait of an Ottoman city in the Nineteenth Century. University of California Press.
620 Yavuz, Yıldırım. & Özkan, Suha. The Final Years of the Ottoman Empire. In Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press. p.35
621 Tekeli, Ilhan. The Social Context of the Development of Architecture in Turkey. In Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press. p.10
242
“It was an ill-bred style followed by foreign architects working for the Ottoman government who were quite ignorant of the Ottoman and Islamic architectural tradition. Notwithstanding its aesthetic drawbacks and its theoretical failures, the Sirkeci Railroad Terminal was still enthusiastically received by the Ottoman elite as a gateway to Europe and to modernity.”622 (Yavuz and Özkan, 1984, 36)
Similar explanations and criticisms towards this building can be seen from other authors, starting with Ilhan Tekeli (1984, 11), who, in relation to the Sirkeci Railroad Terminal and Public Debts Administration Building, stated that these two buildings, “…shaped the new Ottoman architecture. These two architects employed elements borrowed from Ottoman-Islamic architecture on the facades of their buildings, with the aim of finding harmony with the existing environment.”623 Similar approaches may be seen in other architectural history books as well. An example of this is Sözen and Tapan’s (1973, 78) approach, who underlined the Ottoman-Islamic emphasis in the Sirkeci Train Station by saying that the building was built with the consideration to ensoul or embody Islam by using regional-national architectural forms and patterns.624 In line with these statements, Çelik (1993, 144), who places the building among the striking examples of neo-Islamic style, stated the following:
“Its design principles followed the classical ideals of regularity, symmetry, axiality, and clarity, but the structure was clad in an Oriental style based on Mamluk and Moorish sources. Jachmund’s purpose must have been twofold: to find an appropriate symbol for the terminus of the Orient Express and to conform to the urban image of classical Ottoman Istanbul. His design achieved the first objective, as the Orientalism of the building is unmistakable. However, Jahmund’s unawareness of the stylistic differences between various regions of Islam and periods of its history caused him to fall short of his second goal.”625 (Çelik, 1993, 144)
622 Yavuz, Yıldırım. & Özkan, Suha. The Final Years of the Ottoman Empire. In Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press. p.36
623 Tekeli, Ilhan. The Social Context of the Development of Architecture in Turkey. In Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press. p.11
624 Sözen, Metin. & Tapan, Mete. (1973). 50 Yılın Türk Mimarisi. İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları.
625 Çelik, Zeynep. (1993). The Remaking of Istanbul: Portrait of an Ottoman city in the Nineteenth Century. University of California Press. p. 144
243
Figure 35 - Sirkeci Railroad Terminal, Istanbul, (Jachmund, 1890). Source: Modern Turkish Architecture (1984)
Here, considering Yavuz and Özkan (1984)’s description of the building as an “ill-bred style”; and Çelik’s criticism of Jachmund’s “unawareness of the stylistic differences”, in terms of reflecting a stereotyped and “Orientalized” Ottoman image, we can argue that an image of an “imagined Orientalist Istanbul” was portrayed, which may be being used to construct an “authentic” image of “national architecture”, that is assumedly reflected in the “First National Architectural Movement”. This idea is strengthened in the following descriptions and criticisms of architectural works from this period, that Yavuz and Özkan include in their narratives, which continues until the year of 1909, when Vedat Tek appears on the scene. Exemplifications of these descriptions and criticisms in Yavuz and Özkan’s narrative, regarding the architectural works of the late Empire, may be found in Table 7.
An overview of the criticisms of Yavuz and Özkan (1984) in Table 7; and of Sirkeci Railroad Terminal, show that August Jasmund and Alexandre Vallaury’s architectural works, were critiqued in terms of their “Orientalizing Style”; “eclecticism” and “unawareness”626 of their surroundings. In other words, architectural works that are
626 This term is used by Zeynep Çelik in the description of Sirkeci Train Station. Yavuz and Özkan’s (1984) criticism of “Archeological Museum” where they view the building as “out of context”, is brought together with Çelik’s view to make this interpretation.
244
first introduced to the reader, as the works that precede the architecture of the “First National Style”, are described through an externalization, by giving hints regarding their “non-Turkish” architectural characteristics, while pointing out to “foreign influences”; “Europeanness”; and “eclectic” qualities of them. Here, we may also question the prominence of Jachmund and Vallaury in the text, over other mentioned architects of the period since the authors preferred to put them forward. To understand this, we may compare approaches of the authors towards two different buildings, Sirkeci Railroad Terminal and Haydarpaşa Railroad Terminal. Yavuz and Özkan (1984, 40) mentions the latter by stating that, “Otto Ritter and Helmuth Cuno built in an impressive Bavarian style in 1908 the Haydarpaşa Railroad Terminal. But it was mainly Vallaury and Jachmund who set the tone for the new imperial architecture of the Ottoman capital.”627 There may be various reasons behind choosing Sirkeci Railroad Station over Haydarpaşa, however time of construction is not one of them, since the former was built in 1908 and the latter in 1909.
Table 7 - Excerpts from Yıldırım Yavuz and Suha Özkan’s Narrative in the Second Chapter “The Final Years of the Ottoman Empire”628
Architectural Work
Architect
Year
Excerpts from Yıldırım Yavuz and Suha Özkan’s Narrative (1984)
Deutsche Orient Bank (Germenia Hanı)
Jachmund
Late 19th Century
“…a ponderous central European style.” p.36
The Ottoman Bank
Vallaury
-
“he built in Galata, the part of the city across the Golden Horn where the Europeans preferred to live and which had always been under foreign influence.” p.38
627 Yavuz, Yıldırım. & Özkan, Suha. The Final Years of the Ottoman Empire. In Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press. p.40
628 Please note that, excerpts in this table are parts of larger descriptions; statements; and discussions. The quotations in this table are taken from Yavuz, Yıldırım. & Özkan, Suha. The Final Years of the Ottoman Empire. In Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press. The page numbers of the quotations are indicated in the criticism column, next to each quotation.
245
Table 7 - Excerpts from Yıldırım Yavuz and Suha Özkan’s Narrative in the Second Chapter “The Final Years of the Ottoman Empire” (Continued)
Ottoman Public Debt Administration (Düyun-i Umuniye İdaresi)
Vallaury
1899
“…pseudo-Islamic style”; “.it was unquestionably the most glorious representative of oriental eclecticism…” p.38
Imperial College of Military Medicine (Mekteb-i Şahane-i Tıbbiye)
Vallaury
1903
“…orientalizing eclectic style” p.38
Archeological Museum
Vallaury
1891-1907
“…appears to be out of context with the sparkling delicacy of the Çinili Köşk nearby and the colorful splendor of the vast palace (Topkapı) beyond.” p.40
One of the reasons maybe related to Vallaury and Jachmund’s, influential academic positions, since Yavuz and Özkan (1984, 40) places roots of the “First National Style” to the resentment of students, who were affected by “Turkish Nationalism”, towards the “European domination in the architectural field”, among which Kemalettin Bey is included. In other words, we may argue that backgrounds of architects and their connections to each other are utilized to express a story that strengthens the difference between the architectural production in the late Empire and in the “First National Style”, where the works of two actors of “foreign” origin are faced with the reaction of “native” actors, namely Kemalettin Bey and Vedat Tek, who then formulates a “new” and “Turkish” architectural language, in connection with the principles of “Turkish Nationalism”. Accordingly, in the first part of the second chapter, “The Final Years of the Ottoman Empire”, the reader views a portrayal of an “Orientalized” image of Istanbul, built by foreign architects, under “European influence”, which is contrasted with the image/s constructed in the next section, “The First National Style”.
This contrast begins as Yavuz and Özkan (1984, 41) points to the shift in architectural production, as they state that the reaction against the “European domination” by the Turkish students marks the beginning of the “The First National Style”, which continued “under the leadership of two young architects, Vedat (Tek) and Kemalettin
246
Bey.”629 In the third chapter of the book, “Finding a National Idiom: The First National Style”, Vedat Tek and Kemalettin Bey take over as main actors, as opposed to August Jasmund and Alexandre Vallaury. However, the first building to be included in this section, is not designed by either of them, rather it is one with symbolic connotations, which is the “unpretentious building” of the Union and Progress Party Headquarters that became the “modest parliament of the new nation”, as the first National Assembly building.630 The inclusion of this historically significant building, which was among the few public architectural works in Ankara at the time, can be viewed to have a representational role within the narrative, in terms of conveying “national” meanings.631
Following the inclusion of the First National Assembly building, and remarks on the transformation of the new capital, we see two other prominent architectural works are included in the third chapter, which are Ankara Palas, and the Second National Assembly buildings. Both works can be understood as representations of two important notions that are “Modernity”, since Ankara Palas was viewed as a “symbol of modernity and civilization”; and “Nationalism”, as the Second National Assembly building was the house of the parliament, in which decisions that were being made to achieve “national progress”.632
629 Yavuz, Yıldırım. & Özkan, Suha. The Final Years of the Ottoman Empire. In Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press. p.41
630 Yavuz, Yıldırım. & Özkan, Suha. Finding a National Idiom: The First National Style. In Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press. p.52
Yavuz and Özkan (1984, 52) explains that the Union and Progress Party Headquarters Building was designed by Hafi Bey, however it was left unfinished, due to death of Hafi Bey and the war. Authors express that building was completed in 1923 to serve as the First National Assembly building.
631 Bozdoğan (2001, 37) expresses a similar view by defining this building as “The first major ‘national style’ building in Ankara, associated in Turkish collective consciousness with the birth of the nation”.
632 Yavuz, Yıldırım. & Özkan, Suha. Finding a National Idiom: The First National Style. In Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press. p.53
247
The narrative of Yavuz and Özkan (1984) continues with a brief biographical information on Vedat Tek, the designer of the Second National Assembly building, who was the first formally educated Turkish architect that went to Paris during high school and there stayed for nine years.633 He was taught in painting in Academie Julien and later in civil engineering in Ecole Centrale, before deciding to become an architect and winning a spot among the nine accepted students in "Ecole National des Beaııx Arts", through a competition for his higher education.634 After mentioning that Vedat Tek was influenced by the ideas of Ziya Gökalp, Yavuz and Özkan (1984, 41) begins to describe architectural works of the “First National Style”, starting with the Central Post Office building (1909),635 as Vedat Tek’s “first major work and probably masterpiece” and as “one of the earlier manifestations of Turkish National Architecture”.636 Indeed, in an interview from 1930, Vedat Tek states that the Central Post Office building presents him the best and that it is his first work.637 Furthermore, Tek expresses he resented that despite gaining many experience on how to practice “national architecture” following his Central Post Office building, he did not have the chance to demonstrate that, since he did not have a small piece of the demand and conveniences that foreign architects had within the country.638 Despite his resentment, he also stated the following on “national architecture”:
633 Özkan, Suha. (1973). Mimar Vedat Tek (1873-1942). Mimarlık, 121 (11): 45-51.
634 Ibid.
635 Vedat Tek’s Central Post Office (1909) building is also the first architectural work in Sibel Bozdoğan’s book, Bozdoğan, Sibel. (2001). Modernism and Nation Building: Turkish Architectural Culture in the Early Republic. University of Washington Press.
636 Yavuz, Yıldırım. & Özkan, Suha. The Final Years of the Ottoman Empire. In Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press. p.41
637 Mimar M. Vedat Bey. (1930). Milli Mimari Anketimize Mimar Vedat Beyin Cevabı. Milli Mecmua, 11(119). Taha Toros Arşivi.
638 Ibid. Here it is important to note that the interview took place in 1930 and as he expresses, he has many works (experiences) until 1930, that are also included in Modern Turkish Architecture (1984), in which he is defined as one of the two influential architects of the First National Style.
248
“A perfect architecture suitable for each construction was achieved, since, in our time, importance was given to the integrity and beauty of the architectural works; and to the architects and masters, who followed the rules with responsibility and were raised from within the nation.”639 (Mimar M. Vedat Bey, 1930, 72).
After descriptions of several architectural works by Vedat Tek, Yavuz and Özkan (1984, 44) continues with brief biographical information of Kemalettin Bey, as “the second architect who developed the framework for nationalism in Turkish architecture”640. Kemalettin Bey, who also had formal training at the new School of Civil Engineering (Hendes-i Mülkiye), was taught by August Jachmund among other academics, and became an assistant to him.641 He completed his post-graduate studies on architecture, at the Charlottenburg Technische Hochschule in Berlin, and worked for two years there, before returning to Istanbul in 1900.642 According to Yavuz (1981), Kemalettin Bey’s conception of architecture, similar to Vedat Tek’s, was influenced by “Turkish Nationalism”, in addition to the influence of Jachmund.643 Here we may note that, Kemalettin Bey was included in Ziya Gökalp’s (1968, 14) book, “Türkçülüğün Esasları”, as part of the Turkism community, who affected other architects, as follows:
“The community of Turkism is so expanded today that, counting all the names of artists and scientists in this field would require volumes of books. However, it is necessary to remember Architect Kemal Bey in Turkish architecture. He has a large impact in all young architects being followers of Turkism.”644 (Gökalp, 1968, 14)
639 Mimar M. Vedat Bey. (1930). Milli Mimari Anketimize Mimar Vedat Beyin Cevabı. Milli Mecmua, Cilt: 11; No: 119. Taha Toros Arşivi. p.72
640 Yavuz, Yıldırım. & Özkan, Suha. The Final Years of the Ottoman Empire. In Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press. p.44
641 Yavuz, Yıldırım. (1981). Mimar Kemalettin Bey (1870-1927). ODTÜ Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi, 7(1): 53-76.
642 Ibid.
643 Ibid.
644 Gökalp, Ziya. (1968). Türkçülüğün Esasları.Varlık Yayınları. (Seventh Edition). p.14
249
While Yavuz and Özkan (1984) acknowledges the European formation and background of the two architects, their architectural works are viewed as a “new idiom”, a “synthesis” that utilizes Ottoman Heritage; and “Western Models” or “European influences”; to create an architectural language in line with “Turkish Nationalism”, which can be read through the descriptions in Table 8 and 9. Here, it should be noted that two different tables regarding the descriptions of the architectural works of “First National Style” were prepared, since they may provide differences between the second and third chapters, which are separated with the turning points of 1923, and are also separated by the selection of architectural works, in terms of their cities, as previously discussed.
Table 8 – Excerpts from Yıldırım Yavuz and Suha Özkan’s Narrative, from the Second Chapter, “The Final Years of the Ottoman Empire”645
Architectural Work
Architect
Year
Excerpts from Yıldırım Yavuz and Suha Özkan’s Narrative (1984)
Central Post Office
Vedat Tek
1909
“In spite of his efforts to dress the building with such Ottoman building elements…Vedat (Tek)'s European formation is still obvious in his shaping of the general mass...” p.41
Vedat Tek Private residence
Vedat Tek
-
“…a small masterpiece of ingenious planning, which reminds one of early F.L. Wright houses…” p.44
Mosque of Kamer Hatun
Kemalettin Bey
1912
“...reflects the cultural and aesthetic confusion that reigned in fin-de-siécle Istanbul.” p.46
The book, written in Ottoman Turkish, was first published in the early 1920s. The hijri date for the publication was 1339, corresponding to 1920-1921, even though various sources express that the book came out in 1923.
645 Please note that, excerpts in this table are parts of larger descriptions; statements; and discussions. The quotations in Table 2 are taken from Yavuz, Yıldırım. & Özkan, Suha. The Final Years of the Ottoman Empire. In Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press. The page numbers of the quotations are indicated in the criticism column, next to each quotation.
250
Table 8 – Excerpts from Yıldırım Yavuz and Suha Özkan’s Narrative, from the Second Chapter, “The Final Years of the Ottoman Empire” (Continued)
Fourth Vakıf Hanı
Kemalettin Bey
1912-1926
“…well-balanced neo-renaissance elevation and represents the essence of the First National Style”; “The protruding corner towers… recalling the traditions of Ottoman architecture”; “This last great edifice of the Ottoman period… propped up to recall the glorious past of a great empire.” p.47
Harikzedegan (Fire Victims) Apartments
Kemalettin Bey
1919-1922
“Though definitely conceptualized through Western models, samples of which abound in many nineteenth-century European towns, the buildings were also admired for their general styling, in which the architect had tried to combine Ottoman imperial heritage with the contemporary ideas of a national architecture...” p.50
Table 9 - Excerpts from Yıldırım Yavuz and Suha Özkan’s Narrative, from the Third Chapter “Finding a National Idiom: The First National Style”646
Architectural Work
Architect
Year
Excerpts from Yıldırım Yavuz and Suha Özkan’s Narrative (1984)
Ankara Palas Hotel
Vedat Tek and Kemalettin Bey
1924-1927
“…reminiscent of the historical Ottoman inns with central courtyards…”; “When it was opened in 1927, the Ankara Palas was popularly acclaimed as the symbol of modernity and civilization…”; “…the building's facades were treated according to the principles of the First National Style, reflecting a nostalgia for Ottoman heritage.” P.56
Iş Bankası Headquarters
Giulio Mongeri
1928
“The symmetrical facades… were fitted with building elements from the classical Ottoman period… according to the principles of the First National Movement” p.59
646 The quotations in this table are taken from Yavuz, Yıldırım. & Özkan, Suha. Finding a National Idiom: The First National Style. In Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press. The page numbers of the quotations are indicated in the criticism column, next to each quotation.
251
Table 9 - Excerpts from Yıldırım Yavuz and Suha Özkan’s Narrative, from the Third Chapter “Finding a National Idiom: The First National Style” (Continued)
General Directorate of the State Monopolies (Inhisarlar Idaresi)
Giulio Mongeri
1928
“With its modest and well-balanced styling and its unpretentious scale, which fits so well into the urban texture of the old city, the General Directorate should be considered as one of the more successful representatives of the First National Style...” p.62
Museum of Ethnography
Arif Hikmet Koyunoğlu
-
“The Museum of Ethnography was organized and commissioned by Atatürk himself who saw it as the repository of folk art and culture, the base for his new cultural policy.” p.63
Turkish Hearth (Türk Ocağı)
Arif Hikmet Koyunoğlu
1927- 1930
“It was in this center that some of the most important cultural programs were developed, under the close supervision of Atatürk himself, who wished to foster elements of European culture while concurrently developing specifically Turkish forms” p.64; “For such an important and influential building, the architect had once again chosen the vocabulary of the First National Style so dependent on classical Ottoman forms.” p.65
If we were to make comparisons between Table 8 and Table 9, it is possible to observe that descriptions and criticisms towards the architectural works of the “First National Style” do not differ substantially. The main distinction between chapters is the city, Istanbul and Ankara, as mentioned. In their descriptions Yavuz and Özkan (1984) portrays an architectural movement with classical “Ottoman” forms, that arise from heritage; or nostalgia, which may also incorporate European models or influences, in their design.
On the other hand, if we compare the tables of “The First National Style” (Table 8 and 9); to the table of the “Late Ottoman Empire” (Table 7), we see that descriptions and criticisms show differences. First of all, mentioned buildings of the “Late Ottoman Empire” are solely the works of Levantine architects or of foreign origin, specifically of Jachmund and Vallaury, while the architectural works of the “First National Style” are designed by Turkish architects, with the exception of Guilio Mongeri, who was an
252
Italian architect, born in Istanbul and “had been working in Turkey since before World War I”,647 as stated by Yavuz and Özkan (1984, 58). Three architectural works of Mongeri, Karaköy Palas; Maçka Palas; and The new Italian Embassy in Maçka (İstanbul) are included in the third chapter, as buildings of the “Late Ottoman Empire”, which creates a division in terms of architects of the “Late Ottoman Empire” and architects of the “First National Style”.
Secondly, the architectural works of the late Empire, built by the foreign architects, are criticized in terms of their eclectic and “Orientalizing” style. There is an impression within the narrative, in which foreign architects or architects with foreign origins, who are not native to the geography, do not seem to internalize the Ottoman heritage, which results in the production of “ill-bred” styled architectures, which may come out as “out of context” or “unaware” of its settings. On the other hand, the works of the “First National Style”, which are evaluated in two separate chapters, are viewed as buildings with a “National Idiom”, in which different architectural languages are utilized by native architects, specifically by Vedat Tek and Kemalettin Bey, who are identified as the ones that formulated this “style”. The architectural works of the “First National Style”, in terms of their use of Ottoman forms and patterns, are viewed as works that bring together different elements, and is presented to have a “well-balanced” eclecticism, combining the needs of the time; and the heritage of the past, which may be seen in line with the ideology of “Turkish Nationalism”.
Inclusion and organization of selected architectural works in Yavuz and Özkan’s two chapters, can be viewed connected to the previously mentioned themes, which is reflected in the separation of the two chapters that materialize the shift in the regime; Ankara’s proclamation as the new capital city; and effects of the historical conditions on the architectural production. Placement of architectural works from two separate cities, in separate chapters, Istanbul (chapter 2) and Ankara (chapter 3), can be viewed to strengthen these connections to ideologies, while also constructing a difference
647 Yavuz, Yıldırım. & Özkan, Suha. Finding a National Idiom: The First National Style. In Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press. p.58
253
between the pre-Republican and Republican periods, as the former belongs to the past, and the latter, to the “new” and the new “national”. Use of prominent architectural works, which can be seen in the examples of Sirkeci Railroad Station (from the architectural production of the Late Empire period); and the first National Assembly; the Ankara Palas; and the Second National Assembly (in the “First National Style”), solidifies these ideas by attributing symbolic meanings to them in their representation, while also utilizing their existing symbolic connotations.
However, we also see that these narrative decisions cause a break in the “First National Style” itself, as it gets interrupted between the two chapters, due to the emphasis on ideological representations; as well as historical conditions. Between Yavuz and Özkan’s narratives; and Batur’s narrative, “To Be Modern: Search for a Republican Architecture”, we see another break in architecture, since it is defined as “Republican” and “Modern”, rather than “National”, which brings me to my second category of architectural works, “Republican Architecture”.
In her narrative, Afife Batur (1984, 68) focuses mainly on the architectural production between the years of 1930 and 1940,648 a period that “marks the formation of Republican architecture”.649 If we look at the relationship between Yavuz and Özkan’s and Afife Batur’s chapters, we see that Yavuz and Özkan (1984, 67) complete their narrative on the “First National Style” by stating that “The search for a specific architectural identity would not be resumed until the beginning of World War II.”650 In other words, they implied a break in “National” architecture, until the 1940s, which
648 The dates of architectural production, defined as the “Republican Architecture” in Afife Batur’s narrative goes back to 1926. The earliest building mentioned in Batur’s chapter is Theodor Jost’s Ministry of Health building, which is dated as 1926-1927.
649 Batur, Afife. To Be Modern: Search for A Republican Architecture. In Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press. p.68
650 Yavuz, Yıldırım. & Özkan, Suha. Finding a National Idiom: The First National Style. In Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press. p.67
254
corresponds to Üstün Alsaç’s chapter “The Second Period of Turkish Architecture”, rendering the architecture of the 1930s, as an architecture without a specific “national identity”. Afife Batur’s first sentence, on the other hand, immediately identifies the architecture of the period as “Republican Architecture”, one of many definitions being used in scholarship to address “modern architecture” in the early years of the republic.651
Similar to the term “National Architecture”, the notion of a “Republican Architecture” can also be viewed as political and in connection with ideologies. Batur (1984, 68) uses the term conscious of that association, which is visible in one of the earliest sentences of her chapter, where she states that “…the 1930s were marked by the crystallization of Kemalist ideology and the consolidation of the new Turkish state.”652 Furthermore, she evaluates architectural production under her third subheading of the chapter, “Ideology, Expression, Symbol, and Style”, where she expresses that the building program of the period, represents the “official ideology”. In terms of the connection with ideologies, we may also point to the title of her chapter, “To Be Modern: Search for A Republican Architecture”. Even though, Batur uses “To Be Modern”, mainly within an architectural context within her narrative, as she includes the development of cities, architectural works, and infrastructures, it can be argued that the phrase also conveys the meaning of “becoming modern” as opposed to society’s earlier period, which can be viewed related to the concepts of “Modernization”; and “Modernity”. From the architectural point of view, on the other hand, the title implies that the architecture of the preceding period was “not modern”, which can be understood as the first binary opposition, as well as the first construction of difference, of this chapter.
651 Various definitions are being used to refer to the architectural production in the early years of the republic, including, “New Architecture”, “Cubic Architecture”, “Modern Architecture”, or “Early Republican Architecture”.
652 Batur, Afife. To Be Modern: Search for A Republican Architecture. In Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press. p.68
255
Looking at Yavuz and Özkan’s last sentence; and Batur’s chapter title, we see that in the narrative of Modern Turkish Architecture (1984), the architecture before “Republican Architecture” is viewed as “National”; “Turkish”; and even “pre-Modern”, when considered in relation to Batur’s chapter. On the other hand, architectural production in the 1930s, is seen as “Non-national” and “Modern”. Here, we may note that there are authors who challenge this idea, either by viewing or elaborating “Republican Architecture” as “National Architecture”; or by evaluating the works of “First National Architectural Movement” as early modern architecture/s of Turkey, specifically by pointing to the use of technology and materials, such as iron and glass; or both, in these buildings.653
The last point that should be mentioned in the narrative of Batur, before else, is the lack of a turning point, marking the 1930s as the starting line of “Republican Architecture”. Even though Batur mentions several factors, such as the customs policies, which remained at the 1916 levels until 1929; and the new economic policies, there is not a clear event that can be identified as the reason behind the transformation in architecture, in the beginning of her chapter.654 This reality further connects Yavuz and Özkan’s, and Batur’s chapters, since prior turning points, the War of
653 There are many studies, including theses and articles, that make challenge this notion. Even though not limited to the following, among books, we can count Sibel Bozdoğan’s (2001, 20), in which she states that “From a less stylistic and more historical perspective, one can talk about the National Architecture Renaissance as the first ‘modern’ discourse in Turkish architectural culture”, in her chapter, “First Moderns: The Legacy of Ottoman Revivalism”. Modern Turkish Architecture (1984) can also be viewed as an early example of this, since Holod and Evin (1984, 3), dates “modernization” in Turkey, to Tanzimat reforms, and Tekeli (1984, 12) expresses that the new buildings (architectural production of the Late Ottoman period), “did not resemble the building types that existed in Ottoman society prior to the nineteenth century…They were the architectural representations of new functions which were the result of industrialization and of integration into the world economy.” It is possible to find a similar notion in İlhan Tekeli’s later works and studies (Please see note 556). Another example that can be included here is, Bozdoğan and Akcan’s book, “Turkey: Modern Architectures in History”, in which they state, “Retrospectively labelled by architectural historians as the ‘First National Style’, … combined elements derived from classical Ottoman architecture … with Beaux-Arts design principles … and new materials and construction techniques…architects trained in the final decades of the Empire applied this hybrid style to the programmatic requirements of modern urban life…” (Bozdoğan & Akcan, 2012, 21)
654 Batur, Afife. To Be Modern: Search for A Republican Architecture. In Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press.
256
Independence; the proclamation of the republic; and the declaration of Ankara as the capital city, are still the main events, that extend into the 1930s and play a role in the formation/ transformation of the architectural production of these years.
Batur’s narrative on the architectural production begins with the abandonment of Ottoman Revivalist Style (First National Architectural Movement), which was “replaced” with modern architecture. In other words, in the narrative of Modern Turkish Architecture (1984), the reader witnesses a second break in the architectural production,655 which radically transforms in accordance with ideology. We also see that Batur expresses a change in architectural identity from “national” to “international”; while also creating a difference between the old “Islamic-Eastern” culture and the new one, “West”, since she expresses that “modern architecture” was viewed as a “prerequisite for modernization” and for a transition to a “Western” cultural basis. This may be understood as a continuation of the tension and the construction of difference, between “Us” and “Them”; the past and the contemporary; the old and the new; which starts in the narratives of Yavuz and Özkan, with the addition of another binary opposition between the “national” and the “international”.656 This tension gets heightened as foreign architects and planners, who were invited to Turkey, as experts between the years of 1927 and 1940, are introduced into the narrative. Batur (1984, 76) views the invitation of foreign experts to Turkey, as a part of the process that serves to the goal of the Republic, which “was to catch up with the material culture and technological advancement of the West”.657
655 The first break was in Yıldırım Yavuz and Suha Özkan’s chapters, which was materialized with separation of their chapters in accordance with turning points that include the foundation of the Republic, and the proclamation of Ankara as the new capital; in the selection of architectural works in terms of their placement in different cities, in their narratives.
656 In Yıldırım Yavuz and Suha Özkan’s chapters, it is possible to observe a construction of difference in the dichotomy of Orient/ Occident among other binary oppositions, which is replaced with a dichotomy of Turkey and the “West” in Batur’s chapter.
657 Batur, Afife. To Be Modern: Search for A Republican Architecture. In Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press. p.76
257
Regarding the “new” architecture of the republic and the role of the foreign experts in the architectural production, Batur (1984, 77) states that: “The presence of foreign architects is not the only explanation for the introduction of modern architecture to Turkey, its rapid acceptance and wide application. Modern architecture was also a response to certain cultural or technological requirements and conditions.”658 If we re-consider the “First National Style”, in line with Batur’s statement above, we can view the architectural works of the period, as “modern”, even though they may not meet the “stylistic” attributes of the modern movement in architecture. Nevertheless, looking at Batur’s narrative, it is possible to observe that the “new” architecture of the Republic, served two main purposes, which are, the representation of the “official ideology”, and meeting contemporary needs of modern life.
After Batur points to the role of the foreign experts in architectural production, she continues with the “replacement” of “Ottoman Revivalism” with “Modern architecture”, which mainly occurred after 1927 in institutional buildings.659 The chapters we have looked so far in Modern Turkish Architecture (1984), narrates the architectural production through some transformations, with the uses of breaks between different periods, as in the jumps from the architectural works of the late Ottoman Empire, to the “First National Style”, and then to “Republican Architecture”. In our interview, Suha Özkan described the transition between the “First National Style” and “Republican Architecture”, as follows:
Politics is the breaking point in ideology and architecture. Atatürk, takes municipalities over, as he does with everything else. There are two architects who hate each other. I mean, fifty percent of the architectural circle, hates the other fifty percent. Vedat Bey dislikes Kemalettin, because he is a civil engineer and not an architect. Kemalettin does not say anything towards Vedat Bey, which is not very possible anyway, since he passes away so soon. But, what happens is that, there is a man called Saçaklı Salim Derin, who is somewhat of a sycophant in Ankara. Kemalettin Bey is
658 Batur, Afife. To Be Modern: Search for A Republican Architecture. In Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press. p.77
659 Ibid. p.78
258
doing a restoration in Al-Aqsa Mosque at the time660. Saçaklı Salim Derin says to Kemalettin Bey that - Atatürk brought Vedat, and he is doing all the works, leave whatever you are doing and come back…Vedat Bey’s Central Post Office building is among the prominent architectural works of the era, it is so fine that it would compete with Otto Wagner. Naturally, Atatürk does not want to exclude him. He gives the job of the Second National Assembly Building, which is now a museum, to Vedat Tek, and he successfully completes it. There are many great stories about that, Ankara at the time is in a so poor condition that there were no roof tiles. Vehbi Koç provides the roof tiles that he used to carry on his donkey at the time. This gives an idea of the Turkish economy. Vedat Bey finishes the Second Grand National Assembly; he restores the Çankaya Mansion, and while he is doing Ankara Palas, Salim Bey sends this message to Jerusalem661. Vedat Bey, since he came from the palace, gets angry and leaves. When he leaves, people close to Atatürk tells him that - they are remains of Ottoman Empire, they are doing ornamentation, your architects should be modern.”662
Özkan continued describing the transition through the statements below:
“Atatürk gives the job to Seyfi Arkan… Seyfi Bey is a truly flamboyant man, with his bow tie and all. Atatürk likes him and starts giving all the architectural works to him, starting with his sister’s building, Makbule Hanım’s house, in the Çankaya Mansion. When he becomes dominant, Vedat Bey returns to Istanbul. They close his and Guilio Mongeri’s ateliers at the Academy of Fine Arts, because they don’t want Ottoman remains, classical things.663 There are non-political, well-mannered architectural articles that Vedat Bey wrote afterwards, in which he says architecture will no longer be about ornamentation and decoration, the nature of the material will be displayed; it
660 Yavuz (1981) explains that in 1919, the mufti (official who is in charge of Islamic affairs for a place) of Jerusalem, wants to assign a Muslim architect for Al-Aqsa Mosque, which is one of the most sacred places of Islam, in 1919, when Jerusalem was under British rule, and he finds Kemalettin Bey as the most suitable person for the job.
661 Özkan (1973) explains that Vedat Tek completes the extension for the Çankaya Mansion and Halk Fırkası Mahfeli (Second Grand National Assembly), and leaves Ankara when Ankara Palas is in construction. Afterwards, Kemalettin Bey and Saçaklı Salim Derin completes the building after around 5 years.
662 Interview with Suha Özkan, 9 July 2020. Full interview in APPENDICES A2.
663 Özkan (1973) explains that Vedat Bey’s and Guilio Mongeri’s ateliers were closed in 1930. Cezar (1973) expresses that Mongeri continued teaching in the architecture department of the Academy of Fine Arts until the end of 1928.
259
will be simple, etc…And like that, a period comes to an end, and in my opinion the most valuable buildings of Turkey, like İller Bankası664, come forward.”665
Suha Özkan ends his words on this transition by expressing that Atatürk brought Clemens Holzmeister from Vienna, who first came to Turkey in 1927, where he designed and applied numerous public administration buildings, including the third Grand National Assembly of Turkey in Ankara. In our interview, İlhan Tekeli portrayed a similar transition process, which can be seen below:
“…There is Mustafa Kemal, who had a great success and is building a nation. There is no nation prior to that, he is building it. And then, there is architecture, an architecture called “First National Architecture”. Now, a person who is building the nation, would he utilize this architecture or not? He denies it. 1927, it cuts down. Mongeri and Vedat’s jobs are ended. Egli is invited. There is a transition towards modern architecture…How did he make this decision? Architectural historians do not know the exact answer to this question. Think about it, he does not travel abroad. Turkish architects do not go to him saying that there is a fine architecture in the world, a modern architecture…No. Turkish architects at the time are mostly closed to the world, there is a national architecture they nourished, they believe in that, etc. And when Mustafa Kemal denies what has been done until that point, when he enters a new arena, there is a problem at hand. There is a new capital to be built, all the architects at hand is in a different state of mind, he ignores them and begins a new adventure. Now that is an unbelievable decision. How do you come that conclusion?...This actually is not a single decision. It is the indirect reflection of a bigger decision. Now the modernization of Mustafa Kemal, which I define as radical modernization, is not a shy modernization. What is in that shy modernization? Ziya Gökalp’s synthesis definition. In 1924, Mustafa Kemal’s thinking is parallel to Ziya Gökalp’s. But after Ziya Gökalp publishes Türkçülüğün Esasları (The Principles of Turkism), he leaves it aside…He does not let someone else formulate his ideology for him and holds his position as an ideologue, which is mainly to prevent the use of inappropriate power on the grounds of ideology, by others. He takes the first step by refusing Mecelle , and by adopting civil law, which is a radical step. Then comes architecture, alphabet, and many more. This is part of a larger transformation…”666
664 İller Bankası was demolished in 2017, despite any objections. Two years after its demolition, the decision towards its demolition was revoked by the court.
665 Interview with Suha Özkan, 9 July 2020. Full interview in APPENDICES A2.
666 Interview with İlhan Tekeli, 18 June 2020. Full interview in APPENDICES A1.
260
Looking at Batur’s chapter; Suha Özkan’s; and İlhan Tekeli’s statements, we can see there were radical transformations in various spheres. In the narrative, this transformation appears in terms of breaks, and conveys the message that, while it was about building something “new”, it was also about the abandonment of the “old”. Accordingly, “new” architecture is described as a “replacement” of the “Ottoman Revivalism”. Even though this transformation of architecture occurs during the nation building process, it is not attributed as a “national” architecture and is associated with an “international” identity, specifically with the identity of the “West”. Exemplifications of this can be seen in two passages that Batur uses in her narrative, the first from Hakimiyet-i Milliye newspaper; and the next from a novel of Yakup Kadri Karaosmanoğlu, as follows:
“…The architecture of these one- or two-storey buildings was no different from that of similar housing projects in the West. It may be regretted that neither Turkish nor Byzantine style was adopted, but in such matters the opinion of architects was not solicited. The founders of new Ankara want simple and comfortable houses…”667 (Excerpt from Hakimiyet-i Milliye passage quoted in Batur, 1984, 77)
In the passage above, quoted by Batur, we can see that the identity of the “new architecture” is not defined as “Turkish”, or “Byzantine”, or as “Ottoman”, even though “Ottoman” is not mentioned. Furthermore, it is viewed similar to the housing projects of the “West”. Batur (1984, 77) describes the second passage of Yakup Kadri Karaosmanoğlu, as follows:
“The so-called ‘Republican Bourgeoisie’, consisting of military and civilian officials, played an important role in the acceptance of modern architecture. These highly-paid officials had found in modern architecture an appropriate response to their search for a new life-style: thoroughly contemporary, without a hint of the past.”668 (Batur, 1984, 77)
667“Hakimiyet-i Milliye Newspaper Passage quoted” In Batur, Afife. To Be Modern: Search for A Republican Architecture. In Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press. p.77
668 Batur, Afife. To Be Modern: Search for A Republican Architecture. In Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press. p.77
261
She continues by stating that Karaosmanoğlu, in his novel, “mentioned the appearance in 1926 of Cubist architecture, and criticized a certain type of Republican bourgeoisie through a description of their houses”669, in the following part:
“Among the villas extending from Yenişehir to Kavaklıdere it was impossible not to come across towerless, eaveless buildings. Thank God, this trend which spread during the incompetence and poor taste of early years, was suddenly (emphasis mine)670 replaced by Modern architecture…”671 (Excerpt from Yakup Kadri Karaosmanoğlu passage quoted in Batur, 1984, 77)
In the inclusion of the passages above, three points come across as significant. First, we see that combined with the prior passage, the acceptance and diffusion of modern architecture is expressed to be related to a “Republican bourgeoisie”, as opposed to all. Secondly, we see that the new contemporary lifestyle of these people, is described as “without a hint of the past”, and as “contemporary”. Lastly, the emphasis of “suddenly” made by Batur, intensifies the rapidity of the break between architectural movements, as constructed in the narrative. It is also noteworthy to point to the use of the passages in the chapter, as representational tools in this portrayal.
As she continues, we see two “foreign” architects being described in detail, before others, which is a narrative decision that may be stemming both from the historical reality of the invitation of foreign experts, which makes sense chronologically; and also, from the “international” character attributed to modern architecture, as seen in the passages and descriptions above. The two architects that come forward in the text are Clemens Holzmeister and Ernst Egli, even though Batur mentions Theodor Jost’s Ministry of Health (1926-1927) building as the first significant building of the period.
669 Karaosmanoğlu, Yakup Kadri. Ankara (Novel). as quoted in Batur, Afife. To Be Modern: Search for A Republican Architecture. In Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press.
670 The word “suddenly” is emphasized by Afife Batur. Batur, Afife. To Be Modern: Search for A Republican Architecture. In Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press.
671 Ibid. p.77
262
After referring to different buildings of Clemens Holzmeister and making following statements, “it is difficult to consider Holzmeister as a true representative of the Modern Movement”672; “These characteristics …in some of his buildings such as the Court of Cassation and the Grand National Assembly, indicate his proximity in the spirit to National Socialist architecture”673; and “Holzmeister exhibited characteristics attributable to the Vienna School of the early Modern Movement”674, Batur describes the Grand National Assembly building in detail, compared to other included buildings, which she states is his “largest and most important work”675.
The next building, she describes in a similar manner is the Presidential Palace, which is defined as “the most Modern work of Holzmeister” in Ankara.676 While her statements on the two buildings are focused on the architectural characteristics of the works, since she describes the use of form; placement; material; the usage or lack of usage of ornamentation, the selection and elaboration of the two buildings, among others, their detailed inclusion in her chapter is considered significant, since one of them houses the parliament, and the other, houses the head of the state, which shows the utilization of their historically existing symbolic associations, and their highlighted status within the narrative.
To better understand these symbolic associations, we may look at Clemens Holzmeister’s memories from an interview that can be seen below, where he explained his works in Ankara, and in Turkey, including the Grand National Assembly and the
672 Batur, Afife. To Be Modern: Search for A Republican Architecture. In Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press. p.80
673 Ibid. p.80
674 Ibid. p.79
675 Ibid. p.80
676 Ibid. p.82
263
Presidential Palace, which may also provide information towards Atatürk’s views on the architecture of the period, since Batur expresses a connection between “official ideology” and the architectural production of the 1930s:
“…My memories begin in the year of 1928 and continues until today…My arrival to Ankara gave me the impression of One Thousand and One Nights677 tales…(Abdülhalik Renda) reminded me that I was invited with the orders of Atatürk, and asked if I am ready for municipality building construction…The construction of large buildings was very difficult under the conditions of Turkey at the time. There were no experts, we started with the building of construction materials…I have met with Atatürk before the construction of the Presidential Palace. I have seen Atatürk in Ankara Palas, in a ball that was organized for the Republic Day. He gathered the attention on himself as an important figure. They introduced me to Atatürk, during this ball. We met for the second time for the construction of the Presidential Palace…It was Atatürk’s special request to have Austrian experts to work in the construction of the Presidential Palace. I took artists; masons; carpenters; and qualified personnel from Austria to Ankara…I designed various buildings near the Presidential Palace…I returned to Austria in 1933. At the time, the Nazi era had started. Europe was entering an awful period. I won the contest for the new Grand National Assembly building in Turkey. This project was highly important for me. I had to leave Austria because it was known that I was against the Nazi. Otherwise, I would be expected to be sent to a concentration camp like Dachau, as my other friends…The construction of the parliament building was going slow due to some difficulties. Finally, it was completed in 1960 and opened with a ceremony…I have never met anyone else that clearly indicated what they wanted from the building, as much as Atatürk did. He was ideal in that…Furthermore, our ideas were fundamentally compatible with Atatürk. Atatürk did not want the Greek-Armenian architectural style to be affective in constructions in Turkey. He believed that constructions should have conformed to the Turkish architectural style. I followed these principles closely and obtained good results. This way, an architectural style particular to Turkey began to develop.”678 (Holzmeister, 1987, 28-29)
In the interview above, it is possible to observe that Atatürk aimed for the “new” architecture of Turkey, to be the “Turkish Architecture”, in other words, the “national” architecture of Turkey, which can be viewed as part of a larger ideological decision as
677 “One Thousand and One Nights” or “Arabian Nights” tales refers to the Arabic compilation of folk tales, which was first published in English in the early 18th century.
678 Holzmeister, Clemens. (1979). In Prof. Dr. Clemens Holzmeister ile söyleşi. (1987). Mimarlık. 224, 25(3): 28. The text, which is a section of the interview that was conducted in 16.02.1979, by Salzburg Consul General Osman Sirman, was published in Turkish in Mimarlık journal, in 1987.
The full interview in German can be found in Salt Research, Available from https://archives.saltresearch.org/handle/123456789/5260.
264
İlhan Tekeli previously expressed. Holzmeister, in the 1979 interview, expressed that, while moving away from a different architectural movement, a “new” Turkish architecture, began to develop. This “new” Turkish architecture utilized “international characteristics” with the consideration of contemporary needs of the society, while also serving the ideological agenda. Furthermore, we can see from the expressions of Atatürk, that he envisioned a contemporary architecture, that is suited for the contemporary, modern nation-state under construction, as its “national” architecture. Accordingly, we see that foreign experts, such as Holzmeister, were invited to Turkey, played an important role in the architectural production of Turkey, which can be seen in the architectural history books of Turkey, including Modern Turkish Architecture (1984).
After mentioning the works of Holzmeister, with the detailing of the two buildings that are closely associated with ideology of the period, Batur moves to another foreign architect, Ernst Egli. She exemplifies his works and describes the characteristics in his various designs. According to Batur (1984, 83-84), Egli, “might be said to represent best the spirit of the young Republic”679, and compared to Holzmeister’s, Egli’s works were modest, and yet “their influence was more widespread and lasting.”680 Batur (1984, 84) continues on Egli and states that, “While being a functionalist and anti-stylist, he never advocated crude borrowing. He advised and personally undertook careful consideration of local conditions and of Turkish architectural traditions.”681 Batur’s statement on Egli, can be viewed as parallel to the statements of Holzmeister above, affirming that the “new” architecture was not merely about a break with the past, and rather it was a new formulation of the “national” architecture, in a modern, contemporary form.
679 Batur, Afife. To Be Modern: Search for A Republican Architecture. In Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press. p.83
680 Ibid. p.84
681 Ibid. p.84
265
Following the section that encompasses the relationship between “modern architecture” in Turkey, and the invitation of foreign experts, in which we see the binary oppositions such as “new” and “old”; “West” and its “other”; or “national” and “international”, where we may also question the notions of “Foreignness” and “Turkishness”, Batur continues with the architectural production of the 1930s, which she categorizes into three different phases. In this section of the narrative, she includes architectural works, and even though some buildings are portrayed in more detail, many of them are used to exemplify historical conditions and prominent tendencies of the period, in terms of design decisions, in relation to their architects. Batur (1984, 84) describes these phases through the following statements:
“First came the encounter with modern thinking and works. The phase of preparation and experimentation lasted approximately until about 1933. Then, under the impetus of the building program in Ankara, influenced by the works and origins of foreign architects and by the atmosphere of radical thought, a period of action was inaugurated. Young Turkish architects, whose commissions were limited to residences and small commercial buildings, took up the Modern Movement with gusto and considerable aptitude. Their works were essentially akin to those of the Vienna purists and to the early cubism of Le Corbusier.”682 (Batur, 1984, 84)
Considering this statement of Batur, one might expect the following narrative decision, which is similar to Yavuz and Özkan’s approach, in which Batur continues with the “earliest known Modern building by a Turkish architect”, the Bekir Bey House in Istanbul, which was designed in 1929, by Sırrı Arif.683 Following this building, we see architectural works that were designed by Turkish architects, including Sedat Hakkı Eldem; A. Ziya Kozanoğlu; Zeki Selah Sayar; Abidin Mortaş; Hüsnü; Semih Rüstem; and Arif Hikmet. At this point, we may again speak of a separation between the “foreign” and “Turkish” architects, which continues the polarization between “Us” and “Them”, in a different period. Here, it is important to note that, Batur mentions these architects and their works, in relation to the first phase (1927-1933).
682 Batur, Afife. To Be Modern: Search for A Republican Architecture. In Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press. p.84
683 Ibid. p.84
266
The second phase (1933-1938) in Batur’s chapter also begin with Turkish architects, starting with Seyfettin Arkan and his winning of the competition of Hariciye Köşkü. In this section, Batur (1984, 86) states that “Time had come for Turkish architects to come into their own. Many public buildings of different scales were now designed by Turkish architects, through competitions or direct commissions.”684 In other words, she emphasizes the dominance of Turkish architects in the architectural production, as opposed to foreign ones, and continues with prominent architects of this period, such as Zeki Sayar; Bekir İhsan; Rebii Gordon; Rüknettin Güney; and Asım Kömürcüoğlu, in addition to Seyfi Arkan, while also underlining the inclusion of women Turkish architects, Münevver Belen and Leman Tomsu, in Arkitekt. This is the only time within the narrative of Modern Turkish Architecture (1984) when we see the specific mentioning of women Turkish architects.
Batur begins the third phase of her categorization at the competition of the Grand National Assembly, which was mentioned above in relation to Holzmeister. Batur (1984, 87) expresses that, “After this date, projects, particularly those for public buildings, begin to show a Holzmeisterian tone”685, and provides information regarding the characteristics of architectural production, where she includes architects such as Bruno Taut and Clemens Holzmeister, as well as Bekir Ünal; Sabri Oran; Ahmet Aru; and Emin Onat, in addition to the architects who were mentioned in the second phase. Here, we may note that the beginning of the second and third phases are identified with competitions, which underlines their importance at the time. After the third phase, Batur (1984, 88) makes the following statement as a preparation for the ending of her narrative, in which she points to two main developments that are viewed as the reasons behind the ending of this period in architecture:
“Modernism was predominant in the decade 1930-1940, but it paved the way for its own antithesis which can be defined through two developments. One is the protest
684 Batur, Afife. To Be Modern: Search for A Republican Architecture. In Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press. p.86
685 Ibid. p.87
267
against commissions given to foreign architects in Turkey. The other is the National Architecture Seminar initiated in the Academy of Fine Arts.”686 (Batur, 1984, 88)
Her first sentence here, already defines what is coming next, “The Second Period of National Architecture”, as the “antithesis” of modernism. Here, we can see a clash between “modernism” and “nationalism”. Before Batur completes her narrative, she mentions several points including, the protests of Turkish architects for not being included in the architectural production, which found voice through articles in Mimar; “modern spirit being identified with foreign architects” and being declared as “alien”;687 the echoes of the German and Italian architecture exhibitions; and lastly, she elaborates on two Turkish architects and their works, who are Seyfi Arkan (Seyfettin Nasih Arkan) and Sedat Hakkı Eldem, which she presents in a similar manner to her descriptions of Holzmeister and Egli.
Putting the descriptions of the architectural works aside, we may see that Batur presents an interesting narrative of architects, which are divided between “foreign” and “Turkish”. In the ordering of them, we see that, first, Holzmeister and Egli, emerge as two prominent figures,688 who are acknowledged as “catalysts” due to their architectural and teaching activities, which is then mainly replaced with Turkish architects, with a specific emphasis on Seyfi Arkan and Sedad Hakkı Eldem. The exemplifications of architectural works of these architects, on the other hand, are well balanced, since among the architectural works, whose architects were noted, there are a total of 23 building/s of foreign architects, and a total of 25 building/s of Turkish
686 Batur, Afife. To Be Modern: Search for A Republican Architecture. In Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press. p.88
687 Ibid. p.88
688 It is important to note that Batur also mentions works of Theodor Jost; Martin Elsaesser; and Bruno Taut in her narrative, but Holzmeister and Egli are put forward through their architectural works, as well as through detailed descriptions on them, compared to others. Batur, Afife. To Be Modern: Search for A Republican Architecture. In Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press.
268
architects. In other words, even though the narrative crescendos towards Turkish architects, it is weighty with the works of the foreign architects, in the beginning.
Clemens Holzmeister, among foreign architects, is significant in the narrative, since 13 out of 23 buildings are his, and two of them are detailed through descriptions, which are the Grand National Assembly; and the Presidential Palace buildings, as mentioned.689 Even though, there are some descriptions towards other architectural works, designed by both foreign and Turkish architects, we see that these two buildings are emphasized more than others.
On the other hand, it is possible to see Seyfi Arkan was also put forward among Turkish architects, since 13 out of 25 buildings, are his works.690 Among his buildings, it is possible to observe that residence of the Minister of Foreign Affairs (Hariciye Köşkü), was prominent among others, even though, his Municipalities Bank (1937) is defined as the most famous one. At this point, we may also look at some of the descriptions of the architectural works designed by Turkish architects, since we have already briefly mentioned Batur’s views towards the works of Holzmeister’s and Egli’s. It is possible to view Batur’s portrayal of modern architecture as practiced by Turkish architects, through the excerpts in Table 10.
689 The remaining ten buildings by foreign architects in the subheading “Ideology, Expression, Symbol, and Style” of Batur’s chapter are distributed as follows: Ernst Egli (6); Martin Elsaesser (2); Theodor Jost (1); and Bruno Taut (1).
690 The remaining twelve buildings by Turkish architects in “Ideology, Expression, Symbol, and Style” are distributed as follows: Sedat Hakkı Eldem (7); Sırrı Erif (2); Holtay (1); Zühtü (1); Macaroğlu and Livas Bey (1).
269
Table 10 – Excerpts from Afife Batur’s Narrative, from the Fourth Chapter, “To Be Modern: Search for A Republican Architecture”691
Architectural Work
Architect
Year
Excerpts from Afife Batur’s (1984) Narrative
Dr. İhsan Sami House
Seyfettin Arkan
1933
“…is a Corbusier adaptation on pilotis.” p.88
Minister of Foreign Affairs (Hariciye Köşkü)
Seyfettin Arkan
1933-1934
“Çankaya and Florya are careful unpretentious in appearance, exhibiting Bauhaus influences, fragmented plans with different functions juxtaposed, flat surfaces and large areas of glass. The horizontal, covered terrace of the Çankaya Pirme Minister’s residence, with its minimal columns and roof, is a reference to the atrium arrangement of Holzmeister in the Presidential Residence.” p.88
Presidential Summer Residence in Florya
Seyfettin Arkan
1934
SATIE Building
Sedad Hakkı Eldem
1934
“This building…had a Corbusian elevation with horizontal bank windows above free columns in front of a receding ground floor and an entrance with rounded corners and cubist massing.” p.90
Termal Hotel
Sedad Hakkı Eldem
-
“…is totally modern and internationalist. … Eldem has divided the ground floor elevation into two storeys, arranging the windows of the upper part with diagonal braces and colored glass, connecting it to the traditional upper-window element.” p.90
General Directorate of State Monopolies
Sedad Hakkı Eldem
1937
“…is a work that follows the Holzmeisterian line.” p.90
As it can be seen in Table 10, architectural production of Turkish architects is defined as “modern” and “international”, as opposed to being defined as the “national”
691 Please note that, excerpts in this table are parts of larger descriptions; statements; and discussions. The quotations in this table are taken from Batur, Afife. To Be Modern: Search for A Republican Architecture. In Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press. The page numbers of the quotations are indicated in the criticism column, next to each quotation.
270
architecture of the republic in the 1930s. Furthermore, there are direct references to the “West” through Le Corbusier or Bauhaus. Holzmeister’s approach to architecture is also directly referenced, who had an important role in the shaping of the “new” Ankara. Here, it should be noted that, Batur (1984, 89) also points to Eldem’s architectural attitude and his studies on “Turkish house”, and states that “he believed in the necessity of reinterpreting elements to arrive at a new synthesis in order to maintain historical continuity”692, which will be discussed in relation to the following chapter, written by Üstün Alsaç.
Even though Batur mentions “reinterpretation of traditional elements”, specifically through Eldem’s works, we observe that modern architecture produced by Turkish architects, are not defined through the “nation”, rather they are illustrated in relation to a reference point, that being the architecture of the “West”.693 If we were to compare the approaches of Yavuz and Özkan; and Batur, it is possible to observe similarities in terms of the narrative, despite the difference presented between architectural movements. First, we can see that there is a shared debate between the “old” and the “new”; a construction of the “other”, which materializes through breaks in the narratives. In Yavuz and Özkan’s chapters, this break is demonstrated between the relations of the Ottoman Empire and the new republic, in which Ottoman Empire is constructed as the “other” of the republic. We see that architectural works of the Late Empire, or pre-“First National Architecture”, were viewed as eclectic, and even as “orientalist”.
In Batur’s narrative, we see a similar pattern, however this time, architecture from both periods, since they are part of the past, are articulated as the “other” of the “new” architecture, that is defined in relation to the “West”, despite being the prominent architecture of the “nation” at the time, which can be viewed as somewhat ironic, since
692 Batur, Afife. To Be Modern: Search for A Republican Architecture. In Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press. p.89
693 It was mentioned earlier that Elvan Altan Ergut (1998, 155) explains how modern architecture became a reference point in the early years of the republic.
271
Turkey is often portrayed as the “other” of the “West” itself, in numerous publications and media as constructions, mostly from Eurocentric point of views. The issue of dealing with foreigners that have worked in Turkey, in both narratives, further deepens this construction of difference.
Next, we see that both narratives are constructed around ideologies of the periods. While architecture’s connections to ideology, as well as to its representational power, finds a large place in various disciplines, the remark here is that the narrative, as in the case of these chapters in Modern Turkish Architecture (1984), directly follows its route, shaping the discourse as well. While in Yavuz and Özkan’s chapter, this is constructed through the discourse of A nationalism, that is linked with the idea of “Turkishness”; in Batur’s narrative, it is shaped with Another nationalism, that is identified through the “West”. In the descriptions of architecture, we see these nationalisms find voice, through the representational attributes of architecture (form); through their location, in terms of both the political “West” and “Ankara”; through the nationality of architects, both foreign and Turkish; and also through the definition of that particular nationalisms, in terms of their “Turkishness” or “Westernness”. The idea of different nationalisms in different periods, as conveyed in the narratives of Yavuz and Özkan; and Batur, is clear in the following statements of Tekeli (1984, 16):
“The development of an architectural movement in Europe deemphasizing the national dimension on the one hand and the emergence of a ‘monist’ cultural theory in Turkey on the other facilitated the acceptance of the Modern Movement in Turkey. Turkish nationalism was reinterpreted in the 1930s to allow for an internationalist orientation.”694 (Tekeli, 1984, 16)
Here too, we see that, the international characteristic of “modern movement” itself is underlined, while acknowledging its development in Europe, which is also evident in the use of the phrase, “acceptance of the Modern Movement”, instead of another term, such as “interpretation”; “negotiation”; “process”; “translation”; or else, as articulated
694 Tekeli, Ilhan. The Social Context of the Development of Architecture in Turkey. In Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press. p.16
272
in various writings. Through this phrase, we may infer that, this view accepts an “origin”, a reference point that is the “West”, while also highlighting the movements’ international character, and its compatibility with the goals and agenda of the new republic. The statement above, also highlights the relationship between ideologies and architectural production, that was discussed earlier, which can be observed in the title of Batur’s chapter, in which she defines the architecture of the period, as “Republican architecture”, and constructs a direct connection with the state, and the head of the state and its ideology, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, and “1930s Nationalism”, or in Batur’s term “Kemalist ideology” or “official ideology”.695
Afife Batur’s narrative ends with her acknowledgment that “architecture was only a part of the total effort of these reform years”696, as İlhan Tekeli also underlined, but as it can be seen in her narrative that it was an important representative of the “transformation” of the state; and “being modern”. The process was defined and described as a transformation, rather than a transition. Following these developments, we come across a new architectural movement in the 1940s, which Üstün Alsaç evaluates in the fifth chapter, under the title of “The Second Period of National Architecture”, and which was categorized as “Modern/ National Architecture”, in this study.
Üstün Alsaç relates the beginning of the “Second National Architectural Movement”, which he narrates as a “transition” process in the 1940s, to three significant turning points, which are Atatürk’s death (1938); the beginning of World War II (1939); and
695 Here we may note that, even though it is charged with political implications, it is possible to state that “Republican Architecture” can be considered somewhat neutral in terms of the discussion between “national” and “international”; which makes it clear that aside from the architectural identity and ideology of the period, it is the architecture of the state.
696 Batur, Afife. To Be Modern: Search for A Republican Architecture. In Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press. p.91
273
the “Seminar on National Architecture” by Sedad Hakkı Eldem.697 Alsaç (1984, 95) views the first two of these factors as catalysts for the “reappearance of regional tendencies in architecture”, and points to several aspects of these historical realities, to explain the new approaches in the architectural production of the 1940s.698
Following his reminders on Atatürk’s opinions towards the “First National Style” and “Ottomanism”, which was stated that he did not favored as mentioned, Alsaç (1984, 94) expresses that, Atatürk, “apparently felt that the Republic should develop its own art forms”, a statement similar to Holzmeister’s.699 After pointing to the effects of Atatürk’s Death; and the World War II, which was mentioned earlier, Alsaç highlights the unifying aspect of “Nationalism”, to give context regarding the thought process behind the “Second National Architectural Movement”. Alsaç (1984, 95) materializes this by including a legislation that passed in 1934, in which the Ministry of Public Works state that “The Ministry will see to it that a Turkish architectural style is developed in order to maintain a certain uniformity (in the environment).”700 While, Alsaç (1984, 95) expresses that it is possible to read this law “as a desire for a national idiom”,701 considering the passing year of the law, we can question if it was the implication of a “revivalism” of sorts that is associated with the “Second National Architecture” here, or if it only meant a unified language in architecture, which could have also been achieved through the language of the architectural production of the 1930s.
697 Alsaç, Üstün. The Second Period of National Architecture. In Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press. The first two turning points was discussed in relation to ideologies previously.
698 Ibid. p.94
699 Ibid. p.94.
Holzmeister’s statement was previously included.
700 Ibid. p.95
701 Ibid. p.95
274
While the text is unclear about the exact law,702 it is believed to be the law, numbered 2443, that was issued in 26/05/1934, in which the roles and duties of the Ministry of Public Works (Nafıa Vekâleti) were stated as follows:
“…(Nafıa Vekâleti) It is an organization responsible for determining all kinds of buildings and constructions belonging to state offices and institutions; and the style of Turkish architecture, providing unity and training the scientific means and elements, and doing other works that are determined by public and private laws.”703 (T.C. Resmi Gazete, 29 May 1934)
In the definition of the law above, which is thought to be the law that Alsaç is referring to, we observe that the Ministry of Public Works was responsible for determining a “style of Turkish architecture” for the buildings of state offices and institutions, where it is clear that the aim of this, was to achieve a certain unity, that can be associated with “nationalism”. However, considering the examples of architectural production in Batur’s chapter, the “style” that is deemed to be “Turkish” is rather vague, in terms of referring to “Republican Architecture” or to the “Second National Architecture” (Figure 36). While the law may or may not be referring to a certain style, an interesting point here to make is, its use within the narrative, since Alsaç constructs the relation between “nationalism”; and the “Second National Architecture” through the incorporation of a law; by utilizing it as the set of rules that are specified to create a
702 The law number and date are not stated in Alsaç’s chapter. In his Ph.D. thesis, “Türkiye’deki Mimarlık Düşüncesinin Cumhuriyet Dönemindeki Evrimi”, Alsaç refers to a similar law, through an article by Erol Kulaksızoğlu (1964), however, it is not thought to be the same law as the one mentioned in this chapter, since within the context of the thesis, Alsaç explains Kulaksızoğlu’s words in relation to the “First National Architecture”, who stated “This new trend was also encouraged by the government for a period, and the buildings to be built were asked to be built in this way, supposedly in the Turkish architectural style. In fact, a law was issued, and it was seen that the Municipality did not allow the projects that were not drawn in this style.” Kulaksızoğlu, Erol as quoted (translated) in Alsaç, Üstün. (1976). Türkiye’deki Mimarlık Düşüncesinin Cumhuriyet Dönemindeki Evrimi. KTÜ. Baskı Atelyesi, Trabzon.
703 T.C. Resmi Gazete. (29 May 1934). Kanunlar: Nafıa Vekâletinin teşkilât ve vazifelerine dair kanun. Law Number: 2443. Acceptance Date: 26/05/1934. Sayı: 2713. Accessed on: 20.07.2021, Available from: https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/arsiv/2713.pdf
275
unity associated with nationalism, which is portrayed to be enforced by the government.
Figure 36 - Photographs of Architectural Works Exemplifying “Republican Architecture” in Afife Batur's chapter. Photographs: Upper Left: Faculty of Letters (Bruno Taut, 1937); Upper Right: Residence of the Minister of Foreign Affairs (Seyfi Arkan, 1933-1934); Lower Left: Municipalities Bank (Seyfi Arkan, 1937); Lower Right: Interior of Railroad Terminal Ankara (Şekip Akalın, 1937). Source: Modern Turkish Architecture (1984)
The last turning point Alsaç includes in his narrative, that is related to the beginning of the “Second National Architecture”, is Sedad Hakkı Eldem’s “Seminar on National Architecture”, through which, Alsaç (1984, 96) states, “the systematic and sophisticated study of traditional architecture, a key influence in the formation of the new architectural generation” began.704 Alsaç also uses Eldem’s article of 1940, “Yerli Mimariye Doğru” (Toward Local Architecture), 705 to identify the beginnings of the
704 Alsaç, Üstün. The Second Period of National Architecture. In Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press. p.96
705 This translation was made by Üstün Alsaç.
276
movement. In other words, the third turning point of the narrative, that is related to the beginning of the “Second National Architecture” is through Sedad Hakkı Eldem, as a key figure.
Before dwelling on the narrative of the “Second National Architecture”, it is considered meaningful to mention Sedad Hakkı Eldem, since his “Seminar on National Architecture” began as early as 1934, which shows that the ideas behind the movement, co-existed with “Republican Architecture”.706 Eldem, who was born in 1908 and became interested in architecture as early as 14 years old, spent most of his childhood and early years of his youth abroad due to his fathers’ profession as a diplomat, and then returned to Turkey in 1924, after the foundation of the republic, where he enrolled in the Academy of Fine Arts.707 As one of the earliest students of the Academy, he was a student of both Guilio Mongeri and Vedat Bey (Vedat Tek), in fact he assisted Mongeri during his school years, where he became acquainted with their architectural ideologies, which was reflected in the “First National Architectural Movement”.708 According to Yenal (2005), his favorite architect at the time was Vallaury, whose works Yenal (2005, 160) comments on with a similar tone to earlier criticisms of the architect,709 by stating the following:
706 For a detailed study on Sedad Hakkı Eldem, you may view Bozdoğan, Sibel.; Özkan, Suha.; & Yenal, Engin. (2005). Sedad Eldem: Architect in Turkey. Literatür. (Third Edition). 1987, 1989, 2005.
707 Bozdoğan, Sibel.; Özkan, Suha.; & Yenal, Engin. (2005). Sedad Eldem: Architect in Turkey. Literatür. (Third Edition). 1987, 1989, 2005.
708Bozdoğan, Sibel.; Özkan, Suha.; & Yenal, Engin. (2005). Sedad Eldem: Architect in Turkey. Literatür. (Third Edition). 1987, 1989, 2005.
709 Similar criticisms towards the works of Vallaury, specifically on the Sirkeci Railroad Terminal, was discussed earlier.
277
“Although Vallaury’s major buildings reflect his own interpretation of pseudo-Islamic Oriental eclecticism, his latter work with apparent refinement echoes a mature understanding of Ottoman residential architecture.”710 (Yenal, 2005, 160)
After his graduation from the Academy, Eldem went to Paris, where “under the tutelage of Auguste Perret and guidance of Le Corbusier, whom he intermittently visited, he eagerly tried to develop his skills.”711 He also went to Berlin, where his tutor was Hans Poelzig, and where he first saw the Frank Lloyd Wright album of The Prairie Houses, which he resembled to the Turkish House in terms of its long low lines; rows of windows; wide eaves and shapes of the roofs. He re-assessed his ideas on the “First National Architecture” during his study tours to England, before going back to Turkey in 1928 to teach and practice; and start his academic career in 1930.712 In 1934, he established the “National Architecture Seminar”, where students studied and documented examples of numerous traditional houses in Turkey. Engin Yenal (2005, 158) describes Eldem as a “genuine Eastern intellectual who has rediscovered the East, either while in the West or during his own or his country’s Westernization process.”713
There is a similar situation of Sedad Hakkı Eldem, to the Turkish architects of the “First National Architectural Movement”, in terms of the resentment towards an “internationalist influence”, recalling “orientalist” and “eclectic” comments from Yavuz and Özkan’s (1984) narrative. Eldem (1984, 56-57) expressed this in a seminar article of 1984, where he also explained his return to Turkey and the “National Architecture Seminar”, as follows:
“When Kemal, Vedat, and Muzaffer was continuing a Turkish Classicism, with their exemplary works and teachings, following the Neo-Ottoman, a new imported commodity of the West had enlightened our country.
710 Yenal, Engin. Profile of the Man. In Bozdoğan, Sibel.; Özkan, Suha.; & Yenal, Engin. (2005). Sedad Eldem: Architect in Turkey. Literatür. (Third Edition). 1987, 1989, 2005. p.160
711 Ibid.
712 Ibid.
713 Ibid.
278
While this architecture is a type of modern, it is rather suited for the name of cubic, or even Vienna Cubic. The main importance of this architecture, other than its so-called functionalist properties, is its avoidance of Turkish architecture and adjacencies. It is undeniable that this ecole infused many innovations and detail knowledge in terms of construction techniques at the time. Line technique714 was beneficially standardized, specifically by Egli. However, since the architecture was completely unrelated to Turkish Architecture, it became unable to see beyond the narrow frame of the middle Europe, and it still did not recognize great masters such as Le Courbusier, Perret, and Wright.
This situation created displeasure among some young students. One of them was me…Back then, as a student, I was a rebel on two sides. I was strongly against the domed, arched Neo-Turkish, and against the international cubic. And I was equally strongly in love and in admiration of the Turkish house. If I have achieved something in my profession since back then, it is keeping these two feelings. Every summer vacation, I used to travel to the villages and small towns of Anatolia; and to the cities that were as beautiful as a museum at the time; and analyzed their architecture. These places (even Ankara) kept all their mysterious beauties at the time. Walking around narrow streets; discovering another beauty in each corner, meant being in a constant state of excitement. I continued doing this during my three-year internship in the West, and I explored and recognized Le Corbusier; Wright; Perret closely. From them, I learned the magnitude of the worldwide beauty and meaning of the Turkish House.
I returned to the academy, with myself and my painting albums full. I found the Austria ecole as completely integrated. There, in the 1930s, I established the Seminar on National Architecture. This was going to be both research and practice. The movement continued for about 15-20 years. All the young architects followed this movement. In the meantime, the iron got cut out, the age of the stone buildings began, and the nationalism movement started to be seen…”715 (Eldem, 1984, 56-57)
As we can see from his life and statements, Sedad Hakkı Eldem experienced both the “traditional” and the “international” firsthand, which seems to have played a role in the development of his architectural ideology, his “synthesis”, which was expressed to be reflected through the “Second National Architecture” within the narrative/s of Modern Turkish Architecture (1984).
Subsequent to identifying Sedad Hakkı Eldem’s “National Architecture Seminar” as one of the turning points that led to the emergence of the “Second National Architecture”, and mentioning Eldem’s article “Yerli Mimariye Doğru”, Alsaç (1984)
714 It is thought that, in this sentence, Eldem is referring to the form and design language.
715 Eldem, Sedat Hakkı. “Son 120 Sene İçinde Türk Mimarisinde Millilik ve Rejyonalizm Araştırmaları”. In Mimaride Türk Milli Üslubu Semineri. (1984). Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı Eski Eserler ve Müzeler Genel Müdürlüğü. p.56-57.
279
continues with the definition of the “national idiom” by describing its principles and characteristics.716 This definition can be viewed as a summary of Eldem’s article, even though Alsaç (1984) does not include each concern of Eldem, regarding how a “National Architecture” should be and how that can be achieved, since he itemizes and interprets the prominent principles from the text, as he sees appropriate for his narrative. After Alsaç (1984, 96) provides the reader with a list of main characteristics; principles; and methods that leads to a “second national idiom”717 in architecture, which include the use of regional construction materials and techniques; consideration of climatic factors; the modernization of historical building elements; the concealment of modern building materials that were used for their constructive properties; and the study of different building types of “earlier styles of Turkish architecture”, he states that “this architecture can be rightly called revivalism”.718
Alsaç’s (1984) definition of “revivalism” is rather an uncomplicated one, since he views it as the utilization of architectural forms; styles; and symbols that are from earlier periods of a country, which are considered “national”, and “worthy” of reviving as sources of inspiration, or as standards of comparison for “nationalism” or “classicism”.719 However, as he mentions the heritage of Anatolia of a nine hundred years, in which various “styles” and “building types” emerged and synthesized over time, the meaning of a “Turkish architecture” becomes a complex concept, in terms of locating “Turkishness” from the history, to be utilized in the architectural production. Alsaç (1984) settles this complication, by comparing the similarities and differences
716 Alsaç, Üstün. The Second Period of National Architecture. In Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press.
717 The “second” is added to this sentence as a reminder that the concept of a “national idiom” was first used in relation to “First National Architectural Movement”, and it was excluded in “Republican Architecture” due to its “internationalist orientation”.
718 Alsaç, Üstün. The Second Period of National Architecture. In Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press. p.96-97
719 Ibid.
280
of the First and Second National movements, in which he clarifies that the First National Movement had the characteristics of an international eclecticism; and the Second National Movement had more of a regional character that utilized rural or vernacular architecture and was restricted to the style of the Anatolian Seljuks.720
Even though Alsaç (1984, 99) uses the architectural works of several architects as exemplifications of the “Second National Architecture”, it is possible to observe that he creates a direct connection between the movement and Sedad Hakkı Eldem, as he relates the “Turkishness” or the “nationalist” aspect of this architecture, to the study of different types of the “Turkish house”, and therefore to the “National Architecture Seminar”, through the following statement:
“The rediscovery of the ‘Turkish House,’ which is no more a minor housing form than is the Japanese House, is the major contribution of the Second National Movement. Through this vehicle, Turkish architecture also has the potential of making a unique contribution to modern architecture.”721 (Alsaç, 1984, 99)
This statement, placed right below the photograph of the “Oriental Café” (1948-1950) of Sedad Hakkı Eldem, which is also the building used in the cover of the book (Figure 37), is perhaps one of the most important statements of the book, in terms of what “modern Turkish architecture” means. Looking at the first sentence of this quotation, we first come across an appraisal of the “Turkish House”, as a “rediscovery”, which occurs through the seminar and research of Sedad Hakkı Eldem, and it is defined by comparison to another “major”, “national” architecture, the “Japanese House”. Here, “Turkish House” is treated as a gem, that is “worthy of reusing” and is “national” due to its characteristics, as a symbol of heritage and culture. Its rediscovery is “the major contribution” of the movement, and therefore, is viewed as its essence, making the “Turkish House” of concern a historical construct.
720 Alsaç, Üstün. The Second Period of National Architecture. In Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press. p.97
721 Ibid. p.99
281
This construct, as embedded in the latter sentence, may be implying that “Turkish House” constitutes the “core” of modern “Turkish” architecture, which can be viewed as a “Nationalist” perspective, which was discussed in relation to “national categories of architecture” in the statements of Ergut (1999).722 Furthermore, the last section of the second sentence asserts “a unique contribution to modern architecture”, through the rediscovery of the “Turkish House”, which can be read as twofold.
Figure 37 - Cover of Modern Turkish Architecture (1984) with the photograph of Sedad Hakkı Eldem’s “Oriental Café” (1948-1950) that is also known as Taşlık Kahvesi (Taşlık Coffee House) or Şark Kahvesi. Source: Modern Turkish Architecture (1984)
722 Altan Ergut, T. Elvan. (1999). The Forming of the National in Architecture. METU Journal of the Faculty of Architecture, 19(1-2), 31-43.
282
First, considering the cover photo and this statement, there may be the implication that works of “Second National Architecture” are the “Modern Turkish Architecture”, which places other modern architecture/s of Turkey within a different category, that are assumed not unique. Next, it may be read as if there is a “proper”, “whole” modern architecture, to which a unique contribution can be made. It should be noted that, the main point of discussion here is not questioning if the works of the “Second National Movement” are “Modern Turkish Architecture”, rather, the question is the way it is being defined within the narrative, through a “nationalist” construction, which fixes diverse meanings of “Turkishness”, while excluding other modern architecture/s of Turkey. In relation to that idea, we might consider the diversity of other “unique” and “national” contributions to “modern architecture”, as well, to question if they are all “genres” of modern architecture; or if modern architecture itself is a diverse category, that inhabits more than merely the “proper” one.
In our interviews, there were various interpretations of what “Modern Turkish Architecture” means. First we may look at the decision to use the title Modern Turkish Architecture, as opposed to Contemporary Architecture in Turkey 1920-1980, Renata Holod, stated that, it was something they chose with Ahmet Evin, which they “changed/tweaked” afterwards, even though she did not remember the details.723 Furthermore, she explained that within the context of this event, as well as the book, the term “Turkish” referred to the “architecture in Turkey of the 20th century, and the immediate precedents.”724 Ahmet Evin, in the meantime, stated that, “It was not possible to define something that began with Architect Kemalettin as “contemporary”, since it described the architecture of the past, rather than the recent.725 He added that, “there is a beginning date of “Modern Turkish Architecture”, which he correlated with the transition from the “palace, craftsman, chief architect” to the “educated
723 Text Interview with Renata Holod, 12 August 2020. Full text interview in APPENDICES A4.
724 Ibid.
725 Interview with Ahmet Evin, 10 August 2020. Full interview in APPENDICES A3.
283
architect”.726 Regarding the “Turkish” part of the title, Evin expressed that, the phrase “modern architecture in Turkey” was cumbers in English, and therefore they chose “Modern Turkish Architecture” instead.727 On the other hand, Suha Özkan explained his views regarding the title of the book, by stating the following:
The title in my opinion is fictitious. Because the case is not “Turkish” there. We are not talking about the Turkish, but we are speaking of Turkey…We named it contemporary, because modern is an ideology, it has its own baggage. Turkish has its own explanation. For example, Doğan Kuban never uses the term Turkish, he states Anatolian. Because we refer to architecture through geography, not through race…”728
Continuing with the different understandings of “Modern Turkish Architecture”, in our interview İlhan Tekeli expressed his perspective on the term “Turkish”, which he viewed as a response towards the Euro-centric histories of arts and architecture, and dated it back to the writings of Celal Esad Arseven; and Mimar Kemalettin from 1906, as follows:
“The title of the book was given before the Kurdish debate took place in Turkey. I could ask whether it would be named this way, after that discussion. Also, the meanings we attribute back then and today, are not the same in our current understanding. Now the main question is this, when does the concept of a Turkish architecture comes to Turkey? The date is very clear. 1906. There are two writings, from the same year. One of them is Celal Esad Arseven’s writing, and the second one is by Mimar (Architect) Kemalettin. There isn’t a racist issue here. The issue here is a reaction towards the Euro-centric art or architectural history writing, rather than an ideological one. These two men responded; others couldn’t have reacted anyway since there were no others who knew what the West wrote about at that time. What did they react against? They reacted to this. Celal Esad Arseven was teaching in the Academy of Fine Arts. We are included within the Islamic Architecture category. The books that were being thought came from elsewhere, and they display an ornamental Arab Architecture as Islamic Architecture. They question, are we not Islamic or Turkish architecture? With that realization couple things come forward, like Byzantine influences. We are not doing ornamentation; we are doing something structural; and therefore, it is a separate category. Turkish architecture is a separate category within Islamic architecture. It (Turkish Architecture) can’t be explained solely with that
726 Interview with Ahmet Evin, 10 August 2020. Full interview in APPENDICES A3.
727 Ibid.
728 Interview with Suha Özkan, 9 July 2020. Full interview in the APPENDICES A2.
284
(Islamic Architecture). The debate here, the issue of the emergence of the term Turk, is not related to the Turk in today’s sense, rather it is the reaction of an art historian against the misplacement of this place under a wrong category. The word Turk does not refer to any ideology, or politics; but it is a discomfort in the practice of lecturing. Its usage here, in that sense, means belonging to this geography. You are already referring to a geography, when using a center-periphery model.”729
We may also look at Ahmet Evin’s point of view, regarding the meaning/s of “Modern Turkish Architecture”, who stated the following on this topic:
“At the core of this, there is a national architecture movement. There is the “First National Movement”, and then there is its’ re-emergence, Sedad Hakkı’s works, the Anatolian House. There is a nationalist aspect. However, I don’t think any of us thought of this “nationalism” at the time, in terms of “nationalism” today, that is in the opposition of the cosmopolitan…In that nationalist movement, there is an opening out to Anatolia, Turkey’s use of its own resources…There was a famous Indian architect in the board of management of Aga Khan, architect Charles Correa. He would jokingly say, ‘What is Islamic Architecture? It is domes and arches; domes and arches. How do you modernize Islamic Architecture? You make arches and domes; arches and domes.’ I mean, getting out of this vicious cycle; utilizing the resources of the country; getting closer to the people, since the Republic is a form of government that takes most of its representational power from the people, instead of a family. These are all parallel to each other. If we look at this from the point of modernization, it is bringing up a tradition to a modern worldview, by mobilizing its own resources.”730
Suha Özkan, who chose the cover photo of the book, responded to the mentioned implication of Üstün Alsaç regarding modern “Turkish” architecture; and its relation to the title and the cover photograph of the book, in our interview, as follows:
729 Interview with İlhan Tekeli, 18 June 2020. Full interview in APPENDICES A1.
Doğan Kuban (1969, 18) expresses a notion similar to İlhan Tekeli’s, as he states that Arseven courageously took a stand, by stating that there is an indigenous art of Turkey. Even though Kuban (1969) refers to the French printing of Eski İstanbul (1910) (Old Istanbul), titled Constantinople, de Byzance à Stamboul (1909), for the use of the term “Turkish art”, Deniz Mazlum (2005) explains that the “house” was one of the most visually supported items of Arseven’s architectural dictionary Istılahat-I Mimariye, which was published in 1906. Mazlum (2005, 16) also states that in the first volume of Celal Esad Arseven’s Sanat Ansiklopedisi (1943) (Art Encyclopedia), the item of “house” was published again, in which the traditional house was included as “Construction components of an old Turkish house”.
730 Interview with Ahmet Evin, 10 August 2020. Full interview in APPENDICES A3.
285
“The cover and the photograph were my selection. However, the exhibition was organized by Necati Yurtseven and Cüneyt Budak. Cüneyt and I took that picture together. It became iconic. I believe it portrays this threshold well, in terms of what could be the image that symbolizes it. I mean, the “contemporary”, and the “Anatolian” or the “Turkish”, however we may choose to define.”731
The idea we see in Üstün Alsaç’s chapter, is well reflected in Özkan’s statements above, as he defines the in-betweenness of the period, in terms of ideologies, as well as architecture, the “National” and the “International”; the “Turkish” and the “Modern”, as a “threshold”. Indeed, after we see definitions of “National” architecture in the “First National Architecture”, which was “replaced” with a “modern” architecture in “Republican Architecture”, in Üstün Alsaç’s chapter, we come across to a definition of another “National” architecture, that is defined through its “uniqueness”; in relation to the architecture of the “West” that is identified with the “proper modern”, which deems the “Second National Architecture” as a “National/Modern” architecture.
In addition to the most prominent figure, Sedad Hakkı Eldem, who is viewed as one of the initiators of the movement through his research; study; and teaching, there are two other significant architects that are emphasized within the narrative of Üstün Alsaç, who are Paul Bonatz and Emin Onat. Even though there are other mentioned architects, Alsaç (1984), gives rather detailed descriptions of Bonatz and Onat,732 and of their works, compared to other included architects and their architecture. In Alsaç’s (1984, 99) narrative, Bonatz is defined as an architect, who “criticized the Modern Movement”, and “reinforced nationalistic ideas”.733 Alsaç (1984, 102) exemplifies the position of Bonatz through the conversion of the National Exhibition Hall, which is expressed to be built in a “constructivist style”, by Şevki Balmumcu, in 1933-1934.
731 Interview with Suha Özkan, 9 July 2020. Full interview in APPENDICES A2.
732 Here, it should be noted that Alsaç (1984, 100) gives brief background information on Emin Onat in relation to Anıtkabir (Atatürk’s Mausoleum), while mentioning Orhan Arda’s name, the other architect of the building.
733 Alsaç, Üstün. The Second Period of National Architecture. In Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press. p.99
286
Interestingly, the National Exhibition Hall, was not included in Afife Batur’s chapter. However, İlhan Tekeli (1984, 17) briefly mentions it, in relation to the campaigns of “Turkish architects to defend their professional market” in the 1930s, which was related to the impact of the Depression.734 The National Exhibition Hall, later the Opera House, which Afife Batur excluded in “Republican Architecture”, is used as a significant example of the “Second National Architecture” in Alsaç’s narrative, as the photographs of the two phases of the building are placed one under the other, which constructs a visual comparison between the characteristics of the two movements (Figure 38).
However, the most emphasized building of the narrative, which Alsaç (1984, 99) identifies as the “most important building in the period”, is Anıtkabir (Atatürk’s Mausoleum), where the mentioned in-betweenness is expressed as follows:
“Its extended construction time saw changes in architectural concepts: it was begun when nationalistic ideas were at their peak and finished when a new internationalism was beginning to appear. It is traditional as well as modern; it combines the Turkish tradition of türbe and the Anatolian tradition of mausoleum in a new, modern manner. It employs traditional building materials and construction methods as well as modern ones. It makes use of traditional decoration as well as of art forms of non-Turkish origin such as reliefs and statues. It is monumental but still has a geometrical simplicity of fine proportions and excellent details. Its overall form does not revive the Seljuk-Ottoman commemorative architecture; it goes further back to older periods of Anatolian cultures, consciously claiming ownership of their architectural language.”735 (Alsaç, 1984, 100)
734 Tekeli, Ilhan. The Social Context of the Development of Architecture in Turkey. In Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press. p.17
735 Alsaç, Üstün. The Second Period of National Architecture. In Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press. p.100
Ilhan Tekeli (1984, 22) also shares his views on the “use of history”, in relation to the ideology of the era, through the example of Anıtkabir, the Atatürk Mausoleum.
287
Figure 38 - Photographs Showing the Conversion of the National Exhibition Hall, to the Opera House. Source: Modern Turkish Architecture (1984)
In these descriptions of Alsaç, it is possible to observe the definition of a “synthesis”, in terms of “style”; form; material; construction; and, uses of decoration and art. Here, we may note that Anıtkabir (Atatürk Mausoleum), emerges as a prominent building, in terms of carrying symbolic meanings, through its connections to historical conditions; turning points; and ideologies.
Another significant point here is that Alsaç states cultural heritage from earlier periods were utilized, instead of the Seljuk-Ottoman commemorative architecture, which may be understood as an expression of the plurality in the “Second National Movement”, and express that the movement does not solely revolve around the ideas related to Sedad Hakkı Eldem and his studies on the “Turkish House”. Even though, this thought is not underlined elsewhere within Alsaç’s narrative, it does find place in İlhan Tekeli’s
288
(1984) chapter, as he outlines four distinct approaches within the movement according to their characteristics, which he lists as regionalist; nostalgic; populist; and chauvinist approaches.736 He continues by stating that, “these four tendencies existed simultaneously in varying degrees.”737
Even though Alsaç does not go into details regarding the “Nationalism” of the period, he portrays it as a defeated and discredited ideology at the end of the 1940s. İlhan Tekeli (1984), on the other hand, provides the ideological side of the movement in his chapter, which he relates to architectural production; and makes a comparison between the first and the second national movements. Similar to Alsaç’s approach, Tekeli (1984) portrays the period as a transition, rather than a transformation, since he explains that throughout the period of 1927-1939, there were oppositions towards the modern movement. In relation to the “1940s Nationalism”, Tekeli (1984, 20) points to the “new nationalisms” of the Soviet Union and Italy, since the government was searching for a new economic order due to the effects of the Depression, and started to have closer relations with these countries in 1932.738 According to Tekeli (1984, 20), one of the reasons behind the changing architecture was the familiarization with the architecture of these “new nationalisms”, which was “based on the primacy of the state”, that reached people through exhibitions and mass media, and Turkish architects were drawn towards “monumentalizing national” architecture, as they were influenced with the ongoing developments.739
736 Tekeli, Ilhan. The Social Context of the Development of Architecture in Turkey. In Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press.
737 Ibid. p.22
738 Ibid. p.20
739 Ibid. p.20
289
Tekeli (1984, 20) relates the changes in architectural education, in which he includes Eldem’s “National Architecture Seminar”, to the new ideologies of the era, as well.740 He compares the search for a national architecture between the first and second national movements, through Eldem’s seminar, where he identifies two significant differences. First of these is the focal point, since the “seminar focused on Ottoman civic rather than religious architecture”, which is related to the ideology, as Tekeli (1984, 20) expresses that “reviving the images of Ottoman religious architecture would never be allowed in secular Republican Turkey,”741 which shows that Turkey, utilized the representational aspect of architecture in the construction of its image, and the Ottoman religious architecture was stated to be deemed unsuitable for that portrayal. The next identified difference is the formulation of a set of principles, which were to become the basis of the “national architecture”.742 According to Tekeli (1984, 20), “the search for an essence”, or the set of principles of the movement, were shaped by two factors, which brings us back to the ideas of in-betweenness, as follows:
“In developing a purely national architecture, there was the need on the one hand to avoid the criticism of Ottomanism, eclecticism and superficiality which had been leveled at the representatives of the First National Movement. On the other hand, there was the necessity to prove that this new national expression was as modern and as universal as the principles of the Modern Movement.”743 (Tekeli, 1984, 20)
Here, we may question, if it is possible to develop a “purely national architecture”, due to the many meanings that “Turkishness” may carry, which Tekeli also underlined in relation to the Atatürk Mausoleum in terms of the “use of history”. However, when the design of public buildings was conceptualized to have a unified language and considering that the ideology of the Republic was in line with both “nationalist” and
740 Tekeli, Ilhan. The Social Context of the Development of Architecture in Turkey. In Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press.
741 Ibid. p.20
742 Ibid. p.20
743 Ibid. p.20
290
“modernist” attitudes,744 it is possible to understand how that in-betweenness, the “National/Modern”, was conceived and reflected in architecture, as well as in the narrative of Modern Turkish Architecture (1984).
As Alsaç (1984) suggested in his concluding remarks, with the ending of the World War II, and with the shifts in ideology and polity, the architecture of Turkey also started to change towards a “new internationalism” in the 1950s, which was examined under the title of “International Style”, in Mete Tapan’s chapter. Furthermore, we see that in Atilla Yücel’s chapter, various approaches in the production of modern architecture continued, which he evaluates as “pluralism” in architecture, in his chapter “Pluralism Takes Command: The Turkish Architectural Scene Today”. In other words, it is possible to observe a continuum of modern architecture between the 1950s and 1980s,745 despite any changes in the ideology and politics, and even though there is a pluralistic architectural environment. Considering this, Mete Tapan’s and Atilla Yücel’s chapters will be analyzed together, which was categorized as “Pluralist Modern Architecture” in this study.
As it was mentioned earlier, Mete Tapan’s chapter begins with historical turning points, in which he emphasizes the role of the private sector in relation to the architectural production, that was mainly located in the big cities, due to industrialization; urban growth; and migration; as well as due to the place of the main patrons and consumers, who hold the capital.746 In relation to these developments, in Tapan’s chapter, we see that building types also began to change, as they start to include commercial buildings such as retail shops and hotels, in addition to other public and residential works. Tapan relates the need for new building types and new
744 Bayraktar, Nuray. (2011). Bonatz’ın “TürkEvi” SevgisininBiçimsel Aktarımı: Saraçoğlu (NamıkKemal) Mahallesi. Arredamento Mimarlık, 247.
745 Here, it should be reminded that the event that led to the publication of the book occurred in 1982, and Modern Turkish Architecture was published in 1984.
746 A more detailed discussion on this was included earlier in relation to ideologies.
291
modes of transportation, to the reorientation of the economy.747 Even though we saw emergence of new building types and modes of transportation, Tapan also underlines the changing nature of architectural works, through the importing of luxury finishes, or the construction of expensive residential units that became a “symbol of status”, in his narrative, which can be seen related to the ideas of consumerism, in connection with the liberal economic policies that shaped the market.748
Before Tapan (1984, 106) begins his descriptions on the architectural works of the 1950s, first he identifies the architectural movement of the era, as “International Style”, which is expressed to be stemming from the “close ties with the West”, as it brought “the use of new construction methods”, and it made “International stylistic and formal concepts” more accessible.749 In other words, the idea of the “West” operates as a reference point, in a similar manner to Batur’s narrative on the architectural production of the 1930s. Tapan correlates this connection with the “West” to a discussion on eclecticism, stating that “Turkish architects developed an eclectic approach” due to this “Western” exposure, however, he also refers to Bülent Özer’s study to state that “Eclecticism…is a meaningful phenomenon in building as long as it does not become systematized in the hands of architects”, and that “eclecticism can serve a positive purpose only if its premises are adapted properly to local conditions”.750 According to Tapan (1984, 107), the eclectic approach of the 1950s, do not carry this positive approach, and “the architecture of this era exhibits inconsistencies within its own chronology in the approach to form”. As he continues this discussion, he refers back to the “Second National Movement”, to state that facade
747 Tapan, Mete. International Style: Liberalism in Architecture. In Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press.
748 Ibid.
749 Ibid. p.106
750 Ibid. p.106-107.
292
treatments that were influenced by “Ottoman and especially Anatolian models”, were now “simple and rational and closely follow the ideas of the International Style”.751
We may state that “close ties with the West”, might have been a factor in terms of the accessibility to the international forms; concepts; and construction materials, however, there have been a continuous exposure to the architecture abroad in earlier periods, specifically through the architectural journal Mimar, which provided numerous examples, in terms of both form and theory, from different geographies. As it was discussed in Üstün Alsaç’s chapter, the import of materials that were necessary for modern construction had stopped due to the effects of the World War II, which was a triggering factor for the beginning of the “Second National Architecture”, as he argued, and consequently, the end of the war would have also played a role in the development of architectural ideologies of the 1950s, since earlier limitations would have been lifted. Here, it should be noted that Tapan treats the change from the “Second National Architectural Movement” to “International Style”, as a replacement of the earlier approach.
Tapan (1984, 107) incorporates four other major developments that affected the architectural production of the period, which are, the necessity to make comprehensive master planning due to the rapid growth of cities; the expansion of the construction industry to answer the increasing demands; the passing of a law for the regulations for planning and architectural competitions to regulate and discipline the architectural production; and lastly, the establishment of the Turkish Chamber of the Architects, which was to operate as a public service organization, under the Joint Chamber of Engineers and Architects.752 Two other points that Tekeli makes in relation to rapid urbanization; migration; and therefore the need for housing, is the emergence of the
751 Tapan, Mete. International Style: Liberalism in Architecture. In Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press. p.107.
752 Ibid. p.107-108.
293
gecekondu (squatter housing)753; and yapsatçılık (build-sell model); which both continued after the 1960s.754
Tapan does not go into detail on how each development affected the architectural production, but he provided clues within the descriptions of the architectural works. He used a similar approach in terms of the characteristics of the “International Style” in Turkey, as he provided a short list of its attributes without going into detail, but also included descriptions in the explanations of different buildings. While it is possible to speak of prominent architectural works, and prominent cities, we do not see a specific architect that is emphasized within the narrative, since a diverse array of them are included. Another significant difference here is that, the buildings that were used to exemplify the architectural production of the period, except for two of them, were the works of Turkish architects, which had significant causes such as the rising numbers of architects, or the return of the Turkish architects who were abroad, even though this notion was not highlighted by Tapan.
Before looking into the descriptions of architectural works, we may discuss Mete Tapan’s view regarding the architectural production of the 1950s, which may be seen close to his earlier debate on eclecticism, and then locate how his views may be reflected in descriptions. After he points to the mentioned major factors that effected the architectural production, Tapan (1984, 108), makes the following statement to describe the architecture of the 1950s:
“Similar to the quick adaptation of Western economic and social models, contemporary architectural trends from other countries were also easily absorbed. Various architectural solutions published in journals were copied with no regard to appropriateness. Regional characteristics were ignored. Curtainwall construction came into use throughout the country. A facade treatment appropriate for Ankara was
753 Mete Tapan mentions the squatter housing at the end of his chapter, among other happenings that occurred during the 1950s.
754 Tekeli, Ilhan. The Social Context of the Development of Architecture in Turkey. In Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press.
294
also proposed for humid or arid and hot parts of the country. The competition for the Municipality of Urfa is a case in point.
Obviously, this phenomenon was the result of Turkish architectural education. Architects, in an attempt to find solutions to new building types, turned to Western examples as their only source of information. Unfortunately, due to the lack of technical know-how, the Turkish examples lacked the quality of the Western models and most of them remained at the project stage. Those few that were completed not only cost a great deal more than anticipated but also underwent modifications during construction. As a result, mere imitations of Western architecture proved to be unsuccessful.”755 (Tapan, 1984, 108)
While Tapan does not make a distinction here between what he views as “mere imitations of Western architecture” and not, the tone of these two paragraphs convey his views on the architectural education in Turkey; his favoring of the “Second National Architecture” due to its regional concerns and “appropriation”; as well as his views on the architectural production of the 1950s in general, which according to Tapan, lacked the “quality” of the “Western” examples that were published in various journals, and used these examples as their “only source of information”. Tekeli (1984, 31) shares his views on this topic at the end of his chapter by the following statement:
“…it would be incorrect to look upon the adoption of foreign architectural models as mere acts of imitation. In each process of adoption not only were the basic tenets of each movement reinterpreted but also the validity of its solutions for the particular problems of the country was examined. In the case of Turkey, the reinterpretation of such movements was determined more by the ideological orientation of successive regimes than by the internal dynamics of the architectural profession alone.”756 (Tekeli, 1984, 31)
In our interview, İlhan Tekeli further elaborated his views on the topic, through his own experiences, as follows:
“At that time, architects in Turkey competed each other to win competitions in Turkey. There was a distance between the architects, who won competitions, and the architects who did not win, or did not participate. And at the time, the ones who did not win, blamed the winning architects, over copying from journals. Now the originality of this
755 Tapan, Mete. International Style: Liberalism in Architecture. In Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press. p. 108.
756 Tekeli, Ilhan. The Social Context of the Development of Architecture in Turkey. In Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press. p.31
295
text is through its approach to the topic, as it surpasses the notion of a Turkish architecture that is composed of figures, who transferred from a journal. It shows an approach within the relations of the center-periphery model, where due to the nature of the relations, it sometimes follows, and sometimes goes against it, questioning how this problem can be solved, instead of an approach that looks at it as copying from a journal. For example, some of the writings of the time, shows this attitude stating that this got from here, or there, and there are probably people like that. But you cannot build the architectural history of a period upon that.
It needs to be placed on something more structural. Today, I see this original aspect of that writing, better than I saw it at the time. I wrote that back then, but I am not sure if I was this clear, of if I did that by instinct, since it was nearly 40 years ago. Today, this also became a part of history. When I look at it from this point of view, to the originality of the writing, there is the effort to approach the performance of the architecture in Turkey within a more structural relationship, as oppose to looking at it, as transference.757
Tekeli continues to comment on his statement in the book, that architecture in Turkey cannot be seen as a “mere imitation”, as follows:
I know that from my brother, Doğan Tekeli758. When I was a student at the university, we were living intertwined with his office, as they were located in the two separate floors of the same house, with their office on the ground floor, and our house on top. I was also always at the office. Therefore, I knew these debates through him. I was in that discussion and I was disturbed by it. Because I saw how they worked, how they solved a problem, which was not by copying, even though they looked at what was happening in the world, while they were solving. This also correspond to Suha’s aim of organizing this event. Suha (Özkan) takes a stand against the position that this is an imitation, through an exhibition.”759
While Mete Tapan’s views of the architectural production of the 1950s, and his earlier statements from the chapter, seem to reflect the opposite of İlhan Tekeli’s comments on the topic, Tapan’s descriptions of the architectural works, portray a rather different perspective, as he mainly identifies the “Turkishness” in those works, either through
757 Interview with İlhan Tekeli, 18 June 2020. Full interview in APPENDICES A1.
758 Doğan Tekeli is considered among the significant architects of Turkey, who graduated from Istanbul Technical University and started his practice with Sami Sisa, which continues since 1954. İstanbul Manifaturacılar Çarşısı, designed by Tekeli, Sisa and Hepgüler, is among the architectural works in Mete Tapan’s chapter, as an exemplification of the architectural production in 1950s.
759 Interview with İlhan Tekeli, 18 June 2020. Full interview in APPENDICES A1.
296
references to the “Second National Architectural Movement”; or through highlighting their achievements, which can be seen in Table 11.
Table 11 – Excerpts from Mete Tapan’s Narrative, from the Fifth Chapter, “International Style: Liberalism in Architecture”760
Architectural Work
Architect
Year
Excerpts from Mete Tapan’s (1984) Narrative
Hilton Hotel
Skidmore, Owings and Merrill, and Eldem
1952
“The Hilton Hotel is the most successful and influential example of the International Style, and the precursor of high-rise hotels in Turkey.” p.110
Palace of Justice (Adliye Sarayı)
Eldem and Onat
1949
“In practice, the competition for the Istanbul Palace of Justice (Adliye Sarayı, 1948) marked the shift from the Second National Movement to the International Style…A different attitude toward structure was now evident; the reinforced concrete structure was clearly expressed on the facade. However, in the treatment of the roof and the openings the influence of the Second National Movement was still discernable…” p.109
Emek Building
Tokay and Tayman
1959-1964
“The Emek Building was designed and executed solely by Turkish architects and engineers. Its success encouraged further ventures into reinforced concrete technology, and the need for high-rise buildings, hotels, apartments and office buildings with large column-free spaces led to the quick mastery of this technology." p.110-112
760 Please note that, excerpts in this table are parts of larger descriptions; statements; and discussions. The quotations in this table are taken from Tapan, Mete. International Style: Liberalism in Architecture. In Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press. The page numbers of the quotations are indicated in the criticism column, next to each quotation.
297
Table 11 – Excerpts from Mete Tapan’s Narrative, from the Fifth Chapter, “International Style: Liberalism in Architecture” (Continued)
General Directorate of State Waterworks (Devlet Su İşleri)
Çinici, Doruk and Tokay
1964
"A typical building designed at the end of the decade… reflects the developed common architectural idiom in its form, structural system and varied floor plans…” p.112
Ulus Center
O. Bozkurt, O. Bolak & G. Beken
1954
"Among other important commercial and government buildings designed in the 1950s should be mentioned the Ulus Center...with its lens-like office tower attached to banks of low-rise units; the Etibank Headquarters...with its monumentalizing concave facades; and the Grand Hotel...with its brutalist facade treatment and prismatic plan." p.113
Etibank Headquarters
Tuğrul Devres and Vedat Özsan
1955-1960
Grand Hotel (Büyük Ankara)
M. Sauger
1958-1965
Hukukçular Apartments
Baysal and Birsel
1960-1961
"The stylistic and constructional changes manifested in commercial and public buildings were reflected to some degree in the housing sector. A prominent example of the new high-rise residential development for the middle and upper-middle classes is the Hukukçular Apartments...with echoes of a Corbusian idiom." p.116
Considering Tapan’s earlier statements and excerpts in Table 11, it is possible to observe that author approaches the architectural production of the 1950s, from two different point of views. On the one hand, he portrays an image, in which Turkish architects “copy” the forms of “Western” architecture that are expressed to be the only sources of information since they have the know-how, and produce architectural works that lack the “quality” of their Western counterparts. On the other hand, he shows a completely different image, where Turkish architects negotiate the forms of an “International Style” and accomplish various types of buildings, using new forms, which sometimes reflect or echo the “Turkishness” in the “Second National Architectural Movement”, and using new technologies that might have originated in the “West”, but was mastered within the local contexts.
298
One other remark, that can be seen in Table 11, is the variety of architectural treatments that Tapan mentions, which is visible in the phrases of “the influence of the Second National Movement”; “monumentalizing concave facades”; “brutalist facade treatment” and “echoes of Corbusian idiom”, in addition to the characteristics of the “International Style” itself, as included within the title of the chapter. These phrases, firstly, show that there were various interpretations, and negotiations on the architecture of the period. Secondly, they reflect a “pluralism”, which continues growingly in Atilla Yücel’s chapter. This is also visible in the production dates of the architectural works, since even though some were conceptualized and built in the 1950s, others, extend into the next decade, presenting us with a continuation, despite the various architectural ideologies they may carry. In other words, even though there may be significant changes in the policies or ideologies of the government after the 1960s, historical turning points that occurred in the 1950s, continue their impacts in the following decades, and sets the general tone of the architecture as “modern”, until the 1980s, where the narrative/s of the book completes.
Considering developments that occurred in the 1950s; we may state that the liberal economic policies of the Democrat Party, and their new interpretation of a populism, through which they gained support from the people, created a “market oriented architecture”, whose architectural ideology and taste was mainly determined by the people who hold the capital. It should be noted that the construction of architectural works that are associated with the state and its institutions, also continued during the period, however, the public sector’s role in the shaping of the architectural production, specifically through various commercial types of buildings, has become prominent after the 1950s. Consequently, the term “Liberalism in Architecture” as used in the title, can be viewed to refer to two points, which are, first, a reference to the “liberal” economic policies which makes the title of the chapter political as in the titles of prior chapters, and second, an implication of a certain freedom in terms of forms of architecture, which can be seen as an early beginning of the pluralism that Atilla Yücel examines in the next chapter.
299
Mete Tapan concludes his chapter with an overview, showing the developments that occurred until the end of 1950s. In his chapter, the beginning of the architectural production of the period is rather clear and is dated around 1950. However, it is possible to observe that his narrative does not have a significant ending date, which is also reflected in the dates of the architectural works, that he uses to exemplify “International Style” in Turkey. Atilla Yücel’s chapter, “Pluralism Takes Command: The Turkish Architectural Scene Today” begins around the 1960s, and consequently, the transition between the chapters show a continuity of the architectural production between these decades.
As it can be seen in the social context section of Yücel, the consumer society, which was expressed to begin forming in the 1950s after the public sector was given power with the liberal economic policies, continued its impact on architectural production. According to Yücel, pluralism related to this commercialization strengthened and resulted in various architectural “trends”.761 The decision behind evaluating architectural production in the 1950s; and the 1960s to 1980s, separately, as opposed to together, can be seen related to the military interventions that caused changes in economic policies; social and cultural arenas, which constitute the turning points of Yücel’s chapter, as the architectural production continued in a somewhat similar tone, in various forms of modern architecture. In other words, the military intervention of 1960, impacts the narrative of the Modern Turkish Architecture (1984), in addition to its effects on historical conditions.
In the second subheading of Yücel’s chapter, “Problems, Concepts and Ideologies”, he includes different developments related to architectural production, such as the importance of competitions that had some limitations in terms of design ideas due to regulations; new emerging building types, such as new types of office buildings, resort villages, or luxury residences; integration of British and American models into the architectural education, as in the case of the METU; and to the opening of new schools
761 Yücel, Atilla. Pluralism Takes Command: The Turkish Architectural Scene Today. In Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press.
300
of architecture; and an increase in the number of architects that also led to unemployment.762
Yücel (1984, 123) also points to left-wing architectural criticisms, in relation to social problems since architects became more sensitive towards them,763 and states that this criticisms had two sides, a “Marxist – and very often a Marxian – methodology and terminology”; and a “nationalistic content”.764 Through this point, he explains how this movement developed a theoretical content, in which “problems relating to form, meaning and design came to be reconsidered.”765 With the impacts of this two sided social criticism; Turkey’s relations with the “West”; and cross-cultural influences, discussions on rationalism; nationalism; eclecticism; regionalism; authenticity; as well as modernism, continued, which was reflected as a pluralism in architecture, as various architectural ideologies were employed.766
Yücel’s chapter, which is a rather long one compared to others, includes various architectural works, whose main locations are the big cities, as previously mentioned. Among the examples Yücel provides, it is possible to find descriptions of architectural works, which can be viewed close to various architectural ideologies, such as the “modern movement”; “organic”; “rationalist”; “brutalist”; “historicist” or “traditionalist”; or “regionalist” architecture/s; through architects’ reinterpretations
762 Yücel, Atilla. Pluralism Takes Command: The Turkish Architectural Scene Today. In Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press.
763 Tekeli, Ilhan. The Social Context of the Development of Architecture in Turkey. In Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press.
764 Yücel, Atilla. Pluralism Takes Command: The Turkish Architectural Scene Today. In Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press. p.123
765 Ibid. p.123
766 Ibid.
301
and designs.767 It is possible to find examples of this pluralism, through the descriptions of architectural works, whose examples may be seen in Table 12, even though there are many more examples included within Yücel’s narrative.
Table 12 - Excerpts from Atilla Yücel’s Narrative, from the Sixth Chapter, “Pluralism Takes Command: The Turkish Architectural Scene Today” 768
Architectural Work
Architect
Year
Excerpts from Atilla Yücel’s (1984) Narrative
State Mining Institute (MTA) Buildings
Rahmi Bediz and Demirtaş Kamçıl
Early 1960s
“The MTA complex of Rahmi Bediz and Demirtaş Kamçıl is more faithful to the Modern Movement tradition.” p.128
The Agricultural Products Office
Vedat Özsan, Cengiz Bektaş, Oral Vural
1964
"In all these buildings there exists a dualism between the free articulation of volumes and the conventional interpretation of surfaces of the old International Style. Also apparent is another influence which brings a certain coherence to this style. That is the so-called New Brutalism.” p.133
Directorate of State Highways
Aktan Oktan and Fikret Cankut
-
Directorate of State Highways Guest Center
Oral Vural
-
Karatepe Open Air Museum
Turgut Cansever
-
"New regionalism was contemporaneous to these development (in architecture part). The Karatepe Open Air Museum … was an early example, and the shape of the elegant raw concrete shelters soon became a prototype for reinterpretations of traditional forms.” p.141
767 Yücel, Atilla. Pluralism Takes Command: The Turkish Architectural Scene Today. In Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press.
768 Please note that, excerpts in this table are parts of larger descriptions; statements; and discussions. The quotations in this table are taken from Yücel, Atilla. Pluralism Takes Command: The Turkish Architectural Scene Today. In Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press. The page numbers of the quotations are indicated in the criticism column, next to each quotation.
302
Table 12 - Excerpts from Atilla Yücel’s Narrative, from the Sixth Chapter, “Pluralism Takes Command: The Turkish Architectural Scene Today” (Continued)
Faculty housing on METU campus
Behruz Çinici
-
“Whether one calls this attitude new-regional, pseudo-vernacular, or eclectic-folkloristic, one characteristic is clear: it accepts traditional architecture and different subcultures within it as a repertory of forms, open to a large choice and even a combinatory usage of them, exactly as the usage made in the eighteenth century of the generative typology proposed by Durand.” p.145
Following his overview of architecture, Yücel (1984) organizes these different architectural orientations under six main categories. First one he identifies is “the acceptance of the formal elements as they are”, which he views as the most favorable attitude that accepts “traditional architecture and different subcultures within it as a repertory of forms, open to large choice and even a combinatory use of them”, where he refers to faculty housing in METU campus, a design of Altuğ and Behruz Çinici, as one of its best and most moderate examples.769 The next one is, “Eldem’s attitude of a rational architectonic interpretation of the traditional form”.770 Cansever’s deeper philosophical interpretation, in which “the abstract form is considered, but also the space and its existential meanings are discussed”, is the third category.771 The other category Yücel details is the “free formal interpretations of Behruz Çinici”, where the form is “neither used as it is, nor re-semanticized, but remodeled in itself.”772 The last two categories, he mentions are the “complete anti-historicism and the pastiche”, in
769Yücel, Atilla. Pluralism Takes Command: The Turkish Architectural Scene Today. In Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press. p.146
770 Ibid. p.146
771 Ibid. p.147
772 Ibid. p.147
303
which “architecture remains either reduced to a tool-object, or its meanings are totally mercantilized.”773
In this part of Yücel’s narrative, it is possible to observe that architects, once more, emerge as a significant part of the narrative, as we can see that different tendencies in architecture is categorized in relation to them, to their architectural works, and their architectural ideologies. In the descriptions of the architectural works, Atilla Yücel identifies various characteristics in these different architectural treatments, and points to their features, while also discussing different tendencies. As it can be seen in his final remarks, he celebrates the pluralism in the field of architecture, which he views as rich; diverse; and as a “suitable common denominator for architecture as a cultural product”.774 While İlhan Tekeli acknowledges this diversity in architecture, he also looks at it a different point of view, by discussing the role of mass media that impacts the taste of the consumer, through following statements:
“The commercial development spread to all urban centers of Turkey, erased all regional differences and created a country-wide monotonous building texture. This texture exhibits no difference in Urfa, Samsun, Ankara, or Istanbul. The values of the consumer society, propagated by mass media, have created monotony. This monotony is the repetition of a few designs made by architects, each of whom was ironically educated to be a symbol of creativity.”775 (Tekeli, 1984, 29)
İlhan Tekeli continues the discussion above, on the architecture of the 1980s, and perhaps of the future, by criticizing the relationship between the architectural production and the commercial development, on the fact that the big capital would have a significant role in the shaping of the environment.776 Furthermore, he states that
773 Yücel, Atilla. Pluralism Takes Command: The Turkish Architectural Scene Today. In Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press. p.147-148
774 Ibid. p.148
775 Tekeli, Ilhan. The Social Context of the Development of Architecture in Turkey. In Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press. p.29
776 Ibid.
304
the emergence of a coherent and unified architectural movement is unlikely in their conditions, in the 1980s, where the “consumer values of Western societies predominate, and where the architectural profession increases in numbers and social differentiation.”777
In both Tapan’s; Yücel’s; and Tekeli’s chapters, it is possible to observe a change towards a consumer society, which is shaped gradually in accordance with the liberal policies of the governments, where architecture is affected by the demands of the market, after the 1950s, that was categorized as a “Pluralist Modern Architecture” in this study. However, it is also possible to observe that there are two sides to this change, which is visible in the different perspectives of Tekeli and Yücel, as the former criticizes the role of the capital in the shaping of the environment through the tastes of the consumers that is practiced generally as a “modern architecture” during the period; and as the latter highlights the different tendencies, showing various architectural treatments within the same periods.
Lastly, in relation to the “meanings” of the architectural production, in terms of what they “symbolize”, between the 1950s and the 1980s, it should be noted that in the narratives of Tapan and Yücel, some examples are emphasized more than the others, however not in similar ways to the prior chapters, as these buildings are not direct representatives of various ideologies or ideas. Rather, they can be seen as “symbols” of “Modernity”, in terms of representing what have been achieved, such as being symbols of “technology”; “industrialization”; “commercialization”; “advancement”; or representations of “status” as people demand to attain these “products”, as in the examples of luxury residentials. Consequently, the prominent buildings in these chapters are often highlighted through their “advanced” features; or as being precursors; instead of carrying direct historical or political associations. At this point, we may examine the use of visuals, as representational tools, in terms of how they might be contributing to the image created in the narrative/s of Modern Turkish
777 Tekeli, Ilhan. The Social Context of the Development of Architecture in Turkey. In Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press. p.30
305
Architecture (1984), through their periodization; and ordering; as well as the descriptions of architectural works.
4.3. Visual Representation
Themes that have been discussed until this section of the study were based on the structure of the narratives of chapters, as well as the narrative of the book; inclusions of historical turning points, architectural works and architects; and lastly, on the descriptions and explanations of authors on those various themes. The use of visuals, which I have briefly mentioned through the selection of the cover photograph of the book (Figure 37); and the conversion of the National Exhibition Hall (Figure 38), can also be viewed as representational tools in the book, and therefore should be discussed to understand how they contribute to the construction of an image of the past.
As in many architectural history books, there are several types of visuals being used in Modern Turkish Architecture, which can be summarized as blueprints; site plans and photographs of architectural works, in addition to the city plan of Ankara, that is included separately at the end of the book (Figure 34). It is possible to observe that, in the book, other visual documents that may be being used as representational elements, such as sketches; paintings; posters; newspaper clippings; or postcards, were not preferred. Rather, we see the use of floor plans; site plans; elevations; and different types of photographs of architectural works were included, which were mainly selected from the archives of the Middle East Technical University, as previously mentioned.
According to Pitkin (1967), blueprints, or technical architectural drawings, as well as maps, are representations of objects or places they are depicting and they convey information that needs to be read, which are coded in a technical language.778 In other words, blueprints alone does not necessarily convey “representational” meanings of an object or a place, rather they represent technical features of it. However, when they are placed in a specific environment, or as in our case, in a narrative; they may become
778 Pitkin, Hanna Fenichel. (1967). The Concept of Representation. University of California Press.
306
representational as well, which may be used to highlight specific attributes that may be tied with a discourse; or the meanings of the object or the place. An example of this in Modern Turkish Architecture (1984) is the utilization of Herman Jansen’s plan for Ankara, as a separate section, which can be viewed to strengthen the importance given to the capital city, as well as to the period in which the plan was prepared, the 1930s, since there are no plans of other cities treated in a similar manner.
Photography and architecture, on the other hand, can be viewed to have a much more complex relationship in terms of representation. Before moving to the photographs, it is viewed important to mention the “type” of photography being used in the book, as there are different types of architectural photography, including commercial; abstract; experimental; and documentary. We may view the photographs in Modern Turkish Architecture (1984), as a type of “record photography” – a sub-genre of photography that records and documents various objects; scenes; or artefacts with scientific, educational and/or informational intentions – considering their selection from the archives of the M.E.T.U; as well as their use in an architectural history book.779
Another notion that should be included here is the intention of the photograph, and the photographer, as one of the elements that may attach “representational” meanings to the objects, or to the works of architecture. However, since the photographs were not taken by the authors of the book with intentions to create specific meanings, it is possible to view their use in the book, as part of the “selection” processes of the authors, as the narrators of a specific representation of the past. In other words, when we are examining the representational aspects of the photographs in the book, the intention of the architectural historian, supersedes the intention of the photographer and the photograph despite their both engagements with the architectural work, as he/she is the one that selects representational photographs and includes them within the totality of his/her narrative. For the reader, who may or may not have experienced it, the photograph of the architectural work, becomes an immaterial construction, an
779 Edwards, Elizabeth. (2012). The Camera as Historian: Amateur Photographers and Historical Imagination, 1885-1918. Duke University Press.
307
image of the building, that depicts the architecture, as well as the contexts it is being situated within.780
We may examine the uses of visuals in Modern Turkish Architecture (1984), starting with the cover photograph, which was also used in Üstün Alsaç’s chapter, “The Second Period of National Architecture”. According to Buysse & Embser-Herbert (2004, 67), “The photographs, particularly the cover photographs, carry meanings that are significant to the social construction of ideology and reflect the values and goals of the producer.”781 It is the “hook” that captures the attention of the reader, while also reflecting the content. Consequently, the pairing of the title “Modern Turkish Architecture” with a photograph782 of Sedad Hakkı Eldem’s, “Oriental Café” (1948-1950) building, which is also known as Şark Kahvesi or Taşlık Coffee House, constructs a relationship between the idea of a “Modern Turkish Architecture”, and the products of the “Second National Style”, in the mind of its readers (Figure 37). Considering Özkan’s earlier statements, where the cover photograph, symbolizes the “threshold” between the “modern” or the “contemporary”, and the “Turkish”, can be understood as the materialization of how the two notions may be embodied through the image of the building.783
All the remaining photographs in the book, similar to the cover, are in black-and-white, which we may also define as monochrome, since they show different degrees of shadows, allowing us to make sense regarding the objects in the images. Black-and-
780 Colomina, Beatriz. (1996). Privacy and Publicity: Modern Architecture as Mass Media. MIT Press.
781 Buysse, Jo Ann M. & Embser-Herbert, Melissa Sheridan. (2004). Constructions of Gender in Sport: An Analysis of Intercollegiate Media Guide Cover Photographs. Gender and Society, 18(1), 66-81.
782 The photograph was taken by Cüneyt Budak and Suha Özkan. Interview with Suha Özkan, 9 July 2020. Full interview in APPENDICES A2.
783 Here it should be noted that the cover of the book was changed in the later editions (2005, 2007) of the Modern Turkish Architecture (1984), where the photograph was removed, and only text remained on the cover against a black background.
308
white photography, is an interesting subject on its own, since it came to be known as the “normal representation of events and the world” after the 1930s.784 This was partly due to black-and-white photograph’s place in the newsprint, which kept it as the “normal” until the 1980s.785 According to Freeman (2013, 22), this “decades of black-and-white ‘normality’ impressed the monochrome image with a particular strength and legitimacy”.786 Considering that photograph itself is also viewed as “authentication”,787 since according to Barthes (1982, 87-88), “Every photograph is a certificate of presence”,788 which makes “the past as certain as the present”,789 it is not surprising to see the use of black-and-white photographs in media genres such as documentaries; and books.
While all the photographs in Modern Turkish Architecture (1984), are in black-and-white, the content of these photographs varies, and their framing changes. Among different types of photographs in the book, we can find, exterior and interior photographs; elevation-like photographs; aerial-like photographs; populated and un-populated photographs; detail photographs; “sterile”; “static” or “dynamic” photographs. If we start exemplifying these different types of photographs and their
784 Freeman, Michael. (2013). Black and White Photography Field Guide: The essential guide to the art of creating black & white images. Focal Press, Taylor & Francis Group. p.22
According to Freeman (2013), the first permanent color photograph was taken in 1861, by James Clerk Maxwell, even though the earliest color photograph is dated back to 1826, which was taken with a different technique by Nicéphore Nicépce. The mass use of color photography on the other hand, occurred only after 1935, when Eastman Kodak Company released the integral tri-pak color film, also known as Kodacrome.
785 Ibid.
786 Ibid. p.22
787 Barthes, Roland. (1982). Camera Lucida: Reflections on Photography. Hill and Wang. p.87
788 Ibid. p.87
789 Ibid. p.88
309
uses, we may again first look at the cover photograph that features “Oriental Café” (Figure 37).
The cover photograph can be considered as a “sterile” one, since it depicts a specific image of the building, from a specific point of view, without the distractions of other objects; buildings; greenery; people; view; or color, since the building has a wooden facade. It is taken from the road below the building, which provides a certain perspective, that highlights the “modern” aspects of the building, such as its roof with overhanging eaves that “appears” to be flat, its horizontal windows, and proportionate volumes of masses and openings. Here we may consider Colomina’s (1996, 14) words, where she reminds “overwhelming historical evidence of modern architecture’s continuous involvement with mass culture”, and states that “It is actually the emerging systems of communication that came to define twentieth-century-culture-the mass media-that are the true site within which modern architecture is produced and with which it directly engages”.790 Indeed, we may view the iconic photograph of the “Oriental Café”, as a “constructed” modern image, since a different photograph of the building might not constitute the same effect (Figure 39). This does not make the building any “less modern”, however, it is possible to observe that the cover photograph, highlights a specific image of the building, a “sterile”, and “modern” one.
Looking at Modern Turkish Architecture (1984), we see that some buildings, are more visualized than the others, which mostly fall in line with the architectural works that were highlighted as prominent in the narratives, and therefore, it is considered suitable to focus on these images. In addition to them, the six photographs in İlhan Tekeli’s chapter “The Social Context of the Development of Architecture in Turkey”, are considered significant, as they are selected examples that are directly related with the periodization and organization of the book.
790 Colomina, Beatriz. (1996). Privacy and Publicity: Modern Architecture as Mass Media. MIT Press. p.14
310
Figure 39 - Photographs of Oriental Café from two different perspectives, showing the pitched roof with overhanging eaves (left), and its surroundings, which include the minaret of a nearby mosque and a view of the greenery, as well as the Bosporus (right). Source: Salt Research, Gültekin Çizgen, Taşlık Kahvesi - Taşlık Coffee House, TMGCH0020, Available: https://archives.saltresearch.org/handle/123456789/78259
The first photograph in İlhan Tekeli’s chapter is an image of the Sirkeci Railroad Terminal (August Jachmund, 1890)(Figure 35). The photograph is taken across the entrance of the Sirkeci Railroad Station. The camera is placed below the eye level, which allows the reader to view the entrance area closely. Since the right and left wings of the building do not fit in the frame, and since it can be viewed as a vertical image, the photograph shows the “monumentality” of the entrance area. The reader encounters a different photograph of the Sirkeci Railroad Terminal, in Yıldırım Yavuz and Suha Özkan’s chapter, “The Final Years of the Ottoman Empire”, as the first photograph of their narrative, which shows the building from a perspective, and from afar (Figure 40). The rows of cars take the center stage in this photograph, since they are the closest objects to the camera, which can be argued to provide a social context, in terms of how people experienced the building at the time of the photographing. Furthermore, this image is a horizontal one that provides a better sense of the entirety of the architectural work.
The difference between the two photographs can be considered significant, since the former highlights the monumentality and verticality, where the reader may view the “orientalist” facade treatments; and the latter provides clues towards the organization
311
of the masses, while showing the livelihood surrounding the building, when the photograph was taken. Here, we may also note that, there are no photographs or visuals of Haydarpaşa Railroad Station in Yavuz and Özkan’s narrative, which shows Sirkeci Railroad Station’s symbolic place within the narrative, alongside its architect, and that the representation of the past that is reflected through them, as opposed to another transportation building.791
Figure 40 - Sirkeci Railroad Terminal in Yavuz and Özkan’s chapter, Istanbul, (Jachmund, 1890). Source: Modern Turkish Architecture (1984)
The second photograph that was included in Modern Turkish Architecture (1984), is Ankara Palas (Vedat Tek and Kemalettin Bey, 1924-1927), which finds place in both Tekeli’s chapter, “The Social Context of the Development of Architecture in Turkey”, and in Yıldırım Yavuz and Suha Özkan’s chapter, “Finding a National Idiom: The First National Style”. The photograph in Tekeli’s chapter, can be viewed similar to the photograph of the Sirkeci Railroad Station, since it shows the entrance area through a similar perspective, providing a vertical image that highlights the details on the façade of the building (Figure 41). This time, however, we also see people walking past the
791 Haydarpaşa Railroad Station was mentioned earlier in relation to Yavuz and Özkan’s chapters.
312
building, which gives a sense of liveliness, while also providing a scale of comparison for the building. In Yavuz and Özkan’s narrative, on the other hand, we see that authors provide the reader with various visuals of the Ankara Palas, which are the original ground floor plan; original first floor plan; an earlier study of the front elevation; an interior photograph that shows the ballroom; and lastly a photograph of the exterior, that is taken from afar, compared to the exterior photograph in Tekeli’s chapter (Figure 41).
Figure 41 - Ankara Palas (Vedat Tek and Kemalettin Bey, 1924-1927), Photograph on the left is from İlhan Tekeli’s chapter, and Photograph on the right is from Yıldırım Yavuz and Suha Özkan’s chapter. Source: Modern Turkish Architecture (1984)
The two photographs in Yavuz and Özkan’s (1984, 56) narrative are described, by pointing to their architectural features, in which they state that the ballroom was “reminiscent of the Ottoman inns with central courtyards…”, and the facades “were treated according to the principles of the First National Style, reflecting a nostalgia for Ottoman heritage.”792 Here, we might remember that authors stating that the building was “acclaimed as the symbol of modernity and civilization”, due to its social and functional aspects in the era it was built in, which raises the question, what makes a building “modern”, aside from its form, which in the case of Ankara Palas is being
792 Yavuz, Yıldırım. & Özkan, Suha. Finding a National Idiom: The First National Style. In Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press. p.56
313
associated with “Ottoman heritage” and “Nostalgia”. In that sense, the photograph of the empty ballroom with the lit chandelier shining in the middle, can be said to leave the reader to their mind’s own consciousness and imagination, where they may envision a life in that scene (Figure 42). In other words, the photograph of the interior, may be seen associated with the social life it inhabited in the “past”, in 1927; and at the time when the photograph was taken.
Figure 42 - Ankara Palas Ballroom (Vedat Tek and Kemalettin Bey, 1924-1927), Yıldırım Yavuz and Suha Özkan’s chapter. Source: Modern Turkish Architecture (1984)
If we look at the photograph of the exterior on the other hand, we see a similar comparison to of Sirkeci Railroad Station’s, since we again see the building from a different perspective, which gives the reader more detail towards the massing of the architectural work, while also showing people walking by the building. There is one more interesting aspect of this photograph (Figure 41), since in the background of the Ankara Palas, we see Stad Hotel (Doğan Tekeli, Sami Sisa, and Metin Hepgüler, 1965-1970), which is included in Atilla Yücel’s chapter, “Pluralism Takes Command: The Turkish Architectural Scene Today” (Figure 43). This can be viewed significant for two reasons, first, it shows that even though the reader is familiarized with Ankara Palas through this photograph, its surrounding environment, or site, and the contexts
314
it was situated within have changed. The reader views a building of the 1920s, through the lenses of presumably the 1970s or the 1980s. Next, it is considered important because it portrays an image of Ankara, where the “First National Style” and “Modern” architectures co-exist, with Ankara Palas as a “symbol of modernity” of the past, and Stad Hotel as an example of the “contemporary” of the time. From the point of view of the reader of the book today, the photograph contains two different “moderns” of the past, either by its historical associations and its uses in the past, or by its form.
Figure 43 - Stad Hotel (Doğan Tekeli, Sami Sisa, and Metin Hepgüler, 1965-1970) in Atilla Yücel’s chapter. Source: Modern Turkish Architecture (1984)
The third photograph of the book that finds place in Tekeli’s chapter is the Ankara Railroad Terminal (Şekip Akalın, 1939), which is also included in Afife Batur’s narrative, “To Be Modern: Search For A Republican Architecture”, where she states that “Railroad stations in particular were the first modern buildings in most centers”.793
793 Batur, Afife. To Be Modern: Search for A Republican Architecture. In Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press. p.73
315
The photograph in Tekeli’s chapter, that is taken from afar allows the reader to see various elements surrounding the building, such as the people; parked cars; and the Railroad Casino794 in the back, while also showing its monumentality (Figure 44). On the other hand, Batur presents a detail photograph from the interior, that shows the ticket office, without any population or any distractive elements (Figure 44). However, it is possible to understand that both photographs emphasize the significance of “transportation” and “mobility” in the era, which may be viewed associated with the idea of “modernity” in terms of progress, not only through the architectural features of the building, but also through its function, which provides access from and to the “modern capital”.
Figure 44 - Ankara Railroad Terminal (Şekip Akalın, 1939). Photograph on the left is from İlhan Tekeli’s chapter, and Photograph on the right is from Afife Batur’s chapter. Source: Modern Turkish Architecture (1984)
The fourth photograph of Modern Turkish Architecture (1984) in Tekeli’s chapter, which is the first photograph of Üstün Alsaç’s narrative, “The Second Period of National Architecture”, is the State Railroads Headquarters building (Bedri Uçar, 1941). The photograph in Tekeli’s chapter (Figure 45), that is taken below the eye-level, shows the entrance area, similar to the first two photographs in his narrative, in a “sterile” and “vertical” manner, where the rhythm of columns and windows are highlighted. In Alsaç’s chapter, we see a perspective image of the building from afar, that shows the organization of the masses of the building in its setting, with parked cars and people (Figure 45).
794 The building operated similar to a restaurant/ bar setting.
316
Figure 45 - State Railroads Headquarters building (Bedri Uçar, 1941). Photograph on the left is from İlhan Tekeli’s narrative, and Photograph on the right is from Üstün Alsaç’s narrative. Source: Modern Turkish Architecture (1984)
While Tekeli incorporates the building as a representative of the “Second National Style”, Alsaç (1984, 97) defines the building, in relation to two other buildings, where he makes his “revivalism” remarks regarding the architectural movement, which was previously mentioned. Considering the two other buildings Alsaç includes in relation to revivalism, which are Faculties of Sciences and Letters (Emin Onat and Sedad Hakkı Eldem, 1944), and Istanbul Radio (Doğan Erginbaş, Ömer Güney, and İsmail Utkular, 1945), it is possible to observe that the three photographs, placed one after the other, which constructs an idea of repetition in the narrative, as they highlight similar architectural forms and treatments, that strengthens an image of the “Second National Style” in the readers’ minds, through the use of images (Figure 46).
The fifth photograph of İlhan Tekeli’s chapter is an image of the Complex of Retail Shops (Manifaturacılar Çarşısı) (Doğan Tekeli, Sami Sisa, and Metin Hepgüler, 1959). Tekeli (1984, 25) includes a question in his narrative, while pointing to this building, by first stating that (after the 1950s) “Turkish architects were no longer bound by ideological constraints and could readily adopt changing Western solutions and trends in form,” and then asking “Is it justified to regard these architects as imitative and not creative?”.795 If we combine his question with his earlier statements pointing to
795 Tekeli, Ilhan. The Social Context of the Development of Architecture in Turkey. In Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press. p.25
317
reinterpretations in “each process of adoption”,796 as well as his views from our interview, we may say that he criticizes the approaches to “modern architecture” in Turkey, that regard them as “imitations” of the “West”. The photograph of the building, placed in relation to this question and criticism, does not show the details of the complex, rather we see it from far and from above, where we see the urban texture in the background, which include various buildings and the Şehzade Camii, which is a work of Mimar Sinan, built between 1544 and 1548 (Figure 47).797
Figure 46 - (Top) Faculties of Sciences and Letters (Emin Onat and Sedad Hakkı Eldem, 1944); and (Bottom) Istanbul Radio (Doğan Erginbaş, Ömer Güney, and İsmail Utkular, 1945) in Üstün Alsaç’s chapter. Source: Modern Turkish Architecture (1984)
796 Tekeli, Ilhan. The Social Context of the Development of Architecture in Turkey. In Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press. p.31
797 Orlowski, Boleslan. (Çev. Nesrin Kılcıoğlu). (1979). Ayın Kişisi Mimar Sinan 1489 – 1578. Mimarlık, 71(1), 9.
318
It is interesting to find two other photographs of the complex, in two other chapters, first in Mete Tapan’s, “International Style: Liberalism in Architecture”, and then in Atilla Yücel’s, “Pluralism Takes Command: The Turkish Architectural Scene Today”. In Mete Tapan’s chapter, we see a similar image to the one that İlhan Tekeli uses, however, the photograph, which is almost an aerial one, is framed in a way to include the boulevard filled with people and cars, as well as the Bozdoğan (Valens) Aqeuduct in Istanbul, which was built between the years of 364-378, during the reign of emperor Valens (Figure 47).798 In other words, the two photographs, which both show the area surrounding the building complex, can be said to contribute to İlhan Tekeli’s arguments, since it shows the culture; heritage; and the “modern” co-existing together in a single frame, where different “types” and “styles” of architecture co-exist, in relation to the contexts of the time of their construction.
Figure 47 - Complex of Retail Shops (Manifaturacılar Çarşısı) (Doğan Tekeli, Sami Sisa, and Metin Hepgüler, 1959). Photograph on the left is from İlhan Tekeli’s chapter, and Photograph on the right is from Mete Tapan’s chapter. Source: Modern Turkish Architecture (1984)
In the photograph used in Atilla Yücel’s chapter, on the other hand, we see a completely different image of the Complex of Retail Shops (Manifaturacılar Çarşısı), through which Yücel (1984, 133) comments on the arrangement of the building, by
798 Ertuğrul, Özkan. (2019). Mimarlik Tarihi İçinde İstanbul Bizans Su Mimarisinin Durumu I. Meriç Uluslararası Sosyal ve Stratejik Araşturmalar Dergisi, 3(8), 276-325.
319
stating that “Small blocs are arranged around open spaces, squares and axes; a vertical circulation system is incorporated into the different levels of the platforms which house groups of shops.” The image, which is taken from the internal courtyard, from a lower point of view, highlights these aspects of the building (Figure 48). Furthermore, the rather “sterile” photograph, with a man far away from the camera, shows how the vertical and horizontal lines and masses come together. Due to the perspective, the reader does not fully grasp the building, as one side of the building is mostly out of the frame. The benches constitute the first horizontal element in the photograph, and become a part of that “static” image. Here, we might add that the use of the same building, in both Tapan’s and Yücel’s chapters, shows the continuation of architectural production between 1950s and 1980s, specifically due to the construction year of the project.
Figure 48 - Complex of Retail Shops (Manifaturacılar Çarşısı) (Doğan Tekeli, Sami Sisa, and Metin Hepgüler, 1959). Photograph from Atilla Yücel’s chapter. Source: Modern Turkish Architecture (1984)
The sixth and the last photograph in İlhan Tekeli’s chapter is an image of the Lassa Tire Factory (Doğan Tekeli and Sami Sisa, 1975-1977), which he incorporates into the narrative to emphasize the significance of industrial buildings for the architectural practice, after the 1970s (Figure 49). The building is also visualized in Atilla Yücel’s
320
chapter, which he defines in relation to other industrial buildings (Figure 49). However, looking at the two photographs, where we only see parts of the architectural work and not its entirety, we may say that visuals enriches the narratives of the authors, since Tekeli (1984, 29) points to the commissioning of “aesthetically conscious industrial buildings”,799 and Yücel (1984, 138) relates its form with an “industrial symbolism”, through the following statement:
“Obviously, the industrial activity involved confers an immediate functional basis for the form generation of factory buildings. However, the compactness of the monobloc mass, the explicit choice apparent in formal configurations such as the curvilinear contours of the modular units and the shape of the round window holes (scuttles), give a monumentality and assign an industrial symbolism to this building.”800 (Yücel, 1984, 138)
Figure 49 - Lassa Tire Factory (Doğan Tekeli and Sami Sisa, 1975-1977). Photograph on the left is from İlhan Tekeli’s chapter, and Photograph on the right is from Atilla Yücel’s chapter. Source: Modern Turkish Architecture (1984)
Before moving to the use of visuals of the remaining prominent works of architecture in the book, we may look at the relationships between İlhan Tekeli’s, which is a thematic chapter that relates architectural production of different periods to their social; political; cultural; and economical contexts, and the remaining narratives on different periods in Modern Turkish Architecture (1984). In the visuals İlhan Tekeli uses, it is possible to observe that there are six different “styles” of architecture, the
799 Tekeli, Ilhan. The Social Context of the Development of Architecture in Turkey. In Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press. p.29
800 Yücel, Atilla. Pluralism Takes Command: The Turkish Architectural Scene Today. In Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press. p. 138
321
first being the “pre-republican” era, or we may say the late Ottoman Empire, which was criticized in terms of its “Orientalism” and “eclecticism” in Yavuz and Özkan’s chapter. Sirkeci Railroad Station, as placed and visualized in both Yavuz and Özkan’s; and İlhan Tekeli’s chapters, may be said to become a symbolic materialization of these ideas in both narratives. Ankara Palas, as one of the “faces” of the “First National Style”, in that sense may also be viewed as symbolic, due to its associations with “modernity” and “civilization”, which is transferred to the reader through both descriptions of the authors, and the visuals. Here, we may also state that the incorporation of different type of photographs and media on Ankara Palas exemplify how differently a building may be represented, depending on the intentions and selections of the author.
Ankara Railroad Terminal can be viewed to highlight the developments in the 1930s, specifically through its function as a building of transportation, whose significance can be seen through its inclusion as the first visual in Batur’s chapter. State Railroads Headquarters is seen to underline different notions in Tekeli’s and Alsaç’s narratives, since the former emphasizes the aspects of monumentality and other tendencies in the 1940s, whereas the latter, associates it with “Revivalism”. Similar to the placement of Ankara Railroad Terminal, the building of the State Railroads Headquarters, is incorporated into Alsaç’s narrative, as the first visual of his chapter. The Complex of Retail Shops (Manifaturacılar Çarşısı), is viewed to emphasize a change between the relationships of architecture and ideology, since according to Tekeli (1984, 25) architects were no longer bounded with “ideological constraints”,801 which in this study is viewed as a shift from a “political ideological constraint” to a social and economic ideological constraint. The photographs of the building, which is used in three different chapters, shows the complex and rich nature of architecture in Turkey, in which various forms of “modern architecture” emerged.
801 Tekeli, Ilhan. The Social Context of the Development of Architecture in Turkey. In Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press. p.25
322
Lastly, the use of Lassa Tire Factory can be seen to underline the significance of “industrialization” after the 1970s and its relation to architecture, where the reader views “aesthetic” responses to the “functional” needs, through the use of photographs. As it can be seen in this brief summary, the use of visuals in Tekeli’s chapter, which were also included in the following narratives, highlights the ideas that are associated with the “periods”; and their many contexts, by attributing a symbolism to architectural works, which is then materialized through the use of specific photographs.
This materialization can further be seen in the visualizations of the remaining prominent architectural works, starting with the Central Post Office building, which was designed by Vedat Tek (1909), and is the first building of the “First National Style” in Yavuz and Özkan’s chapter, “The Final Years of the Ottoman Empire”. The building is among the three most visualized architectural works, the other two being the Fourth Vakıf Hanı (Kemalettin Bey, 1912-1926); and Harikzedegan (Fire Victims) Apartments (Kemalettin Bey, 1919-1922), since they all have three photographs included within their narrative. The photographs of the Central Post Office building, can be viewed to accompany the statements of the authors.
The first photograph, which is taken from a higher viewpoint, provides the general view of the building through a perspective, even though the building does not fully fit the frame, where we may see Vedat Tek’s “European formation”; and the way he “dresses” the building with Ottoman building elements, and with “classical Turkish tiles” (Figure 50).802 The second photograph, is from the interior, which shows the “large central hall with its iron and glass roof” of the building, which can be viewed as its “modern” attributes, as previously discussed (Figure 50).803 The framing of the image, underlines this aspect, as the photograph is taken from a lower point of view, looking upwards to the ceiling, where we do not see the placement of any furniture;
802 Yavuz, Yıldırım. & Özkan, Suha. The Final Years of the Ottoman Empire. In Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press. p.41
803 Ibid. p.41
323
doors; flooring; or people. The last photograph, on the other hand, shows a completely different side of the building, where we see a small mosque attached to the rear of the building (Figure 50). The mosque is described by Yavuz and Özkan (1984, 42) as a “fine example of the national sytle with its rich tile decoration on the exterior, its wide eaves and its curious little minaret”.804 Looking at the three photographs, we may say that the authors highlighted the aspects of the “First National Style” by visualizing the synthesis between the “European”; “Ottoman”; and “Turkish”, through the use of these photographs.
Figure 50 - Central Post Office building (Vedat Tek, 1909). Photographs from Yıldırım Yavuz and Suha Özkan’s chapter. Source: Modern Turkish Architecture (1984)
The next two architectural works, that should be mentioned here, is the first and second buildings incorporated in Yavuz and Özkan’s chapters, which are the Union and Progress Party Headquarters, which was later used as the first National Assembly (Hafi Bey, 1917-1923), and the Headquarters of the People’s Republican Party, which was used as the Second National Assembly (Vedat Tek, 1926), as it was “found to be more suitable as a parliament”.805 The photographs of the two buildings, sits at the bottom of the two pages side by side. (Figure 51). The two buildings has around 200 meters
804 Yavuz, Yıldırım. & Özkan, Suha. The Final Years of the Ottoman Empire. In Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press. p.42
805 Yavuz, Yıldırım. & Özkan, Suha. Finding a National Idiom: The First National Style. In Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press. p.52
324
between them in Ankara, if we include Ankara Palas to them, which is across the Second National Assembly building, it is possible to observe that, in addition to the physical appearance of the architectural works, the authors are also providing an image of the social and political life in Ulus, shaped around the main artery, which Yavuz and Özkan (1984, 52) also express by pointing to the two city plans that was prepared by Heussler, which “served as the basis of a larger and more efficient city plan”, prepared by Herman Jansen, after 1928.806 The two photographs, even though one is taken with a perspective and the other is taken across the building, shows people and cars around the buildings, through which the reader may get a sense of the area, from the time of photographing.
Figure 51 – Side by side photographs of the first National Assembly (Hafi Bey, 1917-1923) on the left, and the Headquarters of the People’s Republican Party, later the Second National Assembly (Vedat Tek, 1926) in Yıldırım Yavuz and Suha Özkan’s chapter. Source: Modern Turkish Architecture (1984)
Here we may note that, an interior photograph of the Second National Assembly building is also included, which has a similar perspective to the interior of the Central Post Office in terms of framing, however, while the windows of the “two storey offices”, and the ceiling is visible, the reader does not quite see the “ample but modestly furnished assembly hall”, since the camera is pointed upwards, where we see a statement of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk on the wall, which reads, “Sovereignty belongs to the people” (Hakimiyet Milletindir)(Figure 52).807
806 Yavuz, Yıldırım. & Özkan, Suha. Finding a National Idiom: The First National Style. In Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press. p.52
807 Ibid. p.54
325
It is surprising to see that The Grand National Assembly building (Clemens Holzmeister, 1938-1960), which was one of the most described architectural works in Afife Batur’s narrative, is not visualized, which may be due to its date of completion, since the competition for the building occurred in 1937, but the construction could only be completed in 1960, owing to the interruptions caused by the war. The most visualized building in Batur’s narrative, on the other hand, is the Residence of the President (Clemens Holzmeister, 1930-1932), where she incorporated an exterior photograph of the building, alongside its plan of the first and second levels, through which she describes the symmetrical arrangement, as well as the placements of various architectural elements such as the pool area; the porch; the atrium and the portico surrounding it. The photograph, taken from a far, and from an upper point of view, shows the secluded nature of the building, as it is encircled with greenery (Figure 53).
Figure 52 – Photograph from the interior of the Second National Assembly (Vedat Tek, 1926) in Yıldırım Yavuz and Suha Özkan’s chapter. Source: Modern Turkish Architecture (1984)
In addition to the photographs of the State Railroad Headquarters (Bedri Uçar, 1941); the Oriental Café (Sedad Hakkı Eldem, 1948-1950); and the conversion of the National Exhibition Hall (Şevki Balmumcu, 1933-1934) to the Opera House (Paul Bonatz, 1948), which were all previously mentioned, there is another photograph that should be included in relation to Üstün Alsaç’s chapter, which is the last photograph in his
326
narrative, that shows Anıtkabir (Atatürk’s Mausoleum) (Emin Onat and Orhan Arda, 1944-1953). The photograph, which is the largest visual in Alsaç’s narrative, can be viewed as a rather “sterile” image that was taken from afar, in which the camera is facing upwards to the building with very few people on the sides. It is possible to observe that the photograph creates a distance between the reader and the architectural work, where we may observe its “monumentality”, as well as its “geometrical simplicity of fine proportions” (Figure 54).808
Figure 53 – The Residence of the President (Clemens Holzmeister, 1930-1932) in Afife Batur’s chapter, including a photograph of the building, as well as the first and second floor plans of it. Source: Modern Turkish Architecture (1984)
808 Alsaç, Üstün. The Second Period of National Architecture. In Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press. p.101
327
There are various photographs that may be mentioned after the 1950s, starting with the Hilton Hotel (Louis Skidmore, Nathaniel A. Owings and John O. Merrill, and Sedad Hakkı Eldem, 1952) in Mete Tapan’s (1984, 110) chapter, who views the building as the “most successful and influential example of the International Style”, as well as “the precursor of high-rise hotels” in Turkey.809 The photograph of the Hilton Hotel, which is placed below its plan of the lobby floor before the extension, shows the building after the extension. Tapan (1984, 109) defines the photograph as the “View of the Bosporus elevation of the hotel after extension”.810 Indeed, the photograph resembles a technical drawing, fully showing the elevation, even though it is taken from a perspective (Figure 55).
Figure 54 - Anıtkabir (Atatürk’s Mausoleum) (Emin Onat and Orhan Arda, 1944-1953) in Üstün Alsaç’s chapter. Source: Modern Turkish Architecture (1984)
809 Tapan, Mete. International Style: Liberalism in Architecture. In Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press. p.110
810 Ibid. p.109
328
Similar types of photographs continue in the following pages, showing a repetitiveness in the forms of architectural works within the narrative, which may be observed in the photographs of the Çınar Hotel (Rana Zıpçı, Ahmet Akın and Emin Ertan, 1959); City Hall (Belediye Sarayı) (Nevzat Erol, 1953); Etibank Headquarters (Toğrul Devres and Vedat Özsan, 1955-1960); and Hukukçular Apartments (Haluk Baysal and Melih Birsel, 1960-1961). These images again reminds Colomina’s statements, since the reader engages with these modern buildings, through specific “static” perspectives, or viewpoints that highlight their “modern” aspects, in photographs that show the architectural works, as they were intended to be, rather than in their lived forms (Figure 56).
A similar approach in terms of selection and use of visuals, continue in Atilla Yücel’s chapter, which may be seen in the photographs of the Turkish Historical Society building (Turgut Cansever and ErturTener, 1966); Tercüman Newspaper Offices (Günay Çilingiroğlu and Muhlis Tunca, 1974); Ministry of Defense Student Dormitories (Şevki Vanlı and Ersen Gömleksizoğlu, 1967-1968); Agricultural Products Office (Vedat Özsan, Cengiz Bektaş and Oral Vural, 1964); Odakule Center (Kaya Tecimen, 1970s); Akbank Building (Sedad Hakkı Eldem, 1970s); Vakıflar Bankası (Erdoğan Elmas, Ertur Yener and Zafer Gülçur, 1974-1978), among others, in addition to the Complex of Retail Shops (Manifaturacılar Çarşısı); and the Stad Hotel, that was mentioned earlier (Figure 57). Among them, Odakule Center and the Turkish Historical Society buildings, may be understood as more emphasized, since they are the most visualized buildings of the chapter, in terms of their size and placement, and included number of images (Figure 58).
If we consider the mentioned photographs of the architectural works as they are included in the narratives of the authors in Modern Turkish Architecture (1984), it is possible to observe that different images of a building, may be viewed differently by the readers. This can be seen in the photographs of the same architectural works, which are placed in different chapters, namely the ones that İlhan Tekeli incorporates in his narrative, and the corresponding ones in the narratives of other authors. Even though all the photographs are taken in black and white, the perspective and framing of the
329
images, changes how the reader envisions the architectural work, and therefore they serve as representational tools that may function in the strengthening of the points of authors. The photographs in Mete Tapan’s and Atilla Yücel’s narratives, in that sense, can be said to present an idea of modern architecture in Turkey, by working “synergistically”, as they combine the geometry of architecture with the geometries of the camera.811 Furthermore, the repetitive use of similar images, as in the case of Üstün Alsaç’s, as well as in Mete Tapan and Atilla Yücel’s chapters, can be said to establish these ideas further, specifically for the people who never visited these buildings, for whom the photograph of the building becomes a material representation of it, even when that representation is impartial or taken from a certain angle with a specific intention.
Figure 55 - The Hilton Hotel (Louis Skidmore, Nathaniel A. Owings and John O. Merrill, and Sedad Hakkı Eldem, 1952) in Mete Tapan’s chapter, showing the plans before the extension, and the elevation of the building after the extension. Source: Modern Turkish Architecture (1984)
811 Zimmerman, Claire. (2014). Photographic Architecture in the Twentieth Century. University of Minnesota Press.
330
Figure 56 -Photographs of Çınar Hotel (Rana Zıpçı, Ahmet Akın and Emin Ertan, 1959) (Top Left); City Hall (Belediye Sarayı) (Nevzat Erol, 1953) (Top Right); Etibank Headquarters (Toğrul Devres and Vedat Özsan, 1955-1960) (Bottom Left); and Hukukçular Apartments (Haluk Baysal and Melih Birsel, 1960-1961) (Bottom Right) in Mete Tapan’s chapter. Source: Modern Turkish Architecture (1984)
In the case of Modern Turkish Architecture (1984), we may state that the prominent works of architecture, specifically the ones that have symbolic connotations, mostly correspond with the prominently visualized architectural works, and therefore, we may observe a direct connection between the visual representations and architecture; which indirectly is tied with the various contexts of the “past”, that is being transferred to the reader through the lenses of the presumably the 1970s or the 1980s. This relationship between the past and the contemporary, can be said to remind that the reader experiences the book, as well as the visuals in it, through his/her contemporary mind, in their contemporary contexts, while looking at a representation of A past.
331
Figure 57 - Photographs of Tercüman Newspaper Offices (Günay Çilingiroğlu and Muhlis Tunca, 1974) (Top Left); Ministry of Defense Student Dormitories (Şevki Vanlı and Ersen Gömleksizoğlu, 1967-1968) (Top Right); Agricultural Products Office (Vedat Özsan, Cengiz Bektaş and Oral Vural, 1964) (Bottom Left); Akbank Building (Sedad Hakkı Eldem, 1970s) (Bottom Middle); and Vakıflar Bankası (Erdoğan Elmas, Ertur Yener and Zafer Gülçur, 1974-1978) (Bottom Right) in Atilla Yücel’s chapter. Source: Modern Turkish Architecture (1984)
Figure 58 – Photograph from the Exterior of the Turkish Historical Society building (Turgut Cansever and ErturTener, 1966) (Left); from the Atrium of the Turkish Historical Society building (Middle, full page); and Odakule Center (Kaya Tecimen, 1970s) (Right, full page) in Atilla Yücel’s chapter.812 Source: Modern Turkish Architecture (1984)
812 Photographs of the Turkish Historical Society Building were taken bay Christopher Little / Aga Khan Award for Architecture, which was mentioned in the previous chapter of this study.
332
CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION
The objective of this section of the thesis is to re-visit the photographic exhibition and seminar that led to the publication of the book; and the narrative/s of Modern Turkish Architecture (1984); and then to create a discussion regarding their structure; inclusions and exclusions, while considering their connections with ideologies in corresponding periods. Following that, it is aimed to situate Modern Turkish Architecture (1984) in the architectural historiography of Turkey, to understand if prominent themes in the book continued their impact in studies that were published afterwards, and to comprehend how architectural historiography have changed over the years.
5.1. Re-visiting the Exhibition and Seminar on Contemporary Architecture in Turkey, 1920-1980; and The Narrative/s of Modern Turkish Architecture (1984)
Visual representations, as in the case of photographs in the Contemporary Architecture in Turkey, 1920-1980, and written representations in the book, Modern Turkish Architecture (1984) may show different images of the past, depending on the selections and inclusions of architectural works; architects; and content of their descriptions. A re-visiting of the photographic exhibition and seminar, which was examined in relation to the architectural historiographical context in Chapter 3, and its comparison to the narrative/s of the book can be viewed significant in terms of highlighting these differences, alongside similarities and repetitions, since the former can be considered as an initial form of the latter, which was first constructed for a specific international audience in Upenn under certain historical circumstances. The outcome of this event, the book, on the other hand, utilizes this initial construction
333
with the consideration of a broadening audience and re-shapes it in a different medium. Consequently, the comparison between the event and the book can be argued to show if the intentions behind two representations remained the same or changed, since the context of the production of them, despite the continuity between them, differs.
The two-day seminar and the photographic exhibition both had chronological organizations, however, the scope of the seminar differed from the exhibition, since it included two thematic essays by İlhan Tekeli and Yıldız Sey, the former with a focus on the social, economic and political contexts; and the latter with housing. While the exhibition did not display residential works separately, several examples were included in the corresponding periods, even though they were few in numbers compared to the included works of public architecture.813 Additionally, the exhibition did not include a section on the architectural production on the final years of the Ottoman Empire, rather it began in the 1920s, highlighting the architectural production between 1920 and 1980, which was in line with the stated aim of the event, to illustrate the architectural works following the establishment of the nation-state.
The periodization of architecture in the exhibition, which follows the same periodization in the seminar, was expressed to be organized in relation to the shifts between two main constants in architectural production, that were the “quest for a particular Turkish architecture”; and the “quest for modernity”. Those two constants were reflected in the descriptions of the photographs, as well as in the shorts texts that described different periods and in the short introduction text. The representation of the former, “quest for a particular Turkish architecture”, in the descriptions of the exhibition, were mainly reflected through an emphasis on “Turkishness” and was materialized through the descriptions of architectural characteristics of the included works, by pointing out to use of “familiar”; “national”; “traditional”; “regional”; or “vernacular” forms, in different periods. The latter, “quest for modernity”, on the other hand, was tied with the developmental processes of the nation-state, that was expressed
813 There were sixty-seven photographs included in the photographic exhibition, one of them being an air view of Istanbul, and seven of them being residential works of architecture, as previously mentioned.
334
to be “designed along western constitutional lines”.814 This aspect was also connected with the “transformation” of the society, in which “modernity” was related with the formation of the nation-state; Atatürk reforms; and with the “West”, since the institutions and policies that formulated the “new” and “transformed” society were expressed to take it as a point of reference, as it can be seen in the statement above. The architectural works that were included to highlight shifts of these two constants were mostly from Ankara and Istanbul, the big cities of Turkey.
Looking at the structure and the narrative/s of Modern Turkish Architecture (1984), we can see that some aspects of both the photographic exhibition and seminar was kept. Among them, the most observable similarity is the periodization that was expressed to be in connection with the shifts of the two constants. Following the same periodization in the seminar showed that the structure of the book was also formed in relation to the mentioned constants. Similar to the exhibition, in the book, the idea of “Turkishness”; as well as the notion of “modernity” was emphasized in different periods, in varying degrees. While we do not have access to the contents of the essay presentations, we may compare the approaches to different periods by looking at the texts and descriptions in the photographic exhibition and in the book.
It is possible to argue that the main difference between the structures of the exhibition and the book, was ideologies. In the approach to the photographic exhibition, we can see that the main emphasis was on the “ideology of the nation-state”, which was constructed in connection with the proclamation of the republic in 1923, in relation to the key figure, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, and his reforms, which corresponds with the objective of the event, since it was part of the centennial activities. In the exhibition program, it was expressed that “Turkey was permanently transformed”, where the “transformation” of the society, was highlighted.815 Architecture was treated as a
814 The phrase is taken from the exhibition program, which was obtained from the Penn Museum Archives, that can be seen in APPENDICES.
815 The statement is taken from the exhibition program, which was obtained from the Penn Museum Archives, that can be seen in in APPENDICES.
335
representation of that change, through which “the public face of the new society can be easily read”, which directly connected it with the developments that occurred following the 1920s.816 Aside from a brief mentioning of the “major investment in construction programs by the government” in the 1950s, the photographic exhibition excluded policies, and even the existence of any other governments. In other words, the “ideology of the nation-state”, which corresponds to the “1930s Nationalism” in this study, and the “official ideology” of the 1930s in the book, was the emphasized ideology, through which a linear and progressive process of development in society was outlined and represented through a series of architectural works from different periods.
In Modern Turkish Architecture (1984), on the other hand, each period, and their architectural works, were evaluated within their own social; political; and economic contexts, which highlighted interpretations and re-interpretations of different ideologies. In that sense, we may state that ideologies became the guiding force behind the narrative/s of the book, since the “shifts” in architectural production in different periods was related with them. The descriptions of architectural works and periods in the photographic exhibition, contrarily, focused on the architectural characteristics, even though we may find fragments of architectural themes that were examined in the analysis section of this thesis. While the reason behind this significant difference can be understood as an outcome of the length of the texts, since the descriptions and expressions in the exhibition were very limited, it can be seen that the exhibition and the book represented different images of the past, the former constructing a more unified “state” image, despite the shifts of architectural “styles” and showing of different degrees of “nationality” and “modernity”; and the latter portraying a more fragmented structure within a whole, where architectural works were portrayed to be in direct connection with the policies and ideologies of different governments.
However, we may state that in both the exhibition and the book, ideologies played an important role in the representation of a specific past, through which the developments
816 The statement is taken from the exhibition program, which was obtained from the Penn Museum Archives, that can be seen in in APPENDICES.
336
and changes in architecture were explained. While the photographic exhibition emphasized the ideologies of the state where a “new national identity” was being formed and developed over time, in relation to the ideology of “modernity” that was associated with the “West” among other notions; in Modern Turkish Architecture (1984), the representation highlighted “Nationalism” and “Modernity”, as well as their variants in different periods; with the addition of “Liberalism”, which was not an ideology stressed in the descriptions and shorts texts of the exhibition.
The utilization of ideologies to explain changes in architectural production in the narrative/s of Modern Turkish Architecture (1984), can be said to divide the structure of the book into three main lines of architectural history. The first of them, which was discussed in relation to the historiographical context, is the architectural history of the Ottoman Empire, which encompassed a limited timeframe by mainly focusing on the final years. “Turkish Nationalism” and the dualist cultural theory of Ziya Gökalp, played a significant role in the formulations of that representation, which was employed to evaluate and discuss the works of the “First National Architectural Movement” compared to its immediate precedents that were portrayed as “chaotic”; “eclectic”; and even “orientalist”. We can see that this representation of the Ottoman Empire, which was in a period of declining, as well as the approach to the architectural works of that timeframe, fall in line with most of the prior architectural history works, in which the “classical” period was glorified, alongside Architect Sinan; and the later works were viewed as “contaminated” by the “Western” influences and activities.
In Modern Turkish Architecture (1984), it is possible to view this approach specifically in the descriptions of the works from the final years of the Ottoman Empire, which were expressed to be examples of an “ill-bred” architecture, built by architects, who did not seem to capture the “essence” of the idea of “Turkishness”, which can be viewed as a problematic notion itself. Nevertheless, “Turkish Nationalism”, and the architectural works of the “First National Style”, prepared the reader for the next line of architectural history in the book, and operated as transitional tools that provided a ground of comparison between what existed in the final years of the empire, and in the Turkey of the 1930s. Here, it is considered important to point out that both the
337
architectural works of the Ottoman Empire, and the “First National Style”, was expressed to be formed in relation to an idea of “nationality”, whether that be “Ottomanness” or “Turkishness”; and in connection to the “West”. In other words, architectural works of both periods, showed “hybrid”; “translated”; or “negotiated” characteristics, meaning that they did not display a unified, homogenized, and fixed image. However, we can see that, if this “complexity” was celebrated or viewed in a critical tone depended on the construction of the narrative, which in the case of Modern Turkish Architecture (1984), commended the works of the “First National Style”, in terms of the ways it brought “Turkishness” and the “West” together, which can be argued to allowed for the formulation of a “national identity”, or identities, that could be reflected through architecture, in the upcoming periods.
The second line of architectural history in the book, was the one that encompassed the period between the proclamation of the republic, and the 1950s. The ideologies in this period can be defined as variants of “Nationalism” and “Modernity”, which were previously categorized as “Turkish Nationalism”; “1930s Nationalism”; and “1940s Nationalism”, as well as “Disguised Modernity”; “Republican Modernity”; and “Nationalist Modernity”, in this study. We saw that the reader was presented with these different interpretations of “Nationalism” and “Modernity” in the book, which were utilized to explain different “styles” of architecture, as they changed in different periods. It can be argued that the descriptions and short texts in the photographic exhibition also highlighted these two “constants”, that were expressed to be reflected in varying degrees in the architectural form, however, as opposed to the organization in the book, this approach was stretched until the 1980s in the event, and the impact of “Liberalism” was left out.
In Modern Turkish Architecture (1984), on the other hand, we saw that in addition to the two main constants in the exhibition, “quest for a particular Turkish architecture”; and the “quest for modernity”, which may be argued to find their expressions in the narratives through the utilization of “Nationalism” and “Modernity”, there was a third influential ideology, “Liberalism”. This third line of architectural history appeared as “Liberalism” was incorporated into the narrative/s of the book, which roughly
338
encompassed the period between 1950 and 1980. We could see that, while the focus of the architectural history between 1923 and the 1950s was “Nationalism” and “Modernity”; in the post-1950s, it was on “Liberalism” and “Modernity”.
Considering the narrative/s; included architectural works and their descriptions; as well as the mentioned architectural themes, the former line of architectural history, between 1923 and the 1950s, can be categorized as a “state-centered architectural history”, in which the architectural works of the state, such as the National Assembly buildings, or ministries; educational institutions; banks; transportational and cultural buildings, were displayed. Corresponding with the objectives of the photographic exhibition, the book represented a similar image of the past, in which Turkey, alongside its society, is being “developed” and “transformed”, in connection with the ideologies of “Nationalism” and “Modernity”. This image in the book, changed after the 1950s, which was expressed to be related with the liberal policies of the governments that had an impact on the architectural production, which shifted the attention from the state, to the market. Accordingly, we may categorize this line of architectural history, as a “market-centered architectural history”, which continued to highlight the mentioned “types” of architecture until the 1950s, with the addition of commercial buildings, such as hotels; offices; shops; or factories, where an image of the past, in which Turkey is continuing to develop in relation to processes of industrialization and commercialization, is constructed. In other words, similar to the objective of the photographic exhibition, the narrative/s of Modern Turkish Architecture (1984) also represented the development and “transformation” of Turkey and its society, utilizing the representational aspects of architecture.
It can be said that each of these lines of architectural history in the book, that were categorized as the “history of the architectural production of the final years of the Ottoman Empire”; “state-centered architectural history”; and “market-centered architectural history”, involved decisions on how to represent, and how to create a narrative that result in a specific image of the past. In the case of Modern Turkish Architecture (1984), we can define the final product as a “nationalist representation”, that highlighted the “transformation” of Turkey and its society, by utilizing different
339
interpretations of “Nationalism”, “Modernity”; and “Liberalism”; as well as architectural themes. The selection of architectural works that were mostly located in big cities, such as Istanbul and Ankara; the “type” of buildings, that were mainly public works of architecture with different contributions to the society; symbolic meanings that were associated with the included architectural works, can be viewed among the representational tools that played a role in the construction of that specific image of the past. The periodization; the formal descriptions of architectural works; and actors, who are mainly the architects and patrons, aside from several key historical figures, on the other hand, highlighted the responses in architectural production, to various changing contexts, which ultimately served towards the same representational goal of portraying a “developed”; “modern”; and “transformed” Turkey, with its particular “national identity”. In that sense, we may state that the outcome of this “nationalist representation” has a holistic approach. However, it can also be viewed as fragmented, specifically in terms of architectural production, as one “style” “replaces” another in relation to the impacts of the ideologies of different periods. Lastly, the use visuals, such as architectural drawings and photographs; their numbers and sizes; as well as their framings, materializes that representation of the past. While the construction of that specific image of the past involved decisions on what to include to be able to represent this holistic and “nationalistic” history of architecture, it also required decisions on what to exclude. Accordingly, it is considered important to outline some of the exclusions from the narrative/s of Modern Turkish Architecture (1984).
5.2. Exclusions
In the narrative/s of Modern Turkish Architecture (1984), we can see that a representation of the past was constructed through the use of prominent ideological and architectural themes, which can also be viewed as a self-representation that portrays a “nationalistic” history, in which a specific “national identity” is being performed. As previously argued, the selections of architectural works; actors; the locations of architecture; and parallels drawn with ideologies and specific turning point events, which also affects the structure of the narratives, play a role in the formation of that representation. The representation of the past in Modern Turkish Architecture
340
(1984), utilizes those themes, and use “sameness” within different periods, to present a “unified” and/or “holistic” image, and therefore can be understood as a strategic and positional narrative, in which the main question is not what is Modern Turkish Architecture?; but rather, how Modern Turkish Architecture came to be?; and how Modern Turkish Architecture was developed and/or transformed through time and space?. In other words, it is a question of how can we represent “our” architecture?
According to Hall (2003, 4), identities are “constituted within, not outside representation”, and therefore, we need to view them “as produced in specific historical and institutional sites within specific discursive formations and practices, by specific enunciative strategies”.817 Furthermore, he expresses that identities “emerge within the play of specific modalities of power, and thus are more the product of the marking of difference and exclusion, than they are the sign of an identical, naturally-constituted unity”.818 In the narrative/s of Modern Turkish Architecture (1984), we can see a similar approach, since, as it was seen earlier, it utilizes cultural and historical differences, which often operates through binary oppositions, such as the ones between the “old” and “new”; the “West” and its “other”; the “Ottoman Empire” and/ or “Turkey”, the “past” and the “contemporary”; the “foreign” and the “local”, “regional”, or the “national”, to specify a definition of the self, by differentiating between “us” and “them”, in different periods.
While, what are included, and how are they included is one side of that representation, what are excluded, is its other side, through which the “limits”, or “margins” of that specific identity, is formed, and a specific representation of the past around that identity is constructed. The first “exclusion” in the narrative/s of Modern Turkish Architecture (1984), in that sense, is not an “exclusion” per se, rather it is a form of
817 Hall, Stuart. Introduction. Who Needs ‘Identity’?. In Hall, Stuart.& Du Gay, Paul. (2003). Questions of Cultural Identity. Sage Publications. 1996, 1997, 1998, 2000, 2002, 2003. p.4
818 Ibid. p.4
341
“otherness”, or “displacement”,819 that was used to create a distinction between building types, or more specifically between public and residential works of architecture, by evaluating “housing” as a thematic and separate chapter. This differentiation in the structure of Modern Turkish Architecture (1984), is Yıldız Sey’s chapter, “To House the New Citizens: Housing Policies and Mass Housing”, on residential architecture, which has its own organization; use of themes; and connections with prominent ideologies of different periods.
In other words, residential architecture, in the book is accepted and included as a part of the main structure, however, it is treated as a separate subject, that has its own dynamics, and therefore is not integrated within the narratives of different periods. The limited number of residential works in the narratives on different periods, on the other hand, shows that this inclusion/ exclusion process is a selective decision, since we see housing may be integrated within the frameworks of periods, but were treated separately. These inclusions of the residential works in the narratives of different periods can be understood as samples of housing that fit the broader image being represented, while the “type” specific dynamics of the subject is not handled as an integral part of it. We can observe a similar approach in the exhibition and seminar on Contemporary Architecture in Turkey, 1920-1980, as well, since housing is treated as a separate chapter in the seminar, as in the structure of Modern Turkish Architecture (1984), while on the other hand, they are integrated to the public works in the photographic exhibition through a limited number of examples, which corresponds with the idea of exceptions within the totality of representation.
819 Heynen & Loeckx (1998, 100) defines the condition of displacement, “as a situation where a new or alien element is introduced into a more of less stable context”. They also express that, “displacement could easily join a set of key words such as dislocation, disruption, deconstruction, and otherness” (Heynen & Loeckx., 1998, 100).
Among these terms, I have preferred to define this as a “displacement” and “otherness”, since the residential works in Modern Turkish Architecture (1984) were treated “outside” of the frameworks of the narrative/s on different periods, and since a difference between public and residential works of architecture was constructed by placing housing in a thematic chapter, implying that it does not fit within “totality” of the representation.
342
Before continuing, with the other “exclusions” from the narrative/s of Modern Turkish Architecture (1984), we may compare the included, as well as excluded, architectural works in the photographic exhibition, to understand, if and which examples were decided to be left out. It can be seen that photographs of 22 buildings that had a place in the draft program of the photographic exhibition, could not be included in the final program, due to “technical difficulties or owing to the lack of space”.820 It is considered meaningful to follow the organization of the exhibition, to be able to identify which buildings were excluded from the exhibition, or later from the book, starting with the works of the “First National Architectural Movement”.
We can see that two buildings were taken out from the “First National Style 1920-1930” section of the exhibition, that were the Museum of Ethnography and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, both buildings of Arif Hikmet Koyunoğlu (Table 13). However, we can observe that both works found a place in the narratives of Yıldırım Yavuz and Suha Özkan, in the book, which makes it possible to compare their descriptions. In the draft program, we can see that the Museum of Ethnography was briefly explained, by stating that “Originally built to protect and exhibit the holy belongings of S.A.S. The Prophet Mohammad; but used as a museum”.821 In the book, however, we can see that the focus was on the fact that Atatürk was the one who organized and commissioned the building, “as the repository of folk art and culture, the base for his new cultural policy”,822 in addition to the authors pointing out to its
820 The statement is taken from the introduction of Suha Özkan (1982) in the draft program, which was obtained from the Penn Museum Archives. The draft program can be seen in APPENDICES.
821 The statement is taken from the draft program, which was obtained from the Penn Museum Archives and can be seen in APPENDICES.
Here, it is important to note that this was not a published description, and in various sources, which includes a study of Yıldırım Yavuz and an interview with Arif Hikmet Koyunoğlu, it was expressed that the architectural work was originally intended to be an archeological museum. Yavuz, Yıldırım. (1973). Cumhuriyet Dönemi Ankara’sında Mimari Biçim Endişesi. Mimarlık, 11-12 (121-122), 26-44.; Birkan, Güven. & Pehlivanlı, Selçuk. (1977). Mimar Arif Hikmet Koyunoğlu ile Bir Söyleşi. Mimarlık, 1(150), 8-16.
822 Yavuz, Yıldırım. & Özkan, Suha. Finding a National Idiom: The First National Style. In Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press. p.63
343
architectural characteristics. Furthermore, in the book, the transitional aspect of the work was highlighted through its location since it was stated that, “The site for the museum was carefully chosen…a prominent hill halfway between old and new Ankara, as if this repository were meant to be the mediator between tradition and revolution”.823 The description of the next building, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, in the draft program, also underlined the location of the building, since it was expressed that in the background (of the photograph) and on the left “a portion of old Ankara is visible”. The descriptions of the building in the book, on the other hand, mainly defined the architectural characteristics of the architectural work, specifically its monumentalism, which was explained to be “typical” of Arif Hikmet Koyunoğlu’s works, according to Yavuz and Özkan (1984, 62).824
Table 13 – Comparison of Exclusions for the Works of the “First National Architectural Movement” Between Modern Turkish Architecture (1984), Draft and Final Programs of the Photographic Exhibition
Architectural Work
Architect
Year
Modern Turkish Architecture (1984)
Draft Program of the Photographic Exhibition
Final Program of the Photographic Exhibition
Museum of Ethnography
Arif Hikmet Koyunoğlu
1926
Included
Included
Excluded
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Arif Hikmet Koyunoğlu
1927
Included
Included
Excluded
Continuing with the exclusions from “To Be Modern: Search For A Republican Architecture 1930-1940” section, we can see that 9 buildings in the draft program, could not be included in the exhibitions, which are: Military Hotel; Presidential Residence; Ministry of Internal Affairs; and Headquarters of the General Staff, which are all Clemens Holzmeister’s works; Kurukahveci Mehmet Efendi and Sons Building; Eminönü Central Vegetable and Fruit Market; General Directorate of State
823 Yavuz, Yıldırım. & Özkan, Suha. Finding a National Idiom: The First National Style. In Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press. p.63
824 Ibid. p.62
344
Monopolies; Kadıköy People's House; and the Parachute Tower of Izmir (Table 14). Among those buildings, the Military Hotel; Eminönü Central Vegetable and Fruit Market; Kadıköy People's House; and the Parachute Tower of Izmir, was also not included in Afife Batur’s chapter (Table 14). If we look at the descriptions of the remaining buildings in the book, we can see that the General Staff Building (Headquarters of the General Staff) and the Ministry of the Interior (Ministry of Internal Affairs) were among the buildings, that Batur utilized to describe characteristics of Holzmeister’s works;825 whom she defined as the “most powerful architect of the period”, due to the number, scale and nature of his commissions. In Batur’s narrative, Mehmet Efendi Coffee Trade (Mehmet Efendi and Sons Building) was included as one of the examples that utilized Art Deco elements in Istanbul; and the General Directorate of State Monopolies was expressed briefly in terms of following a Holzmeisterian line. In other words, most of the buildings that were excluded from the exhibition, also did not find central places in the narrative of Batur, apart from the Residence of the President (Presidential Residence) that was designed by Clemens Holzmeister. While the description of the building in the draft program, defined the building by pointing to its location next to old Gazi Residence, that was expressed to be renovated by Vedat Tek; and was stated to be “shaped more in accord with modern tendencies”, and was “still confined to a humble lodging, in the book, it was one of the few examples that Batur (1984, 82) highlighted, in which she defined it as “the most Modern work of Holzmeister in Ankara”, while pointing to its architectural characteristics; lack of ornamentation; scale; and its setting.826 Accordingly, it is interesting to see that the building did not take a place in the photographic exhibition.
We can see that 2 buildings were removed from the “New Historicism: The Second National Style 1940-1950” section of the photographic exhibition, that are the Radio House in Istanbul and the Cenap And Residence in Ankara (Table 15). While Üstün
825 Batur, Afife. To Be Modern: Search for A Republican Architecture. In Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press. p.79
826 Ibid. p.82
345
Alsaç included Istanbul Radio among the examples of architectural works, where he calls the architecture of the period as “revivalism”; he does not include the Cenap And Residence, in his chapter, or any other residential works for that matter.827 Ulus Business Complex, is the only building that could not find a place in the exhibition from the “International Style: Liberalism in Turkish Architecture 1950-1960” section, which was not a pivotal work in Mete Tapan’s chapter in the book either, since he included the architectural work among the “important commercial and government buildings” that were designed in the 1950s, by briefly mentioning their architectural characteristics (Table 16).
Table 14 – Comparison of Exclusions for the Works of “Republican Architecture” Between Modern Turkish Architecture (1984), Draft and Final Programs of the Photographic Exhibition
Architectural Work
Architect
Year
Modern Turkish Architecture (1984)
Draft Program of the Photographic Exhibition
Final Program of the Photographic Exhibition
Military Hotel
Clemens Holzmeister
1929-1933
Excluded
Included
Excluded
Presidential Residence
Clemens Holzmeister
1931-1932
Included
Included
Excluded
Ministry of Internal Affairs
Clemens Holzmeister
1932-1934
Included
Included
Excluded
Headquarters of the General Staff
Clemens Holzmeister
1929-1930
Included
Included
Excluded
Kurukahveci Mehmet Efendi and Sons Building
Zühtü Bey
1932
Included
Included
Excluded
Eminönü Central Vegetable and Fruit Market
Municipal Architectural Office
1935
Excluded
Included
Excluded
827 Alsaç, Üstün. The Second Period of National Architecture. In Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press.
346
Table 14 – Comparison of Exclusions for the Works of “Republican Architecture” Between Modern Turkish Architecture (1984), Draft and Final programs of the Photographic Exhibition (Continued)
General Directorate of State Monopolies
Sedad H. Eldem
1937-1938
Included
Included
Excluded
Kadıköy People's House
-828
1938
Excluded
Included
Excluded
Parachute Tower of Izmir
B. Tümay
1938
Excluded
Included
Excluded
Lastly, 8 eight architectural works could not be included from the section of “Pluralism Takes Command: Architectural Scene Between 1960 and the Present”, which are: Hukukçular Housing Block; General Directorate of Mining and Metallurgy Campus; Headquarters of General Directorate of State Highways; Dr. Cezmi Residence; Eminlik Junior High School in Niğde; Odakule Business Center; General Directorate of State Fertilisers Company; and the Construction and Credit Bank Offices. Among these examples, Dr. Cezmi Residence; Eminlik Junior High School; and the General Directorate of State Fertilizers Company, was excluded from the book (Table 17). The first two of these works, Hukukçular Housing Block; and the General Directorate of Mining and Metallurgy Campus, was mainly handled together in Yücel’s narrative (1984, 128), since they were expressed to “maintain the general lines of the International Style, while introducing new concepts”.829 While, Hukukçular Apartments were stated to introduce “Le Corbusier’s Unité d’Habitation concept with its morphological elements”; MTA complex was defined as “more faithful to the Modern Movement tradition”, rendering a complex and different interpretation of the
828 The architect of Kadıköy People's House was not included in the draft program of the photographic exhibition, as it can be seen in APPENDICES. The architect of the building was Rüknettin Güney, whose project won the first place in the architectural competition that was opened for its design (Berber, 2010).
829 Yücel, Atilla. Pluralism Takes Command: The Turkish Architectural Scene Today. In Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press. p.128
347
International Style.830 It can be seen that the descriptions of Hukukçular Apartments in the draft program of the exhibition portrayed a similar image, since it was described to be a “housing block shaped along with the aspirations of miniaturized deviations extracted from Unité d'Habitation by Le Corbusier”.831 On the other hand, the descriptions of the General Directorate of Mining and Metallurgy Campus in the draft program, differed from the book, as it did not outline the architectural characteristics of the building, and rather emphasized its connections with educational and research organizations, which can be argued to fit the idea of progress in the entirety of the representation.832
Table 15 – Comparison of Exclusions for the Works of “Second National Architectural Movement” Between Modern Turkish Architecture (1984), Draft and Final programs of the Photographic Exhibition
Architectural Work
Architect
Year
Modern Turkish Architecture (1984)
Draft Program of the Photographic Exhibition
Final Program of the Photographic Exhibition
Radio House
İsmail Utkular, Doğan Erginbaş, Ömer Günay
1945
Included
Included
Excluded
Cenap And Residence
Emin Onat
1950
Excluded
Included
Excluded
830 Yücel, Atilla. Pluralism Takes Command: The Turkish Architectural Scene Today. In Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press. p.128
831 The statement is taken from the draft program, which was obtained from the Penn Museum Archives and can be seen in APPENDICES.
832 Ibid.
348
Table 16 – Comparison of Exclusions for the Works of “International Style” Between Modern Turkish Architecture (1984), Draft and Final Programs of the Photographic Exhibition
Architectural Work
Architect
Year
Modern Turkish Architecture (1984)
Draft Program of the Photographic Exhibition
Final Program of the Photographic Exhibition
Ulus Business Complex
Orhan Bolak, Orhan Bozkurt, Gazanfer Beken
1955
Included
Included
Excluded
Table 17 – Comparison of Exclusions for the Works of “Pluralism in Architecture” Between Modern Turkish Architecture (1984), Draft and Final Programs of the Photographic Exhibition
Architectural Work
Architect
Year
Modern Turkish Architecture (1984)
Draft Program of the Photographic Exhibition
Final Program of the Photographic Exhibition
Hukukçular Housing Block
Haluk Baysal, Melih Birsel
1961
Included
Included
Excluded
General Directorate of Mining and Metallurgy Campus
Rahmi Bediz, Demirtaş Kamçıl
1962-1968
Included
Included
Excluded
Headquarters of General Directorate of State Highways
Fikret Cankut, Aktan Okan
1964-1970
Included
Included
Excluded
Dr. Cezmi Residence
Nezih Eldem
1965-1970
Excluded
Included
Excluded
Eminlik Junior High School
Ahmet Gülgönen
1967
Excluded
Included
Excluded
Odakule Business Center
Kaya Tecimen
1972
Included
Included
Excluded
349
Table 17 – Comparison of Exclusions for the Works of “Pluralism in Architecture” Between Modern Turkish Architecture (1984), Draft and Final Programs of the Photographic Exhibition (Continued)
General Directorate of State Fertilisers Company
Erdoğan Elmas, Zafer Gülçür, Ertur Yener
1977-1980
Excluded
Included
Excluded
Construction and Credit Bank Offices
Neşet Arolat, Şaziment Arolat
1981
Included
Included
Excluded
The next architectural work, that was not in the photographic exhibition, Headquarters of General Directorate of State Highways, was handled together with three other buildings in the book, The Agricultural Products Office; the Directorate of State Highways Guest Center; and the Middle East Technical University, Faculty of Architecture, which were expressed to carry a dualism “between the free articulation of volumes and the conventional interpretation of surfaces of the old International style”, whose coherence was defined as a “so-called New Brutalism”, and according to Yücel (1984, 133) even though the term has different references, in the “Turkish case”, it is possible to refer to “Team 10, Kahn and Japanese inspirations and perhaps the Swiss Atelier 5 Group”.833 In the draft program of the exhibition program, we can also see that the building was described through its architectural characteristics, that includes “appropriate orientation, human scale, simple straight-forward detailing and non-existence of auxiliary make-up”, with the exception of the “references” that played a role in the formation of the architectural ideology behind the building.834
Regarding the last two buildings that were planned to be included but couldn’t, in the exhibition, the Odakule Business Center; and the Construction and Credit Bank Offices (Yapı Kredi Bankası Osmanbey Building), we can see that descriptions in the
833 Yücel, Atilla. Pluralism Takes Command: The Turkish Architectural Scene Today. In Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press. p.133
834 The statement is taken from the draft program, which was obtained from the Penn Museum Archives and can be seen in APPENDICES.
350
book, were also short architectural descriptions, pointing to different interpretations of International Style. In that sense, Odakule Business Center, which had a page-size photograph in Atilla Yücel’s narrative, was among the examples that were viewed as a symbol of “national economy and of the building industry”, through its “imposing” size that creates a monumentality, where “very expensive building materials” was used in its construction.835 In the draft program, on the other hand, the architectural work, which was stated to brutally pierce the “soft Istanbul skyline with arrogant disrespect”, was contrasted with the site of the building, that was described as “Beyoğlu’s (Pera) nineteenth century environment”.836
If we look at the evaluations for the Construction and Credit Bank Offices (Yapı Kredi Bankası Osmanbey Building), we can see that the reflective colored window frames were highlighted in both descriptions, however, while the exhibition underlined the location of the architectural work, and portrayed its image by stating that “Istanbul reflects itself by reflecting back”;837 in the book, the “ornamented profile of the fluted circular columns” was part of its definitions.838 Indeed, the building was included among the architectural works of the period that Yücel grouped under the “Search for a Historical Basis”, which had “convenient and coherent vocabulary”, that related them to the “historic milieu”.839 The mentioned architectural works that were included in Atilla Yücel’s chapter, but could not be included in the photographic exhibition, can be argued to have rather short descriptions, and were mostly utilized to exemplify
835 Yücel, Atilla. Pluralism Takes Command: The Turkish Architectural Scene Today. In Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press. p.137
836 The statement is taken from the draft program, which was obtained from the Penn Museum Archives and can be seen in APPENDICES.
837 Ibid.
838 Ibid. p.140
839 Ibid. p.139
351
different interpretations of the “International Style”, in addition to showing the pluralistic architectural environment in the period.
The look on these architectural works that were intended to be included as part of the representation in the photographic exhibition, but couldn’t due to technical issues and lack of space, and its comparison with their inclusions in the narrative/s of Modern Turkish Architecture (1984), showed that they were mostly architectural works being used to further emphasize specific notions, such as the architectural tendencies within a period; or cultural, educational, and economic activities, rather than being pivotal examples, around which the narrative/s were formed. However, there were examples that were treated differently in the draft program of the exhibition and the narrative/s of the book, such as the Residence of the President, which was among the rather detailed architectural works in Batur’s narrative; the General Directorate of Mining and Metallurgy Campus, whose education and research related aspects were highlighted in the draft program; or the Construction and Credit Bank Offices, whose historical associations were emphasized in the book, but not in the draft program of the exhibition.
Here, we may also look at the architectural works that were included in the photographic exhibition but were excluded from the narratives of Modern Turkish Architecture (1984), to question, if they were not compatible with the image of the past being constructed. We can see that three architectural works from the “Finding A National Idiom: The First National Style 1920-1930” section, that are Railroad Station at Gazi Çiftliği; National Movie Theater in Izmir; and the Ottoman Bank Headquarters, were not included in Yıldırım Yavuz and Suha Özkan’s narrative (Table 18). Furthermore, Theodor Jost’s Ministry of Health building, which was treated as a transitional work in the program that signified “the new architectural image and a new strategy for Ankara”,840 was included in Afife Batur’s narrative, rather than among the works of the “First National Style”.
840 The phrase is taken from the exhibition program, which was obtained from the Penn Museum Archives, that can be seen in APPENDICES.
352
Table 18 – Comparison of Exclusions for the Works of “First National Architectural Movement” Between Modern Turkish Architecture (1984) and the Photographic Exhibition
Architectural Work
Architect
Year
Modern Turkish Architecture (1984)
The Photographic Exhibition
Railroad Station at Gazi Çiftliği
A. Burhanettin Tamcı
1926
Excluded
Included
National Movie Theater
Tahsin Sermet
1926
Excluded
Included
Ottoman Bank Headquarters
Guilio Mongeri
1926
Excluded
Included
If we continue with the works that were included in the exhibition, in “To Be Modern: Search for A Republican Architecture 1930-1940” section, we can see that the buildings of the Supreme Court of Appeal; Girls Vocational School for Further Education; and the Central Station Night Club was excluded from Afife Batur’s narrative (Table 19). Furthermore, we see that the National Exhibition House, which was later converted into the Opera House, found place in Üstün Alsaç’s chapter, as previously discussed. We can observe that all the architectural works from the “New Historicism: The Second National Style 1940-1950” section of the exhibition, was included in Üstün Alsaç’s chapter. Similarly, all the works from “International Style: Liberalism in Turkish Architecture 1950-1960” section, were included in Mete Tapan’s narrative, with the exception of the photograph on the “Airview of Istanbul”. From the last section of the exhibition, “Pluralism Takes Command: Architectural Scene Between 1960 and the Present”, we see that the buildings of the Istanbul Chamber of Commerce; Residence of Ambassador of India; Atatürk Cultural Center in Istanbul; Hacettepe University Cafeteria; Güleryüz House; State Petro-Chemical Industries Headquarters; the Office Building at Karaköy; and the Alarko Offices, were not included in Atilla Yücel’s chapter (Table 20).
353
Table 19 – Comparison of Exclusions for the Works of “Republican Architecture” Between Modern Turkish Architecture (1984) and the Photographic Exhibition
Architectural Work
Architect
Year
Modern Turkish Architecture (1984)
The Photographic Exhibition
Supreme Court of Appeal
Clemens Holzmeister
1933-1936
Excluded
Included
Girls Vocational School for Further Education
Ministry of Education Architects
1930
Excluded
Included
Central Station Night Club
Şekip Akalın
1935-1937
Excluded
Included
Table 20 – Comparison of Exclusions for the Works of “Pluralism in Architecture” Between Modern Turkish Architecture (1984) and the Photographic Exhibition
Architectural Work
Architect
Year
Modern Turkish Architecture (1984)
The Photographic Exhibition
Istanbul Chamber of Commerce
Orhan Şahinler
1963
Excluded
Included
Residence of Ambassador of India
Sedad H. Eldem
1965
Excluded
Included
Atatürk Cultural Center
Hayati Tabanlıoğlu
1965-1970
Excluded
Included
Hacettepe University Cafeteria
Eren Boran
1969
Excluded
Included
Güleryüz House
M. Yıldırım Yavuz
1973
Excluded
Included
State Petro-Chemical Industries Headquarters
Edip Önder Us, Yüksel Erdemir
1975-1978
Excluded
Included
354
Table 20 – Comparison of Exclusions for the Works of “Pluralism in Architecture” Between Modern Turkish Architecture (1984) and the Photographic Exhibition (Continued)
Office Building at Karaköy
Günay Çilingiroğlu
1977
Excluded
Included
Alarko Offices
Sedad H. Eldem
1980
Excluded
Included
An overview of these “exclusions” shows that, most of these architectural works, were not included in future architectural history writings that surveyed different periods of architectural production in Turkey, even though some of them found places in the monographs of architects, or studies that focus on specific periods. In other words, most of these works, did not became an inherent part of the architectural history canon of Turkey. In that sense, we can say that two of those buildings, the Ottoman Bank Headquarters in Ankara; and the Atatürk Cultural Center in Istanbul, differs from the other “exclusions”, since we can see them in many architectural history books and studies that were published afterwards.
The next “exclusion” from the narrative/s of Modern Turkish Architecture (1984), that should be discussed here, is the obvious lack of women architects and their works. According to Erkarslan (2007, 556), “Architectural historiography systematically overlooked the works of women architects for many years, not only in Turkey, but also in the Anglo-Saxon world”, which she views as an emblem of the patriarchy in architectural history, as well as in architecture profession.841 Even though architectural journals such as Mimar, began to include women architect’s works in their articles, as early as in the 1930s, the major architectural history books that were published in the 1970s, and the 1980s, including Modern Turkish Architecture (1984),842 excluded
841 Erkarslan Erdoğdu, Özlem. (2007). Turkish Women Architects in the Late Ottoman and Early Republican Era, 1908–1950. Women’s History Review, 16(4), 555-575.
842 Among these books we can count, Metin Sözen and Mete Tapan’s 50 Yılın Türk Mimarisi (1973), Üstün Alsaç’s Türkiye’deki Mimarlık Düşüncesinin Cumhuriyet Dönemindeki Evrimi (1976), İnci Aslanoğlu’s Erken Cumhuriyet Dönemi Mimarlığı (1980); Metin Sözen’s Cumhuriyet Dönemi Türk Mimarlığı 1923-1983 (1984).
355
these works, despite the contributions of women in the field of architecture. Here, it is important to remind that, in her narrative, Afife Batur (1984, 86) mentions the inclusion of works of women architects by stating that, “In this period843 the designs of the first women architects also started to appear in Arkitekt: Münevver Belen and Leman Tomsu, also a professor. They are principally known as the architects of People’s Houses”,844 which is thought to be a reference to Gerede People’s House project (Figure 59). Despite these statements, we do not see any of their works being included in the narrative of Batur, even though strong associations between the “official ideology” of the 1930s, and People’s Houses could be constructed, since through these buildings, it was aimed to spread arts; culture; and sciences, while also providing a place for social gatherings.
Figure 59 - Gerede People's House Project, Münevver Belen & Leman Tomsu. Source: Arkitekt. (1936). Gerede Halkevi Projesi. 12(72), 330-332. From: http://dergi.mo.org.tr/dergiler/2/140/1703.pdf
843 Here Afife Batur refers to the second phase of architectural works in the 1930s, according to her organization, which covers the timeframe between 1933 and 1938.
844 Batur, Afife. To Be Modern: Search for A Republican Architecture. In Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press. p.86
356
Here it is important to note that, we can see that some of the collaborative works of women architects, such as Middle East Technical University Auditorium; or the Middle East Technical University, Faculty of Architecture, both of them being works of Altuğ and Behruz Çinici, were included in the narratives of the book. We can observe that a similar approach, in that sense, also existed in the photographic exhibition, since three architectural works, which are Middle East Technical University, Faculty of Architecture; Middle East Technical University, Faculty Housing; and Construction and Credit Bank Offices, that were intended to be in the event had women architects, who were collaborating with men. We can see that the former two, designed by Altuğ and Behruz Çinici, were included in the exhibition, while the Construction and Credit Bank Offices, designed by Şaziment and Neşet Arolat, was among the works that were left out.
Even though, publications after the 1990s began to incorporate works of women architects in their texts, with the influences of gender studies,845 as well as started to question this imbalance, it can be seen that canonical writings of architectural history of Turkey, continued to overlook the contributions of women in the field of architecture, who began their practices as early as the 1930s and competed with their colleagues. According to Erkarslan (2007, 571), “The gender discrimination that Turkish women architects faced historically was not a direct refusal to admit them to the profession”, since the status of woman in society was part of the secular state image after the proclamation of the republic.846 Therefore, it is interesting to see that architectural history writings, specifically the ones that draw parallels between ideologies and architectural production, did not utilize works of women architects, and decided to leave out their contributions to the field. Here, we might add that creating “alternative” histories on the works of women architects, should not be viewed as the only solution to this imbalance, since the evaluation of their works through a gender-specific categorization, might be separating them from the context; which may not
845 Erkarslan Erdoğdu, Özlem. (2007). Turkish Women Architects in the Late Ottoman and Early Republican Era, 1908–1950. Women’s History Review, 16(4), 555-575.
846 Ibid. p.571
357
convey the complex relations of architectural production in various periods, and settings.847 Furthermore, this categorization might cause the isolation of women architects from mainstream discussions, since a difference between men and women architects would be constructed.848 Instead, Willis (1998) suggests that the study on the works of women architects, should be critical history, and history should be reconceptualized by incorporating broader understanding of architects, which can be achieved through changes in architectural history education.849
The last “exclusion” to be mentioned here from the narrative/s of Modern Turkish Architecture (1984), is the absence of religious architectural works, as a building type. Religious architectural works, which are often viewed as “sacred” spaces, can be defined as places of worshipping, that are categorized within themselves, such as mosques; churches; synagogues; or temples. Religious architectural works, by their definition, has associations with religious identities, which are constructed in relation to various other aspects, such as cultural, social, or ethnic differences. In that sense, we can, for example, view differences between Islamic identity in the Ottoman Empire; in Turkey; or in other places of the world, which may carry diverse meanings within themselves as well, depending on the period; ideologies; or different groups. Accordingly, “Islamic architecture”, that has been utilized in Eurocentric architectural histories, or other religious architectures, should not be understood as a fixed and homogenous category, since diverse interpretations of that religious identity and architecture were formed in different times, spaces, and cultures.
Looking at Modern Turkish Architecture (1984), we can see that religious architectural works were incorporated only in Yıldırım Yavuz and Suha Özkan’s first chapter in the book, “The Final Years of the Ottoman Empire”, where three mosques of the “First
847 Willis, Julie. (1998). Invisible Contributions: The Problem of History and Women Architects. Architectural Theory Review, 3(2), 57-68.
848 Ibid.
849 Ibid.
358
National Style” were described, even though it was mentioned that other mosques were built as well, in that period. We can see that one of them, was the small mosque that was attached to the rear of the Sirkeci Railroad Station, that was designed by Vedat Tek, dated 1909; while the remaining two were the works of Kemalettin Bey, that were, the Bebek Mosque (Istanbul, 1913); and the Mosque of Kamer Hatun (Istanbul, 1912).850 In their narrative, we may observe that Yavuz and Özkan (1984) pointed to the architectural characteristics of these three mosques, while also making comparisons with the early Ottoman mosque schemes, as a way to highlight the differences of approach in the design of the mosque, in the early stages of the “First National Style”. Besides, we may also see that they utilized these changes in mosque architecture, to comment on the change of the society. This can best be seen in the descriptions of the Mosque of Kamer Hatun, where Yavuz and Özkan (1984, 46), after explaining why the building fit among the works of the “First National Style”, states the following: “Juxtaposed against its towering neighbors, this small but ostentatious facade is symptomatic of the diminished role of religion among the cosmopolitan segments of Ottoman society”.851 In other words, the authors pointed to social changes within a group, by utilizing architectural characteristics of a building type that they contrasted with its earlier forms and schemes, during an era of transition, between the empire and the republic.
Even though some mosques were mentioned in relation to the location or settings of other architectural works, no other mosques, or other religious buildings were included within the narrative/s, except for Kocatepe Mosque in Ankara, that was mentioned by İlhan Tekeli in his thematic chapter. In relation to the impact of conservative circles on mosque design in the post-1960s, Tekeli (1984, 30), stated that, “They succeeded in supplanting the initial modernistic design of the Kocatepe Mosque in Ankara with
850 Yavuz, Yıldırım. & Özkan, Suha. The Final Years of the Ottoman Empire. In Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press.
851 Ibid. p.46
359
a copy of an Ottoman mosque”,852 relating the ideologies of the conservative groups to religious architecture. Reminding that the “Final Years of the Ottoman Empire” was excluded from the exhibition, we can observe that no religious associations were shown through photographs there, as well. According to Baer (2004, 685), “Secular nation-states seek to liberate individuals from group loyalties and religious identities and remake them as conscious individuals who freely choose to be part of the nation”.853 Since the narrative/s of Modern Turkish Architecture (1984), portrays the “transformation” of Turkey, after the proclamation of the republic, where “an attempt was made to break all association with the past”,854 which was expressed to encompass a break with the heritage of the Ottoman Empire, but also with its religious identity, we may interpret that the associations of religious buildings, specifically mosques, were incompatible with the secular image of the nation-state, that was being represented throughout the book, and was therefore left out.
An overview of “exclusions” in Modern Turkish Architecture (1984), and in the photographic exhibition on Contemporary Architecture in Turkey, 1920-1980, shows that, the constructions of the representations of the past relied on the decisions of what was excluded, as much as, what was included. Among these “exclusions”, we can see that the treatment of housing as a separate subject in the book, and its limited inclusion in the photographic exhibition, constructed an image that highlights the “developing” and “transforming” aspects of Turkey after the proclamation of the republic, which mainly utilized governmental; institutional; social; cultural; and educational architectural works. The included/ excluded architectural works, contributed to the canonical history of architecture, by attributing a “value” to them that was based on
852 Tekeli, Ilhan. The Social Context of the Development of Architecture in Turkey. In Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press. p.30
853 Baer, Marc. (2004). The Double Bind of Race and Religion: The Conversion of the Dönme to Turkish Secular Nationalism. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 46(4), 682-708. p.685
854 Yavuz, Yıldırım. & Özkan, Suha. Finding a National Idiom: The First National Style. In Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press. p.51
360
their ideological; social; cultural; and “symbolic” meanings. Lastly, we saw that religious buildings, due to their associations with the past, “Ottoman Empire”; as well as with “Islamic identity”, were left out, as they did not correspond to the constructed image of the republic. However, we can argue that the exclusion of women architects’ works, or we may say very limited inclusion of them, was not a decision related to the representation, since women architects began their practice in the 1930s, which continued growingly in different periods, rather, it can be viewed as part of the “tradition” of architectural history writing, in which historical writings overlooked or even ignored their contributions to the field.
5.3. Modern Turkish Architecture (1984) in Architectural Historiography of Turkey
The last point that should be included before the conclusion, is the place of Modern Turkish Architecture (1984), in the architectural historiography of Turkey. In doing so, we may first look at the reviews of Modern Turkish Architecture (1984), to understand how it was received by the audience. Here, we may first mention Suha Özkan’s “A New Introduction for Modern Turkish Architecture”, that was published in the 2005 edition of the book that also found a place as a review in METU Journal of the Faculty of Architecture, which gave insight regarding the photographic exhibition and the seminar, while also looking back at how the first publication of the book functioned.855 In that text, we can see that, Özkan (2007, 181), looks back and expresses that what they did in 1984, was informing the “wider international audience” on the architectural production in Turkey, by situating it within its national, economic, and social contexts.856 There, he also states that, the book is still relevant, in the early 2000s, as “there is not a better, more up-to-date and more profound monograph on
855 Özkan, Suha. (2007). Modern Turkish Architecture: A New Introduction for Modern Turkish Architecture. METU Journal of the Faculty of Architecture, 2, 179-185.
856 Ibid. p.181
361
modern Turkish architecture”.857 Indeed, we can see there are various books that are very important for the architectural historiography of Turkey, however, their scope is often limited to specific periods, or subjects, which highlights the significance of Modern Turkish Architecture (1984), as well as its later editions in 2005 and 2007, both published by the Chamber of Architects of Turkey.
In addition to Suha Özkan’s review, and/or introduction, looking back at the publication in 1984, we can see that the book had six significant reviews, four of them written for the first edition (1984) in the 1980s, and two of them, for the second (2005),858 and third (2007)859 editions of the book. In the reviews of the book, we see that Modern Turkish Architecture (1984) is mostly praised for being a pioneer study written in English on the subject; for being well documented and visualized; and also for the approaches of authors, whom evaluated the architectural production in different periods, by situating them within their contextual settings.860
There are also some criticisms towards the book in these reviews, on several topics. According to Mehmet Doruk Pamir (1986, 374), who views the book as a solid contribution that surpasses “chronological documentation of a specific society’s architecture”; and demonstrates a methodology to study and evaluate architecture, the chapters dealing with the 1960s and 1970s in Modern Turkish Architecture (1984),
857 Özkan, Suha. (2007). Modern Turkish Architecture: A New Introduction for Modern Turkish Architecture. METU Journal of the Faculty of Architecture, 2, 179-185. p.181
858 Holod, Renata., Evin, Ahmet. & Özkan, Suha. (2005). Modern Turkish Architecture. Chamber of Architects of Turkey. (The second edition).
859 Holod, Renata., Evin, Ahmet. & Özkan, Suha. (2007). Modern Türk Mimarlığı. TMMOB. (The third edition).
860 Akın, Günkut. (2006). Yayin Değerlendirme: 20. Yüzyıl Türkiye Mimarlığı Üzerine. Mimarlık, 328.; Denel, Bilgi M. (1985). Modern Turkish Architecture. Design Book Review, Summer 1985; Köseoğlu, Emine. (2010). Book Reviews. Planning Perspectives, 25(3), 391-394.; Pamir, Mehmet Doruk. (1986). Modern Turkish Architecture. Middle East Journal, 40(2), 374.; Arel, Ayda. (1986). Yayın Tanıtma. Mimarlık, 221(2), 49-51.; Hubbard, William. (1985). Reviewed by William Hubbard. Architectural Record, June 1985.
362
miss an investigation on “the negative influence of government-sponsored competitions”, which according to Pamir, may be seen as “impositions of a narrow outlook and a political agenda by the government bureaucracy”.861 Here, it should be noted that, Atilla Yücel (1984, 121) points to the government-sponsored competitions, held by Ministry of Public Works, or by other governmental offices, and expresses these competitions often produced “insignificant results” due to the “limitations of competition regulations”, even though this aspect of the period is not very detailed.862
In another review, Ayda Arel (1986), before outlining the contents of each essay, expresses that the prominent feature of this book is not separating the development phases of the twentieth century architecture of Turkey from the construction phases of the Turkish Republic, by carrying a highly comprehensive and theoretical approach to the subject.863 Similarly, Bilgi Denel (1985, 61), who views Modern Turkish Architecture (1984), as a well-researched and documented book that provides a necessary background, expresses that “a few more architectural drawings and possibly some spatial analysis would have made the book richer”.864 Furthermore, he states that the book would have been the definitive work in English, if there were additional essays on “religious architecture, urbanization, and the vernacular”.865
We may also look at William Hubbard’s review of 1985, which is the last review on the 1984 publication, in which he evaluates two different books in an intertwined way,
861 Pamir, Mehmet Doruk. (1986). Modern Turkish Architecture. Middle East Journal, 40(2), 374. p.374
862 Yücel, Atilla. Pluralism Takes Command: The Turkish Architectural Scene Today. In Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press. p.121
863 Arel, Ayda. (1986). Yayın Tanıtma. Mimarlık, 221(2), 49-51. p.50
864 Denel, Bilgi, M. (1985). M. Bilgi Denel: Modern Turkish Architecture. Design Book Review, Summer 1985, 60-61. p.61
865 Ibid. p.61
363
one of them being Modern Turkish Architecture (1984). According to Hubbard (1985), both books examine the “exotic”, “Islamic” architecture, which provides us insight regarding how he, as well as some people, approached the subject as an outsider in the 1980s.866 While Hubbard dislikes the visuals in both works, as he states that they do not help the “unseen significance” of the included works, since they are “snapshot-quality, black-and-white photographs”, he thinks, books pose interesting questions, specifically in terms of the ideas on “regional architecture”, as he relates it to the regional differences of architecture in the United States.867 Even though Hubbard expresses that Modern Turkish Architecture (1984) focuses “less on Islamic issues and more on Turkey’s particular conditions and recent history”, his conceptions of placing architecture of Turkey, as a category under “Islamic Architecture”, is visible in his review, which can be understood as a homogenizing approach that does not view a difference between architectural productions of different cultures.868
In a later review from 2006, Günkut Akın, points to the holistic approach in the writing of Modern Turkish Architecture (1984), which he highlights by pointing out that authors evaluate the architectural production in each period in relation to history; economy; society; and politics, in different periods, providing a complete structure.869 On the other hand, he also mentions the constrained uses of Turkish sources, which according to him, does not mean the writings have a reductionist or limited approach, but rather shows the boundaries of systematic architectural knowledge in Turkey, at the time they were written.870 In the last review, that should be mentioned here, Emine
866 Hubbard, William. (1985). Reviewed by William Hubbard. Architectural Record, June 1985.
The other book reviewed in the same article is Architecture and Community: Building in the Islamic World Today (1983), which is edited by Renata Holod and Darl Rastorfer.
867 Ibid. p.95
868 Ibid. p.95
869 Akın, Günkut. (2006). Yayin Değerlendirme: 20. Yüzyıl Türkiye Mimarlığı Üzerine. Mimarlık, 328.
870 Ibid.
364
Köseoğlu (2010), who also points to the limitedness in the use of references, expresses that the book fluctuates between a “broad guide of buildings of the era”, and “an arena of theoretical discussions”, which she believes are not achieved separately or fully, with some exceptions.871 Lastly, she argues that the book needs an architectural layout of cities for international readers, who are not aware of the geographical context of the mentioned buildings.872
Considering these reviews, it is possible to state that Modern Turkish Architecture (1984) addressed the need of an international publication on the architectural production of Turkey, specifically in a time when there were not many books in Turkish, covering a more encompassing timeframe of architectural production. Another significance of the book, can be stated as its approach to the subject, since there were not many studies at the time constructing relations between architecture of Turkey, and the contexts in which they were built in. In other words, the book became an influential source, or a handbook, for national and international scholars working on the subject, which can be understood as one of the reasons why the book came to have such an importance.
Accordingly, we may observe that the circulation of the book extended and multiplied, reaching national and international readers; academics; as well as students. According to Gürel and Anthony (2006, 66), “Architectural history books play a significant role in conveying the culture, norms, and values the architectural discipline to newcomers”.873 In that sense, we may observe the importance of Modern Turkish Architecture (1984) have raised over the years, since it is being used as a textbook for
871 Köseoğlu, Emine. (2010). Book Reviews. Planning Perspectives, 25(3), 391-394. p.392
872 Ibid. p.392
873 Gürel, Meltem, Ö. & Anthony, Kathryn, H. (2006). The Canon and the Void: Gender, Race, and Architectural History Texts. Journal of Architectural Education, 59(3), 66-76.
365
architectural history courses in national and international universities,874 and as it became a valuable source for further studies.875 In other words, the audience of the book multiplied through its inclusion in academic works, and it played a role in the raising of the younger professionals, while carrying a specific representation of the past that focus on the architectural production in Turkey, that was constructed in the 1980s, as well as carrying the discourses that were produced to our current times and beyond.
Before looking at the later books on the subject, it is considered significant to remind that the second and third editions of Modern Turkish Architecture (1984) were published as two set volumes, which included Modern Turkish Architecture (1984), and a consecutive book on the architectural production; profession; and discourse on Turkey, titled, Architecture in Turkey Around 2000: Issues in Discourse and Practice,
874 Among the universities and courses that use Modern Turkish Architecture (1984) as a textbook or a sourcebook, we may mention the following: University of Pennsylvania, Penn History of Art, ARTH 217 Visual Culture of the Islamic World.; Middle East Technical University, History of Architecture, AH544 Arch.Hist. Research Studio: Modern Capital.; Princeton University, Department of Near Eastern Studies, Islam, Empire, and Modernity: Turkey from the Caliphs to the21st Century. (Seminar Course in Summer Program with Kadir Has University, 2011); Yıldız Technical University, Department of Architecture, MIM4101 Modern Architectural Heritage; İzmir University of Economics, Department of Architecture, ARCH561 Modern Architectural Culture in Turkey; Eastern Mediterranean University, Department of Translation and Interpretation, HIST303 World Cultures – I (Art/Literature/Philosophy).
The courses and universities that use Modern Turkish Architecture (1984) are not limited to the ones mentioned here. The mentioned courses shared their syllabus or the information in their official website, which were all accessed on 18.01.2021.
875 Among the books, which uses Modern Turkish Architecture (1984) as one of the studies they reference, following can be mentioned: Bozdoğan, Sibel. (2001). Modernism and Nation Building: Turkish Architectural Culture in the Early Republic. University of Washington Press.; Çelik, Zeynep. (1993). The Remaking of Istanbul: Portrait of an Ottoman City in the Nineteenth Century. University of California Press.; Isenstadt, Sandy. & Rizvi, Kishwar. (2008). Modernism and the Middle East: Architecture and Politics in the Twentieth Century. University of Washington Press.; Bozdoğan, Sibel. & Kasaba, Reşat. (1997). Rethinking Modernity and National Identity in Turkey. University of Washington Press.; Bozdoğan, Sibel. & Akcan, Esra. (2012). Turkey: Modern Architectures in History. Reaktion Books.; Akcan, Esra. (2012). Architecture in Translation: Germany, Turkey, & The Modern House. Duke University Press.; Gürel, Meltem, Ö. (2016). Mid-Century Modernism in Turkey: Architecture Across Cultures in the 1950s and 1960s. Routledge.; Batur, Afife. (2005). A Concise History: Architecture in Turkey During the 20th Century. Chamber of Architects of Turkey.; Bozdoğan, Sibel., Özkan, Suha. & Yenal, Engin. (2005). Sedad Eldem Architect in Turkey. Literatür. 1987, 1989, 2005.
The books that reference Modern Turkish Architecture (1984) are not limited to the ones mentioned here. These were selected as well-known examples to highlight the circulation of Modern Turkish Architecture (1984).
366
which was edited by Tansel Korkmaz, and had contributions by important scholars on the subject, “a new generation of critics”,876 who were, Ali Kural; Ali Cengizkan; Deniz Güner; B. Deniz Çalış Kural; Cemal Emden; Zeynep Mennan; İhsan Bilgin; Elvan Altan Ergut; Belgin Turan Özkaya; and lasty, Atilla Yücel, whom also had a chapter in the first volume, as discussed. It can be seen that the book, picked up where Modern Turkish Architecture (1984) had left in terms of the period, with the attempt to “draw the map of the rough outlines of the main issues of Turkey’s architectural discourse and practice in the 21st century”, as Tansel Korkmaz expresses.877
The book, Architecture in Turkey Around 2000: Issues in Discourse and Practice, has a significantly different approach compared to Modern Turkish Architecture (1984), since its organization is not based on the “stylistic” movements or periods, rather, it points out to “fundamental problematics”,878 which are evaluated through specific cases, and therefore, cannot only be seen as an evaluation of the architectural production after the 1980s in a continuous and chronological manner. In other words, what the book aimed to accomplish, which may be described as an evaluation and interrogation of the problematics of architectural production in discourse and practice in Turkey, which highlights the changes in the architectural historiography of Turkey, in terms of its change of focus. While we may see that some of the issues and themes related to Modern Turkish Architecture (1984) was also discussed in this secondary volume, a discussion on them is not constructed in this thesis, since the timeframe covered in Architecture in Turkey Around 2000: Issues in Discourse and Practice, differs from the first volume.
876 Özkan, Suha. (2007). Modern Turkish Architecture: A New Introduction for Modern Turkish Architecture. METU Journal of the Faculty of Architecture, 2, 179-185. p.182
877 Korkmaz, Tansel. (2007). Architecture in Turkey Around 2000: Issues in Discourse and Practice. METU Journal of the Faculty of Architecture, 2, 185-191. p.188
878 Ibid. p.188
367
Here, it is important to state that, there are not many books that surveyed as many periods of architectural production as Modern Turkish Architecture (1984), as Suha Özkan pointed out to state that this made the book still relevant in its second (2005) and third publications (2007). However, there were many books published after 1980s that focused on specific timeframes, especially on the “Early Republican Period”, as well as on specific subjects, such as monographs of architects; residential architecture/s; on the architectural production in specific cities; or on specific problematics. Düzenli (2009) explains that this change in the architectural historiography of Turkey is related with the integration capacities of architectural historians, which were raised in the 2000s, which he expresses only became possible after the “institutionalization” of architecture, leading to an autonomic field of architecture, and autonomous architects, allowing architectural history to become an autonomous field, as well.879 According to Düzenli (2009), this shift in architectural history, enabled a change in “monist” and “selective” writings, which did not fully grasp the problematics of their scope in a holistic manner, and accordingly, new approaches could be formulated, that could focus on different problematics and discussions as their objects, in addition to architectural works, and their place, settings, and contexts.880 We can observe that these studies were enriched by the earlier works on architectural history of Turkey, as they provided a repertoire of historiographical materials;881 such as different discourses; types; or thematics, that could be questioned and discussed through new perspectives.
We may point out to some of the prominent examples of these different approaches to architectural history writing in Turkey, starting with Sibel Bozdoğan’s, Modernism and Nation Building: Turkish Architectural Culture in the Early Republic (2001), which explores the connections between nation building processes and architecture,
879 Düzenli, Halil İbrahim. (2009). Fiziksel İnşadan Metinsel İnşaya: Türkiye’de Mimarlık Tarihi ve Tarihçiliğinin Serüveni. Türkiye Araştırmaları Literatür Dergisi, 7(13), 11-49.
880 Ibid.
881 Ibid.
368
highlighting the representational aspects of architectural works, alongside other representational practices that contributed/ or functioned in connection with the “modernist” vision of the nation-state, in the first half of the twentieth century in Turkey.882 It can be seen that both “modernism” and “nationalism” are significant themes in Bozdoğan’s study, however, we see that she elaborates on the different meanings and interpretations of both notions, as she questions them, and explores their relations with the architectural practice in Turkey.883
Another study that underlines the relations between the nation state and architectural production, as well as its setting, is Zeynep Kezer’s book, Building Modern Turkey: State Space and Ideology in the Early Republic (2015), underlining the “creative” and “destructive” forces that played a role in the “transition” from a “multiethnic” and “multireligious” empire, to a “modern unitary nation-state”.884 Here too, we may see the addressing of problematics related with “nationalism”; “national identity”; and the processes of “modernization”. In addition to that it can be seen that “city/s” as a theme, takes an important place in Kezer’s study since one of her chapters is focused on Ankara, as the “Political Capital”, and the way it was made in to a “new” city, through which a new “national” and “political” identity was constructed, alongside a “modern way of life”.885 If we look at Bozdoğan and Kezer’s studies, we can see that both studies evaluate the architectural production in Turkey, by constructing a framework for the “Early Republican Period”, while discussing the ideologies of the period in relation to architecture from different point of views, alongside issues that arose within the discourses of these subjects, such as the relations with the “West”; the difference
882 Bozdoğan, Sibel. (2001). Modernism and Nation Building: Turkish Architectural Culture in the Early Republic. University of Washington Press.
883 Ibid.
884 Kezer, Zeynep. (2015). Building Modern Turkey: State, Space, and Ideology in the Early Republic. University of Pittsburgh Press. p.11
885 Ibid. p.12
369
between the “old” and “new”; the change of the capital city; or the activities of foreign and Turkish architects.
Another example that covers a similar timeframe, starting roughly with the establishment of the republic and continuing until the 1950s, is Esra Akcan’s book, Architecture in Translation: Germany, Turkey, & the Modern House (2012), in which she examines the architectural production of the nation state, through her framework of “translation”, which she constructs around the connections between the Turkish and German and/or Austrian architects that produced in Turkey, as well as abroad, specifically by focusing on residential works and planning structures.886 Through her framework, she also discusses and problematizes the uses of the notions of “Nationalism”; “modernization”; and “national identity”, by utilizing the terminology and features of “translation” to explore how our understanding and exploration of them may differ, when looked through diverse point of views.
One other example reflecting this shift in architectural history after the 1990s, that can be mentioned here, is Meltem Gürel’s Mid-Century Modernism in Turkey: Architecture Across Cultures in the 1950s and 1960s (2016), which is an edited book that focuses on the post-war period, that have found less scholarly interest compared to the “Early Republican Period” in the architectural historiography of Turkey, while formulating discussions on issues such as “modernization”; “urbanization”; “internationalizing architectures”; “consumerism”; and “post-war American influence”.887 In this publication too, we may see that variants of “Nationalism” and “Modernism” plays a role in the evaluation of architectural works, as they are situated within their various contexts.
886 Akcan, Esra. (2012). Architecture in Translation: Germany, Turkey, & The Modern House. Duke University Press.
887 Gürel, Meltem. (2016). Mid-Century Modernism in Turkey: Architecture Across Cultures in the 1950s and 1960s. Routledge.
370
In line with the statements of Düzenli (2009),888 we can see that these well-known examples, all show a fragmented approach to the writing of architectural history, as they are focused on specific periods, or building types. In addition to these examples, we may also speak about other publications that highlight this fragmentation, such as monographs of architects, works that focus on specific buildings or building types; books that are dedicated to the architecture of different cities; or studies that focus on different problematics that are related with other fields such as gender; media; or culture studies.889 Accordingly, it is possible to state that we can see a change in the architectural history scene after the 1990s, in terms of not displaying unified histories, rather we can observe a rise in the numbers of studies, which question; interrogate; and discuss different discourses; “styles”; “types”; and/or actors, in relation to the architectural production. Despite these changes, we can also view that “Nationalism”; and “Modernity”, the two main “constants” that were identified in Modern Turkish Architecture (1984), continues to be an indispensable part of the more recent discussions, which are evaluated; re-evaluated; and negotiated through different perspectives, and frameworks.
888 Düzenli, Halil İbrahim. (2009). Fiziksel İnşadan Metinsel İnşaya: Türkiye’de Mimarlık Tarihi ve Tarihçiliğinin Serüveni. Türkiye Araştırmaları Literatür Dergisi, 7(13), 11-49.
889 There are many publications and dissertations on these different genres of architectural history writings. Elvan Altan Ergut (2009) provides comprehensive information regarding the developments in architectural historiography in Turkey, as well as a bibliography on different sources in her article that was published in Türkiye Araştırmaları Literatür Dergisi (TALID), with the title, Cumhuriyet Dönemi Mimarlığı: Tanımlar, Sınırlar, Olanaklar (2009)
371
CHAPTER 6
CONCLUSION
In this thesis, Modern Turkish Architecture (1984) was examined as a representational object in the architectural historiography of Turkey, alongside its context of production, to understand different components that were utilized to construct specific image/s of the past. The two main research questions of this study were formulated in accordance with the two main research topics, that were related with the historical and political conditions in which Modern Turkish Architecture (1984) was produced, and with the analysis of the book. Both questions have brought further interrogations, through which it was aimed to understand the different factors and components that played a role in the shaping of the representation of the past. In that sense, first the context of the production of the book was examined, to discuss if and how it had an influence in the representation processes.
In the context of the production of Modern Turkish Architecture (1984), the intellectual processes, and historical and political events that led to the publication was examined. There were many factors that have affected the process, beginning with the foundation years of METU, since the connections between the two universities, Middle East Technical University and University of Pennsylvania, could be traced to that time. This connection that continued over the years, played a role in the two-way academic activities, through which students and academics from both universities attended various programs; lectures; courses; or events. A great example of this situation was İlhan Tekeli’s visit to Upenn in 1966, where he took a course from Charles Abrams, who was among the actors that had a prominence in the process of the foundation of METU, Faculty of Architecture. The continuation of the connections between the two universities was also visible in Sibel Bozdoğan and Salih Memecan’s
372
places in the Ph.D. programs of Upenn, who both contributed to the organization of the photographic exhibition and seminar, as well as to the publication of the book.
It was observed that connections between people were another significant factor, in many ways. First of them, was the connection between Mehmet Kıcıman and Suha Özkan, the former being the president and the latter being the vice-president of METU, at the time. Kıcıman’s project to re-photograph the places that Othmar Pferschy had photographed, had turned into a completely different project, due to the connection between Suha Özkan and Renata Holod, who suggested to organize an event on contemporary Turkish architecture. Holod’s approach to the subject was also significant since she insisted on the younger generation of academics to take part in this project. The academics Suha Özkan assigned were affiliated with Middle East Technical University and with Istanbul Technical University, and they had already known one another, which was visible in their connections and educational backgrounds, and in some cases in their collaborative academic studies. Furthermore, they were among the architectural historians and/or critics that published, or was publishing, the early studies on the architectural production in Turkey, who we today refer as the first generation of architectural historians of Turkey. Renata Holod also knew many of these scholars, mainly due to her connection with Selçuk Batur, whom she met in the Qasr al – Hayr al – Sharqi excavations in Syria.
While there were other actors and institutions that played a role in this process, such as Ahmet Evin, who was working at the University of Pennsylvania as the director of the Middle East Centre; or Talat Sait Halman, who was the Ambassador of Cultural Affairs in the United States at the time, the connections between authors could have impacted the representation in Modern Turkish Architecture (1984), since even the authors that were affiliated with METU, could have had similar perspectives that began shaping in ITU.890 In the introduction of Modern Turkish Architecture (1984), Holod and Evin had expressed that the book was the “presentation of a school of
890 Many of the authors had their educational backgrounds in Istanbul Technical University, where they attended the Ph.D. program and were supervised by Doğan Kuban, and/ or had worked in ITU as research assistants.
373
thought”, who had their own language, preoccupations and criteria, even though they were connected with the methodologies of architectural history at large.891 In that sense, we may state that at least some part of the formulations of that “language” in architectural history writing that we see in the book, began formulating in ITU, which was enriched in the ongoing researches and studies of each author, in various universities such as METU; or Upenn.
In terms of the approaches of the authors, it can be argued that the architectural historiographical context also played a significant role, since many themes of representation that was addressed in the analysis of the book, was seen to be embedded in the limited number of publications that existed in the scholarship at the time. This was visible many examples, such as in the approach to the architectural works in the final years of the Ottoman Empire, which were viewed as “eclectic”, or “ill-bred”; in the construction and definition of the idea of “Turkishness” that was contrasted with or was defined in relation the heritage from the Ottoman Empire, as well as with the “West”, in the utilization of ideologies, specifically that of “Nationalism” and “Modernity”, which were used as ways to evaluate and explain architectural tendencies in different periods; in the prominence of city/s, particularly big cities such as Ankara and Istanbul; and also in the treatment of architects, whether “native” or “foreign”, and their works. However, in Modern Turkish Architecture (1984), as one of the first studies to evaluate architectural works within their various political, economic, social, and cultural contexts, it could also be seen that the book differed from the earlier publications, as it offered an understanding of the variants of the mentioned ideologies and therefore opened a field of discussion on them.
The historical and political conditions was another significant factor. The military intervention of 1980 and the laws that came afterwards had crucial effects in the process that led to the organization of the photographic exhibition and seminar, and later to the publication of the book. Among these, we saw that the junta regime had followed the ideology of Turkish-Islamic Synthesis, meaning that the “National
891 Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press. p.1
374
Culture” was valued by them. On the other hand, they showed their commitment to Atatürk; to his principles and ideas since the army was the guarantor of the “official ideology of the state”.892 These two sides of the ideology of the junta regime were reflected in practice, which was visible in the passing of the law for the Atatürk Centennial as one of the first acts of the National Security Council, only two weeks after the coup; and in the passing of Higher Education Law that regulated the ways that academics educate their students, who were expected to be “conscious of the privilege of being a Turk” among other things,893 while also diminishing the autonomy of universities in Turkey.
Even though the photographic exhibition and seminar on Contemporary Architecture in Turkey, 1920-1980, differed from the mainstream Atatürk Centennial celebrations that were organized in Turkey and abroad, since its focus was not on Atatürk or Atatürk’s achievements, and rather was on the architectural production of Turkey, it was still brought to life in a “nationalist milieu”, in the aftermath of the military intervention, during a time when the pressure was rising in the academic atmosphere. In that sense, the highlighting of the architectural achievements of Turkey in the photographic exhibition and seminar, and later in the book, may be read from two different point of views, first, as an international representation of the architectural profession and practice in Turkey, which was the expressed representational intention of the event and the publication, and secondly, as a way to familiarize the global audience with the “national” architectural culture of Turkey. Here, we may argue that the reflections of the latter could be seen in Modern Turkish Architecture (1984), in the polarizations between “Us” and “Them”, which mainly arose from the constructions of “National” architecture/s, in relation to “National” identities, or to different interpretations of “Turkishness”, in different periods.
892 Sakallıoğlu, Ümit Cizre. (1997). The Anatomy of the Turkish Military’s Political Autonomy. Comparative Politics, 29(2), 151-166.
893 T.C. Resmi Gazete. (November 6, 1981). The Higher Education Law. Number 17506, Law Number, 2547, Date of Acceptance: November 4, 1981. p.3
375
While bearing these two aspects in mind, in the context of the production section, we had seen that the photographic exhibition and seminar had two main objectives from two different perspectives. On the one hand, the aim was to highlight the “transformation” of Turkey, through its architecture, as well as to represent the architectural accomplishments of Turkey, to an international audience. On the other hand, from the “outsider” point of view, the aim was to get acquainted with the architecture of Turkey, in addition to gaining an understanding of the development of architecture in a “peripheral” country, that had undergone the processes of nation-building, and “modernization”, which could have provided insight on the formulations and developments of different tendencies, in different geographies.894 As we may understood from the interviews, the event, in which specific representation/s of the past was constructed, was completed successfully.
In the search for answers to the second research question of this study, the prominent themes, and key ideas in Modern Turkish Architecture (1984) was traced, and how they operated in the representation process was examined. The close reading of the book, for which charts were prepared,895 showed that the main structure of the narrative of the book, as well as the periodization of architecture, was in close connection with ideologies, that were identified as “Nationalism”; “Modernity”; and “Liberalism”. Different interpretations and/or re-interpretations of these ideologies were utilized in the narrative/s to evaluate and explain the prominent architectural tendencies or “styles” of different periods. While it was seen that “Liberalism”, as well as architectural themes related to it, only appeared after the 1950s in the book, it was observed that variants of “Nationalism” and “Modernism” played a significant role in the representational process. Four different categories of these variants were identified from the book, to be able to understand their connections with architecture, that were
894 This aspect of the event was visible in the correspondence documents of Renata Holod, which can be seen in APPENDICES.
895 In the charts, different elements of Modern Turkish Architecture (1984) were identified by tracing the recurring concepts; historical turning points; the use of visuals; and the inclusion and/or exclusion of architectural works, alongside their descriptions; locations; and architects.
376
defined as “Turkish Nationalism”; “1930s Nationalism”; “1940s Nationalism”; and “Nationalism in the post 1950s”; and corresponding to these, “Disguised Modernity”; “Republican Modernity”; “Nationalist Modernity”; and “Pluralist Modernity”, in this study.
A closer look to these categories showed that the first emphasis was on “Turkish Nationalism”, in the final years of the Ottoman Empire, which roughly continued until the 1930s, whose impact in the architectural field was explained through Ziya Gökalp’s dualist theory, that consisted of “civilization” and “culture”, where the former could be “adopted” from the “West”, and the latter existing in the nation. While there were some references to “modernity”, in terms of architectural works, specifically through their materials or technology, such as the use of iron and glass, or both; or in terms of changing lifestyles of people following the proclamation of the republic, as in the case of Ankara Palas, we could observe that the prominent ideology of the period was reflected as “Turkish Nationalism”, with a “Disguised Modernity” that could be read between the lines.
The roles attributed to these ideologies were reversed in the 1930s, as a “Republican Modernity” that was directly associated with the “official ideology” of the nation state, which in this study was categorized as “1930s Nationalism”, was defined. Unlike Ziya Gökalp’s “dualist” cultural theory, this interpretation of “Nationalism” was described to be a “monist” ideology that emphasized the primary identity of “a Turk”. However, we did not see an emphasis on “Turkishness” in the 1930s, rather we saw an association with the “West” since it functioned as a point of reference in many fields such as law; education; or culture, as well as architecture. In other words, the emphasis on “nationalism” until the 1930s, shifted to “modernity” in the 1930s, which were then re-interpreted in the 1940s that were categorized as “1940s Nationalism” and “Nationalist Modernity”, in this thesis.
In the 1940s, we saw that the pendulum swings, if we use Suha Özkan’s analogy in the draft program of the photographic exhibition, came into a rather balanced state, since neither ideology overpowered the other, in the text. Indeed, the cover photograph
377
of Modern Turkish Architecture (1984), Sedad Hakkı Eldem’s Taşlık Kahvesi (Taşlık Coffee House) was an architectural work from that period, a work of the “Second National Style” as categorized in the book, which was expressed to be symbolizing a “threshold” between the “modern” or the “contemporary”, and the “Turkish”, according to Suha Özkan (Figure 37). In this comparingly balanced state of ideologies in the book – even though “Nationalism” was more emphasized since the “Turkishness” of architecture was highlighted in that period – the architectural works of the “Second National Style” was expressed to be in an in-between state, carrying both “nationalistic” and “modern” attributes. However, the 1940s were also viewed to operate in a different type of in-betweenness, in the structure of the narrative/s of Modern Turkish Architecture (1984), since following the 1950s, a new ideology, “Liberalism”, was introduced into the scene.
With the inclusion of the third prominent ideology, “Liberalism”, “Nationalism”, as an ideology, was pushed to the background, despite the continuing existence of “nationalistic” tendencies in architecture. “Modernity” on the other hand, was in a continuous state, which was reflected through the architecture/s in the post-1950s in relation to the “International Style” and in different variants of “modern architecture” existing in that pluralistic environment. In other words, “Liberalism” and “Modernity” were the prominent ideologies in the post-1950’s, in the book, and architecture/s were evaluated and defined accordingly. Furthermore, this showed that architectural production was portrayed as responsive to the shifts in ideologies, and the shift that occurred after the end of the World War II and the election of Democrat Party in 1950, whom implemented liberal economic policies and gave emphasis to the private sector, changed the role of “Nationalism” in the narrative, since it was replaced with “Liberalism”, within which a pluralistic architectural environment was represented, and commercial buildings began to came into prominence.
Considering the interconnected relations between ideologies and architecture in the narrative/s, this ideological shift in the post-1950s, which resulted in a narratorial shift, was viewed to construct two main lines of architectural histories that formed the structure of Modern Turkish Architecture (1984), aside from the introduction section,
378
and the two thematic chapters. These architectural histories, in this thesis, were categorized as “state-centered architectural history”; and “market-centered architectural history”, with the addition of the history of the architectural production in the final years of the Ottoman Empire. In the “state-centered architectural history”, which roughly covered the timeframe between the year of 1923 and the 1950s, it was seen that the “transformation” and “development” of the nation was portrayed mainly through governmental; institutional; social; cultural; and educational architectural works. In that line of history, it was seen that the prominent ideologies of “Nationalism” and “Modernity” had shaped the discourses. The second line, which covered the period between the 1950s and 1980s, on the other hand, highlighted the “industrialization”; and “commercialization”, which were reflected through the inclusion of commercial buildings, such as hotels; offices; shops; or factories, in addition to the building types that found place in the first line. However, it could be seen that together, they constructed a holistic and “nationalistic” representation of the past, in which Turkey was in a continuous state of development and progress, and architectural works functioned as representational objects of that processes.
Owing to the intertwined relations of ideologies and architecture/s in the book, architectural themes of representation that were identified as, City/s; Public and/or Residential Building Types; and the Architectural Works, Architects, and Symbolic Meanings, in this study, also became components of that holistic and “nationalistic” history, in which a specific “national identity” was being performed. Corresponding to the earlier categorizations of ideologies, four main categories of architecture/s were identified from the narrative/s of Modern Turkish Architecture (1984), as “National Architecture”; “Republican Architecture”; “National/ Modern Architecture”; and “Pluralist Modern Architecture”. In connection with these categories, discussions on several different notions and ideas were made, such as the constructions of the relations with the “West” and the idea of “Turkishness”, which showed the impact of “nationalist” ideology as it created a difference between “Us” and “Them”; the influence of foreign architects, whose extensive architectural activities were faced with reactions from time to time and played a role in the changes in architectural tendencies; the prominent architects, whose architectural ideologies were utilized to understand
379
and explain different architectural movements; the symbolic associations of buildings, which contributed to the conveying of ideological meanings. It was also seen that the use of visuals, strengthened the representational aspects of the architectural works, through various ways they were used, such as the number of drawings or photographs; their liveliness; the size and placement of them within the narrative; or through their framings.
Considering Morphy Howard’s (1986) approach to the subject of representation,896 in this study, it was argued that each representation of the past, as in the case of architectural histories, involved decisions on how to represent; from which perspective; and to which audience. This issue was best visible in the comparison of the photographic exhibition on Contemporary Architecture in Turkey, 1920-1980; and Modern Turkish Architecture (1984), in the discussion section, where it was possible to see different representations on the same subject.897 The comparison showed that what was included or excluded in terms of the contextual background; architectural production in different periods; building types; and the historical turning points, as well as their treatments or approaches to them, resulted in distinct “images” of the past.
There were three main differences between the structures of the exhibition, and the book. First of them was the exclusion of the architectural production in the final years of the Ottoman Empire, since the architectural works in the exhibition program began with Vedat Tek’s Headquarters of the People’s Republican Party, that was dated as 1926,898 which was used as the Second National Assembly building, and therefore had symbolic associations with the state. On the other hand, the immediate precedents of
896 Morphy, Howard. (1986). Reflections on Representations. Anthropology Today, 2(2), 24-26.
897 The comparison was mainly between the exhibition and the publication, since we did not have access of the contents of the seminar papers, however, we knew that it followed the same organizational structure with the book.
898 Here, it is important to mention that in many sources, dates the building of Vedat Tek to 1923, and expresses that it functioned as the second assembly building between the years of 1924 and 1960.
380
the “First National Style”, the architectural production in the final years of the Ottoman Empire, was included in the book, as well as in the seminar program.
As a consequence of this difference in inclusion, in the book, we saw a narrative on the “fall” or “decline” of the Ottoman Empire, alongside the “rise” of the Republic. The inclusion of that period provided a ground of comparison in terms of architectural characteristics and tendencies in the book, while also constructing a difference between the ideas of “Ottomanness” and “Turkishness”, which was expressed to be reflected in the differences between the architecture of the empire, and the “First National Style”. Furthermore, the inclusion of the final years of the Ottoman Empire, constructed a difference between the “old”, and the “new”, between the empire and the republic; which found different expressions in the book, but was best visible in the separation of the two consecutive chapters of Yıldırım Yavuz and Suha Özkan, where this change was strenghtened by creating a break within the narrative of the “First National Style”. This break, materializing the idea of a break with the Ottoman past, corresponded to the proclamation of the republic in 1923, whose importance was further emphasized through the use of cities, since the “old” was associated with Istanbul, “the old capital” of the empire; and the latter, was the “new capital” of the “new” nation-state, whose difference was reflected in the structure of the narratives of Yavuz and Özkan, in terms of the selections and inclusions of architectural works of the “First National Style”.
This difference between the “old” and the “new”, and the significance of the change of the capital city was later reflected in Afife Batur’s narrative as well, however, there, the architectural production in the period until the 1930s, became the “old”, since the “new” architectural ideology was viewed as representative of the “official ideology” of the “new” nation-state. Looking at the short descriptions of the period between 1920 and 1930 in the exhibition program, we could see that the idea of a break with the Ottoman past; and Ankara being a representation of the “modern state”, as the “new” capital was included there as well. However, we may argue that the exclusion of the architectural production in the final years of the Ottoman Empire, eliminated the comparison to the works of the “First National Style”. As a consequence, we could see
381
that the main emphasis in the exhibition remained on the “transformation” of Turkey and its society, rather than showing “transitions” in architecture, since in the book, we could see the similarities and differences between the architectural tendencies of the two periods.
The second main difference between the structures of the exhibition, and the book, was the ways that residential architecture was being included. It was seen that, in the book, and correspondingly in the seminar, residential works were evaluated separately, in relation to problematics; developments; and laws that were specific to housing, under the thematic chapter of Yıldız Sey. In the exhibition, residential architectural works were placed within their corresponding periods, even though their numbers were very limited compared to public buildings. This difference created a distinction between residential and public works of architecture in the book, where the former was evaluated in its “type” specific dynamics; and the latter played a role in the construction of an image of Turkey that was “developing” and “transforming”.
The last and perhaps the most significant difference was the parallels drawn between ideologies and architectural production, since in the book, ideologies, specifically “Nationalism” and “Modernity” was expressed to be re-interpreted in different periods, and architectural production was portrayed as responsive to these ideological shifts or changes. On the other hand, the exhibition highlighted the “official ideology” of the republic, which showed a continuous and holistic development in the field of architecture, that was related with the initial change of the establishment of the nation-state. In other words, the representation of the book was shaped by ideologies and their variants, alongside their connections to architectural themes; while the exhibition represented a Turkey in “progress” and “development” that began with the “official ideology” and continued.
Aside from these differences, which contributed to the construction of different image/s of the past, we could see that the exhibition, seminar, and the book, followed the same chronological periodization, which was expressed to be formed around the two main constants that were identified in different “styles” of architecture of Turkey,
382
which were the “quest for a particular Turkish architecture”, and the “quest for modernity”. Those two constants, “intertwining and coming to the fore in alternating rhythms”,899 shaped the structure of the narrative, since the identified “styles”, showed how the emphasis in architectural production was shifted from one constant to another. In doing so, the architectural production between the determined timeframes were often displayed to show similar characteristics, in which a totalizing and unifying image of architecture was constructed, except for the period after the 1950s, where “pluralism” and “diversity” was highlighted, starting with the works of the “International Style”. We may argue that the two constants, the “quest for a particular Turkish architecture”; and the “quest for modernity” in architecture, were constructed in relation to ideologies of Nationalism/s and Modernity/s in the book, which can be observed in the mentioned categorizations of these ideologies that were identified in this thesis.
Here, we may remind that there were exclusions from both the book, and the exhibition, which also played a role in the representations of the past, that were the exclusion of the architectural works of women architects, and the religious works of architecture. It was argued that, while the latter was thought to be excluded due to its relations with “religious identity” and symbolic associations; the former was viewed as a continuation of the “canonizing” tradition that have overlooked the contributions of women architects.
Overall, it is possible to state that Modern Turkish Architecture (1984) had achieved the completion of its main objectives, by becoming one of the most significant international representations on the architectural production of Turkey. The book, which familiarized the international audience with the subject, is still among the few studies written in English, surveying as many periods, and demonstrating the geography specific dynamics, which might have played a role in the formulations; re-interpretations; and negotiations of different architectural ideologies; tendencies; and/or movements, in history. In addition to being a representation of the past, the
899 The phrase is taken from the exhibition program, which was obtained from the Penn Museum Archives, that can be seen in APPENDICES.
383
book, as the final product of the photographic exhibition and the seminar on Contemporary Architecture in Turkey 1920-1980, provided insight regarding the approaches of a school of thought. It was seen that in the early publications of this first generation of architectural historians, which were mostly published between the 1970s and the 1990s, ideology, and its connections with architectural production played a significant role, by shaping their narrative/s; discourses; and even the selection of architectural works, as analyzed in the specific case of Modern Turkish Architecture (1984), in detail. This holistic and “nationalistic” approach to the writing of architectural history in Turkey, in our case, mainly emphasized the “transformation” and “development” of Turkey and its society, and architectural works functioned as the representations of that “progress”. Modern Turkish Architecture (1984) came to have a significant place in scholarship, not only due to its reaching to a global audience, but also because it was among the first works that evaluated architectural works, in relation to the contexts they were built in. Since the authors of the book constructed the connections between contexts and architecture through ideologies, it can be argued that the book also contributed to the reproduction of meanings that were embedded in these ideologies, allowing for the materialization of them, intentionally or unintentionally, by representing and depicting the past along their lines, and therefore, we may view Modern Turkish Architecture (1984) as an “ideological product”, in Volosinov’s terms.900
It was mentioned that the problematics of this holistic and “nationalistic” way of writing architectural history, was later challenged by different scholars, architectural historians and/or critics, however, as previously expressed, those studies were mainly focused on specific periods; building types; cities; and/ or problematics, and therefore were fragmented representations of the past. While they offered alternative formulations and discussions, challenging the broader “metanarrative” of architectural production in Turkey – in which canonical works of architecture takes place with their connections to ideologies, alongside their cities; architects; clients; symbolic
900 Voloshinov, VN, Matejka, L & Titunik, IR. (1973). Marxism and the Philosophy of Language. Studies in language, Seminar Press, New York and London.
384
associations and social aspects through which an image of a “Nationalist” past is being constructed and re-constructed repeatedly – is still awaited. Such a challenge is thought to be possible only by the critical examinations and analyses of the works that played a role in the formation of that “metanarrative”, since we may only challenge it fully, by understanding how it functions. The analysis of the representation in Modern Turkish Architecture (1984), in that sense, aimed to present a look on the connections between ideology, context/s, and architecture, through a limited and specific case, to question if it would be possible to create alternative histories of the past, and re-construct the boundaries that shape the “nationalist” representations that contribute to the “metanarrative” and to the canon of architectural history in Turkey, while also evaluating architectural works within the contexts they were built in, which remains an open-ended question.
385
REFERENCES
1966 excavation campaign led by Oleg Grabar: archaeology team and house team. Archnet Webpage. Accessed on: 18.07.2021, Available from: https://archnet.org/media_contents/97249
Abidin Mortaş. (1941). Modern Türk Mimarisi. Arkitekt, 05-06(126), 115-116.
Abrams, Charles. (1964). Man's struggle for shelter in an urbanizing world. Cambridge, Mass., M.I.T. Press.
Adanır, Fikret, and Suraiya Faroqhi. (2002). The Ottomans and the Balkans: A Discussion of Historiography. Ottoman Empire and Its Heritage. Brill.
Ağa Han Mimarlık Ödülleri üstüne söyleşi?. (September 13, 1983). Cumhuriyet Newspaper Archives. Accessed on: 27.12.2020, Available From: https://www.cumhuriyetarsivi.com/
Ağır, Aygül. (2019). Afife Batur’un Çalışmalarına Retrospektif Bakış. Anma. Mimarlık, 406, 17-22.
Ahmet Evin. Official Website of Sabancı University. Accessed on 15.08.2020, Available from: http://myweb.sabanciuniv.edu/aevin/.
Ahern, Joseph-James. (2017). A Guide to the School of Design. Office of the Dean Records. G. Holmes Perkins Administration 1945-1971. University of Pennsylvania.
Ahmad, Feroz. (1993). The Making of Modern Turkey. Routledge.
Akcan, Esra. (2012). Architecture in Translation: Germany, Turkey, & The Modern House. Duke University Press.
386
Akın, Günkut. (2006). Yayin Değerlendirme: 20. Yüzyıl Türkiye Mimarlığı Üzerine. Mimarlık, 328.
Almanac. (March 2, 1982). On Campus, March 2- March 14, Exhibits. University of Pennsylvania Almanac, 28(22), 1-4.
Almanac. (March 9, 1982). On Campus, March 9- March 28, Exhibits. University of Pennsylvania Almanac, 28(23), 1-8.
Allsopp, Bruce. (1968). Architectural History and Practice. Journal of the Royal Society of Arts, 116(5139), 180-238.
Alsaç, Üstün. (1973). Türk Mimarlık Düşüncesinin Cumhuriyet Devrindeki Evrimi. Mimarlık, 121, 11-12, 12-25.
Alsaç, Üstün. (1976). Türkiye’deki Mimarlık Düşüncesinin Cumhuriyet Dönemindeki Evrimi. KTÜ. Baskı Atelyesi.
Altan Ergut, T. Elvan. (1998). Making a National Architecture: Architecture and the Nation-State in Early Republican Turkey. (Ph.D. Thesis). Binghamton University, State University of New York.
Altan Ergut, T. Elvan. (1999). The Forming of the National in Architecture. METU Journal of the Faculty of Architecture, 19(1-2), 31-43.
Altan Ergut, Elvan (2005). Traveling Words and Images: The Question of “Foreignness” in the History of Modern Architecture in Turkey. Repenser les limites: l’architecture à travers l’espace, letemps et les disciplines: 31 août - 4 septembre 2005 [en ligne]. Paris: Publications de l’Institut national d’histoire de l’art, 2005(généré le 18 décembre 2020). Disponible sur Internet: <http://books.openedition.org/inha/222>.
Altan Ergut, Elvan. (2009). Cumhuriyet Dönemi Mimarlığı: Tanımlar, Sınırlar, Olanaklar. Türkiye Araştırmaları Literatür Dergisi, 7(13), 121-130.
Altan Ergut, Elvan. (2011). The Exhibition House in Ankara: Building(up) the ‘National’ and the ‘Modern’. The Journal of Architecture, 16(6), 855-884.
387
Anderson, Benedict. (2006). Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. Verso. 1983, 1991, 2006.
Ankersmit, Frank, R. (1988). Historical Representation. History and Theory, 27(3), 205-228.
Ankersmit, Frank R. (1998). Hayden White's Appeal to the Historians. History and Theory, 37(2), 182-193.
Ankersmit, Frank R. (2012). Meaning, Truth, and Reference in Historical Representation. Cornell University Press.
Anonymous. (1933). Cumhuriyetin On Senelik San'at Hayatı. Mimar, 9-10, 263-264.
Anonymous. (1985). Söyleşi: Türkiye’de Mimarlık Eleştirisi. Mimarlık, 211, 23(1).
Aptullah Ziya. (1931). Binanın İçinde Mimar. Mimar,1, 14-20.
Aptullah Ziya. (1934). Sanatta Nasyonalizm. Mimar, 2(38), 51-54.
Arel, Ayda.; Gürsel, Ersen.; & Özkan, Suha. (2005). Selçuk Batur için Mimarlık Yazıları. TMMOB Mimarlar Odası.
Arel, Ayda. (1986). Yayın Tanıtma. Mimarlık, 221(2), 49-51.
Arif Hikmet. (1931). Eski Bir Türk Kahvesi. Mimar, 2, 59-60.
Arnold, Dana. (2002). Reading Architectural History. Routledge: London and New York.
Arnold, Dana., Altan Ergut, T. Elvan., & Özkaya, Belgin Turan. (2006). Rethinking Architectural Historiography. Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.
388
Arslan, Mahmut. (2004). Ziya Gökalp’te Kültür ve Uygarlık Anlayışı. Türkiye’de Sosyoloji – Ziya Gökalp Sempozyumu, Istanbul.
Aslanoğlu, İnci. (2010). Erken Cumhuriyet Dönemi Mimarlığı. 1923-1938. Bilge Kültür Sanat. 1980, 2001, 2010.
Atasoy; Zehra Betül. (2013). Mimarlık Tarihi Söyleşileri: Afife Batur. Accessed on 29.12.2020, Available From: https://www.arkitera.com/soylesi/mimarlik-tarihi-soylesileri-afife-batur/
Atatürk Kültür Merkezi Mimari Proje Yarışması. (1981). Mimar, (3).
Baer, Marc. (2004). The Double Bind of Race and Religion: The Conversion of the Dönme to Turkish Secular Nationalism. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 46(4), 682-708.
Bal, İdris. (2004). Turkish Foreign Policy in Post Cold War Era. Brown Walker Press.
Barthes, Roland. (1982). Camera Lucida: Reflections on Photography. Hill and Wang.
Barthes, Roland. & Howard, Richard (Translator). (1989). The Rustle of Language. University of California Press.
Batuman, Bülent. (2008). Photography at Arms: “Early Republican Ankara” from Nation-building to Politics of Nostalgia. Metu Journal of the Faculty of Architecture, 25(2), 99-117
Batuman, Bülent. (2015). Gazes in dispute: visual representations of the built environment in Ankara postcards. The Journal of Architecture, 20(1), 21-46
Batur, Afife. (1975). Tarihi Çevre Korumasında Siyasal ve İdeolojik Boyutlar. Mimarlık, 13(5), 14-17.
Batur, Afife. (1978). Türkiye'de "Sürekli Eğitimin" Genel Durumu. Mimarlık, 155(2), 39-40.
389
Batur, Afife. (2005). A Concise History: Architecture in Turkey During the 20th Century. Chamber of Architects of Turkey.
Batur, Afife.; Fersan, Nur; Yücel, & Atilla. 19th Century Row-Houses in Istanbul. The Aga Khan Award for Architecture. Seminar II. Çekül Vakfı, Accessed on 02.01.2020, From: http://katalogtarama.cekulvakfi.org.tr/
Batur, Selçuk. (1980). Dergilerimiz: Çevre. Cumhuriyet Newspaper Archives. (March 27, 1980). Accessed on: 27.12. 2020, Available From: https://www.cumhuriyetarsivi.com/
Bayraktar, Nuray. (2011). Bonatz’ın “TürkEvi” SevgisininBiçimsel Aktarımı: Saraçoğlu (NamıkKemal) Mahallesi. Arredamento Mimarlık, 247.
Bedrettin Hamdi & Behçet Sırrı. (1932). Mimar Sinan’ın Aziz Ruhuna: Türk Mimarisi. Mimar, 4(16), 114-115.
Behçet & Bedrettin. (1933). Kimlere Mimar Diyoruz. Mimar, 7, 199-200.
Behçet & Bedrettin. (1934). Mimarlık ve Türklük. Mimar, 1, 17-20.
Beller, Manfred. & Leerssen, Joep, T. (2007). Imagology: The Cultural Construction and Literary Representation of National Characters: A Critical Survey. Amsterdam; New York, NY: Rodopi, 2007.
Berber, Öznur. (2010). Erken Cumhuriyet Dönemi Modern Mimarlık Örneklerinden Kadıköy Halkevi Binası Restorasyon Projesi. Istanbul Technical University. (Master’s Thesis).
Benson, Susan, P.; Brier, Stephen., & Rosenweig, Roy. (1986). Presenting the Past: Essays on History and the Public. Temple University Press.
Bhabha, Homi K. (1990). Nation and Narration. Routledge.
Birkan, Güven. & Pehlivanlı, Selçuk. (1977). Mimar Arif Hikmet Koyunoğlu ile Bir Söyleşi. Mimarlık, 1(150), 8-16.
390
Boyacıoğlu, Bilgen. (2003). The Construction of Turkish Modern Architecture in Architectural History Writing. Izmir Institute of Technology. (Master’s Thesis).
B.O.Celal. (1932). Ankara Tayyare Abidesi Münasebetile. Mimar, 2, 33-34.
B.O. Celal. (1932). Mimar Sinan ve Ekolü. Mimar, 4(16). 111-112.
B.O. Celal. (1933). Türk Sanatı. Mimar, 7(31), 219-220.
Bozdoğan, Sibel. & Kasaba, Reşat. (1997). Rethinking Modernity and National Identity in Turkey. University of Washington Press.
Bozdoğan, Sibel. (2001). Modernism and Nation Building: Turkish Architectural Culture in the Early Republic. University of Washington Press.
Bozdoğan, Sibel.; Özkan, Suha.; & Yenal, Engin. (2005). Sedad Eldem: Architect in Turkey. Literatür. (Third Edition). 1987, 1989, 2005.
Bozdoğan, Sibel. (2007). Reading Ottoman Architecture Through Modernist Lenses: Nationalist Historiography and the ‘New Architecture’ in the Early Republic. Muqarnas, 24, 199-221.
Bozdoğan, Sibel. (Interviwers: Düzenli, Halil İbrahim. & Deniz, Faruk). (2009). Sibel Bozdoğan ile Ankara-Amerika Hattında Mimarlık Tarihçiliği ve Cumhuriyet Dönemi Mimarlık Tarihi Araştırmaları Üzerine. Türkiye Araştırmaları Literatür Dergisi, 7(13), 381-404.
Bozdoğan, Sibel, & Esra Akcan. (2012). Turkey: Modern Architectures in History. Modern Architectures in History. Reaktion Books.
Bozkurt, Umut. (2012). Westernization. The Wiley-Blackwell Encyclopedia of Globalization, G. Ritzer (Ed.). (Wiley Online Library).
Breuilly, John. (1993). Nationalism and the State. Manchester University Press.
391
Brummett, Barry S. (2010). Techniques of Close Reading. SAGE Publications.
Bu Hafta. (2008). Bulletin, 927, Middle East Technical University. Accessed on: 18.07.2021; Available From: https://buhafta.metu.edu.tr/arsiv
Buysse, Jo Ann M. & Embser-Herbert, Melissa Sheridan. (2004). Constructions of Gender in Sport: An Analysis of Intercollegiate Media Guide Cover Photographs. Gender and Society, 18(1), 66-81.
Carr, Edward Hallett & Davies, R.W. (1987). What is History?. Penguin Books, England.
Cengizkan, Ali. (2002). Modernin Saati. Mimarlar Derneği 1927 ve Boyut Yayıncılık.
Cephanecigil, Vesile Gül. (2009). Geç Osmanlı ve Erken Cumhuriyet Dönemlerinde Mimarlık Tarihi İlgisi ve Türk Eksenli Milliyetçilik (1873-1930). Istanbul Technical University. (Ph.D. Thesis).
Cephanecigil, Vesile Gül., & Günkut Akin. (2010). Geç Osmanlİ ve Erken Cumhuriyet Dönemi Türkiyesinde Milliyetçilik ve Mimarlık Tarihi. ITU Journal Series A: Architecture, Planning, Design 9 (2), 29–40.
Colomina, Beatriz. (1996). Privacy and Publicity: Modern Architecture as Mass Media. MIT Press.
Conversi, Daniele. (2012). Modernism and Nationalism. Journal of Political Ideologies, 17(1), 13-34.
Conway, Hazel. & Roenisch, Rowan. (2005). Understanding Architecture: An Introduction to Architecture and Architectural History. London; New York: Routledge
Cumbur, Müjgan. (1981). Atatürk ve Milli Kültür. Kültür Bakanlığı Yayınları.(Second Edition)
392
CV of Atilla Yücel (updated in 2017). Official Website of MArS Architects. Atilla Yücel Detaylı Özgeçmiş, 2019. Accessed on: 01.02.2021. Available from: http://mars-architects.com/images/pubImages/AY2017.pdf
Çelik, Zeynep. (1993). The Remaking of Istanbul: Portrait of an Ottoman city in the Nineteenth Century. University of California Press.
Danforth, Sandra C., and Frank Tachau. (1982). Scholarly Meetings Held in Commemoration of The Ataturk Centennial. Middle East Studies Association Bulletin 16(2), 1-13.
Danto, Arthur, C. (1953). Mere Chronicle and History Proper. The Journal of Philosophy, 50(6), 173-182.
Daskalov, Roumen Dontchev.; Mishkova, Diana.; Marinov, Tchavdar.; & Vezenkov, Alexander. (2017). Entangled Histories of the Balkans - Volume Four: Concepts, Approaches, and (Self-)Representations. Koninklijke Brill NV.
Denel, Bilgi M. (1985). Modern Turkish Architecture. Design Book Review, Summer 1985.
Deriu, Davide. (2013). Picturing modern Ankara: New Turkey in Western imagination. The Journal of Architecture, 18(4), 497-527.
Dışişleri Bakanlığı 1981 Tarihçesi. (1983). İcra Sekteterliği. Dışişleri Bakanlığı Arşivi. Accessed on: 18.07.2021, Available From: http://diad.mfa.gov.tr/db-tarihce.tr.mfa
Dijk, Teun, A. van. (1995). Discourse semantics and ideology. Discourse and Society, 6(2), 243-289.
Dijk, Teun A. van. (1998). Ideology: A Multidisciplinary Approach. SAGE Publications.
Dijk, Teun A. van. (2006). Ideology and Discourse Analysis. Journal of Political Ideologies, 11(2), 115-140.
393
Dijk, Teun A. van. (2007). Ideology and Discourse: A Multidisciplinary Introduction. Unpublished English version of the Spanish version published by Ariel, Barcelona, 2003. Accessed on: 16.07.2021, Available from: www.discourses.org.
Diyalog, Suha Özkan. (2002). Arkitera Webpage. Accessed on 18.07.2021, Available From: https://v3.arkitera.com/v1/diyalog/suhaozkan/yayinlar.htm
Doran, Robert. (2013). Philosophy of History after Hayden White. Bloomsbury.
Durmuş, Serap., & Şengül, Öymen Gür. (2017). Mı̇marliğin Metı̇nsel Temsı̇lı̇nde Retorı̇k İnşa: Usûl-İ Mı̇’mârî-İ Osmanî. METU Journal of the Faculty of Architecture 34 (1), 107–31.
Dündar, Bilgen. (2011). Against Style: Re-Reading “New Architecture” in Early Republican Period in Turkey (1931-1940). Izmir Institute of Technology. (Ph.D. Thesis).
Dündar ELBRUZ, Asst. Prof. (1922-1973). Official Biography Page of Faculty of Architecture; Department of City and Regional Planning, Middle East Technical University. Accessed on: 18.07.2021, Available From: https://crp.metu.edu.tr/en/dundar-elbruz-asst-prof-1922-1973
Düzenli, Halil İbrahim. (2009). Fiziksel İnşadan Metinsel İnşaya: Türkiye’de Mimarlık Tarihi ve Tarihçiliğinin Serüveni. Türkiye Araştırmaları Literatür Dergisi, 7(13), 11-49.
Eagleton, Terry. (1991). Ideology: An Introduction. Verso.
Edwards, Elizabeth. (2012). The Camera as Historian: Amateur Photographers and Historical Imagination, 1885-1918. Duke University Press.
Eisenstadt, Shmuel Noah. (2000). Multiple Modernities. Daedalus, 129(1), 1-29
Erkarslan Erdoğdu, Özlem. (2007). Turkish Women Architects in the Late Ottoman and Early Republican Era, 1908–1950. Women’s History Review, 16(4), 555-575.
394
Ermeni İddiaları ve Tarihi Gerçekler. (2000). Dışişleri Güncesi, 8. Dışişleri Bakanlığı.
Ersoy, Ahmet A. (2000). On the Sources of the “Ottoman Renaissance:” Architectural Revival and its Discourse During the Abdülaziz Era (1861-76). Harvard University. (Ph.D. Thesis).
Ersoy, Ahmet. (2007). Architecture and the Search for Ottoman Origins in the Tanzimat Period. Muqarnas, 24, 117-139.
Ersoy, Ahmet A. (2015). Architecture and the Late Ottoman Historical Imaginary: Reconfiguring the Architectural Past in a Modernizing Empire. Routledge.
Ertuğrul, Özkan. (2019). Mimarlik Tarihi İçinde İstanbul Bizans Su Mimarisinin Durumu I. Meriç Uluslararası Sosyal ve Stratejik Araşturmalar Dergisi, 3(8), 276-325.
Esat, Celâl. (1931). Yeni Mimari. İstanbul: Agâh-Sabri Kitaphanesi.
Eyice, Semavi. (1972). Celal Esad Arseven (1875-1971). Türk Tarih Kurumu, Belleten, XXXVI, 142, 173-201.
Fernie, Eric. (2003). History and Architectural History. Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 13, 199-206.
Fotoğrafla Türkiye. (1937). Matbuat Umum Müdürlüğü, Ankara.
Frantz, Douglas. (2000). MEDIA; A Long-Distance Look at Life in Turkey. The New York Times. Published on: May 15, 2000; Accessed on: 03.01.2020; Available From: https://www.nytimes.com/2000/05/15/business/media-a-long-distance-look-at-life-in-turkey.html
Freeden, Michael. (1998). Is Nationalism a Distinct Ideology?. Political Studies, XLVI, 748-765.
Freeden, Michael. (2003). Ideology: A Very Short Introduction. OUP Oxford.
395
Freeden, Michael.; Sargent, Lyman Tower.; & Stears, Marc. (2015). The Oxford Handbook of Political Ideologies. Oxford University Press.
Freeman, Michael. (2013). Black and White Photography Field Guide: The essential guide to the art of creating black & white images. Focal Press, Taylor & Francis Group.
Fry, Maxwell J. (1971). Turkey’s First Five-Year Development Plan: An Assessment. The Economic Journal, 81(322), 306.
Gellner, Ernest. (1983). Nations and Nationalism. Cornell University Press.
Ginsberg, Robert. (2004). The Aesthetics of Ruins. Rodopi
Glass, William. & Burbick, Joan. (2010). Beyond Imagined Uniqueness: Nationalisms in Contemporary Perspectives. Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Gökalp, Ziya. & Devereux, Robert (Translator). (1968). The Principles of Turkism. Leiden, E.J. Brill.
Gökalp, Ziya. (1968). Türkçülüğün Esasları.Varlık Yayınları. (Seventh Edition).
Gülmez, Galip. (1982). Atatürk, Centennial Album = Atatürk, 100. Yıl Albümü. Federation of Turkish-American Societies.
Günay, Baykan. (2019). Yıldırım Hoca ve Mimarlığın Bağlamı. In Obituary/ Anma. (2019). METU Journal of the Faculty of Architecture, (2), v- xxix
Güncüoğlu, Süleyman Faruk. (2010). İstanbul’ın Fethi Sonrası Kurulan İlk Semt: “Saraçhane”. Güzel Sanatlar Enstitüsü Dergisi, 22, 27-82.
Gürel, Meltem. (2016). Mid-Century Modernism in Turkey: Architecture Across Cultures in the 1950s and 1960s. Routledge.
396
Gürel, Meltem, Ö. & Anthony, Kathryn, H. (2006). The Canon and the Void: Gender, Race, and Architectural History Texts. Journal of Architectural Education, 59(3), 66-76.
Gürkaş, Tayfun. (2010). Türkiye’de Mimarlık Tarihi Yazımı: Konuşmaya Başlarken Susmak. Yildiz Technical University. (Ph.D. Thesis).
Gürsel, Ersen. (2019). Afife Batur’un Geçmişle Günceli Barıştıran Kültür Anlayışı. Mimarlık, 405, 13.
Hale, William. (2000). Turkish Foreign Policy since 1774. Routledge.
Hall, Stuart. (1997). Representation: Cultural Representations and Signifying Practices. London; Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 1997, c2003.
Hall, Stuart. & Du Gay, Paul. (2003). Questions of Cultural Identity. Sage Publications. 1996, 1997, 1998, 2000, 2002, 2003.
Hamadeh, Shirine. (2004). Ottoman Expressions of Early Modernity and the "Inevitable" Question of Westernization. Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, 63(1), 32-51.
Hamadeh, Shirine. (2007). Westernization, Decadence, and the Turkish Baroque: Modern Constructions of the Eighteenth Century. Muqarnas, 24, 185-197.
Hell, Julia. & Schönle, Andreas. (2010). Ruins of Modernity. Duke University Press.
Henderson, A., Scott (2000). Housing and the Democratic Ideal: The Life and Thought of Charles Abrams. Columbia University Press.
Heynen, Hilde. (1999). Architecture and Modernity: A Critique. MIT Press.
Heynen, Hilde. & Loeckx, André. (1998). Scenes of Ambivalence: Concluding Remarks on Architectural Patterns of Displacement. Journal of Architectural Education, 52(2), 100-108.
397
Hobsbawm, Eric J. (1990). Nations and Nationalism since 1780: Programme, myth, reality. Cambridge University Press.
Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press.
Holod, Renata., Evin, Ahmet. & Özkan, Suha. (2005). Modern Turkish Architecture. Chamber of Architects of Turkey. (The second edition).
Holod, Renata., Evin, Ahmet. & Özkan, Suha. (2007). Modern Türk Mimarlığı. TMMOB. (The third edition).
Holzmeister, Clemens. (1979). In Prof. Dr. Clemens Holzmeister ile söyleşi. (1987). Mimarlık. 224, 25(3): 28.
Hubbard, William. (1985). Reviewed by William Hubbard. Architectural Record, June 1985.
Iggers, Georg G. (1988). The Crisis of the Rankean Paradigm in the Nineteenth Century. Syracuse Scholar, 9(1), 1-8.
Iggers, George., Edward, Wang., & Supriya, Mukherjee. (2008). A Global History of Modern Historiography. Harlow; England; New York: Pearson Longman.
Iggers, Georg G. & Powell, James M. (1990). Leopold von Ranke and the Shaping of the Historical Discipline. Syracuse University Press.
Interview with Prof. Dr. Orhan Özgüner on Pera Museum’s Official Youtube Channel. (2018). Sözlü Tarih: Öğrencileri Louis Kahn'ı Anlatıyor! "Orhan Özgüner". From: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHXMz1XxGcA
Isenstadt, Sandy. & Rizvi, Kishwar. (2008). Modernism and the Middle East: Architecture and Politics in the Twentieth Century. University of Washington Press.
ITU, Faculty of Architecture Website, Accessed on: 01.02.2020, Available From: https://mim.itu.edu.tr/
398
İlhan Tekeli'nin Kendi Kaleminden Biyografisi. İlhan Tekeli Şehircilik Kültürü Vakfı Official Website. Accessed on 09.08.2020. Available from: https://ilhantekelivakfi.org/ilhan-tekelinin-kendi-kaleminden-biyografisi/)
İ.T.Ü. Mimarlık Fakültesi Yapım ve Yapı Sistemleri Kürsüsü: 1980 Nisan – Yıllık Çalışma Raporu. Accessed on 02.01.2020, Available From: http://katalogtarama.cekulvakfi.org.tr/
İ.T.Ü. Mimarlık Fakültesi Mekan Örgütlenmesi ve Donatımı Kürsüsü 1979-80 Dönemi Kürsü Çalışmaları Raporu. Accessed on 01.02.2020, Available From: http://katalogtarama.cekulvakfi.org.tr/
Jenkins, Keith. (1995). On ‘What is History?’:From Carr and Elton to Rorty and White. Routledge.
Kadir Has Üniversitesi, Şehir Konuşmaları/City Talks II: “Kenti Temsil Biçimleri: Yeni Yaklaşımlar”. Interview with İlhan Tekeli. Interviewer B. Elvan Erginli. Youtube, 6 December 2016. Accessed on: 19.07.2021, Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnhW7SbQX7M&t=1630s.
Kandil, Hazem. (2016). The Power Triangle: Military, Security, and Politics in Regime Change. Oxford University Press.
Kaps, Klemens., & Komlosy, Andrea. (2013). Centers and Peripheries Revisited: Polycentric Connections or Entangled Hierarchies? Review (Fernand Braudel Center), 36(3-4), 237-264.
Karacan, Elifcan. (2015). Remembering the 1980 Turkish Military Coup d‘État: Memory, Violence, and Trauma. Springer Vs.
Katipoğlu Özmen, Ceren. (2014). Re-Thinking Historiography on Ottoman Mosque Architecture: Nineteenth Century Provincial Sultan Mosques. Middle East Technical University. (Ph.D. Thesis).
Kent, Kültür, Çevre, Mimarlık ve Demokrasi için Mimarlara Mektuplar. 131-142. (2010). TMMOB Mimarlar Odası İstanbul Büyükkent Şubesi.
399
Kezer, Zeynep. (2015). Building Modern Turkey: State, Space, and Ideology in the Early Republic. University of Pittsburgh Press.
Kıcıman Mehmet.; Gümrah, Fevzi.; and Görün, Fikret. (1999). Üniversitemizin 11. Rektörü Prof. Dr. Mehmet Kıcıman. ODTÜ’LÜ, 21.
Kılıç Yıldız, Şule. (2013). Byzantium between "East" and "West": Perceptions and Architectural Historiography of the Byzantine Heritage. Middle East Technical University. (Ph.D. Thesis).
Korkmaz, Tansel. (2005). Architecture in Turkey Around 2000: Issues in Discourse and Practice. Chamber of Architects of Turkey.
Korkmaz, Tansel. (2007). 2000’lerde Türkiye’de Mimarlık: Söylem ve Uygulamalar. TMMOB Mimarlar Odası.
Korkmaz Tansel. (2007). Architecture in Turkey Around 2000: Issues in Discourse and Practice. METU Journal of the Faculty of Architecture, 2, 185-191.
Köseoğlu, Emine. (2010). Book Reviews. Planning Perspectives, 25(3), 391-394
Kuban, Doğan. (1954). Türk Barok Mimarisi Hakkında bir Deneme. Istanbul Technical University. (Ph.D. Proficiency Essay).
Kuban, Dogan. (1969). Celâl Esad Arseven ve Türk Sanatı Kavramı. Mimarlık, 7(10), 17-20.
Kuban, Doğan. (2007). Osmanlı Mimarisi. YEM Yayın.
Kuukanen, Jouni-Matti. (2012). The Missing Narrativist Turn in the Historiography of Science. History and Theory,51(3), 340-363.
Lange, John. (2010). The Philosophy of Historiography. New York: E-Reads.
Leach, Andrew. What is Architectural History. (2010). Polity Press.
400
Leavy, Patricia. (2011). Oral History: Understanding Qualitative Research. Oxford University Press.
Legault, Régean. (1991). Architecture and Historical Representation. Journal of Architectural Education 44 (4): 200–205
Leopold von Ranke. (2021). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Accessed on 16.07.2021, Available from https://www.britannica.com/biography/Leopold-von-Ranke
Lyotard, Jean-François. (1984). The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge. Manchester University Press. 1979, 1984.
Mako, Vladimir, Marta, Vukotic Lazar & Mirjana, Roter Blagojevic. (2014). Architecture and Ideology. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Mardin, Şerif. (1973). Center-Periphery Relations: A Key to Turkish Politics?. Daedalus, 102(1)
Mazlum, Deniz. (2005). Öncü Bir Mimarlık Sözlüğü: Celal Esad Arseven’in Islıhat-I Mimariye’si. Sanat Tarihi Defterleri, 9, Ege Yayınları, İstanbul.
Meetings and Exhibits. (1982). Turkish Studies Association Bulletin, 6(1), 32-33.
Mete Tapan CV. ITU Alumni Website. Accessed on: 02.01.2021, Available From: http://itumd.org.tr/i/uploads/file/375%20Mete%20Tapan.pdf
Michael, Camille.; Çelik, Zeynep.; Onians, John.; Rifkin, Adrian.; & B. Steiner, Christopher. (1996). Rethinking the Canon. The Art Bulletin, 78(2), 198-217.
Middle East Technical University. General Catalog 1979-1981. Ankara – Turkey. (1980). Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey, University Catalog No:21
Mimar M. Vedat Bey. (1930). Milli Mimari Anketimize Mimar Vedat Beyin Cevabı. Milli Mecmua, 11(119). Taha Toros Arşivi.
401
Mimaride Türk Milli Üslubu Semineri. (1984). Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı Eski Eserler ve Müzeler Genel Müdürlüğü.
Mimarlık Tarihi ve Rölöve Kürsüsü Çalışma Raporu (1.4.1971-31.3.1972). Accessed on 29.12.2020, Available From: http://katalogtarama.cekulvakfi.org.tr/
Mimarlık Tarihi ve Restorasyon Kürsüsü Çalışma Raporu (1.4.1972-31.3.1973). (1.4.1972-31.3.1973). Accessed on 02.01.2021, From: http://katalogtarama.cekulvakfi.org.tr/
Mimarlık Tarihi ve Restorasyon Kürsüsü Çalışma Raporu (1.4.1974-31.3.1975) Accessed on 29.12.2020, Available From: http://katalogtarama.cekulvakfi.org.tr/
Mimarlık Tarihi ve Restorasyon Kürsüsü Çalışma Raporu (1.5.1977-30.4.1978). Accessed on 29.12.2020, Available From: http://katalogtarama.cekulvakfi.org.tr/
Minkenberg, Michael. (2014). Power and Architecture: The Construction of Capitals and the Politics of Space. Berghahn Books.
Morkoç. Selen Bahriye. (2006). A Study of Ottoman Narratives on Architecture: Text, Context and Hermeneutics. University of Adelaide. (Ph.D. Thesis).
Morphy, Howard. (1986). Reflections on Representations. Anthropology Today, 2(2), 24-26.
Morley, David & Chen, Kuan-Hsing. (1996). Critical Dialogues in Cultural Studies. Routledge.
Mumcu, Uğur. “Özerklik ve Terör…” (November 8, 1981). Cumhuriyet Newspaper Archives. Accessed: December 12, 2020. From: https://www.cumhuriyetarsivi.com/
Nalbantoğlu, Gülsüm. (1988). The Birth of an Aesthetic Discourse in Ottoman Architecture. METU Journal of the Faculty of Architecture, 8(2), 115-122.
Nalbantoğlu, Gülsüm Baydar. (1989). The professionalization of the Ottoman-Turkish architect. University of California. (Ph.D. Thesis).
402
Necipoğlu, Gülru. (2007). Creation of a National Genius: Sı̇nan and the Historiography of "Classical" Ottoman Architecture. Muqarnas, 24, 141-183.
Obituary/ Anma. (2019). METU Journal of the Faculty of Architecture, 2. v- xxix
Offical Website of Aga Khan Award for Architecture, Accessed on 17.04.2021; Available from: https://www.akdn.org/architecture/project/turkish-historical-society
Orlowski, Boleslan. (Çev. Nesrin Kılcıoğlu). (1979). Ayın Kişisi Mimar Sinan 1489 – 1578. Mimarlık, 71(1), 9.
Oyalıoğlu, İlhan., Gündoğdu, Raşit., Ekici, Cevat., & Önal, Ebul Faruk. (2015). Osmanlı Mimarisi. Usûl-i Mi'mârî-i Osmânî. Çamlıca.
Örs, Orhan. (2013). Kuruluşundan Birinci Dünya Savaşına Kadar İttihat ve Terakki Cemiyeti. Ankara Üniversitesi Türk İnkılâp Tarihi Enstitüsü Atatürk Yolu Dergisi, 51, 679-716
Özer, Bülent. (1964). Rejyonalizm, Universalizm ve Çağdaş Mimarimiz Üzerine Bir Deneme. (Ph.D. Thesis). İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi Mimarlık Fakültesi.
Özışık Talat. (1946). Mimar Koca Sinan. Arkitekt, 03-04(171-172), 71-73
Özkan, Suha. (1973). Mimar Vedat Tek (1873-1942). Mimarlık, 121 (11): 45-51.
Özkan, Suha. (2007). Modern Turkish Architecture: A New Introduction for Modern Turkish Architecture. METU Journal of the Faculty of Architecture, 2, 179-185.
Özkan, Suha. (2019). Yıldırım Bir Dost, Bir Önder. In Obituary/ Anma. (2019). METU Journal of the Faculty of Architecture (2), v- xxix
Özyürek, Esra. (2007). The Politics of Public Memory in Turkey. Syracuse University Press.
403
Palmer, Allison Lee. (2020). Historical Dictionary of Neoclassical Art and Architecture. Rowman & Littlefield.
Pamir, Mehmet Doruk. (1986). Modern Turkish Architecture. Middle East Journal, 40(2), 374.
Payaslıoğlu, Arif T. (1996). Türk Yükseköğretiminde Bir Yeniliğin Tarihi: Barakadan Kampusa 1954-1964. Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi.
Peirce, Charles Sanders. (1931). Collected Papers. Cambridge: Harvard University.
PeraMuzesi. “Sözlü Tarih: Öğrencileri Louis Kahn'ı Anlatıyor! - Yıldırım Yavuz.” YouTube, 22 Jan. 2018. Accessed on 22.12.2020., Available From: www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wa4q1g7Oteg.
Pitkin, Hanna Fenichel. (1969). Representation. New York, Atherton Press, 1969.
Pitkin, Hanna Fenichel. (1967). The Concept of Representation. University of California Press.
Polatoğlu, Mehmed Gökhan. (2019). Atatürk Dönemi’nde Maden ve Enerji Alanında Kurulan Bir İktisadi Devlet Teşekkülü: Etibak. Tarih Araştırmaları Dergisi, 38(66), 444-478.
Profil: Afife Batur (1933-2018). (2019). Arredamento Mimarlık, 329, 48-68.
Rauf BEYRU, Prof. (1923-2016). Official Biography Page of Faculty of Architecture; Department of City and Regional Planning, Middle East Technical University. Accessed on 18.07.2021, Available From: https://crp.metu.edu.tr/en/rauf-beyru-prof-dr-1923-2016
Reagan, Ronald. (April 2, 1981). White House Statement Concerning the Centennial Anniversary of the Birth of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk of Turkey. Accessed on 18.07.2021, Available From: Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu
404
Reed, Howard. (1975). Hacettepe and Middle East Technical Universities: New Universities in Turkey. Minerva, 13(2), 200-235
Renata Holod: College for Women Class of 1963 Term Professor Emerita in the Humanities. Official Website of University of Pennsylvania, History of Art, Accessed on: 18.07.2021, Available from: https://arth.sas.upenn.edu/people/renata-holod
Riedler, Florian. (2011). Opposition and Legitimacy in the Ottoman Empire: Conspiracies and Political Cultures. Routledge.
Röportaj: Vecdi Diker. (1993). ODTÜ’LÜ Dergisi, 2, ODTÜ Basım İşliği, Ankara.
Rüsen, Jörn. (2005). History: Narration, Interpretation, Orientation. Berghahn Books.
Sakallıoğlu, Ümit Cizre. (1997). The Anatomy of the Turkish Military’s Political Autonomy. Comparative Politics, 29(2), 151-166.
Salt Beyoğlu. (2020). ATÖLYE: ODTÜ: 'ARCH 101 BASIC DESIGN'. Accessed on 18.12.2020. Available from: https://saltonline.org/tr/2203/atolye-odtu-arch-101-basic-design.
Salt Research, Gültekin Çizgen, Taşlık Kahvesi - Taşlık Coffee House, TMGCH0020, Available: https://archives.saltresearch.org/handle/123456789/78259
Samih Saim. (1931). Lö Korbüziye'nin Muasır Şehri. Mimar, 2, 44-48.
Sargın, Güven Arif. & Savaş, Aysen. (2016) ‘A University is a society’: an environmental history of the METU ‘campus’. The Journal of Architecture, 21(4), 602-629
Sarınay, Yusuf. (2014). Türk Parlemento Tarihi: Milli Güvenlik Konseyi ve Danışma Meclisi (1980-1983). I. Cilt. TBMM Kültür, Sanat ve Yayın Kurulu Yayınları
Satan, Ali. (2013). Avrupamerkezcilik ve Türk Tarihi Tezi. Human & Society / İnsan ve Toplum, 3(6), 333-342.
405
Sey, Yıldız. & Yücel, Atilla. (1972). Türkiye’de Köy Konutu Sorununun Kapsam ve İçeriği, Çözüm Alternatiflerinin Belirlenmesinde Temel Strateji ve Yöntem Sorunlarının Tartışılması. Mimarlık, 107 (9), 42-49.
Sey, Yıldız. (2018). Mimarlığı Meslek Değil, Hayat Olarak Gören Atilla Yücel. Mimarlık, 404, 10.
Schwarzmantel, John. (1998). The Age of Ideology: Political Ideologies from the American Revolution to Postmodern Times. Macmillan Press LTD.
Shils, Edward (1975). Center and Periphery. Essays in Macrosociology. University of Chicago Press.
Skidmore, Max, J. (1992). Ideologies and the nation-state. History of European Ideas, 15(1-3): 61-66
Smith, Anthony D. (1988). The Ethnic Origins of Nations. Blackwell Publishing. 1986, 1987, 1988.
Snyder, Louis. L. (1990). Encyclopedia of Nationalism. Paragon House.
Sözen, Metin. & Tapan, Mete. (1973). 50 Yılın Türk Mimarisi. İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları 122.
Sözen, Metin. (1984). Cumhuriyet Dönemi Türk Mimarlığı. Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları.
Sözen, Metin. (1996). Cumhuriyet Dönemi Türk Mimarisi. Türkiye İş Bankası, Kültür Yayınları
Stieber, Nancy. (2005). Introduction. Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, (4), 417.
Stråth, Bo. (2006). Ideology and History. Journal of Political Ideologies, 11(1), 23-42.
406
Suha Özkan. Biography. Bodrum Architecture Library Website. Accessed on 18.12.2020. Available from: https://mimarsuhaozkan.wixsite.com/bodrum/biography
Sukla, Ananta, C. (2001). Art and Representation: Contributions to Contemporary Aesthetics. Westport, Conn: Greenwood Publishing Group.
Şevki. (1931). Mezar. Mimar, 1, 12-13.
Tahsin Öz. (1957). Süleymaniye’nin İnşasının 400 üncü Yıldönümü. Arkitekt, 04(289), 167-171.
Tanıl, Bora. (2003). Nationalist Discourses in Turkey. South Atlantic Quarterly, 102 (2/3), 433-451.
Tanyeli, Uğur. (2001). Sedad Hakkı Eldem. Boyut.
Tanyeli, Uğur., & Fındıklı, Erhan Berat. (2017). Toplumsal Hafıza, Mimarlık, Tarih ve Kuram: Uğur Tanyeli ile Söyleşi. Everest Yayınları.
Tanyeli, Uğur. (2020). Mimar Sinan: Tarihsel ve Muhayyel. Metis Yayıncılık.
Tanju, Bülent. (1999). 1908-1946 Türkiye Mimarlığının Kavramsal Çerçevesi. Istanbul Technical University. (Ph. D. Thesis).
Tapan, Mete. (1973). Betonarme Büyük Boyutlu Prefabrike Elemanlarla Çok Katlı Konut Üretiminde Tasarım Kısıtlamaları Üzerine Bir Araştırma. (Ph.D. Thesis). Istanbul Technical University.
Tapan, Mete. (1975). Deprem Sonrası Konut Üretimi. Mimarlık, 142 (8-9), 11-12.
Taylor, Stephanie. (2013). What Is Discourse Analysis?. “What Is?” Research Methods Series. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
407
T.C. Resmi Gazete. (29 May 1934). Kanunlar: Nafıa Vekâletinin teşkilât ve vazifelerine dair kanun. Law Number: 2443. Acceptance Date: 26/05/1934. Sayı: 2713. Accessed on: 20.07.2021, Available from: https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/arsiv/2713.pdf
T.C. Resmi Gazete (1960). Devlet Planlama Teşkilatının Kurulması hakkında Kanun. Law Number: 91, Acceptance Date: 30/9/1960. Accessed on 06.07.2021, Available from: https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/arsiv/10621.pdf
T.C. Resmi Gazete. (1962). Birinci Beş Yıllık (1963-1967) Kalkınma Planı. Plan Resolution Number: 1, Acceptance Date: 21/11/1962. Accessed on 06.07.2021, Available from: https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/arsiv/11272.pdf
T.C. Resmi Gazete. (September 12, 1980). Millî Güvenlik Konseyi'nin Bildirileri: Millî Güvenlik Konseyi'nin Bir Numaralı Bildirisi. Number: 17103, Accessed on 18.07.2021, Available from: https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/arsiv/17103.pdf
T.C. Resmi Gazete. (September 26, 1980). Atatürk’ün Doğumunun 100 ncü Yılının Kutlanması ve Atatürk Kültür Merkezi Kurulması Hakkında Kanun. Number 17117, Law Number 2302, Date of Acceptance: September 23, 1980. p.1 Accessed on 18.07.2021, Available from: https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/arsiv/17117.pdf
T.C. Resmi Gazete. (November 6, 1981). The Higher Education Law. Number 17506, Law Number, 2547, Date of Acceptance: November 4, 1981. p. 6. Accessed on 16.07.2021, Available from: https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/arsiv/17506.pdf. The translations are available in the official website of the Council of Higher Education, from www.yok.gov.tr
Tekeli, İlhan. (1981). İslam Mimarisi Diye Bir Kategori Bilimsel Olarak Temellendirilebilir mi?. Mimarlık, 168, 19(6), 2-3.
Tekeli, İlhan. (1998). Tarihyazımı Üzerine Düşünmek. Dost Kitabevi Yayınları.
Tekeli, İlhan. & İlkin, Selim. (1997). Mimar Kemalettin’in Yazdıkları. Tisamat Basım Sanayii.
Tekeli, İlhan. (2010). Tarihsel Bağlamı İçinde Türkiye'de Yükseköğretimin ve YÖK'ün Tarihi. Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları.
408
Tekeli, İlhan. (2010). The Story of Istanbul’s Modernisation. Architectural Design, 80(1), 32-39.
The Office of the Ambassador for Cultural Affairs. Atatürk’s Republic of Culture. (1981).
The UNESCO Courier. (1981). Atatürk: The Father of Modern Turkey. Published monthly by UNESCO The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, UNESCO, Paris.
TMMOB Mimarlar Odası Ankara Şubesi. (2019). Prof. Dr. Yıldırım Yavuz’u Kaybettik. Published on 11 September 2019. Accessed on 22.12.2020. Available from: http://www.mimarlarodasiankara.org/index.php?Did=10293
Toker, Metin. (1990). Demokrasimizin İsmet Paşa’lı Yılları: 1944-1973. Bilgi Yayınevi.
Tournikiotis, Panayotis. (1999). The Historiography of Modern Architecture. MIT Press.
Tucker, Aviezer. (2009). A Companion to the Philosophy of History and Historiography. John Wiley and Sons.
Tunaya, Tarık Zafer. (1988). Türkiye’de Siyasal Partiler. Cilt:I İkinci Meşrutiyet Dönemi 1908-1918. Hürriyet Vakfı Yayınları. (The Second Edition).
Turan, Şerafettin. (1999). Türk Devrim Tarihi IV-1: Çağdaşlık Yolunda Yeni Türkiye (10 Kasım 1938 – 14 Mayıs 1950). Bilgi Yayınevi.
Turan, Şerafettin. (1999). Türk Devrim Tarihi V: Çağdaşlık Yolunda Yeni Türkiye (27 Mayıs 1960 – 12 Eylül 1980). Bilgi Yayınevi.
Tüli’den haberler. (1963). AKİS, 484. (5 Ekim 1963). Accessed on: 22.12.2020, Available From: İnönü Vakfı Website: http://www.ismetinonu.org.tr/yayinlar/
409
UNESCO. (1978). Records of the General Conference, 20th session, Paris, 24 October to 28 November 1978, v. 1: Resolutions. Accessed on: 18.07.2021, Available From https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000114032
Upton, Dell. (2002). Architecture in Everyday Life. New Literary History, 33(4), 707-723
“Üniversite ve Akademi yöneticileri YÖK için ne diyor?”. (November 11, 1981). Cumhuriyet Newspaper Archives. Accessed: December 12, 2020. From: https://www.cumhuriyetarsivi.com/
Ünsal, Behçet. (1935). Ar ve Memleket Mimarlığının Kronolojisi Üzerine Düşünceler. Mimar, 6, 182-187.
Ünsal, Behçet. (1937). Zamanımız Mimarlığının Morfolojik Analizi. Arkitekt, 8, 219-222.
Voloshinov, Valentin Nikolaevich., Matejka, Ladislav & Titunik, I.R (Translators). (1973). Marxism and the Philosophy of Language. Studies in language, Seminar Press, New York and London.
Von Laue, Theodore H. (1987). The World Revolution of Westernization. The History Teacher, 20(2), 263-279.
Warner, Jayne. L. (2017). Turkish Nomad: The Intellectual Journey of Talat S. Halman. I.B.Tauris.
Website of Christopher Little. Accessed on 17.04.2021; Available from: https://christopherlittle.com/life/
Webb, Anne. C. (1879). A Manual of Etymology: Containing Latin & Greek Derivatives: with a Key, Giving the Prefix, Root, and Suffix. Philadelphia: Eldredge & Brother.
White, Hayden. (1975). Metahistory: The Historical Imagination in Nineteenth-century Europe. The John Hopkins University Press.
410
White, Hayden. (1980). The Value of Narrativity in the Representation of Reality. Critical Inquiry, 7(1), 5-27.
White, Hayden. (1988). Historiography and Historiophoty. The American Historical Review 93(5), 1193–1199.
White, Hayden. (1988). The Content of the Form: Narrative Discourse and Historical Representation. London: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Williams, Raymond. (1983). Keywords: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society. Oxford University Press, New York.
Willis, Julie. (1998). Invisible Contributions: The Problem of History and Women Architects. Architectural Theory Review, 3(2), 57-68.
Yavuz, Yıldırım. (1973). Cumhuriyet Dönemi Ankarası’ında Mimari Biçim Endişesi. Mimarlık, 121-122, 26-44.
Yavuz, Yıldırım. (1976). Western Effects on Turkish National Architecture During the Second Constitutional Period: (1908-1918). Metu Journal of the Faculty of Architecture, 2(1), 9-34.
Yavuz, Yıldırım. (1981). Mimar Kemalettin Bey (1870-1927). Metu Journal of the Faculty of Architecture, 7(1): 53-76.
“YÖK için ne dediler?” (November 9, 1981). Cumhuriyet Newspaper Archives. Accessed: December 12, 2020. From: https://www.cumhuriyetarsivi.com/
Yücel, Atilla. (1973). Mimarlıkta Metodoloji/Sistemli Yaklaşımlar ve Mimarlık Eğitimi. Mimarlık, 114 (4), 22-28.
Yücel, Atilla. (1982). Mimarlıkta İdeolojiler, Yenilikçi Tasarım ve Tarih. Mimarlık, 176 (2), 16-19.
Zürcher, Erik. J. (2014). Turkey: A Modern History. I.B. Tauris.
411
APPENDICES
A. INTERVIEWS
A1. INTERVIEW WITH İLHAN TEKELİ – JUNE 18, 2020
G.Y.: Bu etkinlik (The Photographic Exhibition and Seminar on Contemporary Architecture in Turkey, 1920-1980) gerçekleştiğinde siz ODTÜ’de hocaydınız. Öte yandan yüksek lisansınıza ODTÜ de başlamışsınız ama Zonguldak Bölgesi Ön Plan çalışması sonrasında bakanlığa verilen bir burs ile önce MIT’ye gidip, sonrasında ise Isard ile çalışmak istediğiniz için Pennsylvania Üniversitesine geçerek yüksek lisansınızı orada tamamlamışsınız. Hatta sanırım Charles Abrams’dan da ders almışsınız.
İ.T.: Yani dersine devam ettim. Bizim buranın (ODTÜ) kurucusu olduğu için oraya gitmişken, o da çok memnun oldu çünkü onun kafasındaki ilk ürün bendim.
G.Y.: Yani aslında sizin Modern Turkish Architecture öncesinde de Pennsylvania Üniversitesi ile bir bağınız varmış.
İ.T.: Yok, şöyle bir bağ, kişisel bağ değil de bana verilen görevi yapabilmek için onun kitabını (Isard) okumuştum. Beni OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) bursa gönderdiği için ve bizim Zonguldak planını yaparken danışmanımız Rodwin (Lloyd Rodwin) MIT'de hoca olduğu için, beni MIT' ye gönderdi OECD. MIT'ye gittiğim iyi oldu orada Alonso (William Alonso) ve John Friedman tanıştım. Benim bakımımdan iyi oldu ama benim kafamda, ben mühendislikten geldiğim için o zaman daha çok işlere kantitatif olarak bakıyordum, Isard'da o kanalın hocası, işte onun yanına gitmek istiyordum. Bir fırsat oldu. Bir konferansta işi hallettik, Isard'ın yanına geçtik.
G.Y.: Peki siz bu etkinlik kapsamında tekrar Upenn'e gidip sunum yaptınız mı?
İ.T.: Tabii Pennsyvania'da sunum yaptım. Modern Turkish Architecture (2005)'in Türkçesinin içinde Suha olayı anlatmış aslında. Ben onun biraz detayını anlatırım. Suha benimle nasıl ilişki kurdu, niye ben oraya gittim, ben mimar değilim, mimarlık tarihçisi de değilim, ama onun başındaki temel konuşmayı niye bana emanet ettiler.
412
G.Y.: Onu soracaktım, sizin bu etkinliğine ve dolayısıyla kitaba katılımınız nasıl oldu? Sizinle kim ya da hangi kurum iletişime geçti?
İ.T.: Suha (Suha Özkan) tabii çok aktif bir kişilik, bizim burada öğrenciliğinden beri tanıyorum ve devamlı olarak Suha şuna inanıyor temelde, Türkiye'de bir modern mimarlık oluyor ama bu yurtdışına tanıtılamıyor ve bir anlamda kendisine böyle bir misyon biçmiş diye görüyorum. Daha sonraki hayat silsilesine bakınca böyle bir misyon biçtiği görülüyor. Ve onu da başarılı olarak yerine getirdi.
Bu ilk örneklerden biri. Bir otobüs yolculuğu yapıyorduk (ama hangi vesileyle yapıyorduk bilmiyorum, Ankara içinde mi bir toplantıya buradan bir otobüsle mi gidiyorduk), Suha'yla yan yana oturduk. Suha bana bundan bahsetti. Yani böyle bir iş yapıyoruz diye bahsetti. Onun içinde ben yokum aslında. Biz konuşmaya başladık. Ben de böyle bir iş nasıl yapılır diye anlatmaya başladım. Yani, bunu anlatmak için Türkiye'nin bağlamını bir anlatmak lazım ki, onun üstünden bunlar nasıl çıktı görülsün diye. Suha'nın da aklına yattı, sen katılır mısın dedi. Tabii bunu buraya koyup, sonra hayır ben yapmam demek mümkün değil, bir kere açmışsın o konuyu, peki dedim. Ama tabii ben mimarlık tarihçisi olmadığım için uluslararası bir toplantıda başlangıç paper'ını (bildirisini) vermek sorumluluk. Ben de oturup biraz mimarlık tarihi okudum ve o yazılan paper ortaya çıktı. Bir çeşit sorumluluğu yüklenince, onu yapmak gerekti. Yoksa daha önceden gelen bir şey değil. Ani gelişen bir şey, ani gelişen bir sorumluluk, tabii şöyle bir matrak bir durum var. Pennsylvania Üniversitesi'nde hatırlıyorum o sahneyi. Sahnede ben konuşuyorum. Arkama da bir kara tahta koydurtmuşum. Üstüne de çizerek konuşuyorum. Tabii benim İngilizcem pratikte öğrenci olarak öğrenilmiş bir İngilizce. Ama ben bu işe kendimi o kadar coşkuyla kaptırmışım ki, kâğıda falan bakmadan konuştum şakır şakır, toplantıda Talat Halman vardı, Emel Doğramacı vardı. Daha da tabii kalabalık bir şeydi ama onların ikisinin tepkisini hatırlıyorum. Bana geldiler sen İngilizceyi nerden öğrendin dediler, hayır ben bir yerden öğrenmedim dedim.
Aslında o makaleye şimdi bakınca, tabii o konularda şimdi çok farklı düşünüyorum, modernite. Daha o 80'li yıllarda Türkiye'de post modern yok henüz, bilinmiyor. 80'de ben, Dil ve Tarih-Coğrafya' da bir post modern konuşması yaptım, post moderni tanıtmaya çalışıyor herkes, benden de bir konuşma istediler, ben de konuşma yaptım. Bir çeşit modernitenin eleştirisini çok iyi bilmiyoruz. Ama o başta Suha'yla konuşurken üstünde durduğum, madem Türkiye'ye özgü bir şey anlatılacak, yani Türkiye'nin buradaki katkısı dünyadan tam bağlı olmayan bir özgün katkı olduğu iddiası taşıyacak, kaçınılmaz olarak böyle bir sergi, böyle bir iddia taşıyor, bu iddia nasıl temellendirilebilir? Şöyle temellendirmesi tabii doğru değil. Bir takım kabiliyetli adamlar çıktı ve bunu yaptılar. O bir yere oturmuyor tabii. Onun için bir toplumsal bağlamı diye bir şey olsun argümanını ben savunduğum için, toplumsal bağlamı kurmam gerekiyor bunu yazabilmem için. Tabii o zaman, bir mimarlık faaliyetinin (o zaman dediğim 40 yıl önce tabii), toplumsal bağlamı için yapılmış çok fazla çalışma yok. O zaman hâkim olan paradigma, merkez-çevre paradigması. İşte merkez ülkeler var, çevre ülkeler var, bunların etkileşimi var. Tabii esas modern mimari öbür tarafta geliştiği için, buradaki sosyal bağlamı kurabilmek için, önce bu modeli oturtmak gerekiyor. O yazıda yapılmaya çalışılan da genellikle o. Renata Holod'da yazısında
413
ifade etti. Sonra bu kitap hakkında bir yerlerde yazılar çıktı, architectural record da mı ne (architectural record, june, 1985). Orada da buna işaret ediyorlar, bak bu center-periphery üstünden bu meseleyi ele alıyor diye. Hatta mimarlar da çok ele almıyor sanırım o tarihlerde center-periphery.
Tabii bugün center-periphery modeli artık geçerli değil. Soğuk savaş bittikten sonra çok kutuplu dünyaya geçince böyle bir model geçerli değil, ama o zaman işleyen bir model. O zaman işleyen bir model olduğu için, orada center-periphery ilişkisi içinde hem mimarlığın yahut bina yapmanın nesnel öğeleri center-periphery içinde nerede duruyor, hem de mimarlık ideolojisi center-periphery de nasıl duruyor. Tabii sizin bunun o zaman Türkiye için yeni olduğunu fark etmeniz mümkün değil ama ben yaşadığım için çok iyi biliyorum. O zaman Türkiye'de mimarlar yarışma kazanmakla yarışırlardı birbirleriyle. Ve yarışma kazanan mimarlarla, yarışma kazanmayan yahut yarışmaya girmeyen mimarlar arasında bir böyle soğukluk her zaman vardı. Ve o zaman, şöyle yarışma kazananları, kazanmayanlar dergilerden kopya çekmek üstünden suçlarlardı. Şimdi, buradaki ele alıştaki, bu yazının özgün tarafı orada, bir dergiden aktaran bireyler aracılıyla oluşan bir Türkiye modern mimarisi kavramını geçiyor. Diyor ki bu center-periphery ilişkileri içinde, ilişkilerin niteliği olarak ortaya çıkan, biraz onu izleyen, biraz ona karşı çıkan, ama yani bu problem nasıl çözülecek diye dergiden kopya çeken bir ele alışın dışında bir ele alış. Mesela o tarihlerde yahut o zaman için, bizim Enis Kortan'ın yazdıkları vardır onlara bakarsanız, orada bu anlattığım tür var. Yani o şuradan almış, buradan almış. Muhtemelen öyle insanlar da vardır. Ama bir dönemin mimarlık tarihi ona oturtulamaz.
G.Y.: Sürecin içinde algılanması ve anlaşılması gerekiyor.
İ.T.: Tabii, daha yapısal bir şeye oturtulması lazım. Tabii ben bugün, o yazının özgün tarafını, o zaman ki gördüğümden daha iyi görüyorum. O zaman bunu yazmışım ama tam da bu kadar net miydim, bunu yaparken, biraz el yordamıyla mı yaptım, 40 yıl öncesini çok iyi hatırlamıyorum tabii. Ama bugünkü durumda, işte bu da tarihin bir parçası oldu. Böyle baktığım zaman, bu yazının özgün tarafını, işte Türkiye mimarlık performansına aktarmacılık kavramı üstünden yaklaşmak yerine, daha yapısal bir ilişki içinde yaklaşma gayreti var.
G.Y.: O dönüşümün içinde algılayarak yazmışsınız, zaten özellikle bölümünüzün sonunda, mimarlığı imitation (taklit) olarak algılanamayacağını da o zamandan söylemişsiniz.
İ.T.: Tabii. Zaten onu biraz şeyden de biliyorum. Benim abim Doğan Tekeli, işte üniversitede okurken onun bürosuyla iç içe, aynı evin 2 katında, onların büro alt katında, biz de üst katında yaşıyorduk. Ben de devamlı büronun içindeydim. Onun için bu tartışmaları onların kanalıyla biliyordum. O tartışmaların içerisindeydim ve ondan rahatsız oluyordum. Çünkü nasıl çalıştıklarını görüyorum, işte bir problemi çözüyorlar ama böyle taklit olarak çözmüyorlar, çözerken dünyada ne oluyor falan diye de bakıyorlar tabii. Bu aslında Suha'nın bu toplantıyı örgütleme amacına da uygun düşen bir şey. Yani Suha'da bunun görmezden gelinebilecek bir taklit olduğu şeklindeki vaziyet alışa karşı çıkıyor bir sergi açarak.
414
G.Y.: Aslında çoklu modernliklerin ön plana çıktığını, farklı yerlerdeki farklı modernlik süreçlerinin de nasıl olduğunu da gösteren bir çalışma.
İ.T.: Tabii, bu farklı modernlik meselesi çok önemli ama o zaman yoktu. O yazıyı yazdığım zaman çok farkında olmadığım meselelerden biri. Sonraki yazılarımda ben Türkiye modernite projesini utangaç modernite; radikal modernite; popülist modernite; ve modernitenin aşınması diye dörde bölerek yazıyorum. O zaman orada değildim. Bu dörtlüleri yazmaya başladıktan bir süre sonra, yahu bu modernite, farklı moderniteler olabilir yahut oluyor meselesine geldim. Tabii o tarihte bu kavram yok henüz.
G.Y.: Ama yine de rahatsızlığı varmış anladığım kadarıyla.
İ.T.: Var tabii, rahatsızlık var, ama böyle modernin alternatif modernite biçimleri olacağını net olarak söyleyemiyor. Ama kurduğu içinde, center-periphery modeli içinde, onun sonucu olarak farklı modernlikler çıkması gerekiyor. Yani o çalıştığı zaman, çıkan sonuç farklı modernlikler, ama ben onu söyleyemiyorum, bu farklı modernliklerdir diye. Orada söylenen bir çeşit, modernin buradaki yeniden üretilişi. Tamam bu üretilişler farklı olduğu için, senin dediğin gibi farklı modernlikleri içeriyor implicit (üstü kapalı) olarak, ama henüz söyleyemiyor.
G.Y.: Mimarlık tarihinin kendi içindeki gelişim süreciyle de alakası var tabii. O dönem çok öyle bakılmıyormuş. Dediğiniz gibi içinde barındırıyor ama o şekilde söylememişsiniz.
İ.T.: Tabii.
G.Y.: Yüksek lisansınızı yaptığınız ve Amerika’ya gittiğiniz dönem (1964-1966) ile seminerin gerçekleştiği ve kitabın çıktığı yıllar (1982-1986) aslında iki ilginç dönem. Birisi 1960, birisi 1980 darbesi sonrasına denk geliyor. Bununla birlikte Upenn’e ilk gittiğinizde ODTÜ’de öğrenci, ikincisinde ise ODTÜ’de hocaydınız.
İ.T.: Birincisinde de gittiğimde mezunum ben. ODTÜ'den diplomamı almışım, İmar Bakanlığında Zonguldak projesinin müdürü olarak çalışıyorum, bir sorumluluk vermişler bana. Bölge planı yapılacak, sen yapacaksın. Ama ben bölge planı okumamışım ki. Bize burada bölge planı öğretilmiyor. Ama o zaman, belki Cumhuriyet'in, bizim neslimizin ilginç bir özelliği var. İddia taşıyoruz biz. Yani şöyle bir iddia, işte şunu yap dediler, sen de yaparım dedin, artık bilmiyorum diye bir şey yok, öğrenip yapacaksın. İşte, burada henüz öğrenciyim, ama diplomam var. İTÜ'den mezun olduğum için, beni oraya müdür yapabiliyor o diploma. Beni oraya bölge plancısı olarak alıyorlar ama ben burada bölge planlama eğitimi almamışım. Zaten master (yüksek lisans) tezim Zonguldak planının kuramsal yönü diye, Zonguldak planını yapmam gerekiyor master tezini yazabilmem için. Öyle bir hoş ve önü açık bir dönem.
Başka bir öykü anlatayım, o benim kitapların başındaki tarihlerde anlattım, şimdi yeni bir kitap yazılıyor benim hakkımda, onlara da anlattım. Şöyle bir şey var, ben İTÜ'de
415
öğrenciyken, İzmir'deki Efes otelinde staj yapıyordum. Şimdi stajda da bizim başımızda, Alman firması yapıyor, bir alman betonarme mühendisi var. Ben de ikinci sınıf öğrencisiyim. Daha yani hiçbir şey bilmiyoruz. O Alman mühendis çağırdı, dedi ki işte şurada bir sundurma yapılacak, onun üstüne kafes kiriş yapılacak, şunları hesap et de getir dedi. Ben ona bilmiyorum demedim. Gittim, İzmir çarşısını dolaştım, bir kitap buldum. Ondan öğrendim, yapıp götürdüm. İTÜ belki eğitiminin içinden çok böyle bir güven veriyor, verdi. Belki o Cumhuriyet'in ilk döneminin getirdiği bir formasyon. Onun için Zonguldak planı denilince de ben çalışmaya başladım. Ne oldu bilmiyorum, tamam bir şeyler konuşuluyor, ben de o lafları konuşuyorum ama... bizim bakanlığın, bölge planlama dairesinin bir kütüphanesi vardı, OECD bu kütüphaneye kitap göndermiş. Bu kitaplardan biri de Walter Isard'ın "Methods of Regional Analysis", ben hemen o kitabı aldım ve o kitabın üstünden planı yaptım. Şimdi, o zaman bu tabi çok matrak bir şey, birisi var hiç tanımıyorsun, ama elinde başka bir şey yok, ona sarılıyorsun, onu öğreniyorsun, sonra işte onun yanına gitmeye çalışıyorsun falan hikâye öyle devam ediyor. İddia taşıyıp, sorumluluk alınca, ben yapamam diye bir şey yok. Bu herhâlde Cumhuriyet'in ilk döneminin yönlendirmesiyle ilgili bir problem diye düşünüyorum. Bugün öyle değil durum. Yani bugün herkes bu konuyu ben bilmem, sen başkasına sor, der. Öyle bir şey yoktu. Şimdi bu bağlama oturtmak meselesi sonra mimarlar odasının değişik mimarlar için yaptığı mimarlık çalışmaları, 2 yıl falan birini inceliyorlar Emin Onat'ı, bir yıl Seyfi Arkan'ı falan, orada şöyle bir talep geldi, bunların döneminin bağlamını yazmamı ve dört tane falan yazdım, Kemalettin; Seyfi Arkan; Emin Onat; bir de arkitekt dergisini çıkartan adını şimdi hatırlayamadım, onlar için bir çeşit, onların mimarlıkları üstüne değil, onların bireysel, toplumsal çevresi için bir şeyler yazdım. Bir anlamda, buradaki sosyal bağlamını yazmak, daha sonra da benim peşimi bırakmadı, üç-dört tane daha yazdık.
G.Y.: 1960’lar ve 1980’lerde yaşanan iki farklı darbe sonrası döneminde Türkiye’deki sosyal ve akademik ortamı nasıl değerlendiriyorsunuz? Sizce nasıl farklılıkları var?
İ.T.: Söyleyeyim. Şimdi darbe konusu, Türkiye sosyal yaşamı bakımından önemli bir konu. Şimdi şu dakikada Türkiye'de oturmuş bir inanç var, darbeler kötüdür. Tabii kötüdür. Hiçbir zaman darbe olmamalıdır. Olmamalıdır. Ama şöyle de bir konu var, darbeler arasında fark var mıdır, yok mudur? Şimdi mevcut iktidar ve onun çevresindekiler darbeler arasında fark yoktur kavramı üstünde duruyorlar ve bunun üslubunda, bunu adeta bir baskıcı bir şekilde yapıyor, televizyon konuşmalarına falan bakın herkes bunu zorluyor. Önce darbe niye oluyor sorusunu kimse sormuyor. Yani bizde darbeyi şöyle düşünüyorlar, bir takım hırslı adamlar var, o hırslı adamlar gelip darbe yapıyorlar iktidara. Yani bir takım kötü adamların yaptığı bir iş. Aslında Türkiye'de yapılan darbelerle, dünyada yapılan darbeler arasında bir fark var. Şimdi Latin Amerika'da bir darbe yapılır, diktatör gitmez, yeni bir darbeyle düşürürler. Bizdeki bütün darbeler, belirli süre sonra demokrasiye dönüyor. Hırsın vardıysa niye demokrasiye dönüyor. Yunanistan'daki darbede, darbe diktatörlük kurmak için yapılıyor, bizde darbeler demokrasiyi düzeltmek için yapılıyor. Şimdi bu darbelerin farkını gördüğün zaman şöyle bir soru çıkıyor. Şimdi bizdeki siyasetin genel kurgusu şu, nasıl bir siyaset yapıyoruz, bütün konuşmalara bak, her grup A partisi, B partisi, öteki partinin kötü olduğu, bu partinin de iyi olduğu üstüne kuruluyor. Ve bu şöyle bir sonuç doğuruyor, kötüler ve iyiler mücadele ediyor, işte bunun sonucunda ortaya çıkan
416
bir şey var, iki taraf kendi tarihlerini yazıyorlar. Ötekinin kötü, kendisinin iyi olduğu üstüne tarihler yazılıyor. Ve bizim tarihimiz Türkiye'deki hangi aktörlerin iyi, hangi aktörlerin kötü olduğu konusunda yargı yapmaya zorlanıyor. Hâlbuki bu yanlış bir tarih yazımı biçimi. Eğer, dışarıdan birisi, diyelim ki bir İngiliz, Türkiye'deki demokrasi tarihini yazsa, ne yazacak, Türkler demokrasiyi becerebildi mi, beceremedi mi diye bakacak. Ve bunun aktörü Türkler. Ve bu iki tanesi, bizde yazılan tarihe göre, biri iyi biri kötü olan aktörlerin ikisi de suçlu ya da ikisi de sevabı olan aktörler olacak. Şimdi bizim siyaset yapma biçimimiz ve siyasetçilerin yalana da dayanarak, post-truth'a dayanarak bir tarih yazma biçimi, sürekli olarak tarihimizi distorsiyona (çarpıklığa) uğratıyor. Gerçek tarih değil o, başka bir tarih var aslında. Şimdi o tarihle bakarsan, sorulacak soru şu: Türkler niye kendisini sürekli olarak üreten bir demokrasi kuramıyorlar? Şimdi bu sorunun cevabını vermeden darbe konusu üstünde konuşulamaz. Bu darbe konusunun altında yapısal bir problem var. Genellikle, Cumhuriyetler, demokratik de olabilir, olmayabilir de, zaman içinde demokratik olabilir, vs., ama cumhuriyetler genellikle bir projedir. İslami olur, bilmem ne olur ve bunların kurucu babaları vardır. Ve bu kurucu babalar, Amerika'da da biliyorsun kurucu babalar var, bizim de babamız belli zaten, bunlar bir projeyi ortaya koyuyorlar, Cumhuriyet projesi var. Bu Cumhuriyet projesinin normal olarak, bir demokrasiye evirilmesi beklenir ve Türkiye’de de 1946'da da bir demokrasiye eviriliyor. Ama evirildiği zaman bir demokrasi projesi yok bunun. Bu içinde yasakları olan ve siyaseti ötekileştirme üzerinden kuran bir demokrasi. Ve bu demokrasi kurulduğu zaman, demokrasi süreci, öyle bir süreç ki, başlangıçta Cumhuriyet'in babalarının koyduğu şeyleri aşıyor. Onu tahrip ediyor. O zaman sistemin birtakım ögeleri müdahale ediyorlar. Bu müdahale neyi sağlamak için yapılıyor? O baştaki noktaları, konulan şeyleri, aşılmaz çizgileri, yerine getirmek için yapıyor ama yine demokrasi kuruyor. Ama bu birikiyor, tekrar darbe yapıyor. Şimdi bu süre içinde eğer şu soruya cevap arıyorsan, niye Türkiye üretemiyor, çünkü Türkiye çok partili rejime geçtiği zaman, bir demokrasi projesine sahip değil ve ötekileştirme üstüne kurduğu için bu taraftan birisi Cumhuriyet'i temsil ediyorsa, onun karşısındaki öteki, ötekiyi yaratmak için onun karşısında pozisyon alıyor ve darbeyi tetikliyor. 1950-60'ı ben yaşadım, ben bütün seçimleri de yaşadım, 46 seçimini de yaşadım. İlkokul 3'teydim ve gayet bilinçliydim.
1950-60 döneminde Türkiye'de demokrasi yoktu. Bir rejim vardı. Popülistti. Zaten ben yazılarımda çok partili rejime geçiş diyorum, demokrasiye geçiş demiyorum. Ve sol büyük bir kapalı yerdi. Zaten 46 seçimlerine girerken İsmet Paşa demokrasiye geçişi bir özgürlük problemi olarak ele almaktan çok, şey olarak ele alıyor, tek parti olursa bu tek parti içinde yolsuzluk ve güç kullanılmasındaki yozlaşma engellenemiyor onun için iki partili sistem olsun ve biri gitsin diğeri gelsin diye düşünüyor. Ve bunu da 1937'de başbakanlıktan ayrıldıktan sonra evdeyken İngilizce dersi almaya başlıyor. O sırada İngiliz parlamento sistemini öğreniyor ve modeli de İngiliz parlamento sistemi. Ama başlangıçta şöyle bir şey düşünüyor, diyor ki, bizim bulunduğumuz konjonktür, coğrafya, vs. bir bu, sola kapalı olmalıdır, iki partili bir sistem olmalıdır, bu iki partili sistem, ikisi de sola kapalıysa ve işte irticaya karşıysa, Atatürk'ü problem etmeyecekse, öyle partiler olmalıdır. Şimdi böyle bir partinin modeli olarak baktığın zaman, şunu görüyorsun, Celal Bayar bunun için en uygun adam. Komünistlikle hiç alakası yok,
417
liberal, Atatürk'ün yanında, zaten dinle falan hiçbir alakası yok, çok uygun ve o başlangıçta birçok parti kuruluyor, ötekilerin yolları tıkanıyor, bunun yolu açılıyor. Ve bunun yolunun açılmasında şöyle bir şey var, İsmet Paşa seçimi kaybetmeyi kendi projesinin başarısı olarak görüyor. Erdal İnönü'ye o zaman yazdığı bir mektup var, orada diyor ki, seçimi kaybetmem en büyük zaferim olacaktır diyor. Ondan sonra gelen Demokrat Parti için şey yok, seçimi kaybetmek onların zaferi değil ve gitmemek için direniyorlar ve ötekileştirme üzerinden siyaset yapıp, özellikle din üstünden bu hikâyeleri açtıkça, ilginçtir ordunun alt kademeleri içinden bir şey ortaya çıkıyor, daha sonraki darbelerden farklı, emir komuta zinciri içinde değil. Türkiye'deki darbelerin bir ilginç özelliği var. Darbelerin ideolojisi yok. Darbeler, işte bir Cumhuriyet'in o ilk değerleri diye bir şey var onu tekrar koyacaklar, peki, iyi çalışmayan demokrasiyi yeni anayasayla bu iyi kanala sokacaklar, ama başka ideolojik bir muhteva yok. Her darbe, o darbe öncesinde ülkede olan gelişmiş bir ideolojik çerçeveyi alıp kullanıyor. İki tane ideolojik çerçeve var burada. Bir tanesi Cumhuriyet Halk Partisi'nin 48'de yaptığı kurultayda aslında programını değiştiriyor, çünkü seçim kazanacak, popülizm oluyor ve Türkiye'de gerek Demokrat Parti gerek CHP'nin programı aynı popülizm çizgisine geliyor ama Demokrat Parti bir demokrasi kurmadığı için içinden Hürriyet Partisi çıkıyor ve Hürriyet Partisi, onlar demokrat, Demokrat Parti kurulunca toplumun bütün muhalefet kesimini topluyor. Ama içinde demokratları barındıramıyor. Onlar bir Hürriyet Partisi olarak örgütleniyorlar ve CHP'nin 58 İlk Adım Beyannamesini hazırlamasını sağlıyorlar. İlk defa, Türkiye'ye gelen demokrasi projesi bu. Askerlerde bir çeşit hazır, bunu alıyorlar. Bir başka aldıkları hazır var, 1958 devalüasyonu. Türkiye'de Demokrat Parti planlamaya karşı, Menderes diyor ki, planımız bütçemizdir diyor, bir yıllıktır diyor falan, böyle saçmalıklar var ama 58 devalüasyonunda dünyaya plan yapmak sözü veriyorlar. Ve 1958 yılında, daha sonra askerlerin planı olarak gördüğümüz planlama teşkilatı, elektrik etüt idaresinin içinde kurulmuş oluyor. Ama gizleniyor. O sonra yüze çıkıyor. Şimdi askerlerin getirdiği mesele, bir Türkiye'ye ilk defa, burada da çok ilginç bir konu var, bir anayasa geliyor, anayasa sola açık gibi, eşitlik var, adalet var, sosyal adalet geliyor falan, ama açık değil. Neden? Çünkü ceza kanununun 141, 142 ve 163. maddeleri yürürlükte kalıyor. Birisi şeriata kapıyor, öteki sola kapıyor. Ben şimdi yazdıklarımda 60 ihtilalinin sola açmadığını ama solun sızmasına müsaade ettiğini söylüyorum ve o sola açmayıp, solun sızmasına müsaade etmek, solun lecitimizasyonu (meşrulaştırılması) bakımından problemler yaratıyor. Neyse, ama Türkiye'de fikir hareketleri bakımından baktığımız zaman Demokrat Parti dönemi, bir ölü dönemdir. Hiçbir fikir hareketi yoktur doğru dürüst. 60 sonrası ise her şeyin patladığı ve geliştiği falan. Onun için 60'ın yaratıcılığı Türkiye'de entelijansiyanın (aydınlar topluluğunun) yaratıcılığının önünü açmıştır. Ama 80'deki darbe, 60 anayasasını Türkiye için lüks bularak onu kapatmaya dönüktür. Bugün, ciddi olarak şu problemimiz var. Bir anayasa problemimiz var. Ve anayasa problemimiz, Türkiye nasıl kendisini üreten bir demokrasi yapamıyorsa, Türk siyaseti 82 anayasasının ancak bir kısmını değiştirebildi, diğerini değiştiremiyor. Uzlaşma yaratamıyor. Şimdi, bu tabii çok önemli bir sorun. Türkiye'de sivil anayasa yapamayan bir siyasetle karşı karşıyayız. Bu yönetemez Türkiye'yi. Evet, çok siyasete girdik, boş ver.
418
G.Y.: Yine bu iki farklı dönemde, özellikle ODTÜ özelindeki akademik durumu nasıl değerlendiriyorsunuz?
İ.T.: Şimdi, ODTÜ 60'larda yeni kuruluş aşamasında zaten ODTÜ'nün esas sıçrayışı Kurdaş sonrasında. Kurdaş'sa askerlerin adamı, mali sorunlarını çözen bir adam ve onun sivil idareye geçtiğinde ne tarafa gideceği konusunda bir çeşit ona seçme imkânı veriliyor o da Orta Doğu'yu seçiyor ve Orta Doğu'nun iyi bir şekilde kurulması Kurdaş'ın hatıratını okursanız, o çok öğretici bir şey. Nasıl bir proje olduğunu ve nasıl gerçekleştiğini görüyorsunuz ve temelde birkaç şey var. Tabii burada çok matrak bir olay var, o sırada Türkiye eğitim tarihi bakımından iki tane büyük figür var: Doğramacı ve Kurdaş. Doğramacı ve Kurdaş'ın yarışmasına dayanan bir dinamik içinde gelişiyor ve iki tane çok başarılı üniversite doğuyor aslında, birisi tıp ağırlıklı, öteki burası. Şimdi daha sonraki yıllarda, böyle bir dinamik yok, zaten 80'de YÖK gelince, böyle bir dinamiğin olanağı da ortadan kalkıyor. Şimdi 60 sonrasında Kurdaş, üniversitelerin performansına falan baktığımda görüyorum ki, Orta Doğu'nun akademik performansı inanılmaz bir yüksek düzeye çıkıyor. Ama tek tek adam alıyor, Cahit Arf'ı getiriyor, Erdal Bey'i getiriyor, Mübeccel Hanım geliyor, bilmem ne, burada bir şey var, ama Orta Doğu'nun temel meselesi, temel üstünlüğü, eğitim sisteminde öğrencilerin katılımına açık olması.
Ben İTÜ'de okudum, sonra da 1961'de burada (ODTÜ) şehircilik okudum. İTÜ'de bir çeşit öğrencinin dışlandığı bir şey var, öğretim üyeleriyle öğrencilerin ilişki kurması falan mümkün değil. Ama Orta Doğu'da işte bu mütevelli heyeti, Amerikan sistemi, kendine özgü bir şey, kürsü sisteminin yerine bölüm sisteminin olması, çok katılımcı bir şey var. Bu ikisi bir araya gelince Türkiye için bir nefes alınan bir ortam. Ben Orta Doğu'ya geldiğim zaman burada evet öğrenciydim ama hocadan da pek farkım yoktu. Yani herkes herkesle konuşur falan. İTÜ'de hocayla konuşmak mümkün değildi. Ben bir şey yaptım orada, işte orada betonarme dersi vardı, ben de betonarme dalına ayrılmak istiyordum, imtihan yapıyorlar, bir haziran ve bir eylül imtihanı. Haziran imtihanında çok zor sorarlar, eylülde de kolay sorarlar çünkü haziran imtihanından 5 kişi geçer, sınıfın gerisi kalır, geçenler artık eylülden sonra geçer. Ama dala ayrılırken aldığı nota göre ayırdıkları için esas konuyu bilenler giremez, daha az bilenler girer falan, bu haksızlığın hocalara anlatılması lazım, ama kimse anlatamıyor. Ben bir gün tak tak kapıyı çaldım, girdim, işte kürsünün başında İhsan Bey var, Türkiye'de ilk betonarme hesabını yapmış falan yaşlı bir adam, adam şaşırdı ne oluyor, öğrenci geldi buraya diye. Dedim ki böyle böyle, homurdandı, çok rahatsız oldu ben de çıktım. Okulda olay oldu, gidip konuşmuşum hocayla diye. Ve biz haziranlar önce alındık, sonra eylüller alındı o dala. Şimdi böyle bir ortamdı. Burada (ODTÜ) ise her şey rahat. Dikkat ederseniz, 1968 öğrenci hareketleri, ilkbaharda başlamıştır, İstanbul Üniversitesinde, İstanbul'da başladı, burada da başka yerlerde ama Orta Doğu'da başlamadı. Nedeni, çünkü bahardaki şey üniversitede öğrenciye muameleyle ilgiliydi, Orta Doğu'da böyle bir sorun yoktu. Sonbahar döneminde böyle bir sorun aşıldı, daha ideolojik bir döneme girildi, o zaman Orta Doğu onun merkezi haline geldi. Şimdi, çok yaratıcı bir ortamdı.
80 sırasında da doğrusu Orta Doğu rektöre rağmen yahut rektör Orta Doğu'nun niteliği dolayısıyla öteki rektörler kadar davranamadı ve 80 darbesini aştıktan sonra Süha
419
Sevük'ün rektörlüğü sırasında kendisini yeniledi. Yani o 80 darbesi sırasında aldığı yaraları, 84 sonrasında sardı. Ama tabii YÖK gelmişti, Türkiye'deki üniversite atmosferi şey, ama 60’lardaki yıldızlığı, 80 sonrasında Türkiye çapına bakınca tam teşekkül değil ama Süha Sevük bunu yeni döneme uydurdu.
G.Y.: The Photographic Exhibition and Seminar on Contemporary Architecture in Turkey, 1920-1980 etkinliğindeki ortamı nasıl bulduğunuzdan ve sizi etkileyen önemli olaylardan bahseder misiniz? Mesela sanırım Robert Venturi ve Denise Scott Brown katılmış seminere.
İ.T.: Katılmış tabii, Venturi'nin katılması falan önemli. Şimdi böyle bir olay nasıl yorumlanabilir. Venturi niye katıldı? Bu kapalı bir kutu. İçinde Türkiye'den gelmiş birtakım adamlar bir şeyler anlatacaklar. Muhtemelen, Venturi'nin bir çeşit muhalif pozisyonu, bir muhalif pozisyonu var Venturi'nin, hâkim paradigmaya karşı bir muhalif pozisyonu var. Ve böyle periphery deki bir ülke gelip burada bir olay yapıyor. Burada, acaba bir şey var mı diye merak etmiştir. Yani çünkü normal bir şey değil, böyle bir ülkeden kalkıp orada böyle bir toplantı örgütlemek ve merak ettiği için gitmiştir diye düşünüyorum.
G.Y.: Aslında Amerika'da o Atatürk yılı kapsamında çok fazla etkinlik olmuş sanırım hem Türkiye'de, hem yurtdışında.
İ.T.: Yani, çok onu abartma. Yani 81, ben kutlamalarını biliyorum, o kutlama meselesi yine de devlet kutlamasıydı. Şimdi kutlama problemi, devlet kutlamasının içinde bir niş yakalamış Suha, bunu gerçekleştirmiş. Ama tabii 81 şeyi, Atatürkçülük için bak, 81 devri, 80 askeri müdahalesi meşruiyetini nereden almaya çalışıyor? Atatürk’ten almaya çalışıyor. Onun için bunu abartıyorlar ama bunu abartmaları çok da sempatik karşılanmıyor, yurtiçinde. Yani askerlerin yaptığı bir faaliyet, yani bir darbe grubunun yaptığı kutlama faaliyetleri, bir Atatürk sevgisi faaliyeti mi yoksa kendisine bir meşruiyet yaratma faaliyeti mi?
G.Y.: Çok güzel bir soru. Peki UNESCO o yılı Atatürk yılı olarak ilan etmiş...
İ.T.: Tabii eder. Atatürk eder. O uluslararası düzeyde zaten UNESCO bakarsan çok yıl Türkiye'nin ilan ettirdiği 7-8 yıl var belki, daha fazla, Mevlâna var, Yunus Emre var, var var var, birçok şey var. Tabii Atatürk önemli bir şey, 80'ler sırasında falan da Atatürk tamam, ama şimdi bu rejim ne kadar destekliyor desteklemiyor içine bakmak lazım. Şimdi biz Tarih Vakfı olarak, Cumhuriyet'in 75. yıl kutlamalarını örgütlemeye çalıştık. Ve bir yeni felsefe getirdik. Süleyman Bey'de destekledi falan, şenlik kavramı, tören değil, şenlik. Törende ne var ve onun planını yaptık, teorisini yazdık falan. Tören kavramı, devlet merkezli bir kavram, halk dışlanmış, geçit oluyor, onu gözlüyor ve bir çeşit halk yok içinde. Halk ancak gözleyici, aktör değil. Ama şenlik olunca, halk aktör haline geliyor ve tabii şenliğin meselesinde, şenlik süresinde, mesela Brezilya'nın işte meşhur şenliği var, orada ne oluyor? Toplumsal hiyerarşi o üç gün için yahut bir hafta için değişiyor. Artık resmi adamlar önemli değil, o şenliğin seçilen kraliçesi önemli yahut bilmem ne önemli. Birden sosyal hiyerarşi yeniden yapılanıyor. Yani buradaki yapısal farklılık, törene yatırılan paranın büyüklüğüne bağlı değil, iç kurgusunun
420
nitelik değiştirmesine bağlı. Öyle bir şey olmuyor tabi buralarda, ancak böyle bir öneriyi biz Tarih Vakfı olarak 75. yıl, yani 98 de yaptık.
G.Y.: Bu durumda bu olaya iki yönlü bakmak gerekiyor, bir taraftan Atatürk'ün kutlamaları olarak algılanıyor onun Türkiye'sindeki başarılar, etkinliğinde temel hedeflerinden biri aslında Atatürk Türkiye'sindeki mimarlığı aktarmak, temsil etmek.
İ.T.: Tabii.
G.Y.: Ama öte yandan...
İ.T.: Ama yani Atatürk mimarlığını vurgulamıyor bu, modern Türk mimarlığını vurguluyor. Şimdi Atatürk'le bağlantıları toplantıda çok fazla kurcalanmadı da. Yani endirekt (dolaylı).
G.Y.: Tabii ama şöyle Atatürk'ün Türkiye'sinde demek istedim… (1923 sonrasını kastediyorum).
İ.T.: Şey değil, askeri mantıkla olsaydı Atatürk vurgulanırdı, Atatürk vurgulandığı zaman da Pennsylvania Üniversitesi'nde toplantı yapılamazdı. Yani Suha'nın anlattığı şey de gayet burada akademik bir iddia var o ilişkide. Atatürk iddiası yok.
G.Y.: Yok tabii, benim kastettiğim Atatürk'le olan ilişki aslında 1923'ten 80'lere kadar olan süreci incelemesi kapsamında, tabii öncesine de değiniyorsunuz siz aslında tabii ama, o anlamda.
İ.T.: Burada dikkat edersen aslında şöyle bir tartışma var, o tartışma halen de çözülmüş değil ve yanıtını da bilmiyorum. Şimdi bir Mustafa Kemal var, büyük bir başarı elde etmiş, bir ulus inşa ediyor, yani daha önce ulus diye bir şey yok, ulus inşa ediyor, bir de mimarlık var. İsmi de Birinci Ulusal Mimarlık olan bir mimarlık var. Şimdi ulus inşa eden bir insan, bu mimarlıktan yararlanır mı yararlanmaz mı? Reddediyor bunu. 1927 kesiliyor, Mongeri, mimar Vedat'ın işlerine son veriliyor, Egli çağırılıyor, bir modern mimariye geçiş var. Şimdi Mustafa Kemal modern mimarlığa nasıl geçti diye sanmıyorum konuşmalarda, tartışma yok. Yani Mustafa Kemal üstünden değil iş. Şimdi ama bu çok önemli bir konu. Düşün ki, bu kararı nasıl verdi? Biz bugün mimarlık tarihinde, ben mimarlık tarihçisi değilim ama mimarlık tarihçileri bunun yanıtını bilmiyor. Düşün, yurtdışına çıkmıyor bu adam, Türkiye'deki mimarlardan hiçbiri gidip, bu adama şey demiyor, ya bak, dünyada bir mimari var, modern mimari bizde onu..., yok Türkiye'deki mimarlar oraya kapalı, onların yetiştiği bir ulusal mimari var, ona inanıyorlar vesaire. Ve Mustafa Kemal o tarihe kadar yapılanları reddedip, yeni bir alana girdiği zaman, ne problemi var elinde, bir yeni başkent yapılacak, senin elindeki mimarların hepsi öteki kafada, onları da sıfırlıyorsun, böyle bir maceraya giriyorsun. Şimdi bu, inanılmaz bir karar. Şimdi bu karar nasıl verilir? Soru bu. Yani ben Mustafa Kemal üstünden yapsam bu meseleyi tartışırım. Şimdi orada bu Doğu-Batı meselesi bakımından çok önemli bir nokta var. Aslında bu tek bir karar değil. Büyük bir kararın buradaki endirekt (dolaylı) yansıması. Şimdi Mustafa Kemal'de de bu modernleşme, onun için ben radikal modernleşme diyorum, utangaç
421
modernleşme değil, ki orada ne var utangaç modernleşmede, Ziya Gökalp'in sentezcil tanımı var. Mustafa Kemal'de 1924'te Ziya Gökalp paralelinde düşünüyor. Ama ondan sonra 1925'te Ziya Gökalp Türkçülüğün esaslarını yazdığında yüz vermiyor. İki şeyden yüz vermiyor, birincisi ideolojisini başkasına yaptırtmıyor, ideologluk pozisyonunu kendi elinde tutuyor, onun nedeni de başkalarının ideolojiye dayanarak yakışıksız güç kullanmalarını engellemek. Ve orada ilk adımı mecelleyi reddederek, medeni kanunu alarak yapıyor, o da çok büyük radikal bir adım. Ve arkasından geliyor mimarlık geliyor, alfabe geliyor, geliyor da geliyor arkadan. Şimdi bu büyük dönüşümün bir parçası, hâlbuki biz böyle bir tartışmayı açmadık orada, belki de açamazdık, yani o gün, o ben bunu yapamazdım ama bugün bunu çok iyi yapabilirim. Şimdi onun için Atatürk merkezli bir şey değil, bence bu Türk mimarlarının, sözcüsü Suha diye alırsak, kendilerinin basit bir taklitçi olmadığını ve bir süreç içinde başarı üretmeye çalıştıklarını falan dünyaya açan ve eğer bu, tabii Venturi'ye falan oraya gelirken bir bilgi olmuş olması lazım, o bilgi kim tarafından nasıl verildi ama adamı merak sardığı bir şey bu modernizm, bu çevre ülkesinde nasıl oluyor ve bu özgün bir şekilde burada anlatılmaya çalışılıyor diye geliyor. Şeyi bilmediğimiz için, daha sonraki bu toplantı için yorumunu bilmiyoruz, bilsek o zaman tabii çok şey olur.
G.Y.: Belki Suha Özkan hocamdan öğrenebiliriz onu, bakalım.
İ.T.: Belki öğrenebilirsin.
G.Y.: Peki sizi etkileyen başka bir olay oldu mu etkinlikte?
İ.T.: Çok olmadı. Yani ben zaten oranın öğrencisiydim. Gittim, okulumun, okul benden oraya kadar ki ben 66 mezunuyum, 14 yılda yayılmış, benim kaldığım okula yakın bir evde kalıyordum, yıkılmış falan, oraya üniversite kampüsünün bir parçası gelmiş. Bir anlamda ben işte eski kampüsümü de ziyaret etmiş oldum. İşte Renata Holod'u falan tanıdık, Renata Holod'un benim yazım hakkında bana söylediği bir şey var, ilginç bir şey söyledi, dedi ki, ben okudum yazıyı işte o zaten editör olarak, dedi ki bu yazı çok yoğun ve her cümlenin içinde bir yere referans yapıyor, bir yere cevap veriyor, ama ben onları anlayamıyorum dedi. Sana böyle bir ipucu.
G.Y.: Peki hocam, dediğiniz gibi eski kampüsünüz aslında, nasıl geri bildirimler aldınız?
İ.T.: Pek geri bildirim almadım. Yani Türkler'den aldım daha çok, ama böyle aklımda kalan bir şey yok, 40 yıl geçmiş. Belki o yıllarda sorsaydın kalırdı.
G.Y.: Peki hocam, Suha Özkan mı belirledi bütün yazarları?
İ.T.: Öyle tabii.
G.Y.: Hem İTÜ'den, hem ODTÜ'den yazarlar var çünkü.
İ.T.: Yani Suha'nın o zamanki çevresine bakarsan, burada da mimarlık fakültesinin içinde de Çembil diye bir olay çıkmıştı biliyorsun, çevre tasarımı ile ilgili bir alt bölüm
422
gibi bir şey oluşmuştu. Bir de dernekleşmişlerdi Çembil diye (Çevre ve Mimarlık Bilimleri Derneği), o çevreyle, biraz da mimarlar odası faaliyetleri içinde, dikkat edersen iki grup var: İTÜ'den bir grup var ve ODTÜ'den bir grup var. İşte bu şeyler de yok dikkat edersen, Doğan Kuban yok mesela.
G.Y.: Evet. İnci Aslanoğlu yok mesela.
İ.T.: Bilmiyorum İnci'nin yok olmasının sebebi ama Doğan Bey tabii daha baskın bir şey, Doğan Bey'in olduğu bir yerde o örgütler, o örgütleyince de yelpaze farklı olur.
G.Y.: Sanırım onun da konferansı olmuş zaten Amerika'da, ama o bir kitaba dönüşmemiş sanırım.
İ.T.: Olabilir, yani belki dikkati çeken tek şey, sorulabilecek şey, bak şimdi şöyle bir şey var, bu da ilginç bir konu, sen bunu sorunca geldi, Türk mimarisinin yıldızları yok, Sedad Hakkı yaşıyor o dönemde, falan, yani diyelim Cansever yok, bir anlamda mimari yıldızların sunulduğu bir toplantı değil, mimarlık faaliyeti üstünde konuşanların sunulduğu bir toplantı. Türk mimarisinin yıldızları sunulmuyor burada. Yani onun üstünde konuşuluyor. Bu da bence ilginç bir durum, şey bakımından, artık bir faaliyet var, içinde yıldızları da var, ama bu yıldızların üstünde konuşan başka bir grup var. Bu bir gelişmişlik göstergesidir.
G.Y.: Haklısınız hocam. Peki siz Renata Holod, o İslam mimarisi konusunda uzman, öte yandan Ahmet Evin orada...
İ.T.: Ahmet Evin var. Ahmet Evin'i de daha önce tanımıyordum, orada tanıdım, sonra dostluğumuz gelişti.
G.Y.: Onların nasıl sürece dahil olduğu konusunda, yani Suha hocama da tabii sormak istiyorum ama...
İ.T.: O tabii, Pennsylvania Üniversitesi'nin muhatapları, Suha'nın karşısındaki muhataplar.
G.Y.: Peki, Talat Halman, oradaydı dediniz, aslında Suha Özkan bir yerde...
İ.T.: Söylüyor, UNESCO dolayısıyla falan oradaydı...
G.Y.: Suha hocam anlatırken demiş ki aslında modern mimarlık tanımı altında çıkacak şeyden başta biraz endişeliymiş, öte yandan başka bir söyleşide diyor ki onun önderliğinde oldu. Sizin Talat Halman'la ilgili bir düşünceniz var mı?
İ.T.: Şimdi Talat Halman çok ilginç bir kişilik. Oradaki tepkisi şeyle ilgili. Tabii mimarlığın içinden değil, bir yönetici olarak Türk kültürünün yurtdışında tanıtılması meselesi olarak baktığı için o genel olarak Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı, o perspektif içinde, ben burada bir toplantı yapsaydım nasıl yapardım diye bakıyor. Ama öyle bakılırsa, zaten özgün bir şey çıkamaz. Yani Türk mimarlığının içinden bakıldığı için
423
özgün bir şey çıkıyor. Yoksa Türkiye'nin Turizm ve Kültür tanıtım faaliyetlerinin bir parçası olduğu zaman, neyi sunacaksın? Nesneleri sunacaksın.
G.Y.: Hatta belki stereotipik bir şeyler de çıkacak.
İ.T.: Tabii, yani o zaman tarihsel bilmem ne, buradaki olay farklı bir şey, benim o konuşmadaki center-periphery problematiği, şimdi konuştukça bu şeye çok iyi uygun hale geliyor, toplantının çerçevesine.
G.Y.: Peki hocam, Selçuk Batur'un hem yeni giriş yazısında, hem de Suha Özkan'ın bir röportajında adı geçiyor fakat nasıl bir rol aldığıyla ilgili bir şey göremedim.
İ.T.: Selçuk Batur'u, Afife Batur'la beraber düşünmen gerekiyor, onun kocası, o sırada bir dergi çıkartıyorlar, Çevre miydi ismi, Çevre dergisi. O şekilde. Suha'ya sor hangisi yani resimler Orta Doğu'dan gidiyor, ama muhtemelen o onun oradaki düzenlenmesine falan katkı yaptı, konuşucu değil çünkü, Afife konuşuyor.
G.Y.: Peki hocam, oradaki sergide sergilenen fotoğraflar, kitapta kullanılan fotoğraflar mıydı?
İ.T.: Herhalde. Ama onlar sergi panoları halinde Suha benim elimde diyor onlar. Suha'nın elinde anladığım kadarıyla. Şimdi şey açtı ya, Bodrum'da bir kütüphane açtı, muhtemelen kütüphanededir onda, gidip görebilirsin. Sanıyorum, kütüphanededir.
G.Y.: Çok sağolun. Peki hocam, Türkiye’deki mimarlık tarihi yazımlarında, Modern Turkish Architecture (1984) da buna dahil, gördüğüm kadarıyla Türkiye’de ulusal mimarlık, modern (yeni) mimarlık ve ulusal modern mimarlık arasında hep bir tartışma yaşanmış. Modern mimarlığın nasıl ulusal olabileceği; ulusal ve modern mimarlığın anlamları düşünülmüş ve denenmiş. Bir başka deyişle modern mimarlık farklı anlamlar kazanmış. Siz aslında bu tartışma için kitapta, periferik ülkelerde bu çatışmanın kaçınılmaz olduğunu, çünkü kapitalist dünya düzenine dâhil olan ülkelerin bir yandan uluslararası sisteme dâhil olmaya çalışırken, bir yandan da kendi ulusal kimliğini ifade etmeye çalıştığını söylemişsiniz.
İ.T.: Yani orada benim koymaya çalıştığım şey şu, kapitalist devletlerin doğru dürüst olabilmesi için o zaman bir ulusal devlet olması gerekiyor. Daha küreselleşme falan ortaya çıkmamıştı. Onun için o ulusçuluk kapitalizmin karşısında bir pozisyon değil ama küresel bir kapitalizm ortada olmadığı için, böyle bir karşıtlık yok.
G.Y.: Peki size şunu sormak istiyorum hocam, aslında biraz bunu konuştuk ama, siz o dönemde baktığınızda bu farklı modern anlayışları, ülkemizdeki modern, "Batı"nın anlayışı konusuna o zaman nasıl yaklaşıyordunuz? Bir de bu “Batı ve Öteki”; “modern ve modern olmayan”; “yeni ve eski” gibi karşıtlıklar üzerinden mimarlık tarihinin yazılması konusundaki fikrinizi merak ediyorum?
İ.T.: Şimdi bak şöyle bir hikâye var. Bu ulus meselesini ve ulusalcılığı bir sabit bir şey olarak alırsan bir ulus ideolojisi var, işte falan. Şimdi sana bir şeylerden söz ettim,
424
dedim ki, evrensel geçerliliği olan bir şeyler kurallar vs. değil, sürekli oluşma meselesi. Bugün bütün onlar temsili kuramların bakış açılarının parçası. Zaten bilim öyleydi. Ama Deleuze vs.nin katkıları ve Nigel Thrift'ten sonra non-representatif teoriler ortaya çıktı. Ve bunun üstünde çalışırken, bir şey okudum ve çok şaştım, Hasan Ali Yücel 1936-37'ler falan muhtemelen, pazartesi konuşmaları yazıyor, sonra onu bir kitap halinde topluyor, onun içinde bir yazı gördüm, Türk olmak üstüne. Diyor ki, bu çok önemli bir laf söylüyor, biz bir şeye benzeyerek Türk olmayacağız diyor, biz yaşayarak Türk olacağız diyor. Hem özgünlüğü içeriyor, tam bu non-representatif bir teori, oluşum meselesi. Şimdi, tabii bu Ziya Gökalp'in falan işte o sentezleri falan bir şeye benzeyip benzememek üstünden oluyor, oluşmak üstünden değil. Hâlbuki oluşmak üstünden baktığın zaman işlerin hepsi değişiyor.
G.Y.: Şimdi aslında siz ulusun da bir süreç olduğunu zaten söylüyorsunuz. Biz de baktığımızda dediğiniz gibi hem Turkish Nationalism, sonra daha uluslararası bir yaklaşımın olduğunu, sonra tekrar ele alınışı şeklinde değiştiğini görüyoruz. Mimarlık tarihinde de aslında dönemler biraz onlarla ilişkili bir şekilde açılıp kapanıyor.
İ.T.: Zaten bak burada şey var, Türk mimarının yaşadığı durumun bir huzursuzluk olduğunu düşünebilirsin. Bu huzursuzluk, iki şey arasında, bir dünyanın macerasının bir parçası olmak için modernizmle, periferide işte dıştan ezilme etkisi altında kalan karşısında bir kendi varlığına sahip çıkmanın arasında sürekli bir huzursuzluk yaşıyor. Ve o yaşanmışlık, bir yere getiriyor.
G.Y.: Peki sizce, gerçi bundan biraz bahsettik ama, kitabın o dönemdeki ideolojik temsili nedir diye sormak istiyorum.
İ.T.: Şimdi oradaki ideolojik temsil şu, o zaman Türkiye'de entelektüel camiada hâkim olan bir paradigma, Marksist paradigma, bir de diyelim ki İslamcı, dinci falan bir paradigma. Bu kitap, bu dinci paradigmadan uzak olduğu artık her tarafından belli, orada bir problem yok. Ama şimdi o dönem mimarlık alanında değil ama şeyde baktığın zaman, ekonomi alanında, iki alt ekonomi yahut kalkınma iktisadı açısından baktığın zaman iki paradigma çatışıyor. Birisi modernist paradigma, diğeri Marksist paradigma. E tabii bu, Marksist paradigma içinde de değil.
G.Y.: Kitabın içinde Türkiye’deki “modern” mimarlığın gelişimi aktarılıyor ama kitabın adı “Modern Türk Mimarlığı”.
İ.T.: Evet. Türk kelimesi tabii önemli. Belki bugün yazılsa, belki Türk kelimesini kullanmaz kitap diye düşünüyorum.
G.Y.: Aslında kitabın içinde Üstün Alsaç, hatta işte kapakta da Sedad Hakkı Eldem'in yapısı var, ikinci ulusal mimarlık döneminden, sanki Alsaç’ın modern mimarlığa Türk katkısı gibi bir iması var. Siz katılıyor musunuz buna?
İ.T.: Tabii ama şey tartışması henüz Türkiye'de olmadığı için, Türkiye'de Kürt hareketi geliştikten sonra, Türkiyeli mi Türk mü diye bir tartışma ortaya çıkıyor tabii. O tartışma Türkiye'de yaşanmadan konulmuş bir isim. O tartışma yaşandıktan sonra bu
425
isim mi konurdu diye bir soru sorabilirim. Yahut o isme bugünkü anlayışımız içinde baktığımızda yüklediğimiz anlamlarla, o gün yüklenilen anlamlar aynı değil. Şimdi esas mesele, Türk mimarlığı kavramı ne zaman geliyor Türkiye'ye? Tarih çok belli. 1906. İki tane yazı var aynı yıl yazılmış. Bunlardan birisi Celal Esad Arseven'in yazısı, ikincisi de Mimar Kemalettin'in yazısı. Şimdi burada yani ırkçı mırkçı falan bir meseleler yok. Burada şöyle bir mesele var, mesele şöyle, ideolojik meseleden çok, Batı'nın sanat tarihi yahut mimarlık tarihi yazmasına duyulan bir tepki var. Ve bu iki adam, zaten başkaları tepki duyamazdı, çünkü Batı'nın bu konuda yazdıklarını bu iki adamdan fazla bilen yoktu o tarihte. Bunlar neye tepki duyuyorlar, şuna tepki duyuyorlar, sanayi-i nefise de ders okutuyor Celal Esad Arseven, biz İslam mimarisi kategorisi içinde oluyoruz, zaten okutulan ders kitapları dıştan geliyor, onlar da işte bezemeci bir Arap mimarisini, İslam mimarisi diye okutuyor. Hâlbuki Türkiye'de öyle bir mimari yok. Ve fark ediyorlar ki, biz İslam değil miyiz yahut Türk değil miyiz, bunu fark etmeye başlayınca şey meselesi geliyor işte, Bizans etkisi, biz strüktürel bir şey yapıyoruz, bezemeci değiliz, onun için de ayrı bir kategoridir. İslam mimarisi içinde Türk mimarisi ayrı bir kategoridir. Onlarla anlatılamaz. Buradaki tartışma, Türk kelimesinin ortaya çıkmasının meselesi, bugünkü anlamda “Türk” le ilişkili değil aslında Bir sanat tarihçisinin burayı yanlış bir kategori içinde anlatılmasına duyulan tepki olarak ortaya çıkıyor. Aslında Türk kelimesi, ideolojik yahut siyasi ideolojik olarak değil, bir ders anlatma pratiğinde gelen bir huzursuzluk. Bir anlamda buradaki kullanılışı da o anlamda, bu coğrafyaya ait anlamında bir şey. Zaten center-periphery deyince de bir coğrafyaya referans vermiş oluyorsun.
G.Y.: Peki bu modern Türk mimarlığının ikinci ulusal olarak tanımlanan dönem üstünden vurgulanması gibi bir şey var mı sizce kitapta?
İ.T.: Çok hatırlamıyorum artık o kadar.
G.Y.: Kapağın mesela öyle seçilmesi ...
İ.T.: Kapak tabii ama o şeyle ilgili, yani işte tanınmış, dini imajları olmayan, bir şey koymuşlar, muhtemelen işte o sergide, onu Suha'ya soracaksın, Suha bilir onun hikayesini.
G.Y.: Tamam hocam. Peki, bir şey daha soracağım, aslında kitabın sonunda Jansen’in Ankara planı var. Niye olduğunu biliyor musunuz sormak istedim.
İ.T.: Onu niye koymuşlar bilmiyorum, muhtemelen şey için Ankara'nın planlaması falan söz ediliyor, bu kitabı, kitap mantığıyla olsa koymazlardı, sergi mantığıyla, sergide Ankara'yı da göstermek için bir şey koymak gerektiyse, onun için koymuşlardır ama muhtemelen Suha'yla konuşunca bütün panoları burada temsil etmek istedilerse onu da almışlardır. Yani kitabın oluşma tarihiyle ilgili bir şey, pratik.
G.Y.: Cevaplarınız ve benimle görüşmeyi kabul ettiğiniz için çok teşekkür ederim hocam.
426
A2. INTERVIEW WITH SUHA ÖZKAN – JULY 09, 2020
(G.Y.: Tezimin konusundan bahsederek başlıyorum)
S.Ö.: Politika, ideoloji ve mimarlık konusundaki kırılma noktası. Atatürk her şey gibi bütün bakanlıkları da Osmanlılardan devralıyor. İki tane mimar var, birbirinden nefret eden. Yani Türk mimarlık ortamının %50si, %50sinden nefret ediyor, Kemalettin mimar değil diye, Vedat Bey sevmiyor. Kemalettin mimar değil inşaat mühendisi. Kemalettin, Vedat Bey hakkında hiçbir şey demiyor, yani demesi de mümkün değil, çok erken ölüyor çünkü. Fakat olan olay şu, soyadını da öğrendim ama kullanırsan bulurum bir yerde şimdi hatırlamıyorum, Saçaklı Salim Derin diye bir adam var. Bu Ankara'da genellikle dalkavukluk yapan bir adam. Kemalettin de o zaman Mescid-i Aksa'da restorasyon yapıyor. Diyor ki Atatürk Vedat'ı getirdi, bütün işleri o yapıyor, işini gücünü bırak gel. Yani Atatürk, Kemalettin'i vakıflar aracılığıyla, saraydan da çünkü Vedat Bey'in babası Dolmabahçe Sarayı'nın genel sekreteri, yani mektupçubaşı diyorlar o zaman, dolayısıyla saraya çok yakın biri, sarayda çalışıyor, posta nezaretinde de 1906'da yaptığı Büyük Postane binası Vedat Bey'in Dünyada çağının en ileri gelen binalarından biri. Yani Otto Wagner'le falan yarışır, yani o kadar iyi bir bina. Atatürk tabi ona şey yapmak istemiyor, dışlamak istemiyor, İkinci Meclis Binası, şimdi müze olan, İkinci Meclis Binası'nı ona ısmarlıyor. Ve çok başarıyla yapıyor, içinde çok güzel hikâyeler var, o zaman Ankara o kadar kötü ki, kiremit yok. Vehbi Bey, Vehbi Koç, eşeğini alıyor, üstüne alaturka kiremitler koyuyor, bir alafranga kiremit alarak, üç tane alaturka kiremit veriyor ve onun kiremitinin kaplanmamış zamanının resimleri var bende, yarım kalmış böyle. Önemli şeyler değil de, Türk ekonomisi açısından önemli, orada yapılan en büyük şey hata, hata demiyim de politik tavır diyeyim, çünkü ben Vedat Bey'i çok sevdiğim için, bütün belgeleri de burada zaten, taraftar sayılırım, Ankara Palas'ı yapıyorlar, yani Halk Partisinin mebuslarının sosyal mekânı. Onu yaparken Salim Bey, Kudüs'e bu mesajı yolluyor, o günlerde Çankaya Köşkü'nü restore ediyor Vedat Bey, Atatürk için ve bu binayı bitirmiş, Meclis'i bitirmiş, şey yapıyor, bırakıyor gidiyor Vedat Bey, kızıyor yani. Çünkü saray kökenli olduğu için çok farklı bir şeyi var, o kızıp gidince Atatürk'e de diyorlar ki ya sen niye bunlarla dolaşıyorsun, onlar sıvamacı, Osmanlı döküntüsü insanlar, senin mimarların modern olmalı.
G.Y.: Hocam, bunu kimin söylediği konusunda herhangi bir bilgimiz var mıdır?
S.Ö.: Yakın çevresi. Yani araştırmak lazım.
G.Y. İlhan Tekeli hocamla da biraz konuştuk, Atatürk böyle bir kararı nasıl almış olabilir acaba diye, tabii birkaç kararın birleşimi...
S.Ö.: İlhan bilirse bilir zaten, Türkiye'de, belki İlber bilebilir. Şimdi olay o kadar da önemli değil. Önemli olan, Atatürk işi Seyfi Arkan'a veriyor. Seyfi Arkan'da o zaman çok şey, yani ben kardeşiyle çok yakın arkadaştım, yeğeniyle öyle, birçok belgeleri verdiler bana, yazdım, çizdim falan. Seyfi Bey tam anlamıyla bir modern flamboyant
427
bir adam, yani papyon kravatlı falan. Atatürk seviyor, hoşuna gidiyor, bütün işleri ona vermeye başlıyor. Çankaya Köşkü'ndeki kardeşinin binasından başlayıp, Makbule hanımın evinden başlayıp, o çok güçlenince, Vedat Bey İstanbul'a dönüyor. Vedat Bey İstanbul'a dönünce Güzel Sanatlar Akademi'ndeki onun stüdyosunu kapatıyorlar. Guilio Mongeri'ninkini de kapatıyorlar. Yani biz böyle Osmanlı artığı klasik şeyler istemiyoruz diye. Onun üzerine şeyin yazdığı, Vedat Bey’in yazdığı politik olmayan, mimari olan çok efendi makaleler var. Şey diyor, yani mimarlık böyle artık sıvama, dekorasyon olmayacak; malzemenin kendi doğası sergilenecek, basit olacak, vesaire gibi. Ama takdir edersin, tabii yapacak bir şey yok, kendi evine kapanıyor ve orada da ölüyor. Zaten çok sağlıklı bir insan değil. Böylece o dönem bitiyor ve bence Türkiye'deki en değerli yapılar ortaya geliyor, yani İller Bankası gibi. Fakat bir taraftan da tabii, Atatürk'ün Alman hayranlığı var, yani sanatsal olarak olmasa bile, militer olarak, çok orada şey yapmış, Holzmeister'i getiriyor. Aslında Alman olmasın diye, Viyana'dan getiriyor, Holzmeister Viyana'lıdır. O da ayrı bir chapter, Türkiye'de epey bununla uğraşıldı. Yani Türkiye'de, şeyden dolayı, tümüyle Arap alfabesinin yok edilmesinden dolayı, ben dâhil, bütün mimarlık tarihi scholarları (bilim insanları) Cumhuriyet dönemine kaydı. Çok şey yapıldı, ama bitti, Cumhuriyet dönemi dediğin olayın tamamı bitti, yani ne kadar değerli belge varsa, yani o kadar az, hâlbuki bir önüne dönülse orada İtalyanların, İsviçrelilerin geldiği dönemler falan, çok çok önemli.
G.Y.: Aslında şimdi Osmanlıca çalışan arkadaşlarımızda var. Bir yandan dil öğrenip, bir yandan bu konuları çalışıyorlar.
S.Ö.: Güzel. Şimdi kırılma noktasını anlattık. Atatürk ben modern olacağım dedi ve oldu.
G.Y.: Hocam siz aslında 2005 baskısında anlattınız ama bu Modern Turkish Architecture kitabının nasıl ortaya çıktığıyla ilgili size soru sorayım istiyorum.
S.Ö.: Şimdi şöyle bir olay. 1981 yılında Atatürk'ün 100. yılı, ben de rektör yardımcısıyım. Rektörümüzde ODTÜ'nün tarihinde bence gelmiş geçmiş Kemal Kurdaş, Erdal İnönü ile kıyaslanabilecek nitelikte, çok hoş bir insandı, Mehmet Kıcıman. Ben de onun yardımcısıydım. Yaşımda çok gençti yani otuzlu yaşların başında, hatta baby vice president derlerdi bana. Çünkü ODTÜ o zaman çok farklıydı, yani yönetim olarak, şey olarak, önemli değil. Bir gün Mehmet Bey geldi bana, elinde bir kitap, bunda şeyin Thomas Allom'un gravürleri var. Biliyorsun onları, Abdülmecit zamanında onu ziyarete gelen Miss Pardoe diye bir kadın var, gazeteci. Ona prenses muamelesi yapıyor, çok güzel bir kadın, Allah bilir âşık da olmuştur. O da yanında o zaman İngiltere'nin en büyük gravür artisti Thomas Allom'u getiriyor. Yani bu gördüğün gravürler, kitaplarda, hemen hemen %80 Thomas Allom'dur, 3. Ahmet Çeşmesi, Boğaziçi yalıları, Ayasofya vesaire. Mehmet Bey dedi ki, biz de bir şey yapalım, bakın sizin mimarlık fakültesinde kapasiteniz var, bunları yan yana albümlerde çekelim. Yani 1864'de neydi, şimdi ne.
G.Y.: Ben aslında yazıda Othmar Phersky, onun aslında olarak yazmışsınız.
428
S.Ö.: Onun kitabı da var burada.
G.Y.: 2005'tekinde öyle yazmışsınız aslında ama aynı yerleri tekrar…
S.Ö.: Tamam işte öyle girdik olaya. Fakat bu arada, Kenan Evren benim kalbimi kırdı. Aslında biz onla birkaç jüride birlikte olduğumuz gibi, ODTÜ’nün İngilizce tedrisatını sürdürmesi konusunda benim verdiğim savaşı kabul etti. ODTÜ'nün dili değişmedi falan. Yani o askeri yönetimle, ODTÜ olarak, yani ODTÜ yönetimi olarak, kötü ilişkilerde değildik. Fakat sonra geldiğinde bir patavatsızlık etti. Önemli de değil. Çünkü bizim duvarlarımızda graffiti falan yoktu. Çünkü biz öğrencilerle diyalog halindeydik, dedik yapmayın, siz boyayacaksınız, biz boyayacağız, bunun bir sonu yok ki. Tamam, hocam dediler, biz de başka yerleri boyarız. Tertemiz. Yürüyoruz adamla, ben anlatıyorum, Mehmet Bey dedi ki ya siz anlatın dedi hem Cumhurbaşkanını tanıyorsunuz, hem de burada genç bir yönetim olduğunu bilsin. Ben anlatıyorum falan, dedim ki bakın binalarımızda hiçbir graffiti yoktur, hepsi yani mimarın yaptığı gibi, döndü bana, "Benim için iyi dekore etmişsiniz" dedi. Ben yavaşladım, yavaşladım, yavaşladım, grup gitti, şeyin önündeyiz o kafeteryanın gerisinde mimarlık fakültesinin, fen ve edebiyatın önünde bir yerde, geriledim, geriledim, geriledim. Gittim ofisime, istifa dilekçemi verdim.
G.Y.: Gerçekten mi?
S.Ö.: Tabii, yani niye uğraşıyorum ki ben yani, sabah işte beni çağırıyorlar, çocukların yurtlarını arayacağız diye, ben arayamazsınız diyorum, niye diyorlar, genç bir insanın özel hayatına giremezsiniz diyorum. Mümkün değil, dünyanın hiçbir yerinde olmaz bu. Yani ceza almasanız bile kalbini kırarsınız. Sizin Harbiye’deki dolabınızı biri karıştırsa hoşunuza gider miydi diyorum, tamam hocam haklısın diyor. Çok kötü değil insanlar ama neyse. Onun üzerine ben şeye gittim, 7. yıl iznimi aldım, şey kabul etmedi tabii Mehmet Bey, dedi ki kendi yerinize birini bulana kadar durun, 5-6 ay daha göreve devam ettim, sonra 7. yıl iznimi aldım, University of Pennsylvania'ya gittim. Orada Renata Holod'la tanışıyorduk ama çok yakın değildik. Renata Holod'a bu projeyi anlattım, dedim ki böyle böyle bir proje var falan ne dersin. Ya bırak salaklığı dedi, böyle proje olur mu dedi, sen dedi, çağdaş Türk mimarisi üzerine bir olay düzenle dedi.
G.Y.: Aslında Renata Holod İslam profesörü, ona rağmen öyle bir şey söylemesi de enteresan.
S.Ö.: Aga Khan mimarlık ödülünün de ilk genel sekreteri.
G.Y.: Oradan mı tanışıyordunuz siz hocam?
S.Ö.: Oradan tanışıyorduk evet. İşte beni de o buldu aslında. Yani neyse onlar ayrı hikâyeler. Renata bunu deyince, o zaman UNESCO'daki büyükelçi Talat Halman'dı. Talat Halman, Allah rahmet eylesin, çok kırıcı bir şekilde burun kıvırdı. Dedi ki çağdaş Türk mimarisi neymiş, gecekonduyu mu göstereceksiniz, Laz müteahhitti mi göstereceksiniz. Getirin buraya Sinan'ı yeter dedi. Renata da çok şeydir, dikenli kadındır, Sinan kendi gelir zaten dedi. Öyle bir şey oldu ve biz buna başladık. Renata
429
yalnız şey dedi, genç yeteneğe çok inanır ve genç yeteneği keşfetmeye çok inanır. Dedi ki bak bir grup kur, ondan sonra, ben sana bir mektup yazayım, o mektupla Amerikan sefaretine git, ondan sonra ne yardım edeceklerini gör. Ama dedi ben şey istemiyorum, eskileri istemiyorum. İsimlerini de verdi. Şunu istemiyorum, bunu istemiyorum, bunu istemiyorum.
G.Y.: Onu soracaktım.
S.Ö.: ODTÜ'den Cumhuriyet mimarlığını en iyi bilen Yıldırım Yavuz'dur. Bizim hepimizi bir arada tutacak, entelektüel derinliği olan İlhan'dır. Onları aldım. Onun dışında teknik üniversitede hepsi genç, pırıl pırıl tipler vardı. İşte Afife vardı, Art Nouveau üstüne çalışan. Atilla Yücel vardı son yıllar için çalışan. Mete Tapan vardı, 1950'leri çok iyi bilen. Yıldız Sey vardı, konut konusunu çok iyi bilen, vesaire. Bir de Türkiye'de ciddi hakkı yenmiş biri vardır. Çok ciddi ama. Selçuk Batur.
G.Y.: Hocam, hem kitapta, hem sizin bir röportajınızda adı geçiyor ama. Selçuk Batur nasıl bir rol aldı?
S.Ö.: Şimdi hikâye şöyle. 12 Mart sonrası akademik dünyadan bir kişi atıldı. Selçuk Batur.
G.Y.: Niye Hocam?
S.Ö.: Selçuk Batur atıldığı zaman oradaki değme profesörlerin üç misli yayını vardı. Çünkü gönüllü arkeolojik kazılara girer, şey yapar, mimarlık dergisinin yıllarca editörlüğünü yapmış falan çok iyi biriydi. O bir şekilde ortada kaldığı için ben ona özel bir statü vermek için istedim açıkçası. Sonra, Ersen Gürsel'le bir kitap yaptık onun anısına, onu vereceğim sana armağan olarak. Yani herkes onun hakkında ne düşündüğünü yazdı. Güzel bir kitap oldu. Bülent Erkmen yaptı grafik tasarımını, o da güzel bir şey. Onları anlatırım. Selçuk'u da yani daha böyle İlhan gibi yatay bağlamsal, ekonomi politik biraz daha son tandansta getirdik. Tabii ben bunları böyle planlarken Amerikan sefaretine gittim. Onların kayıtlarını bulabilirsin. Orada 1981 yılında kültür ataşesi olan, sanırım Karayipler’den gelme bir kültür ataşesi vardı. O bu projeyi çok sevdi. Çok sevdi. Tabii, istemese de Talat Halman'ın Unesco'dan yazdığı, UNESCO'da büyükelçiydi, yazı etkiledi. University of Pennsylvania'nın, rektörlüğün yazdığı şey ekledi. O da bana bir bütçe getir dedi. Ben de bütçe getirdim, şu kadar kişi gidecek, üç gün kalacak, dönecek, sergi yapılacak, sergiyi ODTÜ, ben rektör yardımcısıydım ya, sergiyi ODTÜ yapacak, ondan sonra, şeyi sempozyumu University of Pennsylvania yapacak, kitabı da onlar basacaklar. Fakat kitabın basılmasını sağlamak için ben ODTÜ rektör yardımcısı olarak bizim ODTÜ kitaplığına sanırım - 200 kopya satın alma garantisi verdim. Tamam mı? Tabii ben görevden düşünce, öyle bir şey kalmadı, sonra o 200 kopyayı ben satın aldım.
G.Y.: Öyle mi?
S.Ö.: Mecburen.
430
G.Y.: Çok zor bulunuyor kitabın 1984 baskısı.
S.Ö.: Kalmadı, dağıttım hepsini. Ciddi biri varsa bende bir iki tane var. Hatta seninkiyle değiştirebilirim, üzerini çizmediysen.
G.Y.: Olmaz hocam, şöyle ki İlhan hocamın imzasını aldım. Sizden de isteyeceğim onun için.
S.Ö.: Güzel
G.Y.: Aslında içinde, bilmiyorum Atilla hocanın diye tahmin ediyorum ama böyle bir imza vardı zaten geldiğinde, o bana değil ama altına da İlhan hoca benim için imza attı.
S.Ö.: Çok güzel olmuş. O zaman gömleğini değiştirebiliriz. Onun gömleği çok güzel. Neyse önemli değil. Böyle bu işe girdik, şey olarak, o zaman Salih Memecan, University of Pennsylvania'da doktorasını yapıyordu, o da grafik tasarım ve diğer işlerini şey yaptı, ele aldı. Burada gördüğün gibi, o zaman çok mantıklıydı, artık pek öyle değil, on yıllık dilimlerle ele aldık. İlk iki dilimi Yıldırım'la ben yazdık.
G.Y.: Hocam aslında orada şeyi sormak istiyorum size, niye iki bölüm halinde ele aldınız? Çünkü aslında ilk kısımda, bu Osmanlı'nın son dönemleri olarak ele aldığınız kısımda zaten Birinci Ulusal Mimarlık'ı anlatmaya başlıyorsunuz. Aslında Vedat Tek'ten, Kemalettin Bey'den falan da bahsediyorsunuz. Ama işte sonrasında bir Kurtuluş Savaşı ve Ankara'nın başkent oluşuyla sanki daha kent üstünden bir ayrım var gibi. Niye öyle bir tercih yaptığınızı soracaktım.
S.Ö.: Şey yani, rejim değişikliğinin mimarlıkta yaşamadığını iddia etmek doğru değil. Ama ben olsam yapmazdım. Ama Yıldırım benim de hocam, yani... O öyle isteyince, daha mantıklı geldi, dediğim gibi önceden söylediğim kırılma noktası da orada oluyor zaten. Yani 1936'da şeyi kovuyorlar yani, yahut atölyesini kapatıyorlar, daha önce kovuyorlar, Mimar Vedat'ın. Böyle bir grupla gittik, grubun içinde anekdot çok olay var ama sen neleri öğrenmek istiyorsun onları sor önce.
G.Y.: Hocam anekdotları da öğrenmek istiyorum ama önce şeyi sorayım. Sergide kullanılan fotoğraflar kitaptaki fotoğraflar mıdır?
S.Ö.: Değil. Kitapta herkes kendi fotoğraflarını verdi. Sergiyi ayrıca oluşturduk.
S.Ö.: Oradaki arkadaşlarımın arasından Üstün'ü kaybettik, Üstük Alsaç'ı. Atilla Yücel'i kaybettik. Keşke onlarla konuşabilseydin.
G.Y.: Keşke.
S.Ö.: Selçuk Batur'u kaybettik. Afife Batur'u kaybettik. Yani o zaman genç dediğimiz insanlar şimdi mefta oldular eski tabiriyle. Tek paylaştığımız ortak nokta mimarlık tarihi, mimarlık diliyle yazılmaz. Mimarlık tarihi, mimarlığı oluşturan politik
431
gerçeklerle yazılır. O politik gerçeklerle mimarlık bilimi nasıl adapte olabilir? Mimarlık bilimi neler ürettiği konuşulur. Onun üzerine de herkesin sempati duyduğu bölümü şey yaptım. Yıldırım ilk dönemi aldı, ilk dönemin belgelerinin birçoğunu ben zaten derlemiştim, sonra hemen hemen çoğuna sahip oldum. Öyle bir adımlarla gittik. Üstün sanırım 1930’ları, 1940’ları aldı değil mi? Atilla Yücel son kısmı aldı. Şey 1950’leri aldı, Mete Tapan. Afife Batur...
G.Y.: Yanlış hatırlıyor olmayayım ama..
S.Ö.: Neyse oradan düzeltirsin.
G.Y.: Üstün hoca, aslında İkinci Ulusal Mimarlığı yazdı.
S.Ö.: Şey 1930’ları, tamam.
G.Y.: 1930’ları Afife hoca yazdı.
S.Ö.: 1940'ları Üstün yazdı.
G.Y.: Ondan sonra 1950-1960 Mete Hoca. Sonra Atilla hoca. Ben yanlış hatırlamayayım diye kontrol ettim de.
S.Ö.: Yani bu kitabın diğer mimarlık kitaplarından fark edilir tek tarafı odur. Yani toplumsal oluşum içinde mimariyi ele almak. Çünkü birçok kişi bunu yaptığını söyler ama işte diyelim ki 1930’ların mimarisi, kullanılan dil sadece mimarlık dilidir, hiç politik dil değildir.
G.Y.: Aslında o dönem içinde çok öncü bir mimarlık tarihi yazımı biçimi anladığım kadarıyla, İlhan hocayla konuştuklarımdan, okuduklarımdan yola çıkarak bakınca, o dönem çok öyle yaklaşılmıyormuş sanırım.
S.Ö.: Tabii, tabii. Yani oraya gittiğimizde ilginçti. Yani şöyle çok ilginçti, bak bu senin tezine yardım eder. Anectodal ama çok önemli. Biliyorsun, Robert Venturi, Louis Kahn'la çalışırdı. Aralarındaki olayların çok çok private kısımlarını iyi biliyorum. Onları ıskalayacağım. Yani, belki gerekirse ben yazarım. Çok önemli değil. Ama Robert Venturi bir şekilde Kahn'la olan savaşından dolayı University of Pennsylvania'yı terk etmiş. Birtakım konferanslara çağırmışlar, eleştirilere çağırmışlar, vesaire vesaire vesaire.
G.Y.: Onu hocam çağırarak mı yani onu çağırmışlar mı, nasıl haberi olmuş konferanstan biliyor musunuz?
S.Ö.: İşte onu anlatıyorum. Sonra bu konferansın olacağını nasıl duyduğunu bilmiyorum. Fakat aynı günlerde benim bildiğim başka bir olay var. Saddam'ın büyük Irak, Bağdat camisinin mimarı, onu seçtiren de, şey, Rıfat Çadırcı, şeyi yürüten. Oraya geldiler, Denise Scott Brown'da geldi. Bizim bildirimizi Yıldırım sundu. İkisini bir arada, senin istediğin gibi, yaptı yani. İkisini bir arada sundu. Her bildirinin sonunda,
432
yine toprağa verdiğimiz, Brian Taylor, o mimar dergisinin editörlerinden biriydi. Brian Taylor bir eleştiri getirdi. Brian Taylor'ın eleştirisi biraz suçlayıcıydı. Yani, Yıldırım'a İngilizcen kötü, terminolojin yanlış..
G.Y.: Öyle mi?
S.Ö.: Yaa, baya agresif. Hiç olacak bir şey değil. Yıldırım'da çok hassas bir insandır yani. Üstelik de Yıldırım'ın İngilizcesi Orta Doğu camiasındaki en iyidir. Yani Talas-Tarsus kökenli falan, Amerika'da şey yapmış. Yani, neyse bunun üzerine, Denise Scott Brown çıktı sahneye, müthiş bir alkış koptu tabii. Çünkü 10 yıl aradan sonra ilk defa geliyorlar. Dedi ki, buraya insanlar bize bilgi getirmiş dedi, bunlara kötü davranmaya kimsenin hakkı yoktur. Bilgiyi işlersiniz, irdelersiniz, soru sorarsınız ama hakaret edemezsiniz dedi. Üstelik dedi, Brian'a, senin yaptığın dil eleştirisinin üzerine, senin konuşmandaki sekiz tane gramer yanlışını ben sana söyleyeyim dedi.
G.Y.: Çok güzel.
S.Ö.: Mosmor oldu. Brian, hakikaten şeysiz, sevgisiz bir insandı. Yani, gedikli biriydi. Batı dünyası da lüzumsuz derecede komünist olmuş, Corbusier'nin kendi mimarisini zorla kakaladığını iddia ediyor, yani Le Corbusier'in de komünist olduğunu görmezden geliyor. Böyle bir adamdı. Neyse. Yakın zamanda kaybettik. İyi bir akademikti ama, iyi bir akademikti. Bunun üzerine, aradan 1-2 seans geçti, Mete Tapan, dedi ki sen de gel de dedi, soru-cevaplara yardımcı olursun, ben de çıktım. Oturum başkanı Kemal Karpat'tı. Onu da yakınlarda kaybettik. Önemli bir akademikti, özellikle Batı dünyasında ilk defa gecekondu üzerine falan konuşan, Anadolu'da konut üzerine konuşan insanlardan biriydi. Ben sevmezdim. Yani aptal sağcı bir şeyi vardı, kendini beğenmişliği vardı ve hep kendine ait olmayan alanlarda konuşurdu, sen tarihçisin, tarih alanında konuş birader, ya niye konut alanına konuşuyorsun? Neyse, bu beni gördü, ODTÜ'den de bir şeyimiz vardı, eski takıntımız vardı, bu bana bir şey yaptı, bana değil pardon. İşte bir konferans verdi, ben de o konferansı şöyle 8 şeylik teksir halinde o zamanlar, teksir olarak çoğaltıp dağıttım. Ondan sonra, millet merak ediyordu, bu dekanlığa gelmiş, dekan beni çağırdı. Dedi ki, Kemal Bey bir şey soracak, onun konferansını kendisine sormadan niye dağıttınız? Tamam mı? Dedim ki, konferansı düzenleyen benim. Yani, dağıtmasa mıydım? Dedim. Kemal Bey olmaz dedi, bu işte copyright Amerikan bilmem ne vesaire. Dedim ki Kemal Bey, ben onları geri toplayamam.
G.Y.: Öyle ama, çok enteresan bir çıkışmış gerçekten.
S.Ö.: Evet, ne yapmak istiyorsanız yapın dedim, tamam mı? Bu olay bitti. Fakat beni orda görünce rahatsız oldu. Yani o zaman benim görünümüm de şöyle bir görünüm yani (Kitaplığın girişindeki fotoğrafını işaret ediyor). Dedim ki ya, iki önceki seansı hatırlıyorsunuz, burası pek tekin bir yer değil, ben bodyguard'ı olarak geldim, dedim. Tabii ilk alkış Denise Scott Brown'la, Venturi'den koptu. Gerek de olmadı benim yardımıma, Mete gayet güzel anlattı her şeyini. Hadise böyleydi. Sergi, o zamanın şartlarına göre...
433
G.Y.: Hocam oraya geçmeden, önce şunu sorayım da ben, Venturi ve Denise Scott Brown sonrasında size bir yorum yaptı mı? Ne düşündükleriyle ilgili, yani sizin sanırım sonrasında da çünkü bir dostluğunuz da olmuş. Hani yorumları neydi ben onu merak ettim.
S.Ö.: Çok, çok. Oraya girmediler. Ama ben Denise Scott Brown'a dedim ki, ya biz orada gelmişiz, gariban yaşımızda bir şeyler yapmak istiyoruz, oradan buradan tokat yerken bir tek sen bizi savundun dedim. Dedi ki, o benim doğamdır dedi, bırakmam, ben sizi tanımıyordum ki dedi. Ama iyi bir şey yaptığınızı biliyorum dedi. Ama genel olarak oradan, en azından, İstanbul'un doğusundaki mimarlık ortamını koklamak için geldiklerinden eminim. Ama çok çok iyi dost olduk. Yapmadığımız tek şey, mimarlık tartışmaktı. Çünkü ben ve Venturi iki ayrı kutuplardayız yani mimarlık ideolojisi açısından. Birbirimizin kalbini kırmaya gerek yok ki.
G.Y.: Tabii
S.Ö.: Ben kendi düşündüğümü söylüyorum, o kendi düşündüğünün iyisini yapmaya çalışıyor. Ama şey, birkaç iş verdim ona ben, çünkü Orta Asya'da o tür mimarlığa meraklılık vardı. Yani klassisist, post-modernist vesaire, dedim ki bunun iyisini yapacaksanız, adam burada işte.
G.Y.: Şey, başka orada yaşanan enteresan olaylar bir şeyler oldu mu, aklınızda kalmış? Bir de hocam hiç fotoğraf var mıdır? Şu an University of Pennsylvania'daki arşivler kapalı tabii, orada vardıysa.
S.Ö.: Salih'e yaz, Salih bulabilir, ya da yönlendirebilir. Telefonum gelince hatırlat bana, Salih Memecan oradaydı.
G.Y.: Tamam.
S.Ö.: Sibel orada doktora yapıyordu. Salih bizim içimizdeydi, Sibel pek böyle hoşlanmadı o.
G.Y.: Öyle mi?
S.Ö.: Yani o daha çok şey yapıyordu, mimarlık teknolojisi üzerine çalışıyordu, orada da bir ironik durum var, şöyle, Sibel oraya giderken dedim ki, ne yaparsan yap, Türkiye üzerine tez yapma dedim. Yani o okula demir atacaksan, orada akademik bir şey yapacaksan, hakikaten de yapmadı. Yani, çelik teknolojisi üzerine çok nitelikli bir tez yaptı. Fakat sonra nedense bu Cumhuriyet dönemine döndü.
G.Y.: Evet kitabını çıkardı sonra.
S.Ö.: Cumhuriyet dönemine döndü ve kitapları daha çok politik. Kendi çalışmaları daha çok şey, mimari. Ama Sibel'in farkı, Gülru bir yığın özgün dergi getirdi, kimsenin bilmediği. Gülru Necipoğlu. Sinan'la ilgili. Sibel hiçbir şey getirmedi.
434
G.Y.: Yazdı.
S.Ö.: Yazdı, yorumladı, yani bence...
G.Y.: Çok kullanılan kaynaklar ama onlar.
S.Ö.: Tabii, tabii, çok zeki bir insandır. Bizim 5 yıldızlı mezunumuzdur. Benim en takdir ettiğim mezunlardan biridir. Fullbright aldı gitti falan... Fakat, şimdi sen de içinde olduğun için alınma ama bu Cumhuriyet sonrası ortam, yani bu kadar spesifik olunmazsa çok kısır bir ortam. Çünkü bunun en büyük projelerini Ali Cengizkan bitirdi zaten.
G.Y.: Yok hocam, ben alınmam, şey çok enteresan geliyor bana da ben mesela bu nelerin üstünde çalışılması gerekiyor diye bir şeylere baktık, araştırırken, gerçekten çok az da çalışma var, ama dediğiniz gibi aynı zamanda da çok kapsayıcı bir durum da var. Ben hani nasıl yazılmış kısmına birazcık daha hani neler öne çıkmış, hangi temalar, falan gibi, birazcık daha öyle yaklaşmaya çalıştım zaten ama.
S.Ö.: Şimdi anekdot olay şu, bence çok önemli, bunu kimse de bilmiyor yani, sen bir şekilde kullanırsan kullanırsın. Bu olayın oluşumu ve arkada böyle anlaşılmayan bir gerilim var ya, o gerilim Renata Holod'a mı karşı, Venturi'ye mi karşı, bize karşı olması mümkün değil, çünkü University of Pennsylvania bizim Üniversitemizi kuran okul. Fakat ben biraz humoresk (esprili) bir şekilde, biraz da gözü kara, her olayda girdim. Müsaade etmedim olayın çirkinleşmesine. Tamam mı? Kemal Karpat olayı biri, Denise Scott Brown'ın girdiği Brian Taylor olayı öbürü, vesaire. Girdim, seminer bitti, bir grup böyle takım elbiseli, asorti kravatlı, güzel traşlı 3-5 kişi geldi, bana Aga Khan ödülü genel sekreterliğini önerdiler. Dedim ki, orada biri var, dediler ki şey memnun değil, kuruluş, biz sana teklif ediyoruz. Bizi etkiledin, interview (görüşme) falan gerekmez. Dedim ki, kusura bakmayın. Hiç kusura bakmayın. Onurlandım, ama birinin ekmek parası olan pozisyona ben talip olamam. Mümkün değil. Benim dedim ODTÜ'de işim var, orada ya emekli olurum, ya ölürüm. Seviyorum kuruluşu. Ama dediler sabbatical leave'de. Evet dedim. Hatta dedim, bir senem daha var. E tamam dediler, işte onu biz finanse edelim. Birdenbire ben kendimi Aga Khan ödülü steering komitesinde buldum.
G.Y.: Ben tarihler olarak bakınca Aga Khan'la olan bağlantınız çünkü..
S.Ö.: 1982
G.Y.: Konferans için gittim falan diye söylemişsiniz zaten ben tahmin ettim onunla ilgili bir şey olduğunu ama.
S.Ö.: Ne güzel okumuşun ya, sen benim hayatımı yazsana.
G.Y.: Severek hocam. Keşke.
435
S.Ö.: Neyse. Böyle bir olay. Dedim ki şey yapamam yani, ben üniversiteyi bırakmayı hiçbir şekilde düşünmüyorum. Hakikaten de düşünmüyorum. Yani bana 54 numaralı odayı verdiklerinde, ben dedim buraya girerim, buradan ya emekleyerek ya tekerlekli sandalyede ya bastonla ya sürünerek çıkarım. Ya beyaz saçlarım olur ya hiç saçlarım olmaz, hiçbiri önemli değil, bu benim hayatım.
G.Y.: Hocam ama burada çok güzel olmuş böyle ya (Bodrum Mimarlık Kitaplığı'nı kastediyorum). Yani gerçekten, burası çok keyifli geldi bana, bence çok iyi yapmışsınız. Kendi kişisel fikrim benim tabii, ama yani gerçekten mesela Ankara'da bence çok öyle uzun süre yaşanmalı mı, çok bana da iyi gelmiyor.
S.Ö.: Şöyle düşünmekte yarar var hayatım. Ben Ankara'da doğdum, büyüdüm. Benim babam memurdu. Annem bizim ailenin direğiydi. Annem öldü, babam öldü. Beni yetiştiren, resmen yetiştiren yani lise kapsamında diyeceğim, ablam çok iyi bir entelektüeldi, o öldü. Dolayısıyla hiçbir bağım kalmadı, yani kan bağım kalmadı. ODTÜ'de de işte biliyorsun yani, yavaş yavaş goodbye (güle güle) diyorlar. İşte bir İlhan kaldı...
G.Y.: Demeyin hocam öyle...
S.Ö.: Öbür İlhan kaldı. Dolayısıyla, onlar da yani sosyal insanlar değiller. İlhan'la biz Çeşme'deyken çok çok sık buluşuyorduk. Çok şey öğrendim ondan. Tekeli'yle. Öbür İlhan, zaten bambaşka bir gündemi vardır. Yıldırım önemliydi, gitti. Büyük bir kısmı zaten Amerika'ya göçtü. Okan, Mete, vesaire. İşte buna kalkıştık. Herkes karşı çıktı. Herkes karşı çıktı. Benim karım dâhil. Şimdi orayı yapacaksın, ondan sonra oraya gitmek zorunda olacaksın, hâlbuki senin emeklilik hayatın, git balık tut, eğlen falan. Dedim ki, yani balık tutamam, yüzemem, merakım yok. Ben kitaplarımın yanında olacağım.
G.Y.: Hocam, o kadar hoşuma gitti ki, ben şimdi şeyden falan da biraz takip etmeye çalışıyorum, bu youtube da falan da konuşmaları falan paylaşıyorsunuz. Çok güzel bir ortam, gerçekten böyle oturup tartışmak... Çok keyifli yani.
S.Ö.: Herkesin yapacağı bir şey var. Bir de örnek olur gençlere. Yani hakikaten örnek olur. Yani çünkü ya bak, Bülent Eczacıbaşı'nı biz buraya çağırmadık. Çünkü çağrılı davet yapmadık, kurumsal davet yaptık. İşte Mimarlar Odası, Sanatlar Birliği, vesaire. Buranın açılış günü, Bülent beni aradı. Çünkü ben ona gönüllü hizmet verdim, yani mimarlık konusunda bir şeyde aradığında, gidip gruplar içinde görüşlerimi bildirdim falan. Belki onu göze aldı, belki almadı. Hocam neye ihtiyacınız var? Dedi. Yani hiçbir şeye ihtiyacımız yok Bülent Bey sağ olun. Bir vaktiniz olduğunda gelin. Kütüphane açmışsınız nasıl ihtiyacınız olmaz? Dedi. Yani. Bir şey yapalım. Peki dedim. O gece uykum kaçtı. Ertesi gün, Kaan Bey diye biri aradı, onun bürosundan. Hocam dedi, sizin için ne yapacağız? Dedim ki ya çok eksiğimiz var. Bilgisayar sistemi yok, televizyon sistemi yok, doğrudan doğruya herhangi bir internet iletişim sistemi yok. Havalandırma, soğutma sistemi yok. Şu yok, bu yok. Peki dedi, siz bunları yazın yollayın. Ben de dedim ki ya, çok para tutar o. Benim dünyam küçük. Diyorum ya bir kıymalı pide yani.
436
G.Y.: Öyle ama hocam, haklısınız.
S.Ö.: Dedim ki, siz bütçenizi verin dedim, ben ona göre bir şeyler isteyeyim. Olur mu hocam, dedi, ben nasıl Bülent Eczacıbaşı'na gidip bana bütçe ver diyeyim. Tamam, o zamanki parayla, şimdiki parayla 200.000 falan olması lazım, 70.000 liralık bir liste oluşturdum. Ama dedim, yapmayacağınızı yapmayın, ne olur, yani önemli değil. Arkasından şey aradı, muhasebe müdürü aradı, dedi ki hocam biz bunu nasıl muhasebelendireceğiz dedi? Siz vakıf mısınız? Dernek misiniz? Dedim ki ya ben Suha Özkan'ın kitapları. E nasıl yapacağız dedi bunu? Şey olarak, muhasebe olarak. Dedim çok kolay. Nasıl kolay? Dedi. Dedim, mallar buraya gelecek, monte edilecek, fatura size gelecek, ödeyeceksiniz. O zaman dedi doğrudan hibe olarak koyarız, biter. Aynı şekilde burayı aldığımın haftasına Zeynep Bodur aradı, hocam dedi oradaki bütün vitrifiye eşyalar bize ait. Dedim ha ha, inanmıyorum ben böyle şeylere biliyor musun? Yani o kadar kalbim kırılmış ki, yıllar boyunca. Peki dedim. Sonra, 3 gün sonra, kuryeden içinde bulunan şöyle bir katalog, lütfen istediklerinizi buraya işaretleyin, numaralarını yollamanız yeterli dedi.
G.Y.: Ne güzel.
S.Ö.: Hepsini onlar verdi...
G.Y.: Çok güzel, çok mutlu oldum, hoşuma gitti.
S.Ö.: Şimdi mesela benim burada benim devre arkadaşım, Umut Ülkümen var, her seferinde geliyor, yani kusura bakma kabaca söyleyeceğim, çok şeydir çünkü, hoyrat konuşur. Ya kötü şarap veriyorsunuz, bari doğru dürüst kapta verin, böyle tanesi 45$ olan kadehler getiriyor. Ondan sonra yok olmadı diyor, beğenmedim, şeyi, sizin pervane gürültü yapıyor, onu değiştireceğim, değiştirdi, bizim 2 tane vardı. Olmadı diyor, orada senin bir varlığının olması lazım, şu resimleri ısmarladı.
G.Y.: Onlar da çok güzel görünüyor, gireceğim birazdan.
S.Ö.: Ondan sonra yine olmadı dedi, şeyi değiştireceğim dedi, televizyonu. Çok şey küçük ve alçak, vesaire. Ya işte ODTÜ müthiş, ODTÜ müthiş. Gittim baktım iyi bir televizyon çok pahalı. Dedim ki, Hasan Vatan bizim mezunumuzdur biliyorsun. Vatan bilgisayar.
G.Y.: Bilmiyordum.
S.Ö.: Hasan'ı aradım. Dedim ki böyle böyle bir şey alacağız. Ondan sonra, inanmazsın 5 dakika sonra, hocam dedi, fabrika çıkış fiyatına size verecekler, biz hiçbir şey almayacağız. Tamam mı? Şeye söyledim, Umut'a söyledim. Tamam dedi, gitti.
G.Y.: Bu çok güzel bir şey.
437
S.Ö.: Ama utanıyorum, ama bu işlere giremiyorum. Yani bu toplara. Tamam mı? Yani, getir tak da diyebilirdim. Ama vicdanım el vermiyor. Yani niye o kadar para versinler.
G.Y.: Hocam ama yani çok güzel bir şey yapmışsınız. Onun farkında olan insanlar olması da beni mutlu ediyor mesela.
S.Ö.: Çok, çok, çok.
G.Y.: Yani bunun kıymetinin anlaşılıyor olması çok güzel bir şey.
S.Ö.: Evet. Yani şimdi ben 75 yaşındayım. Bu hayata son adım ise, güzel bir adım oldu. Daha sonra başka bir şey yapabilir miyim bilmiyorum. Yani enerjim olabilir. Başka bir şey düşünebilirim.
G.Y.: Burada her şey yapılır aslında hocam gerçekten. İnsanı mutlu eden bir yer olmuş gerçekten. O zaman hocam size şeyi sorayım, tam böyle 1980 darbesinin sonrasına geliyor ya, bu ODTÜ'deki, o dönemki, aslında siz de birazcık bahsettiniz çok kötü değildi ilişkiler falan dediniz ama hem o Pennsylvania ile olan ilişkileri, hem de ODTÜ'nün o süreçteki o akademik ortamıyla ilgili ne düşünüyorsunuz diye?
S.Ö: İki-üç olay anlatabilirim. Akademik ortam değil de. Bunun tanığı şeydir, bulabilirsen bir yerde sorarsın, OTK başkanı Kemal Aliş. Şimdi, Necmettin Erkan öğrenci işlerinden sorumlu rektör yardımcısıydı. Mehmet Bey anladığım kadarıyla onu uygun görmedi. Öğrencilerin de sevmediğini biliyordu. Sanırım. Bana teklif etti. Ben de birkaç gün istedim. Öğrenci temsilcisi Kemal Aliş'i çağırdım. Dedim ki, böyle böyle bir teklif var. Siz beni desteklemezseniz ben bunu kabul etmem. Yani öğrenciye rağmen, öğrenci işleri yapamam. Hocam dediler biz bilmiyoruz ki yani sizi bir iyi adamsınız ama yani, hangi fraksiyondansınız, kimlerle birliktesiniz, çinci misiniz, rusçu musunuz, vesaire. Dedim ki, görevi alırsam, benim için siz ailenizin bana emanet ettiği kişilersiniz. Kim olduklarınız önemli değil. Sizin varlığınız ve sağlığınız önemli. Gittiler falan filan, tamam hocam dediler, kabul edin, biz sizi destekleyeceğiz. Tamam dedim, o zaman yasa dışı herhangi bir olay olduğunda, aramızda bir telefon olacak. Onun başında daima beni temsilen biri, sizi temsilen biri olacak. Neyse tartışacağız. Sıkıyönetim komutanı. Komutana gittim dedim ki, böyle böyle bir görev var, ben bunu kabul etmek isterim, ama siz beni desteklemezseniz, ben devletle savaşamam ki yani. Ne isterseniz yaparsınız. Ne istiyorsunuz dedi. Dedim ki, sizin yasadışı gördüğünüz bir şey olduğunda bana süre vereceksiniz. Ve bunu çözemezsem, siz gelirsiniz, zaten siz geldiğinizde ben gitmiş olurum. Hiç önemli değil. Ne kadar süre istiyorsunuz dedi. 45 dakika.
G.Y.: Gerçekten mi?
S.Ö.: Valla. Şimdi hatırladığım çok olay var. Bir tanesi şu. Komutanın yaveri arıyor, komutan değil. Hocam, nükleer fizikle, Lenin, Karl Marx'ın, Mao'nun bir ilişkisi var mıdır? Engels'in falan. Niye soruyorsunuz bunu dedim? İşte diyolar üçlü amfi de konferans olacak, nükleer fizik hakkında duvarlarda bunların posterleri var. Tamam mı? İncelemem gerekiyor. Kemal Aliş'i arıyorum, Kemal diyorum böyle böyle bir soru
438
var bize, döneyim hocam diyor, hakkaten 10 dakika sonra dönüyor, hocam öyle bir şey yok diyor. Tamam mı? Ben sıkıyönetimi arıyorum. Komutanım öyle bir şey yokmuş diyorum. Evet hocam, 10 dakika önce kaldırdılar diyor. Hadise bu. Diyalog ve sevgi. Yani, şeylerle de aynıydı benim ilişkim. Dincilerle de aynıydı. Onlar gidiyorlar, dehlizlerde Said Nursi şeyleri dağıtıyorlar, orada güya namaz kılıyorlar falan, ben bütün şeyleri kapattırdım, tuğla duvar ördürdüm, şeyler var ya, yeraltı dehlizleri. Bunlar geldiler grup halinde dediler ki hocam, siz bizim ibadetimizi engelliyorsunuz. Hayır dedim, ben sizin ibadetinize saygı duyuyorum. İbadet öyle dehlizlerde falan yapılacak bir şey değildir. Açıkça gerekli yerlerde yapılır. Hocam nerede yapılır dediler. Cuma günü. Dedim ki, rektörlüğün önünde 5 tane otobüs var. İstediğiniz camiye gidin. Kamil Coşkun vardı, Genel İdari İşler Müdürü, bütün bunları onunla planlıyorduk, yani Kamil benim çok eski arkadaşım. Hep şey derdi, hocam hiçbir şeye hayır demeyeceksin, sen evet de biz çözeriz. Bunlar bir hafta iki hafta gittiler, sonra bitti olay. Çünkü adamların derdi din değil ki. Ama ne oldu, o grup içinden çok sevgili öğrenciler edindim ben. Arabistan'da falan çok yardımcı oldular. Senin esas sorun şeydi, bu olay içinde şeye kadar yürüttük bunu, Kenan Evren'in ziyaretine kadar. Onu bilmende yarar var. Sonra ben gittim, işte istifa ettim, zaman verdiler, şu kadar gün şu kadar şey, neyse, sıkıyönetim komutanın teşekkür edeyim dedim. Hakikaten girmediler. Girmedikleri gibi de ayrıldıktan sonra oradaki jandarma yüzbaşısı Yakın, Yakın Taşken, bana İsviçre'yle mektup yazdı. Hayatı nasıl gidiyor, benden neler öğrenmiş, anlatabiliyor muyum? Şey diyor, hocam ben sizden sevgiyi öğrendim. Onlar insan, onlar bizim kardeşimiz, bize böyle göstermiyorlar dedi. Neyse. Allah bilir şimdi iyi bir yerdedir. Kızını kaybetti. Dedim ki ben ayrılıyorum. Çok üzüldüğünü söyledi. Dedi ki, siz bilirsiniz dedi, bizim de çocuklarımız var, üniversite çağında. Onlar da sağda solda bir yerde takılıyorlar. Bizim de yüreğimiz hop hop ediyor dedi. Ama onları sahiplenen biri olduğunu gördüğümde ben size çok güvendim dedi. Ben de dedim yani, yoksa niye yapılır ki böyle bir iş. Sonra bana dedi ki, niye 45 dakika istediniz dedi. Gülmeye başladım, komutanım dedim, biz hocayız, bir konuyu 45 dakikada anlatırsanız çocuklar anlıyorsa iyidir, anlamıyorsa ya onlar kalın kafalıdır ya siz iyi anlatamamışsınızdır. Çünkü 45 dakika sonra çözülür dedim şey konsantrasyon. Öyle bir şekilde bitirdik yani.
G.Y.: Zor bir dönem tabii. Şimdiki gibi değil ama. Ben şeyi sorayım. Venturi ve Denise Scott Brown için söylediniz ama orada konferansta başka size gelip fikrini belirten, yorum yapan insanlar oldu mu?
S.Ö.: Yani Sibel vardı. Zaten Venturi'ler çıtayı o kadar yükselttiler ki kimse pek cesaret edemedi. Çünkü onlar, Pennsylvania, onlar yani. Louis Kahn ve onlar. Sibel hatırlayabilir ama. Çünkü ben hep koşuşturduğum için.
G.Y.: Bu 100. yıl etkinlikleri kapsamında yapılan bir etkinlik tabii. Çok fazla da etkinlik yapılmış aslında o dönemde hem yurt dışında, hem yurt içinde. Biz aslında İlhan hocamla da birazcık konuşurken o da biraz bahsetti, o birazcık daha şey diye yorumladı, böyle sizin Türkiye'deki tanıtılmamış mimarlığı dünyaya tanıtma çabanızın, başarınızın olduğundan bahsetti ve hani o 100. yıl etkinlerinde bir niş bulup oradan bu işi gerçekleştirdiğinizi söyledi ama bu etkinliklerin aynı zamanda birazcık da şey olduğunu düşünüyordu o, bir yandan Türkiye'nin, işte Atatürk Türkiye'sindeki,
439
modern Türkiye'deki, farklı gelişmeleri, başarıları aktarmak, temsil etmek gibi bir şey olmakla birlikte, birazcık da darbenin meşruiyeti olduğu, yani onun yapılmaya çalışıldığı ve aslında çok da sempatik karşılanmadığı bir dönem olduğunu da düşünüyordu o ama, siz ne düşünüyorsunuz onu sormak istedim.
S.Ö.: Şimdi o konuda, 2 olay var. Geriye saralım, İlhan'ın söylediği dönem. İlhan'ın söylediği dönemde, şimdi USIA, yani American United States Information Agency, aslında CIA'in bir kuruluşu. Onun başındaki adamın da onların misyonunu bilmemesi mümkün değil. Bana sorarsan, oradaki kültür müsteşarı ya bunlar da iyi insanlar hafif sola kaymışlar tabii, araştırmışlar, ya bunlara bir şey verelim de, Amerika'yı sempatik gösterelim. Benim düşüncem oydu. Ama 1983 yılında, milli güvenlik konseyine gittiğimde, konsey genel sekreteri beni kabul etti, ben girerken kapıdan çıkan kişi Doğu Perinçek'ti. Ve onu hissettiği için dedi ki, bak hocam dedi, biz sağ sol ayırmıyoruz, yani beni dedi görünce, sağ-sol ayırmıyoruz her kesimle konuşuyoruz. Ve bana dedi ki, biz dedi, Aga Khan, Mağa Khan bilmeyiz dedi. Çok açıkça. Ama dedi, bunlar dünyada etkili insanlar. İlhan'ın dediği oradan doğru. Dolayısıyla siz ne isterseniz yaparız. Yeter ki bizim ismimiz olumlu anılsın. Ne istiyorsunuz dedi? Dedim ki Cumhurbaşkanı’nın oraya gelmesini istiyorum, Topkapı sarayının bize tahsisini istiyorum, özel olarak PTT'nin pul çıkarmasını istiyorum. Başka bir şey? Hayır dedim, paramız var, her şeyi kendimiz yaparız. Bu kadar. Ben Cenevre'ye döndüğümde benim kapımda şeyler vardı, anonslar vardı şeyden, bizim daimî temsilcilikten, konsolosluktan falan: Sayın Suha Özkan lütfen gelin, Sayın Suha Özkan lütfen gelin, Sayın Suha Özkan lütfen gelin falan. Ben yokum tabii, sonra yapıştırmışlar, bu milli güvenlik konseyinin memorandumu, çünkü adam bana dedi ki, sizin dedi bir muhtıranız var mı dedi. Ben eski nesil olduğum için muhtıranın memorandum olduğunu biliyorum. Uçmasın diye yazmıştım... Onu verdim baktı, çok iyi dedi, tamam dedi gidebilirsin, ben de Aga Khan'ın yayınlarından getirmiştim. Dedi ki ya ben okuyamam bunları dedi, yani okusam da anlayamam, siz bunu Torumtay Paşa'ya götür dedi. Hatırlıyor musun Torumtay Paşayı?
G.Y.: Yok.
S.Ö.: Şeyde, Irak'ın işgaline karşı çıkıp istifa etti. Ben onu Torumtay'a götürdüm, çok sevindi, şişman, hoş bir adam. Sonra birkaç ay sonra beni çağırdı, okumuş kitapları. Dedi ki hocam, bu korumacılıkla ekonomiyi anlamadım dedi. Ne düşünüyorsun dedi. Dedim ekonomik tabanı olmadan kimse bir şeyi korumaz ki dedim. Torumtay, Orgeneral, Genelkurmay Başkanı. Yani, orada bir iyi niyet ortamında, dediğim gibi ODTÜ'nün ingilizce eğitimini de biz onlardan aldık.
G.Y.: O doğru bir yaklaşım bence de.
S.Ö.: Neyse, bunlar böyle şeyler.
G.Y.: E peki hocam, bu diğer etkinlikler bir yanda dursun, hani 100. yıl etkinlikleri, siz kendi bu etkinliğin amacını nasıl tanımlarsınız diye sorayım.
440
S.Ö.: Yani, 100. yıl etkinliği, Atatürk'ün doğumuyla gelişen yüzyıl ve şeyin de o zamanki iktidarın da yani askeri iktidarın da Atatürk'ü hiç bir şekilde dışlamayacakları, o kadar ki Atatürk gibi resimler çektirmeye çalışıyordu falan, trenin penceresinden, hatırlarsın. Ama yapılan olayların çoğu, şeydi, Atatürk ilkelerinin karşıtı, İmam-Hatip okullarını güçlendirdiler, dini öne çıkardılar, vesaire. Yani samimi değillerdi, arkasında eminim bir Amerikan ajansı vardı, yani, bunları yönlendiren. Çünkü biz Kenan Evren'le 1978 yılında, şeyin önündeki, meclisin önündeki Atatürk'ün, ya da 1979 yılında, Atatürk'ün anıtı jürisinde beraberdik. Bambaşka bir insandı. Bir kere yanında Rodin hayranı tümgeneral bir paşa vardı, foto paşa diyorlardı, elinden kamera eksilmeyen. Sonra vakıflar genel müdürü oldu o. Çok hoş bir insandı. Ona danışıyordu. Sanat konusu. O da en sofistike şey, hatta o, üç adım gerisinde oturuyordu şeyin, Kenan Evren'in, jüride. Jüri masasında. Orhan Özgüner ve ben jüri başkanına yalvardık, dedik ki ya o da paşanın yanına gelsin, yani geri dönmek olmuyor yani şeyde. Masaya kattık foto paşayı, öyle resimler de var, yani mesela orada Atatürk'ü şoven, asker, savaşçı gösterilen, gösteren heykellerin hiçbirini kabul etmedi. Atatürk'ün dedi en büyük eseri şeydir, Büyük Millet Meclisi, orada sivil ve dingin olmalı yani. Burada itiş, kakışa; savaşa, atlara falan yer yok.. Çok güzel projeler vardı. Yani o dönemi aslında ben yeterince yaşayamadan ayrıldım, nedeni çok basit, yani bunlar Aga Khan'cılar neden beni bu kadar sevmeye karar verdiler bilmiyorum. Hakikaten bilmiyorum. Herhâlde orada bir Türk'ün olmasının iyi olacağını şey yaptılar, sanırım arkasında Charles Correa; Sir Hugh Casson falan gibi çok sofistike insanlar var beni tanıyan. Bana dediler ki sen 1982 yılının mayıs ayından itibaren 1983 yılının sonuna kadar, burada şey olarak çalış, danışman olarak çalış, bize dünyayı rapor et, gideceğin ülkeleri, konuşacağın insanları sen seç, ben ayda bir rapor vermek üzere dünyayı gezdim, her yeri ama.
G.Y.: Çok güzel bir şey.
S.Ö.: Evet. Her yeri yani. Böyle bir şey yani bu kimsenin başına gelen bir şey. Ama o arada Türkiye'deki politikayı ıskaladım.
G.Y.: Peki hocam, yani kendi şeyinizle, zaten sonuçta siz düzenlerken de çok içindeydiniz, diğer etkinlikler için değil, ya da politika için değil ama bu etkinliğin temel amacı, hani işte hakikaten mesela Türkiye'deki bilinmeyen mimarlığı tanıtmak mıydı?
S.Ö.: Evet. Yani teorik şeyde, İlhan'ın da söylediği gibi, yani toplum ve politikanın yapılanmasıyla mimarlığın nasıl yapılandığını anlatan bir şeydi. Orada mesela çok politik konuya girmeyen Üstün vardır. Üstün hoşlanmazdı onlardan, rahmetli, Üstün Alsaç. Balıklama dalan Mete vardı, o Halk Partisinin her şeyinde vardır biliyorsun. İlhan çok güzel bir şey yaptı. Yani hala geçerli. Selçuk meslek açısından bir değerlendirme yaptı. Yıldız Sey'in konut açısından yaptığı...
G.Y.: Selçuk Hoca bir şey yazdı mı hocam orada?
S.Ö.: Yazmadı. Söyledim değil mi demin, ben Selçuk'u bu gruba ekleyince ben dışarıda kaldım.
441
G.Y.: Öyle mi? Söylemediniz.
S.Ö.: Tabii. Bilet sayısı belliydi. Hiç kimseye söylemeden. Ondan sonra, şeyim de yok doğru dürüst, olanağım fırsatım da yok. Hiç unutmuyorum, bunlar böyle güzel Panam'la falan filan gidiyorlar, ben böyle İskandinav hava yolları Aeroflot gibi böyle bir yerlerden, şey üzerinden, Reykjavik üzerinden gittim. Selçuk'un önemi anlaşılmadı, çünkü Selçuk, ağlayan bir tip değildi, çok onuruna düşkün bir tipti.
G.Y.: Peki hocam, etkinliğin ismi, ben bazı duyurularını buldum, bazılarında Contemporary Architecture in Turkey diye geçmiş, bazılarında Turkish Architecture diye geçmiş. Sonra kitapta "modern" gelmiş işin içine. Etkinlikte nasıl bir modern vurgusu vardı, onu sorayım.
S.Ö.: Yoktu canım, bu başlık uydurmadır.
G.Y.: Öyle mi?
S.Ö.: Bence uydurmadır. Çünkü oradaki olay Turkish değil. Yani biz Türklerden bahsetmiyoruz ki, Türkiye'den bahsediyoruz.
G.Y.: Aslında onu da soracaktım. Neden örneğin Modern Architecture in Turkey de değil, Modern Turkish Architecture?
S.Ö.: Hiç alakası yok. Ama bunlar şeyin Pennsylvania Üniversitesinin mutfağında kotarılan şeyler.
G.Y.: Öyle mi?
S.Ö.: Tabii, biz contemporary (çağdaş) dedik, çünkü modern bir ideoloji, modernin kendine ait bir bagajı var. Turkish'in kendine ait açıklaması var. Mesela sevgili Doğan Kuban hiçbir zaman Turkish demez. Anatolian der. Çünkü mimarlık coğrafyayla anılır, ırkla değil.
G.Y.: O zaman ulaşabilirsem Renata hocaya soracağım ben bunu.
S.Ö.: Sor tabii yani de ki yani bu biraz tuhaf nereden geldi.
G.Y.: Yani aslında şöyle kitabın içinde de şöyle bir şey var. Önce size şeyi sorayım, kapak fotoğrafı seçimi konusu. Sizde mi hocam? Niye onu seçtiniz onu sorayım o zaman önce. Şimdi şöyle kitabın içinde aslında Üstün hocanın bölümünde, Üstün Alsaç'ın bölümünde öyle bir ima var onun için mi diye düşündüm, bu Modern Turkish Architecture kısmını. Sizin bu kadar dışında olduğunuzu hiç düşünmemiştim. Üstün hoca şey demiş, bu Türk evinin tekrar değerlendirilip, işte hani modern bir şekilde... Birazcık daha "modern architecture"a Türk katkısı, gibi bir iması var onun. E kapak da hani Sedad Hakkı Eldem olunca, hani acaba öyle bir şeyle mi ilişkileniyor?
442
S.Ö.: Şimdi o kapak benim seçimim, fotoğraf da benim seçimimdi. Yalnız sergiyi düzenleyen, Necati Yurtseven, Mehmet Ali, emekli oldu, bizim fotoğrafçı bulabilirsin. Necati Yurtseven, Mehmet Ali ve Cüneyt Budak'tır. O resmi Cüneyt'le birlikte çektik.
G.Y.: Siz çektiniz?
S.Ö.: Evet. Yani ikonik oldu. Ben onun da bu eşiği iyi tanımlayacağını düşünüyorum. Yani hem contemporary, hem anatolian, hem Turkish neyse adı. Onu simgeleyecek imge ne olabilir diye.
G.Y.: Aslında iki farklı kimliğin işte, o ulusal ve modernin bir araya gelişini simgelemek gibi bir amaçta vardı. O zaman aslında kapak, birazcık şeyle de nispeten uyuşuyor.
S.Ö.: Seçimi benimdir. Kaynağı da benimdir. Cüneyt'in sergi için mutlaka anılması lazım. O panoları da toplayıp o bana getirdi. Ne yazık ki o da çok yaşamadı yani.
G.Y.: Diğer fotoğraflar hocam, onlar tekrar çekildiler mi o dönem?
S.Ö.: Fotoğrafların hepsi arşivdedir.
G.Y.: Yok yani, o dönem tekrar fotoğraflandı öyle mi sergiye gitti, onu sormak istedim.
S.Ö.: Evet, sergi için özel bir fotoğraflanma yaptı. Ya hakikaten de, şimdi Cüneyt, Necati, bunlar İstanbul'a gidiyorlar. İşte Adliye Sarayı çok önemli, bu şey Taşlık Kahvesi önemli, ondan sonra şey, İstanbul Üniversitesi önemli, resimlerini çekiyorlar falan. Çektiler, geldiler. Bir kısmını kullandık, bunların tamamı şeydedir, arşivdedir. Bir tek kare almadım, çünkü arşivi kuran benim, oradaki fotoğraflardan bir tek tane bile almanın ahlaki olmadığını savunup hocaları zorlayan da benim, neyse bunların hepsi bitti. 84-85 yılı, bütçe ve mali işler müdürü geldi, hocam dedi siz usulsüz bir harcama yapmışsınız. Ama dedi, siz yaptığınızda usullüymüş de artık değil dedi. Nedir dedim. Siz dedi cepten harcamalı arazi çalışması düzenlemişsiniz. Hâlbuki İstanbul kentsel alan olduğu için orada cepten harcamalı arazi çalışması olmaz. Yani insanlar dolmuşa, otobüse binerler. Öyle taksi maksi tutamazlar. Araba hiç kiralayamazlar falan. Ne yapacağım dedim. Valla söylemesi ayıp ama dedi, ya ben sizi icraya vereceğim, ya siz ödeyeceksiniz. Yani Allahtan o zaman gerçekten param vardı yani, dedim Özcan'cım ben bunu ödeyeyim.
G.Y.: Ciddi de bir fiyat çıkarttılar o zaman.
S.Ö.: Çok ciddi değildi ama yani belki benim için değildi. Çünkü iki yıldır İsviçre'de çalışıyordum. Ödedim. Sonra yine geldi şey Özcan, dedi ki hocam siz krediyle okumuşsunuz. Doğru dedim ben fakir bir çocuğum yani. Ondan sonra, kredinizi taksite bağlayacağım, ne önerirsiniz? Dedim ne kadar, şu kadar dedi, peki dedim, gittim ODTÜ İş Bankasına, bu kadar parayı çektim, geldim, muhasebe veznesine yatırdım,
443
dedi ki Özcan, hocam niye yapıyorsunuz bunu dedi, sizin hakkınız bunu taksit taksit ödersiniz, ben bunu vereyim de siz bir çocuk daha okutun dedim.
G.Y.: Çok güzel.
S.Ö.: Yani, bunların hepsinin tanıkları var, şeyleri var, yani YÖK'e girince, ben YÖK'le ODTÜ'yü yaşamadım hiç. Yani YÖK'e girdiğinde, o zaman Özal ihracat seferberliği diyordu, ben kendimi ihraç ettim. Ben sana unutmadan Selçuk'un kitabını getireyim. Daha soruların varsa bak, vaktimiz var.
G.Y.: Var birazcık daha hocam ama çok değil. Yani bitmek üzere aslında…
G.Y.: Hocam size şeyi sormak istiyorum, yani bir iki şeyi birleştirerek sorayım hatta, o dönemlerdeki mimarlık tarihi yazımı ile ilgili ne düşünüyorsunuz diye sormak istiyorum ama, işte bir bu şey konularında ne düşünülüyordu diye, sizin de yaklaşımınız neydi diye, işte bu ulusal/ modern/ ulusal-modern bu konulara; bir işte bu "Batı'nın Moderni", bizdeki modern konusuna, bir de bu ikililikler üzerinden modern/ modern olmayan; yeni/eski o konuda ne düşünüyorsunuz diye sorayım. Bir de şu andaki düşünceleriniz nedir o konuda diye.
S.Ö.: Tamam. Şimdi Birinci Ulusal Mimarlık deniyor, İkinci Ulusal Mimarlık deniyor, böyle bir şey yok. Yani böyle bir tanım yok, çünkü o mimarlığın kaynağı ulusal değil. Hiç değil, yani Vedat'ın tüm şeyi, mimarlık kuramı, Fransız. Anlatabiliyor muyum? İkinci Ulusal denilen olayda, bir tür bağlamcılık, yani Sedad Beyin, özellikle Sedad Beyin, çok yaratıcı bir şekilde, bir takım Anadolu formlarını ve teknolojisini uygulaması. Ona niye ulusal deniyor bilmiyorum. Yani çünkü arkasında bir ulus yok ki, arkasında bir coğrafya var. Dolayısıyla ben mümkün mertebe, daha olgunlaşınca, hiçbir zaman bu ulusal terimini kullanmadım. Hiçbir şekilde. Ve bunun şeyi de, kaynağı da Doğan Kuban'dır. Doğan Kuban hiç kullanmadığı için, şovenist Türk mimarlık ve sanat tarihçileri onu çok ezmişlerdir. Çünkü Anadolu deyince, kapsam genişliyor, coğrafya oluyor, içine Ermeni de giriyor, Yahudi de giriyor, Türk de giriyor, Abaza da giriyor. Anlatabiliyor muyum? Ki öyle olması lazım. Bu mesela içeride yine benim çok çok emek verdiğim, Vernacular Architecture Encyclopedia var, Paul Oliver'ın, hem emek verdim, hem finans verdim, yani yetkim olan kuruluşlarda. Orada da bu şey var, yani politik tanımlamalar var. Yani mesela Armenian politik tanımlama. Tamam mı? Hâlbuki Ortodoks, Hristiyan desen dinsel bir tanımlama. Yani Anadolu Hristiyanları desen, coğrafi bir tanımlama. Yani herkesin bir şekilde katkısı var. Sinan'ın kendisi Hristiyan zaten, neden bahsediyoruz biz. Aşıp rahatlamamız lazım. O nedenle ben mimarlık tarihine bakarken, doğrusu, bir tek kriterim var, bize özgün belge veriyor mu, vermiyor mu? Bunları açıkça söyleyeceğim. Bunların içinde mimarlık tarihçisi oldukların söyleyenlerin kişilerin çoğu o zamanki mimar ve arkitekt dergisinden aktarmalardan oluşur, bu belge değil, bu yayınlanmış zaten, yukarıda var hepsi (Kitaplıkta dergilerin olmasından bahsediyor). Yani Zeki Sayar bana tüm koleksiyonunu verdi. Yani. Hepsi var. Ama Yıldırım Yavuz, ailenin arşivlerine gidip, oradan ozalitler bulup derledi, anlatabiliyor muyum? Gülru Necipoğlu, Topkapı arşivine gidip, yıllarca çalışıp, oradan Sinan ve zamanının yapı normlarını derledi ve yayınladı. Bence bunlar önemli. Ali Cengizkan aynı şeyi yapıyor, yani doğrudan
444
doğruya özgün belgelere gidiyor. Yoksa o zaman yayınlanmış şeylerden çıkarıp, bir şeyler söylemenin yolu kolay. Ama beni ilgilendirmiyor. Buna historiography diyorlar zaten, senin tez danışmanın da çok iyi bilir bunu. Yani historiography denen olayın bence bir değeri yok, çünkü neden yok, ben tarihle ilgili bir şey öğreneceksem, kaynağına, özgün yazarlarına giderim, kendi historiography mi yaparım. Niye historiograftan öğreneyim ben bunu. Anlatabiliyor muyum? Çok şey olabilir yani, yaratıcı olan da olabilir, mesela Kenneth Frampton öyledir. Bu Critical Regionalism olayını çıkardı ve bütün söylem değişti. Yani ne diyor, bölgesel olarak bakacaksanız, eleştirel olarak değerlendireceksiniz, size iyi gelenleri yapın. Bunu kim yaptı, Alvar Aalto. Başka, şey, Luis Barragán; Ricardo Legorreta, iki Meksikalı, bir Finli. Başka yapan var mı? Farklı bir şekilde var, yani İskandinavlar var, kendi mimarlıklarının kesici ucunu bulan mimarlar, onlar da işte çok değil işte, üç-beş tane, onlar da çizgilerini sık sık değiştirdiler zaman içinde. Şey, Utzon, bir yanda yerel, bir yanda modernin şeyini. Ama bu apayrı bir tartışma konusu. Bir yere de gitmez. Çünkü herkesin tarihi ve kendi çözümü var. O nedenle ben Sedad Bey'in ağzından çıkanlara inanırım. Okudun mu o kitabı var mı sende?
G.Y.: Yok hocam.
S.Ö.: O burada yok, Literatür'den yayınlandı, onun da şeyi şu, nedeni, Sedad Bey, nedense kendi hakkında kitap yazılması konusunda bana güvendi. Bunu niye bilmiyorum yani herhâlde o academia mafyasından olmadığım için, önyargılı olmadığım için, uluslararası bir statüde olduğum için. Engin Yenal'ı ben önerdim, onu da kabul etti, Baktık hiçbir şey yok, Sedad Bey'in mimarlık düşüncesi yok. Gerçekten yok. Dedi ki bana konuşturalım. Onun üzerine, onu 26 saat konuşturduk, her salı günü. Onun transkriptleri bu, literatür yayıncılıktan, ucuz da bir kitap, 17 lira falan, yani.
G.Y.: Hocam ben size başka bir soru daha soracağım, hani bilmiyorum kitabın adı gibi bir durum var mı orada aslında ama, bu şey, kitabın sonunda Jansen'in planı ve işte onun önerdiği aksların bir çizimi var. Ama hani başka bahsedilen planların adı geçiyor, başka bir şehrin planı değil, niye olduğunu, neden eklendiğini siz biliyor musunuz?
S.Ö.: Bakayım.
G.Y.: Şöyle bir şey (Sayfalara bakıyoruz).
S.Ö.: Ya bunu Renata koymuştur, Renata'ya sor. O böyle ciddi cumhuriyetçi.
G.Y.: Ya kitabın içinde bahsediliyor tabi plandan ama, başka bir yer değil, başka bir şey değil, hani onu görmek de enteresan geldi.
S.Ö.: Herhâlde ender belge diye koydu onu bir şekilde.
G.Y.: Cevaplarınız ve benimle görüşmeyi kabul ettiğiniz için çok teşekkür ederim hocam.
445
A3. INTERVIEW WITH AHMET EVIN (ONLINE INTERVIEW) – AUGUST 10, 2020
G.Y.: Ben aslında Suha Özkan hocamla bir görüşme yaptım. O aslında bu 2005'deki baskıda da bir Introduction (Giriş) yazmış, orada birazcık aktörler kimlerdi, nasıl bir araya gelindi, gibi bir anlatım yapmış ama, siz o sırada hocam Pennsylvania Üniversitesi'ndeymişsiniz.
A.E.: Evet.
G.Y.: Middle East Center'ın da başındaymışsınız. Sizin katılımınız, bu kitapta editör oluşunuz nasıl gerçekleşti?
A.E.: Atatürk, 100. doğum günü 1981, o sırada, işte Amerika'da çeşitli üniversitelerde, çeşitli merkezlerde faaliyetler yürütülüyordu. Ben de iki faaliyet, bu büyük faaliyetti, daha küçük de Modern Turkey diye bir kitap çıktı. Yine bir seminer neticesinde. Bu büyük faaliyet şöyle oldu. Bu seminerle beraber Suha sağolsun bir sergi, Modern Turkish Architecture diye bir sergi yapıldı ve Suha o zaman, Orta Doğu Rektör Yardımcısıydı, hatırımda doğru kaldıysa ve elinde imkân vardı, onları da koyarak, o fotoğraf sergisi için gerek arşiv, gerek de daha çok fotoğrafçı göndererek bu sergiyi meydana çıkarttı. Bu faaliyetin yapılması, yani niye Suha Özkan, niye böyle bir faaliyet, çünkü ben mimar değilim biliyorsunuz.
G.Y.: Biliyorum hocam.
A.E.: O şuradan oldu, kitap Renata Holod'la beraber, Renata yine bu merkezler dediğimiz zaman, yani yerel, bölgesel merkezler dediğimiz zaman Amerika'da, regional centers, bunlar interdisiplinerdir ve mümkün mertebe çeşitli disiplinden ve o disiplinlere göre çeşitli bölümlerden kurulu bir öğretim kadrosu vardır. Yani, üniversitenin mümkün mertebe daha geniş bir faaliyet alanı ve entellektüel ve öğretim alanıyla ilgili. Böyle olunca, önemli kişilerden biri orada, Renata'ydı. Renata'da şöyle bir şey, benim, ben Pennsylvania'dan önce çok kısa bir dönem Harvard'daydım, Renata'da o sırada doktorasını bitiriyordu orada, oradan bir arkadaşlığımız var. Sonra, Pennsylvania'da böyle bir pozisyon açıldığı zaman, Renata'da o komitede olup beni seçenlerden biriydi. Ondan sonra da ben 1977 yılı başında gittim yani ikinci dönemiydi orada. Tam o sıralarda, Aga Khan mimari ödül çalışmalarına başlamıştı ve 1977-1978 sıralarında da bu ödülün kriterleri neler olsun diye 5 konferans düzenlenmişti. Bunlardan bir tanesi de, İstanbul'da düzenlendi, o zaman da ben danışman olarak bu Aga Khan ödülüyle çalışmaya başladım. Aga Khan ödülü de Philadelphia'da kuruldu çünkü o sırada Renata, Renata'nın başladığı zaman Renata hamileydi, sonra da çocuğu olunca ben Cenevre'ye taşınmam burada kalırım dedi ve hemen kampüsün yanında science center'da bir ofis, Aga Khan mimari ödülü kuruluş ofisi ve Renata'da convenor olarak yani ödülün başlangıç koordinatörü olarak çalışmaya başladı. Ve böyle bir faaliyet, yani biraz sadece birkaç akademiğin bir araya gelip, bir konferans yapması değil, daha kalıcı bir şekilde, yani daha geniş bir kitleye hitap edecek bir sergi olacak, Üniversite müzesinde bir sergi olacak, o sergiye de beraber bir genel dinleyiciye açık bir seminer olacak şekilde bu düzenlendi. Yani neticede, düzenlenmesinin büyük
446
ölçüde ben yaptım diyebilirim çünkü yani imkânımız vardı, ilgili insanlar vardı, mimari de ilgili insanlar vardı. Bir de çok önemli olarak, o sırada rahmetli Talat Halman, kültür büyükelçisiydi, Birleşmiş Milletler'e akredite olarak zaten New York'da otururdu. O da maddi destek sağladı bu Atatürk yılı sebebiyle ve bu o şekilde oldu. Bilmiyorum tarihi böyle gelişti yani. Tabii o kişilerin seçilmesi de mesela İlhan, İlhan'ı ben çok evvelden rahmetli Selim İlkin'le de çok arkadaşlıkları vardı, benim de vardı. Afife'yi, o da rahmetli oldu yakında, Afife'yi de tanırdım, eşi Selçuk vasıtasıyla falan. Bir de Suha işin içine girince, Orta Doğu'nun payı çok önemli oldu, Suha tabii mimarlık alanını çok iyi biliyordu. Bu şekilde bir, yani kitap seminere diyelim, seminer programını dolduracak, hakkıyla dolduracak kişilerin seçimi ve onların konferanslarının bir kitap haline getirilişiyle oldu.
G.Y.: Çok sağ olun hocam. Hocam peki size şunu sorayım, siz aslında biraz bahsettiniz ama, Talat Halman oradaymış o hatta sanırım modern mimarlık olmasına birazcık da uzakmış ilk başta. Zaten anladığım kadarıyla Suha Özkan daha farklı bir proje götürmüş ve sonrasında Renata Holod’un yönlendirmesi ile Türkiye’deki 1920-1980 arasındaki mimarlığı ele alan bir proje haline dönüşmüş. Modern mimarlığı ele alma fikrine nasıl karar verdiniz? Sanırım Talat Halman birazcık daha çünkü biraz daha geçmiş bir dönemi ele almak istemiş sanırım.
A.E.: Şimdi aynı şeyi bir Aga Khan semineri sırasında Prens Sadruddin (Aga Khan)'de bana söylemişti, kitabı göndermiştim ona, görüştüğümüz zaman da çok güzel kitap tebrik ederim ama dedi, yani keşke böyle dünyaca tanınan Osmanlı eserleri hakkında bir kitap yazsaydınız falan diye serzenişte bulundu. Şimdi, Modern Turkish Architecture olmasının sebebi gayet basit, yani Cumhuriyet devri, Atatürk yani bir de bunun bir başlangıç noktası var netice itibariyle yani alaylı mimardan, mektepli mimara dönüşmek. Biraz Cumhuriyet'ten hemen önce olan bir şey. Kemalettin Bey işte malum. Ondan sonra da Cumhuriyet devri. Şimdi yani Atatürk yılı için kalkıp da Osmanlı mimarisinin önemli şeyleri diye bir seminer toplamak pek uygun olmazdı, bir. İkincisi, burada bir political economy, yani toplumsal ekonomik ve gelişme ile paralel ve gelişmeye de bazı zamanlarda ters düşen spekülatif yönleriyle, Modern Türkiye'nin yapay çevreyle bir serüveni var burada. E o da daha yerinde bir şey. Yani Talat orada, keşke meşke dedi ama, yani böyle bu konuyla ve netice itibariyle bir sosyal bilimciler arasında ve çağdaş Türkiye ile ilişkin herhangi bir şekilde bir ses getiren birşey olmazdı.
G.Y.: Anladım hocam. Yani aslında birazcık siz zaten Introduction'da da yazmışsınız ama Atatürk'ün Türkiye'sindeki gelişmeleri zaten göstermeyi hedefleyen bir etkinlikmiş sanırım.
A.E.: Evet. Yani fazla bir şey gelmedi Talat'tan netice itibariyle yani Suha belki benden fazla hatırlıyor ama yani Suha'nın benden fazla hatırlaması da biraz imkânsız çünkü Talat'la ben çok sık görüşüyorduk.
G.Y.: Öyle mi?
A.E.: Tabii.
447
G.Y.: Peki hocam. Sanırım siz özellikle Renata Holod ve siz, genç yazarlara, az önce söylediniz işte Afife hocam var, Atilla Yücel var, aralarında doktoralarını yeni bitirenler varmış. Yazarların bu şekilde seçilmesi konusunda siz ne düşündünüz, niye bu şekilde seçilmesini tercih ettiniz?
A.E.: Valla yazarların seçilmesinde şimdi pek bir münakaşa olmadı. Yani öneriler, neticede kim kimi önermişse bu şeyde, belli bir sebepten önerdi, bu bütünlüğü yani konferansın bütünlüğüyle kitabın bütünlüğü düşünülerek önerildiği için orada pek bir münakaşa falan olmadı.
G.Y.: Tamam hocam. Peki, etkinliğin ortamından birazcık bahsedebilir misiniz? Orada sizi etkileyen olaylar, hatırladığınız anekdotlar var mıdır, seminer sırasında gerçekleşen bir şey olabilir?
A.E.: Valla böyle, seminer gayet ilginç ve yoğun geçti diyebilirim. Fakat bir de ilgi devam da etti, fakat pek böyle öne çıkan bir şey hatırlamıyorum yani. İyi ve etkin bir seminer olduğunu hatırlıyorum, ama yani bakın 81.
G.Y.: Tabii, seminer gerçi sanırım 82.
A.E.: 82, e 81'de başladık işte.
G.Y.: Evet.
A.E.: 81'de bu düşünce ne yapsak ne etsek diye 81'de başladık, seminer 82, yani oradaki detaylarda böyle öne çıkan, hay Allah şu olsaydı yahut bu böyle münasebetsiz bir şey olsaydı diye, yani öyle bir şey olduğu zaman zaten hatırlanıyor. Fakat, böyle bir tamamlayıcı ve ilgi çekici ve düzeyi gerek akademik gerek tartışma düzeyi yüksek olan şeylerin detaylarını hatırlamıyorsunuz yani o kadar sene sonra.
G.Y.: Tabii ki.
A.E.: Ne kadar oldu, yani 38 sene.
G.Y.: Hocam peki orada hatırladığınız, aldığınız bir geri bildirim var mıdır? Özellikle de siz Amerika'da yaşayan bir Türk'tünüz o dönemde. Size Türk mimarlığıyla ilgili olabilir, Türkiye'deki gelişmeler ile ilgili olabilir, insanların yaklaşımı nasıl olmuştu seminere, oradaki seyircinin?
A.E.: İyi olmuştu.
G.Y.: Güzel karşılanmıştı.
A.E.: Evet evet. Yalnız bir şey var tabi, Amerika özelinde bu gibi konular genel olarak hep Ermeni meselesi, orada bir şey oldu mu, gerginlik çıktı mı, yahut işte ne bileyim, başka Türkiye'nin taşıdığı böyle enternasyonal özellikle Amerika ortamına gelen şeyde, mesela böyle bir şey olmadı. Ama olacağını da hiç düşünmüyordum. Çünkü,
448
yani ben Orta Doğu etütleri çok genç yaşta onun başkanı oldum, sonra da bir süre Aga Khan mimari ödülü vasıtasıyla Aga Khan Kültür Vakfı'nın kurulmasında çalıştım. Yani, 86'da ben Paris'e taşındım. Ondan sonra da çeşitli yerlere taşındım, şimdi görüyorsunuz Sabancı'da Emeritus olarak hala bir ders veriyorum ama Hamburg'da oturuyorum. Ama orada pek böyle bir şey olması da biraz zordu, çünkü bu konularda herhangi bir etnik problemden çok, Amerika Birleşik Devletleri'nde açık tartışma ve konuşma ve çoğulcu ortamı teşvik ettiğim için hiçbir problem çıkmıyordu. Yani Ermeni öğrencilerin kurduğu cemiyette gelip benden bir seminer yapacakları zaman destek istiyordu, onların da hakkıydı tabii, onun için yani Pennsylvania'da böyle bir takım problemlerin olması imkansızdı. Hatta bu 100. yıl sebebiyle o zaman İlter Bey, İlter Türkmen, Birleşmiş Milletler Büyükelçisiydi, başka bir nedenle Üniversite'ye davet ettim çok büyük bir konferans oldu. O zaman tabii hallolmamış Kıbrıs meselesi ki hala hallolmadı, o vardı. İşte California'daki bu Ermeni, artık çete diyeceğim, onların Konsolosu öldürmeleri daha yeniydi hafızalarda falan. Çok Hukuk Fakültesi Amfisinde büyükçe bir konferans verdi İlter Bey o zaman, son derece medeni geçti, hiçbir problem çıkmadı. Şey de enteresandı yani, İlter Bey'in gelişinden birkaç gün önce bir telefon etti birisi, ben dedi işte şeyden Intelligence Service'den geliyorum dedi falan, FBI'dan birisi geldi. Şimdi dedi, beraber gideceğiz, Büyükelçi nereden gelecek, arabası nerede duracak, hangi binada olacak hepsini gezeceğiz beraber dedi. Aldım üniversitenin securitysini de aldım beraber hepsini gittik baktık falan. Ondan sonra çok ilginç bir şey yaptılar yani hatırımda kaldığına göre işte konferans 5’te miydi, 6da mıydı, yani Philadelphia trafiğinin tam akşam yoğunluğu sırasında şeydi. Üniversitenin kampüsünden de şehrin merkezine doğru giden iki tane geniş yol var, tam kampüs ortasında kalıyor bunların, cadde bir tanesi işte walnut, bir tanesi chestnut, ve bunlar tek yönlü. Yani oldukça geniş caddeler. O sırada 3, 3'er araba yan yana park edilenler hariç 3 araba yan yana gidebiliyor. Bunlardan bir tanesini tamamen kesti polis. O sırada. Tamamen kesti ve ters istikametten konvoyu getirdi.
G.Y.: Enteresan bir hikayeymiş gerçekten hocam.
A.E.: Ters istikametten getirdi, çok uzun değil o, çünkü yani expresswayden çıktıktan sonra böyle bir söyleyeyim, 14 blok falan. Onu tamamen kesti o sırada. Ve geldi, o sırada da dışarıda bekliyorum. Arkadaşlardan bir tanesi sen bir yukarı baksana dedi. Şeyin üzerine, fakülte, Hukuk fakültesi ki yeni bir bina, onun üzerine tüfekli sharpshooterlar koymuşlar.
G.Y.: Gerçekten mi?
A.E.: Hakikaten. Yani ve yani hiçbir şey olmadı, sanki bunlar yokmuş gibi ama şeyde de çok belirgin konferans salonu içinde de çok belirgin böyle eli yarı cebinde bir takım adamlar vardı yani.
G.Y.: Aslında, bu şeyi güzel anlatıyor tabii o dönemki. Hocam peki size ben yine bu konularla ilgili bir şey sorayım, etkinlikle ilgili. 1980 darbesinin de üzerinden çok zaman geçmeden aslında olmuş bir şey. Biz İlhan Tekeli hocamla da bir konuştuk, işte bu Atatürk etkinliklerinin amacı evet Atatürk Türkiye'sindeki gelişmeleri, mimariyi, kültürü, her şeyi temsil etmek gibi bir amacı varmış. Dünya'ya açmak gibi bir amacı
449
varmış. Ama darbenin bu kadar sonrasında olduğu için, yani çok kısa bir süre sonra olduğu için, İlhan hocam mesela şey diye de yorumladı bunu, aynı zamanda darbenin de biraz meşruiyetini sağlamaya çalışıyorlar gibi olduğu için çok da sempatik algılanmıyordu gibi bir yaklaşımı da oldu mesela onun. Siz bu darbenin sonrasında gerçekleşen, bu 100. yıl etkinliklerinin nasıl bir ideolojik temsili var mıdır sizin gözünüzde? Nasıl yaklaşıyorsunuz?
A.E.: Valla, şimdi şöyle bir şey var, bir tanesi Modern Turkey diye, o kitap burada zannediyorum. Onu da bulamadım, neyse.
Yani, o da gelişmeleri biraz şey etti. Orada da malum isimler vardı yani. Metin Heper vardı, İlter Turan vardı, Ergun Özbudun vardı, yani bunlar benim nesilden arkadaşlarım. Ondan sonra, 1-2 kişi daha vardı galiba, vardı. Şimdi, o chapterları tam hatırlayamadım maalesef kitapta yanımda yani odada yok. Şimdi, esas sorunuza gelirsek, şöyle bir şey var, tabii bunu hamasi sebeplere çeken birtakım merkezler, o merkezde yahut ne bileyim merkez olmasa bile önemli profesör arkadaşlar çeşitli yerde olabilirdi. Tabii yani bir legitimasyon sebebi bugünkü Türkiye'yi ve onun gelişmesini anlatmak istiyoruz diyenler olabilirdi. Ben bunu mimariye dönmekle bir defa bu şekilde bir yanlış algılama da olmasını istemedim. Konu neyse o. Benim şeyim oydu. Bu yani, burada bilmiyorum darbe zamanını siz hatırlamazsınız fakat yani darbe zamanında o zaman son derece başka türlü bir şey vardı. Bütün darbelerde olduğu gibi, darbe, yani bütün Türk darbelerinde olduğu gibi, çünkü Türkiye dışındaki darbeler başka türlü olabiliyor, millet 30 sene, 40 sene kalıyor, Güney Amerika böyle, çünkü o military industrial complex'in üçüncü dünya şekli. Türkiye'de 19. yüzyılda ve özellikle Abdülhamit devrinde başlayan bir şey var. Bu en eğitimli sınıf, subay sınıfı oluyor, çünkü mülkiyenin canına okuyorlar. Onun için bir, bütün Osmanlı reformist kadrosunda olduğu gibi bu vatan nasıl kurtarılır diye bir başlangıçta oluyor darbeler. Ondan sonra da tabii, darbe yapıldıktan sonra toplum hiyerarşik yapıyı kaldırmıyor, çünkü, yani benim çok sevdiğim hocalarımdan bir tanesi iktisatçı,901 Columbia'da, şey derdi, bu toplum derdi, deve gibi bir şeydir. Başını çeker gider, oturdu mu oturur kaldıramazsın, kalktı mı kendi istediği gider önüne katır koyarsın, falan derdi. Şimdi, hiyerarşik bir yapıyla gelip de ne bileyim işte o zamanki müthiş bir kaos vardı Türkiye'de. Yani kimin kimi vurduğu belli değildi falan. O kaos içinde, oh aman kurtulduk diyor, fakat o hiyerarşik komuta sürecinde topluma dur artık yerine otur dediği zamanda, bu durmuyor. Durmadığı zaman da gittikçe bakın 71'de de öyle oldu, bunun hala muhasebesi yapılıyor, işte Muhsin Batur orada olsaydı, yok bilmem kim orada olmasaydı falan. Fakat bu şey yani bir süre sonra darbeyi yapan insanların beklentisi olmayınca hay Allah bunlarda ne oluyor diye gittikçe böyle bir baskı artıyor, çünkü niyet baskının arttırılması değil, niyet kaosun toparlanması. Baskı arttığı zaman da hatırda kalan tabii geldi yine askeri rejim, baskıyı arttırdı falan. Şimdi, o raddede değildi Türkiye, o zaman. Daha o raddede değildi. Sadece bunun bir ideolojik yapı olarak biz seçimle gelmeyeni reddederiz diye bir şey vardı, mesela Bülent Ecevit hiçbir zaman kabul etmedi, kabul etmediği için o şey, soktular, işte hapishaneyle misafirhane arası bir yere soktular, falan feşmekan. Fakat genel olarak o sırada yani Amerika Birleşik Devletleri açısından da bir ikilem vardı. Yani parlementodaki, parlemento
901 İktisat profesörü hocasının ismi kayıtta tam anlaşılmadığı için karşılaştırma yapılamamış ve buraya eklenememiştir.
450
değil de daha doğrusu işte, Senate Foreign Relations Committee'dekiler,902 genellikle demokratik olmayan darbelere karşı olup, executive, yani State Department, Dış İşleri Bakanlığı deniyor, biraz daha fonksiyonu değişiktir. State Department buna bir karşı tutum sergilemiyordu falan. Onun için böyle bir blok şekilde aman yani Amerika içinde de, böyle bir, bir blok olarak bu rejim kendini tanıtmak istiyor falan diye pek bir şey yoktu yani Türkiye içinde de böyle bir şey yoktu. Tabii bunu çeşitli, kişi bazında, Amerika'da, kişi bazında biraz pervasız meslektaşlara ben söyledim yani bunu bir Türkiye'nin siyasal tanıtımı için bir vesile yapmayın, biz akademik kurumlarız, bu vesileyle bir akademik alanda yakutta işte herhangi bir disipliner alanda, tartışmamızı yürütebilecek ve o tartışmaların düzeyiyle Türkiye konularını ışık tutabilecek şeyler yapmalıyız, eğer Türkiye'nin veyahutta Türkiye'de şu yahutta bu hükümetin kendini tanıtması, o hükümetin basın yayını vasıtasıyla işte başka kendi kurumları vasıtasıyla olması lazımdır diye söyledim. Ama tabii yurtdışında olmanın şeyi var, birdenbire bir vesileyle hamaset çıkarma, o da tabii biraz milli, milli psikolojiye uygun, bunu yapanlar vardı.
G.Y.: Anladım hocam. Şeyi sorayım hocam şimdi, ODTÜ'nün kuruluşuyla ilişkili olarak aslında ODTÜ ve Pennsylvania Üniversitesi'nin çok uzun bir tarihi var. O dönemde ODTÜ ve Pennsylvania Üniversitesi arasındaki ilişkiler nasıldı? Hatırlıyor musunuz?
A.E.: Hayır, çünkü ben o dönemde Pennsylvania'da değildim, benim bütün tahsilim Columbia.
G.Y.: Evet hocam ama ben etkinliğin gerçekleştiği zaman için, 82 için soruyorum.
A.E.: Yok, yani bakın o etkinliğin gerçekleştiği zaman 1982. 1982, 1975'te Robert Kolej şey oldu, Boğaziçi Üniversitesi oldu. Yani ben o ilişkiyi mesela Aptullah Kuran'dan duydum. Ama o zaman Aptullah Kuran kaç yıldır, ilk önce Robert Kolejin Türk Müdürlüğünü, daha sonra rektörlüğünü yürüten bir kişi olarak, yani o, bir de orada bir mimari tarihçisi vardı, bir de onunla yani bu işin içinde bulunmuş, fakat yani ben bunları tarihsel olarak duydum.
G.Y.: İçinde değildiniz. Hocam peki etkinliğin ismi bazı duyurularda Contemporary Architecture in Turkey, 1920-1980” diye geçiyor, bazı yerlerde “Turkish Architecture, 1920-80” diye geçiyor. Fakat kitaba geldiğimizde "modern" terimi eklenmiş. Bu sonradan mı eklendi, basım sırasında? Nasıl karar verildi başlığa? Etkinlikte nasıl bir modern vurgusu vardı, kitapta nasıl bir modern vurgusu var, onu merak ediyorum.
A.E.: Şöyle, yani hatırımda doğru kaldıysa, şöyle yani, kitap olarak çıktığı zaman contemporary tarafı, contemporary diyecek halimiz yoktu ki. Yani imkanı yok onun contemporary demeye, Mimar Kemalettin'den başlayan bir şeye.
G.Y.: Onun için modern dediniz.
902 United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.
451
A.E.: Tabii, tabii. Yani modern Turkish architecture bir başlangıç tarihi var işte, o da bu saray zanaatkar baş mimar şeyinden, mektepli mimara geçiş.
G.Y.: O zaman 1920'den sonraki bütün mimarlığı modern Türk mimarlığı olarak...
A.E.: Başka da ne diyeceksiniz yani ama contemporary denecek bir şeyi yok kitabın, yani öyle bir güncel mimariye odaklı değil, cumhuriyet dönemi, yani Osmanlı'dan Cumhuriyet dönemine geçiş, o geçişte, şeyde onda zaten girişte gayet net olarak belirtmiştik.
G.Y.: Peki hocam yine yakın bir şey soracağım, kitabın adı "Modern Turkish Architecture", ama "Modern Architecture in Turkey" değil. Şimdi Türklük kavramı tabii çok farklı anlamlara da gelebilen bir şey ama siz modern Türk mimarlığı kavramını nasıl ele almıştınız? Bir de bu kapakta Sedad Hakkı Eldem'in yapısı var mesela, o da "İkinci Ulusal Mimarlık" olarak tanımlanan döneme denk geliyor. Üstün Alsaç diyor ki "Türk Evi"nin yeniden keşfi ile modern mimarlığa Türk katkısı, öyle bir imada bulunuyor. "İkinci Ulusal Mimarlık" üzerinden mi biraz daha o Türklük vurgulanmak istenmişti, siz Modern Türk Mimarlığı tanımını nasıl ele alıyorsunuz?
A.E.: Valla tabii, ulusal mimarlık yani işin özünde bir ulusal mimarlık akımı var. İşte Birinci Ulusal Mimarlık var, daha sonra tekrar bunun çıkışı var, Sedad Hakkı'nın bu şeyleri, Anadolu Evi var. Bir ulusal tarafı var. Bu ulusallığı bence bugünkü, yani kozmopolite karşılık, karşı olan bir ulusalcılık diye bence hiç birimizin aklının köşesinden geçmedi bu. Ulusalcılık şöyle geçti, aynı dönemde bakarsak neler oluyor, mesela Bartok geliyor. Uzun süreler Bartók Türkiye'de gelsin işte buranın folklorünü koklasın diye çünkü Bartók ömrünün büyük bir kısmını geniş, yani bugünkü Romanya'nın doğusunu kapsayan alanlarda, geniş Macar alanlarında folklör, halk müziği temaları falan topluyor. Şimdi tam hatırlamayacağım galiba 79 yılında Şerif Mardin'in basılan bir makalesi, galiba o makaledeydi. Power, civil society ve birşey in the Ottoman Empire diye. O da buralarda olması lazım ama artık kalkmayacağım. Şimdi orada çok ilginç bir şey söyler Şerif, yani niye böyle bir halk müziği, folklor ve yüksek sınıf müziği, divan edebiyatı, halk edebiyatı, bilmem ne, bu başka ülkelerde de olmuştur ama yani bunun Osmanlı'dan gelen bir geçmişi var, yani devlet hizmetinde çalışan vergi vermez ve devletin kuludur, istediği gibi gösterişe para harcayabilir, o kendi gösterişi değildir, devlet için harcar. Reaya'da (halk) altını yastık altına koyar, çünkü gittikçe duraklama devrinden öteye devletin parası kalmadıkça gelip vergilendirmiştir. Onun için, bu sadece İslami gösteriş meselesi değil, bir de şeyi saklama, maddi imkanını devletin pençesinden saklama şeyi. Bu her tarafta görünüyor. Yani, yüksek zümre edebiyatı falan dediğimiz zaman da bu Avrupa'daki gibi burjuvanın zengin olmasıyla edebiyat ve resme katkıda bulunması şeklinde değil, devleti temsil edenlerin kaynaklara hâkim olması şeklinde tezahür eden bir şey. Şimdi bu milli akım, bir bakıma Türkiye'de kendi kaynaklarını, yani bir Anadolu'ya açılım var. Anadolu'ya açılım da yani Osmanlı'nın son derece son zamanlarında falan işte o yani çok böyle Fransız romanından çıkıp da işte bir Anadolu vinyetiyle hikâye, modern anlamda bir hikaye yazabilme falan diye. Bu esasında Şerif'in dediği gibi Avrupa'da çok uzun süre, yani bir yerli motifleri alarak gittikçe buradan gerek plastik sanatlar olsun gerek yazı olsun, gerek şey olsun, bunu içselleştirerek buradan bir şeyler çıkart
452
var. Bu tabii Cumhuriyet'in ilk dönemlerinde veya hemen ondan önceki dönemlerinde bile, önem kespediyor. Bu önem kespediyor çünkü bir de yani yine Aga Khan'ın yönetim kurulunda meşhur Hintli, o da rahmetli oldu, meşhur Hintli Charles Correa, mimar Charles Correa vardı. Correa böyle şey derdi,” what is Islamic Architecture? It is domes and arches; domes and arches. How do you modernize Islamic architecture? You make arches and domes; arches and domes” derdi. Yani bu şeyden, fasit daireden, vicious circle'dan çıkma, yani öz kaynaklarını, bir de tabii halka yaklaşmak çünkü yani Cumhuriyet demek, büyük ölçüde şeyine temsil gücünü bir aileden değil, halktan alan bir devlet şekli demek. Bunların hepsi birbirine paralel ve yani modernleşme anlamında buna bakarsak, yani burjuva daha önce söylediğim sebeplerden bir burjuva kültürü çıkartamamış olan bir geleneği kendi iç kaynaklarını mobilize ederek modern bir dünya görüşüne getirmek, modern bir tasarıma getirmek, modern bir şiire getirmek, falan falan. Şiirde bu çok bariz oluyor yani, özellikle işte ikinci yeni gelinceye kadar onlar daha biraz abstre ve radikal tarafa gidiyorlar falan. Bunun kendi içinde böyle bir şey yok. Şimdi bu modern Turkish architecture'a gelince, modern architecture in Turkey, yani bunları da pek fazla didik didik etmenin de sebebi yok, çünkü bir kitap adı olarak çok cumbers öteki türlüsü. Yani kitap nedir, modern Turkish architecture, modern Turkish architecture, onu öbür türlü söyleyince yani böyle bir İngilizce'de bir saçma sapan şey çıkıyor.
G.Y.: Peki hocam. Yine bununla ilişkili olarak şunu sorayım o zaman, yani sizin kitabınızda da birazcık böyle, mimarlık tarihi yazımında eğer ki bağlamı ele alıyorlarsa mutlaka işte dönemin politik, tarihi gerçeklikleri de işin içine dahil oluyor. Bizde de işte bu Birinci Ulusal, ondan sonra Kübik diye de tanımlanan modern dönem daha international a yakın olan, ondan sonra tekrar İkinci Ulusal diye giden, ve hep böyle aslında tarihteki bazı dönüm noktalarıyla değişen bir mimarlık tarihi yazımı var. Sizce bu politik ve ideolojik tarihsel gerçeklikler mimarlık tarihi yazımını nasıl etkiliyordur?
A.E.: Şimdi ona gelince, o sorunun cevabını verecek olan ben değilim, İlhan daha iyi verir. Yani İlhan daya iyi verir onu. Ama çok kısa bir not ekleyeyim. Yani 1960 ve özellikle 70lerden sonra siyasal olmayan bir kategorizasyon biçimi, yani gerek tarihsel boyutta gerek iktisat tarihi boyutunda, bu kategorilerden ilham alan yahut bu kategoriler içinde şey eden, bundan başka bir entelektüel, yani retrogressive akımlar, İslamcı akımlar haricinde, yoktu. Yoktu. Belki, yani Türkiye'de rejim kaygısı başka kaygıların devamlı olarak önüne geçmiştir. Yani şeye de bakıyorum, başka açılardan da bakıyorum, yani bir kutuplaşmayı bu kadar kolaylaştıracak olan bir dünya görüşünün hâkim olması, yani kutuplaşma her zaman olmuyor ya da öne çıkmıyor. Fakat, yani kültürel olarak kutuplaşmayı bu kadar kolaylaştıracak olan bir dünya görüşü var, ben buna ideolojik yapı da demek istemiyorum, yani biz/ onlar meselesi. Bunu birçok bakımdan ingroup/ outgroup orientation falan diye sosyoloji de social psikolojide falan yani artık dillere pelesenk olup, son derece banal hale gelecek ama burada bir katatonik misali belki görünüyor. Belki de yani bunla ilgisi var ama yani Türkiye'de hakim olan entelektüel akımlar, aşağı yukarı bu taraftan gidiyor, rejim meselesinden falan gidiyor. Bir de şunu söyleyeyim, yani bu, burada tam oturtulamayan kişiler bence yanlış teşhis ediliyor. Mesela Ahmet Hamdi Tanpınar konservatif bir adam olarak görülüyor, bence hiç konservatif falan değil Ahmet Hamdi Tanpınar. Şeye uymuyor, biraz kendi son derece özel bir müstehzi bir şekilde, hem
453
self critical, hem de etraftaki böyle paradokslara bakarak yansıttığı bir dünya var Ahmet Hamdi Tanpınar. Ahmet Hamdi Tanpınar konservatif. Biraz daha geri gidersek Namık Kemal'e konservatif diyorlar. Namık Kemal'in yarısını okumamış ki millet. Yani biz ne zaman adam olacağız diye adam bar bar bağırıyor o şeyde, tasvir değil mi, tasvirdi o yazdığı, çıkarttığı mecmua. Yani one shall with take example diyor kimden example alacak, nereden alacak bunu, Batı'dan. Ve bütün şeyi verdiği için, Süveyş Kanalı, elektrik bilmem ne falan feşmekan, ondan sonra diyorlar şeyde, konservatif de İslam falan. Yani biraz bir bazı şeyleri görememeyi de getiriyor.
G.Y.: Peki yine böyle Batı'da demişken birazcık da işte o karşıtlıklardan bahsetmişken, o dönem bu "Batı'nın Moderni", öbür tarafta ülkemizdeki modern, gibi, işte hatta "Batı" ve "Öteki", modern olan ve olmayan, yeni, eski gibi karşıtlıklar üzerinden de sanırım birazcık o dönem yazılıyormuş. Sizin o konuya o zamanki yaklaşımınız neydi, şimdi nasıl bakıyorsunuz?
A.E.: Valla yani bu ne tarafından tutulacak bu soru biraz güç, çünkü yaklaştıkça tabii bugüne yaklaştıkça, bir sürü detay falan çıkıyor. Şimdi bu kavramlar esasında postmodernizmle, yani işin esasına gidersek, postmodernizmde bu kavramlar tamamen yerinden oynadı. Yerinden oynadı da iyi mi oldu, bence hiç iyi olmadı, çünkü zaten insanlar arasında belirli bir dil, dil demek nedir? Dil demek evvela bir iletişim, communication. Yani communcation'dan sonra onun daha böyle bir üslup olur, ondan sonra başka şeyleri anlatabilme şeyi olur, oradan edebiyat çıkar, edebiyattan daha kompleks olarak şiir çıkar falan, ben ondan bahsetmiyorum. Bir insan bir şeyden bahsettiği zaman çok basit bir şekilde yani bu structuralistlerin söylediği ki onlara da pek fazla sonunda şeyden çıktılar ama bir signifier var, signified var, işte Roland Barthes'da, bişey söylüyorsan o aynı şeyi anlaması lazım. Aksi takdirde anlaşma olmaz. Oradan giderek bütün o, bu postmoderncilerin Tanrı olarak gördükleri Foucault'ya, Foucault'yu da nasıl okuyorlar onu da pek anlayamıyorum, çünkü yani Faoucault gayet basit bir şey söylüyor. Yani exchange çok önemlidir diyo, exchange olması için yani kültürel exchange mi, pazardan domates almak mı? Yani ikisinde de, bir şekilde, bir anlaşma lazım. Anlaşma olmadığı zaman kargaşa çıkar, yani senin verdiğin parayı manav kabul etmiyorsa ya kavga çıkar, ya o domatesi alamazsın. İşte o kadar. Şimdi, bu biraz karıştı, nereden karıştı, şuradan karıştı, relativizm ile karıştı. Relativizm'le karışması çok çok kötü oldu, sonunda işte yani Trump'ın etrafındaki insanları da, ben haklıyım dedirten, taa bu Paris in left bank'inde başlayan, relativizm, bunun ucu ona dayanıyor. Yani benim doğrum bu, senin doğrun bu. Yani şimdi, anlarım senin doğrun bu, bu bir inanç meselesi bu, bir communication meselesi değil. Bunlar birbirine adamakıllı karıştı, bir. İkincisi, bu belirli kesimler tarafından ve özellikle dünyadaki anti-seküler İslami kesimler, bütün dünyada, aynı şekilde bizim kendi realitemiz var demeye başladılar. Bizim kendi realitemiz var demeye başladığı zaman da bu iş adamakıllı çığrından çıktı, mesela İngiltere uzun zaman acaba çifte hukuk sistemi falan feşmekan, yani bizim bildiğimiz ayarlar niyarlar evrensellik kötü olarak görülmeye başladı. Evrensellik kötü olarak görülmeye başlarsa bunlarda nerede duracağı da pek belli olmaz. Çünkü, yani particularism dediğimiz, yarar, lejyoner yahutta grup değerleri, diğer değerlerle çatıştığı zaman bunların çözüm araması imkânsız. Çünkü mahkemesini de kabul etmeyecek, kanunu da kabul etmeyecek, hiçbir şeyini de kabul etmeyecek. Şimdi böyle bir süreç bütün dünyada maalesef
454
yaşanıyor ve bunun da şeyi, tepkileri, çok acayip şekilde gelmeye başladı. Bir bu. Şimdi nereye getirecektim ben bunu? Biraz daha açıldım. O gün, bugün nedir değil mi? Değişim.
G.Y.: Yani karşıtlıklardan bahsediyorduk aslında işte "Batı'nın Moderni"; mimarlık tarihindeki yazım, modern olan ve olmayan, yeni-eski. Siz bunların tanımlamalar ve sistemin düzenli bir şekilde ilerleyebilmesi için faydalı olduğunu düşünüyorsunuz galiba.
A.E.: Yani Batı'nın modern dediği şey gayet basit, ondan sonra buna karşı bir, bir şey var, reaksiyon var, işte postmodern, postmodern mimari o şeyde. Ben postmodernin hiçbir tarafına ısınamadım açıkçası, o postmodern mimari neydi adamın adı, Johnson'muydu o meşhur AT&T Tower'ı yaptı New York'da. Onun tepesinde böyle bir küçük bir Avrupa kasabasındaki yerel kilise gibi bir damı var. Bu damı kim görecek yani o daha merak edenin helikopterle oraya uçması lazım yahutta karşıdaki yüksek binadan bakması lazım, tamamen saçma bir şey. Hiçbir şey ifade etmiyor. Signature deseniz, signature bir yerde yani ya kapısında görünür ya bir pencere dizaynında görünür falan yani, signature'ın görünmesi lazım, değil mi, yani ressamda şeyini, imzasını attığı zaman çek gibi arkasına imza atmaz, kenarına, sağına, soluna, dibine bir imza atar falan. Bunlar acayip acayip şeyler. Şimdi, Türkiye'ye geldiğin zaman bu postmodernizm birçok şeyin yanlış anlaşılması, algılaması ve bambaşka yönlere çekilmesine de sebep oldu, netice itibariyle. Bu çok yazık oldu çünkü yani çağdaşlaşmayı benimsemeyen, geniş bir zümre varken çağdaşlaşmadan modern olma imkânı vardır diye, böyle bir evrenselliğe karşı olmanın yararını, yahut bundan yarar bekleyecek bir zümrenin pekişmesine de sebep oldu Türkiye'de. Şimdi bu oldukça büyük bir problem. Bundan sonra bunun Türkiye bazında bunun altından kalkılması da çok zor, çünkü yani bunun altından kalkmış ve ileriye doğru bir hamle yapan bir dünya da göremiyorum ben. Bakın, yani, Trump'ın böyle sabahleyin başka türlü bir tweet atıp, akşam öğleyin onu tamamen değişmesi, bu istikrarı bozduğu gibi, böyle bir şeyin iletişim, yönetim, yönetişime ters düşüp, kurumları da zayıflattığı bir dönemdeyiz. Bu çok ciddi bir şey. O zaman kim kime bakacak, oradan ne şey edecek? Herkes benim dediğim olur diyor. Bakın, yani %80 oy aldı, ne aldı işte şimdi Belarus'ta dün seçim oldu. Herkes de bekliyordu. Hazırladı. E hazırladı yani. Belarus'takiler bu kadar şey mi? O adamla ne gönül ilişkileri var ben bilmiyorum. Nasıl mobilize ediyor bilmiyorum. Fakat sadece mobilizasyon olduğunu da ben inanmıyorum. Yani bir kitlesel reaksiyonu yaratıp bununla liderliğini devam ettirme, yani bu Polonya'da da böyle oldu. Yani bütün bir Avrupa Birliği, evrensel değerler üzerine kurulduğunu iddia eden bir Avrupa Birliği'ni relativist bir hale getiriyor Polonya'yla, Macaristan.
G.Y.: Anlıyorum hocam, söylemek istediklerinizi. Farklı bir pencereden bakıyormuşsunuz, çok enteresan buldum gerçekten anlattıklarınızı, ayrıca teşekkür ederim bunun için.
A.E.: Rica ederim.
455
G.Y.: Hocam, çok kısa sorularım kaldı. Bir şeyi soracağım, bu kitap kapağının iç kısmında bir tanıtım yazısı var, bunu siz mi yazmıştınız, Renata Holod ile mi yazdınız? Yoksa acaba basım merkezinin mi eklediği bir şey?
A.E.: Valla eğer aklımda doğru kaldıysa bunu Renata'nın evinde beraber yazdık.
G.Y.: Tamam.
A.E.: Ya zaten bunların büyük bir kısmını Renata'nın evinde oturup yazmıştık, öyle ayrı ayrı değil.
G.Y.: Güzel. Hocam bir de şeyi soracağım. Bu en sonda bir Jansen'in planı var, bölüm olarak da aslında ayrı bir bölüm gibi konulmuş, bir aksların çizimi, bir de Jansen'in planı var. Bunu niye ayrı bir şekilde konulduğu, başka bir şehrin planı değil, Ankara'nın da başka bir planı değil, özellikle niye bunun böyle bir ayrı bölümü var onu sormak istedim.
A.E.: Jansen'den bahsetmiyor muyuz kitapta, şehrin kuruluşundan?
G.Y.: Yani içinde Jansen planından bahsediliyor ama başka planlardan da bahsediliyor tabii.
A.E.: Bu orijinal herhâlde, bu birçok...
G.Y.: Kıymetli bir belge olarak mı konuldu?
A.E.: Valla o sırada bunun orijinali bir yerden çıktı, tam hatırlamıyorum niye buraya girdi de. Ama yani başka buna benzer plan olmadığı için de bu appendix gibi arkaya oturtulmuş. Yani ben bunu açıkçası, niye bu buraya kondu, yani bunu koyarız dedik de editör başka buna benzer bir şey çıkartamazsanız bunu bir appendix gibi arkaya mı oturturum dedi. Valla hatırlamıyorum. Yani Renata'ya sorulabilir.
G.Y.: Soracağım hocam. Cevaplarınız ve benimle görüşmeyi kabul ettiğiniz için çok teşekkür ederim hocam.
A4. TEXT INTERVIEW WITH RENATA HOLOD – AUGUST 12, 2020 (THE INTERVIEW WAS CONDUCTED THROUGH E-MAIL, DUE TO RENATA HOLOD’S PREFERENCE)
Q1) In the second edition of Modern Turkish Architecture, published in 2005, Suha Özkan mentions the process and actors related to the event and the publication of the book. I had an interview with Suha Özkan and he explained the process as he remembered, from his point of view. Could you explain the events leading to the exhibition and seminar, and later to the publication of the book? How did you meet with Suha Özkan? I know that Ahmet Evin was at the University of Pennsylvania at
456
the time, and he told me that you knew each other beforehand. How did he become a part of this project as one of the editors?
R.H.: Better to look at the first edition preface. Ahmet was Director of the Middle East Center at UPENN.
Q2) Suha Özkan explains that he came to you with a different project based on photographing the same places Othmar Pferschy previously photographed. I believe you suggested that the project should be about the contemporary architecture of Turkey. Why did you suggest a project that highlighted contemporary architecture of Turkey? Was the decision connected to the Ataturk Centennial year?
R.H.: Yes, this was part of the centenary celebrations.
Q3) Suha Özkan explains that Talat Halman, who was the Ambassador for Cultural Affairs of Turkey at the time, had some concerns about showcasing contemporary architecture of Turkey. I think you and Suha Özkan convinced him. What was his reaction? What was his role in the process?
R.H.: He seemed to like the project.
Q4) Suha Özkan explained that you wanted to include young academics of Turkey in this project and we see that authors of the book were selected accordingly. Why did you prefer young academics instead of well-known architectural historians or architects of the time?
R.H.: I had already met most of the authors as part of my organizational trips to Turkey when I was organizing the Aga Khan Award for Architecture [AKAA], from 1978-1980. Also, Selcuk Batur had worked with me in Syria at the excavation project of Qasr al - Hayr al- Sharqi in Syria. [See: O. Grabar, R. Holod, J. Knudstad and W. Trousdale, City in the Desert, Qasr al- Hayr East, 1978.] Through Batur and his wife, Afife, I met several other of his colleagues when traveling to Turkey on the AKAA business. Both Doğan Kuban and Aptullah Kuran were involved in the AKAA, as members of the Steering Committee and/ or Master Jury.
Q5) Could you please describe the atmosphere of the exhibition and the seminar?
R.H.: Fine, cordial. Also, since Cecil L. Striker, then Chair of my department at UPENN had a long - term project of restoration, conservation, study, and publication of Kariye Cami in Istanbul, he knew many of the people involved including Kuban, Kuran, Selcuk and Afife. In fact, it was through him that I had met the others.
Q6) In your opinion, what were the highlights of the event?
R.H.: That there were a series of relatively unstudied works of architecture, which deserved a closer look. And we presented the highlights. In addition, a variety of
457
architects had been active in the waning years of the Ottoman Empire, both local and foreign.
Q7) Suha Özkan mentioned some anecdotes about the appearance of Robert Venturi and Denise Scott Brown. Do you know how they heard about this event and why they decided to attend?
R.H.: I invited them, having met them previously because of my association with the UPENN School of Design, and their status as notable architects in Philadelphia, and becauseof the organization of the AKAA.
Q8) Did you get any feedbacks from the audience or from people in the University of Pennsylvania after the exhibition and seminar? How did the audience view contemporary architecture of Turkey?
R.H.: Do not remember that there were any negative ones. In any case, the exhibition and conference were a first at UPENN and elsewhere.
Q9) The exhibition and seminar were part of a series of events of the Ataturk Centennial. How would you describe the main purpose of the exhibition and seminar?
R.H.: To present hitherto unstudied and poorly known architecture of the 19th and 20th centuries to an American professional public.
Q10) Setting your event aside and considering the time of the Ataturk Centennial events, which was soon after the 1980 coup that occurred in Turkey, do you think there was an ideological representation aspect, in addition to the representation of achievements and developments in Turkey?
R.H.: Not aware of any.
Q11) METU and the University of Pennsylvania has a long history dating back to the foundation of METU. How were the relations between METU and University of Pennsylvania at the time of the event, in the 1980s?
R.H.: The fact that we had Turkish students both in the School of Design and in the School of Arts and Sciences was an indication. Also, Holmes Perkins, then Dean of the School of Design was instrumental in making these connections.
Q12) The title of the event is listed as "Contemporary Architecture in Turkey, 1920-1980” and also as “Turkish Architecture, 1920-80” in different announcements. On the other hand, the book is titled “Modern Turkish Architecture”. How and why did the term “modern” was added to the title? What kind of an emphasis of “modern” was in the exhibition and seminar, and in the book? For example, was the emphasis on “modern architecture” in Turkey, or on architecture in “modern Turkey” (after the foundation of the Republic)?
458
R.H.: It was in context of the Ataturk Centenary. As for the wording of the announcements, I believe that it was something that Ahmet Evin and I had selected, and then changed/tweaked. Ask him. I do not recall the details.
Q13) The title of the book is “Modern Turkish Architecture” rather than “Modern Architecture in Turkey”. Turkey has a history that consists of different civilizations, and therefore the term “Turkish” may refer to different meanings. In your opinion, what does the term “Turkish” mean in the context of this event and the book?
R.H.: Architecture in Turkey of the 20th century, and the immediate precedents.
Q14) The book covers different periods and their architectural works. Üstün Alsaç, who wrote “The Second Period of National Architecture”, implies that works from the “Second National Architecture” period was a Turkish contribution to “modern architecture”. The photograph on the cover of the book, which Suha Özkan stated that he selected, is also a work of Sedad Hakkı Eldem from that period. Do you think there was an implication that the architectural works of that period were the “Modern Turkish Architecture”?
R.H.: I suppose so: Do not remember the details so many years later.
Q15) There has been a continuous discussion about national architecture and modern architecture in Turkey, which can be seen in the writings of architectural history. It often leads to the use of binary oppositions, such as “the West” and its “other” or the new and the old, even though these notions have been challenged by some authors in recent years. How did you approach this issue during the production of this book and how do you view it now?
R.H.: Right now, I am not working on any materials of that period and in Turkey as such, and frankly, I do not remember. Attached please find my current projects.
Q16) At the end of the book, there is a section which shows the Jansen plan and some axial drawings Jansen proposed for the development of Ankara. Why was Jansen plan included in the book, considering that it is the only plan to have its separate section?
R.H.: Do not remember this detail; likely there were supposed to have been other such plans for cities included.
Q17) There is a short description of the book, in the sleeve of Modern Turkish Architecture (1984). Ahmet Evin stated that, if he remembers correctly, you and he wrote it together, but I wanted to ask as a confirmation, did you write this description?
R.H.: Probably, it was written together, or at least one started it; the other finished it.
GY: Thank you so much for your time and for your answers.
459
B. MİLLÎ GÜVENLİK KONSEYİ'NİN BİLDİRİLERİ: MİLLÎ GÜVENLİK KONSEYİNİN BİR NUMARALI BİLDİRİSİ (SEPTEMBER 12, 1980)
Resmi Gazete. (September 12, 1980). Millî Güvenlik Konseyi'nin Bildirileri: Millî Güvenlik Konseyi'nin Bir Numaralı Bildirisi. Number: 17103, Accessed on 18.07.2021, Available from: https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/arsiv/17103.pdf (First six pages)
460
461
462
463
464
465
C. ATATÜRK’ÜN DOĞUMUNUN 100 NCÜ YILININ KUTLANMASI VE ATATÜRK KÜLTÜR MERKEZI KURULMASI HAKKINDA KANUN.
T.C. Resmi Gazete. (September 26, 1980). Atatürk’ün Doğumunun 100 ncü Yılının Kutlanması ve Atatürk Kültür Merkezi Kurulması Hakkında Kanun. Number 17117, Law Number 2302, Date of Acceptance: September 23, 1980. p.1 Accessed on 18.07.2021, Available from: https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/arsiv/17117.pdf.
466
467
468
469
470
D. KENAN EVREN’S FULL SPEECH FROM JANUARY 5, 1981
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
E. ATATÜRK’S BIRTH’S 100TH YEAR CELEBRATION PROGRAM IN METU
(Archives of Faculty of Architecture, METU)
482
483
484
485
F. PROGRAM OF THE SEMINAR OF CONTEMPORARY ARCHITECTURE IN TURKEY 1920-1980; AND THE PRELIMINARY PROGRAM OF TURKISH ARCHITECTURE, 1920-1980
(MUSEUM ARCHIVES OF UPENN)
486
487
G. FINAL PROGRAM OF THE PHOTOGRAPHIC EXHIBITION OF CONTEMPORARY ARCHITECTURE IN TURKEY 1920-1980
(MUSEUM ARCHIVES OF UPENN)
488
489
H. DRAFT PROGRAM OF THE PHOTOGRAPHIC EXHIBITION OF CONTEMPORARY ARCHITECTURE IN TURKEY 1920 – 1980
(MUSEUM ARCHIVES OF UPENN)
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
I. CORRESPONDENCES AND OTHER NOTES
(MUSEUM ARCHIVES OF UPENN)
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
J. CURRICULUM VITAE
Gizem Yakupoğlu
Research Assistant
Atılım University
Department of Interior Architecture and Environmental Design
06830 İncek, Gölbaşı, Ankara/TURKEY
gizem.sazan@atilim.edu.tr
Phone: +90 312 586 89 29
PERSONAL INFORMATION
Date of Birth
06/06/1987
Place of Birth
Ankara
Nationality
Turkish (TC)
EDUCATION
2014 – 2021
Middle East Technical University, History of Architecture, Ph.D.
2011 – 2014
Bilkent University, Interior Architecture and Environmental Design, M.F.A
2007 – 2008
Hogeschool Sint-Lukas Brussel University College of Art and Design, Interior Design, Exchange Student
2004 – 2008
Baskent University, Interior Architecture and Environmental Design, B.F.A.
ACADEMIC POSITIONS
2012 - Present
Research Assistant, Department of Interior Architecture and Environmental Design,
Atilim University, Turkey
2011 – 2012
Teaching Assistant, Department of Interior Architecture and Environmental Design
Bilkent University, Turkey
ACADEMIC STUDIES
1
Gizem Sazan, 2018, Cultural Representation, Space and Architecture in Films: The Case Of “L'immortelle” (1963), 2018 WEI International Academic Conference Proceedings, West East Institute, pp.21-34, ISSN 2167-3179
2
Gizem Sazan, 2018, Representation of Architecture in Miniature Parks: The Case of Miniaturk, XV. European Conference on Social and Behavioral Sciences (Full paper will be published in conference proceedings)
517
3 Gizem Sazan & Büşra Ünver. 2016, Cyberspace Concept Through Science Fiction Films: The Case of ‘Black Mirror – Fifteen Million Merits’, 5. Uluslararası İç Mimarlık Sempozyumu: Mekan Tasarımında Yenilikçi Yaklaşımlar, pp.179-186, MSGSÜ Mimarlık Fakültesi İç Mimarlık Bölümü Yayınları, 5.
4 Gizem Sazan & Feray Ünlü, Constructing the Idea of Neighbourhood Shopping in Themed Environments: The Case of Themed Indoor Markets, In Arslan, H., Icbay, M. A., & Dragoescu, A. (2017). Current Perspectives in Social Sciences. Bialystok: E-Bwn. ISBN: 978-83-943963-7-4, pp. 91-99
5 Gizem Sazan, Cultural Representations in Themed Environments: Venice as a Theme, In Bialas, Z., Aslan, H., Icbay, M. A., & Arslan, H. (2017). Recent Developments in Arts. Bialystok: E-Bwn. ISBN: 978-83-943963-6-7, pp.207-216
FOREIGN LANGUAGES
Advanced English
518
K. TURKISH SUMMARY / TÜRKÇE ÖZET
Bu çalışmada, Türkiye’deki mimari üretimi ele alan Modern Turkish Architecture (1984) (Modern Türk Mimarisi) kitabı örneği üzerinden, mimarlık tarihi yazımında geçmişin temsillerini şekillendiren fikir ve temaların izini sürmek ve tartışmak hedeflenmiştir. Türkiye’deki mimarlık üretimi üzerine olan yazılar 1930’lu yıllarda, özellikle Mimar/ Arkitekt gibi dergilerde yayınlanan yazılar ile başlamıştır. Cumhuriyetin ilk yıllarındaki yazıların büyük bir çoğunluğu yapıların morfolojik özelliklerine odaklanarak, form, oran/ orantı, renk, malzeme ve süsleme kullanımı gibi konulara değinmiştir. 1960’lar sonrasında mimarinin sistematik olarak incelenmeye başlanması ile, Türkiye’de mimarlık tarihi bir disiplin olarak gelişmeye başlamış ve zamanla mimarinin farklı kültürel, sosyal, ekonomik ve politik bağlamlarla ilişkisine olan akademik ilgi artmıştır. Bu sebeple 1970’ler ve 1980’lerde Türkiye’deki mimarlık üretimi üzerine yazılan ilk kitaplarda, mimarlık, içinde üretildiği farklı bağlamlarla birlikte ele alınmaya başlanmıştır. İlk jenerasyon mimarlık tarihçileri tarafından üretilen bu kitaplar bilimsel çalışmalarda sıklıkla kullanılıyor olsa da bu kitaplardaki yazımı inceleyen historiyografik çalışmalar hala çok sınırlı sayıdadır.
Bu çalışmalara verilebilecek örneklere değinecek olursak, öncelikle İlhan Tekeli’nin Tarihyazımı Üzerine Düşünmek (1998) kitabından bahsedilebilir. Tekeli’nin tarih yazımı üzerine 1982 ve 1997 yılları arasında ürettiği makalelerinin bir derlemesi olan bu kitap, birebir mimarlık tarihi ile ilişkili olmasa da çalışmada 1960’lar sonrasındaki politik, kültürel ve sosyal ortamın, tarih yazımına olan etkisi anlatılmakta ve Tekeli’nin farklı dönemlerde ürettiği yazılardaki değişimin sebepleri aktarılmaktadır. Bahsedilen bağlam ve değişimler, mimarlık tarihi yazıları üretimindeki dönüşümler için de fikir verebilecek paralellikler taşıdığı için bu kitap historiyografik anlamda büyük önem taşımaktadır.
519
Örnek verilebilecek bir başka kitap ise, Uğur Tanyeli’nin Toplumsal Hafıza, Mimarlık, Tarih ve Kuram (2017) isimli çalışmasıdır. Uğur Tanyeli’nin historiyografik anlamda pek çok yazısı olsa da Erhan Berat Fındıklı ile olan görüşmesinin aktarıldığı bu kitapta Tanyeli, farklı jenerasyon mimarlık tarihçileri ve onların mimarlık tarihi yazımına ilişkin görüş ve bilgilerini paylaşmıştır. Bu sebeple, bu kaynakta mimari historiyografik dönüşümlerin altında yatan bağlamsal nedenler ile ilgili önemli tartışmalar bulunmaktadır. Tanyeli’nin, Ali Cengizkan’ın kitabı olan Modernin Saati (2002) için yazdığı önsözde ise Türkiye’deki mimarlık tarihinde olan sistematik veri toplanmasının yetersizlikleri, arşiv, fototek ve müze sayılarının azlığı gibi problematiklerden bahsedilmektedir. Tanyeli’nin yakın zamanda basılmış bir başka kitabı olan, Mimar Sinan: Tarihsel ve Muhayyel (2020)’de ise Mimar Sinan ve yapıları iki farklı bağlamda ele alınmış, önce Mimar Sinan’ın on altıncı yüzyıldaki pozisyonu, sonra ise onun mimarlık tarihindeki ikonik ve imgesel kurgusu tartışılmıştır. Bu noktada, Mimar Sinan’ın mimarlık tarihindeki kurgulanmış rolünü aktaran başka çalışmalar da olduğu belirtilmelidir.903
Mimari historiyografi konusunda çalışılmış tezler de bulunmaktadır. Bu anlamda doktora tezi olarak verilebilecek örnekler arasında, Bülent Tanju’ya ait 1908-1946 Türkiye Mimarlığının Kavramsal Çerçevesi (1999); Bilgen Dündar’a ait Against Style: Re-Reading “New Architecture” in Early Republican Period in Turkey (1931-1940) (2011); ve Tayfun Gürkaş’a ait Türkiye’de Mimarlık Tarihi Yazımı: Konuşmaya Başlarken Susmak (2010), isimli çalışmalar vardır.904 Türkiye’deki mimarlık üretimini
903 Buna verilebilecek önemli örnek çalışmalardan biri Gülru Necipoğlu’nun, Creation of a National Genius: Sinan and the Historiography of “Classical” Ottoman Architecture (2007) isimli makalesidir.
904 Bizans ya da Osmanlı mimarisine yönelik metinleri inceleyen tezler de bulunmaktadır. Bu çalışmalar arasında ise, Şule Kılıç Yıldız’ın Byzantium between "East" and "West": Perceptions and Architectural Historiography of the Byzantine Heritage (2013) isimli doktora tezinden; Vesile Gül Cephanecigil’in Geç Osmanlı ve Erken Cumhuriyet Dönemlerinde Mimarlık Tarihi İlgisi ve Türk Eksenli Milliyetçilik (1873-1930) (2009) isimli çalışmasından, ve Ahmet A. Ersoy’un , On the Sources of the “Ottoman Renaissance:” Architectural Revival and its Discourse During the Abdülaziz Era (1861-76) (2000) isimli doktora tezinden bahsetmek mümkündür. Bu anlamda, Ahmet Ersoy’un 2015 yılında basılan Architecture and the Late Ottoman Historical Imaginary: Reconfiguring the Architectural Past in a Modernizing Empire isimli kitabı da önem taşımaktadır.
520
ele alan yazıların incelendiği bu çalışmalarda ise ya Erken Cumhuriyet Dönemine odaklanan metinlere, ya da mimarlık tarihi yazımının kavramsal ve teorik pratiklerine ilişkin incelemeler yapılmıştır. Mimari historiyografi konusunda önemli makaleler de bulunmakta olsa da905 Türkiye’deki mimari historiyografik çalışmalarda geçmişin nasıl ve hangi temaların kullanılarak temsil edildiğini, detaylı ve farklı dönemleri kapsayacak şekilde inceleyen bir çalışma bulunmamaktadır.
Panayotis Tournikiotis’in modern mimarlık üzerine olan metinleri incelediği etkili yayını The Historiography of Modern Architecture (1999)’a baktığımızda, analizindeki ana objenin metinler, ya da kendisinin tanımıyla “tarihler” olduğunu görürüz.906 Tournikiotis bu çalışmasında yazılı “tarihleri” incelemekte, ancak tarih yazımı üzerinde etkisi olabilecek kültürel, ekonomik ve/ veya politik koşulları analizinin dışında tutmaktadır.907 Yazarın incelediği metinlerin üretim yıllarının kırk yıl gibi bir aralıkta olduğu düşünüldüğünde, bu tarihlerin farklı bağlamlarda yazıldığı anlaşılmaktadır.908 Bu anlamda, bahsedilen historiyografik çalışmaların, Tournikitotis’inkine benzer bir yaklaşım sergilediğini, ve öncelikli olarak metinlere odaklanıldığını görebiliriz. Başka bir deyişle, bu çalışmalarda metinlerin üretiminin
905 Bu anlamda özellikle Türkiye Araştırmaları Literatür Dergisi’nin (TALİD) 2009 yılına ait 13’üncü sayısında bulunan makaleler önem taşımaktadır. Bu sayıda, Sibel Bozdoğan; Gülru Necipoğlu; Halil İbrahim Düzenli; Ali Uzay Peker; Elvan Altan Ergut; Tayfun Gürkaş; Müge Cengizkan; Alev Erkmen; Belgin Turan Özkaya; Gül Cephanecigil; Selen Bahriye Morkoç; Göksun Akyürek; Yusuf Civelek; Burak Asiliskender; Nicole Kançal Ferrari; Tuba Akar; Alidost Ertuğrul; Gül Kale; Faruk Deniz; Ömer İskender Tuluk; Turan Açık; Ahmet Erdem Tozoğlu; Serap Durmuş; Fulya Üstün Demirkaya; İlknur Kolay; ve Zeynep Kuban, Türkiye’deki mimarlık tarihinin farklı yanlarını ele alan metinler sunmuşlardır. Muqarnas’ın 2007 yılına ait 24. cildinde de Ersoy; Gülru Necipoğlu; Shirine Hamadeh; ve Sibel Bozdoğan’ın historiyografik incelemeler yaptığı makaleler bulunmaktadır.
906 Tournikiotis, Panayotis. (1999). The Historiography of Modern Architecture. MIT Press.
Tournikiotis (1999), “tarihler” tanımını, benzer ya da aynı olayların tarihini aktarabilecek farklı yorumların ve anlatıların olabileceğini vurgulamak için kullanmaktadır.
907 a.e.
908 a.e.
Panayotis Tournikiotis’in incelediği metinler, yirminci yüzyılın en bilinen bazı tarihçileri tarafından yazılmıştır. İncelenen çalışmalar ise, Nikolaus Pevsner; Emil Kaufmann, Sigfried Giedion, Henry-Russell Hitchcock, Bruno Zevi, Leonardo Benevolo, Reyner Banham, Peter Collins ve Manfredo Tafuri’ye aittir.
521
farklı bağlamları bir faktör olarak değerlendirilmemiştir. Bu anlamda bu tez, önceki historiyografik çalışmalardan farklı bir yaklaşım sunarak, hem tarih yazımını ve tarih yazımında ortaya çıkan geçmiş temsilini, onu kurgulayan temalarla birlikte incelemekte, hem de bu tarihin kurgulanmasında etkisi olabilecek tarihsel ve bağlamsal faktörleri tartışmaktadır.
***
Bu sebeplerle, bu tezin amacı, Modern Turkish Architecture (1984) (Modern Türk Mimarisi) örneği üzerinden, mimarlık tarih yazımındaki geçmişin inşasında rol oynayan temsil bileşenleri ile, onu etkileyebilecek tarihsel ve bağlamsal faktörleri anlamaktır. Bu amaca ulaşmak içinse, bağlam ve esas analiz objesi olan yayın üzerinden iki farklı araştırma hattı yürütülerek, bu araştırmalara karşılık gelecek iki araştırma sorusu yanıtlanmaya çalışılmaktadır:
1) Modern Turkish Architecture (1984) yayınında, geçmişin temsilinin inşasında etkili olabilecek tarihsel ve bağlamsal koşullar nelerdir?
2) Modern Turkish Architecture (1984) yayınında, geçmişin imge/imgelerinin inşasında rol oynamakta olan temalar nelerdir ve bu temalar temsil sürecinde nasıl çalışmaktadır?
Belirtilenler tezin esas araştırma soruları olsa da cevaplarını araştırırken daha farklı sorgulamalar yapmak gerekmektedir. İlk soruyu ele alırsak, Modern Turkish Architecture (1984) yayınında kurgulanmış geçmişin temsilini etkileyen öğeleri ve nasıl etkilediklerini anlamak için incelenmesi gereken birçok tarihsel ve bağlamsal soru faktör olduğunu görürüz. Bu faktörlerin ilki, akademik atmosferi ve aktörlerin909 yaşamları ile konuya bakışlarını etkileyebilecek olan siyasi ve tarihsel bağlamlardır. Yazarların akademik ve eğitimsel geçmişleri ve aktörlerin birbirleri ile olan
909 Burada kullanılan “aktörler” tanımı, farklı kurumlardan süreçte rol oynamış kişiler ile birlikte, öncelikli olarak kitabın yazarlarını ifade etmektedir.
522
bağlantıları ise, mimarlık tarihi yazımına olan yaklaşımları etkileyebilecek bir başka faktördür. Son olarak, mimari historiyografik bağlam ve bu bağlamdaki metinlerde kullanılmış temalar da yayının üretimini etkileyebilecek belirleyici bir faktör olarak görülmektedir.
İkinci sorunun ise, kitapta öne çıkan temaların belirlenmesine, bu temaların temsil sürecindeki işleyiş biçimlerine ve kitaptaki anlatı/ların anlaşılmasına yönelik bir dizi soru beraberinde getirdiğini söyleyebiliriz. Öne çıkan temaların saptanmasında, kitabın strüktürü ve dönemselleştirilmesini anlamakla birlikte, ilgili dönüm noktası olayları, tekrarlanan fikir ve kavramlar ve bunların hangi bağlamda kullanıldığının araştırılması önem taşımaktadır. Ancak bu incelemenin konusu bir mimarlık tarihi yayını olduğu için, mimari eserlerin metne dahil edilmesi ya da edilmemesi; öne çıkan mimarlar, hangi bina tiplerinin kullanıldığı, yapıların konum ve açıklamaları gibi göz önünde bulundurulması gereken başka faktörler de bulunmaktadır. Geçmişe dair imge/ imgeleri anlamak için değerlendirilmesi gereken bir başka konu ise, görsellerin temsil aracı olarak kullanımı ve bu görsellerin kitaptaki diğer temalara olan bağlantısıdır.
Bu soruların cevabını araştırırken kullanılan yöntemlere değinmeden önce, bu tezin esas analiz objesi olan Modern Turkish Architecture (1984) yayınının seçilme nedenlerinden bahsetmek önem taşımaktadır. Modern Turkish Architecture (1984) (Modern Türk Mimarisi) kitabı, 1982 yılının mart ayında gerçekleştirilen Contemporary Architecture in Turkey, 1920-1980910 isimli fotoğraf sergisi ve seminerinin bir ürünüdür. 1980 askeri darbesinden yaklaşık olarak bir buçuk yıl sonra gerçekleştirilen bu etkinlik, Pennsylvania Üniversitesi ve Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi’nin iş birliğiyle, Atatürk’ün Doğumunun 100. Yılı etkinlikleri kapsamında Pennsylvania Üniversitesi müzesinde gerçekleştirilmiştir.911 Daha sonra kitabın bölümlerini oluşturacak olan seminer metinleri Türkiye’nin o dönemki genç nesil mimarlık tarihçi ve eleştirmenleri tarafından yazılmıştır. Renata Holod ve Ahmet
910 Serginin ve seminerin adı, Türkiye'de Çağdaş Mimarlık, 1920-1980 olarak çevirilebilir.
911 Holod, Renata. & Evin, Ahmet. (1984). Modern Turkish Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press.
523
Evin tarafından düzenlenmiş olan kitap, 1984 yılında, Pennsylvania Üniversitesi tarafından basılmıştır. 192 sayfa olan bu kitap, bir giriş ve sekiz ana bölümden oluşmakta ve bunlara ek olarak kitabın sonunda Hermann Jansen’in Ankara planını gösteren ayrı bir bölüm bulunmaktadır (Şekil 33 ve Şekil 34). Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nun son dönemlerinden başlayıp 1980’lere kadar Türkiye’de olan mimari üretimi inceleyen ve aktaran yayının, 2005912 ve 2007913 yıllarında, İngilizce ve Türkçe olmak üzere TMMOB Mimarlar Odası tarafından iki basımı daha yapılmıştır. Kitabın 2005 ve 2007 basımları için, etkinliğin düzenlenmesinde ve kitabın üretiminde önemli bir aktör olan Suha Özkan yeni bir giriş bölümü yazmış ve bu yazısında etkinliğin nasıl gerçekleştiğine dair de bilgiler vermiştir.914 Sonraki basımlarında içeriği aynı kalan yayındaki değişiklikler ise kitabın format ve grafik tasarımında olmuş, 20 x 25,5 santimetre olan kitap ölçüsü, 23, 8 x 23,8 santimetreye düşürülmüş ve kapak fotoğrafı kaldırılmıştır.
Kitapla ilgili bu özet bilgilere baktığımızda, yayının, 1980 darbesi sonrası dönemdeki politik ve sosyal ortamda üretildiğini, dolayısıyla ilgi çekici bir arka plan hikayesine sahip olduğunu gözlemlemek mümkündür. Bununla birlikte, Atatürk’ün Doğumunun 100. Yılı etkinlikleri kapsamında gerçekleştirilen fotoğraf sergisi ve seminer, uluslararası bir temsil ürünü olarak kurgulanmıştır. Bu uluslararası temsil özelliği Modern Turkish Architecture (1984) yayını için de geçerlidir ve kitap Türkiye’deki mimari üretimi konu alan ilk İngilizce yayın olma özelliğine sahiptir. 1980’li yıllarda,
912 Holod, Renata., Evin, Ahmet. & Özkan, Suha. (2005). Modern Turkish Architecture. Chamber of Architects of Turkey. (The second edition).
913 Holod, Renata., Evin, Ahmet. & Özkan, Suha. (2007). Modern Türk Mimarlığı. TMMOB. (The third edition).
914 Kitabın 2005 ve 2007 basımları ikili kitap seti olarak yapılmıştır. Bu setlerde Modern Turkish Architecture (2005)/ Modern Türk Mimarlığı (2007) kitapları haricinde, Tansel Korkmaz tarafından düzenlenen Architecture in Turkey Around 2000: Issues in Discourse and Practice (2005)/ 2000’lerde Türkiye’de Mimarlık: Söylem ve Uygulamalar. kitapları bulunmaktadır. 1980’ler sonrası dönemdeki mimari pratiği ele alan, problematiklere ve söylemlere de değinen bu kitaba katkılar ise yeni jenerasyon mimarlık tarihçileri ve/ veya eleştirmenleri tarafından yapılmıştır. Bu basımda yer alan bölümler Ali Kural Ali Cengizkan, Deniz Güner, B. Deniz Çalış Kural, Cemal Emden, Zeynep Mennan, İhsan Bilgin, Elvan Altan Ergut, Belgin Turan Özkaya, ve Atilla Yücel tarafından yazılmıştır.
524
Türkiye’nin ilk jenerasyon mimarlık tarihçileri ve/veya eleştirmenleri tarafından üretilen yayın, bu ekolün mimarlık tarihine yaklaşımlarına dair önemli bilgiler vermekte ve ürettikleri uluslararası temsil, aynı zamanda global bir okuyucu kitlesini hedefleyen bir öz-temsil özelliği taşımaktadır. Türkiye’nin geniş bir zaman aralığına yayılmış mimari üretimini ele alan yayın, aynı zamanda mimariyi içinde üretildiği farklı bağlamlar ile ilişki olarak inceleyen ilk çalışmalardan biridir. Bu farklı sebeplerin değerlendirilmesi sonucunda Modern Turkish Architecture (1984) yayınının, Türkiye’deki mimarlık tarihi yazımında rol oynayan tema ve fikirlerin izini sürmek ve geçmişin temsilinin/ temsillerinin nasıl kurgulandığını anlamak için uygun bir obje olduğuna karar verilmiştir. Ancak, yukarıda bahsedilmiş olan kısa özetten de anlaşılabileceği gibi, farklı kurum ve aktörlerin ilişki ve bağlantıları yoluyla 1980’lerin tarihi ve politik koşullarında üretilen Modern Turkish Architecture (1984) yayınının, farklı tema ve fikirleri de içinde barındırmakta ve hem bağlamsal hem de içeriksel anlamda girift bir yapıya sahip olduğu görülmektedir. Bu sebeple bu yayını farklı yönleriyle incelemek için birkaç farklı yönteme başvurulmuştur.
***
Bu incelemenin başlangıç noktası, Modern Turkish Architecture (1984) yayınının yakın okuması olmuştur. Kitaptaki farklı temaları, anlatı kararlarını ve organizasyon yapılarını tanımlayabilmek için çoklu yakın okuma teknikleri kullanılmıştır. Bunu yaparken, yazarların belirli bir konuyu anlattıkları farklı bölümler, dönemleri kendi çerçeveleri içinde aktarmaları ve temsil etmeleri sebebiyle ayrı birer anlatı olarak kabul edilmiştir. Bununla birlikte, bölümlerdeki anlatılar aynı zamanda daha büyük bir anlatının, yani bu daha küçük anlatıların organizasyonuyla şekillenen kitap anlatısının bir parçası olarak görülmüşlerdir. Anlatı/ların yakın okumasında, her bölüm için, yinelenen kavramların, tarihi dönüm noktalarının, görsel kullanımlarının, dahil edilen mimari ürünlerin ve bu ürünlerin mimarlarının, açıklamalarının ve bulundukları şehirlerin yer aldığı tablolar hazırlanmış ve bu unsurların metinlerde nasıl işlediklerini anlamak için analiz edilmişlerdir. Bunlara ek olarak, hazırlanan tablolar, kitabın organizasyon ve dönemselleştirmesini ve anlatı/ların strüktürünün temsil sürecinde nasıl bir rol oynadığını anlamak için kullanılmıştır. Modern Turkish Architecture
525
(1984) yayınını mimarlık tarihi yazımında konumlandırmada ve kitabın üretim bağlamının incelemesinde ikincil kaynaklara başvurulmuştur. Yakın okuma yoluyla tespit edilen temaların daha önceki yayınlarda yer alıp almadığını ve sonraki yayınlarda bu temaların temsil sürecindeki yerini koruyup korumadığını anlamak içinse konuyla ilgili diğer mimarlık tarihi kitapları incelenmiştir. Bu çalışmayı ilgilendiren temsil, tarih, mimari tarih, ideolojiler ve historiyografi gibi kavramların araştırılmasında da ikincil kaynaklar kullanılmıştır.
Kitabın üretildiği bağlamın incelenmesinde, dönemlere, etkinliklere, aktör ve kurumlara ilişkin ikincil kaynaklara başvurulmasının yanı sıra ODTÜ Mimarlık Fakültesi arşivlerinden ve Pennsylvania Üniversitesi Müze arşivlerinden bulunan belgeler kullanılmıştır. ODTÜ Mimarlık Fakültesi arşivlerinden elde edilen belgeler, o dönemde Atatürk’ün Doğumunun 100. Yılı etkinliklerine verilen önemi göstermiş ve 1980 askeri darbesi sonrasında içinde bulunulan akademik, siyasi ve sosyal koşullar hakkında fikir vermiştir. Öte yandan, Pennsylvania Üniversitesi Müze arşivlerinden bulunan belgeler, Modern Turkish Architecture (1984) yayının basılmasına yol açan Contemporary Architecture in Turkey, 1920-1980 isimli fotoğraf sergisi ve seminerinin amaç ve kapsamı hakkında detaylı bilgiler vermiştir. Edinilen belgeler arasında, etkinliğin taslak ve final programlarının bulunması sayesinde süreçte yapılan değişiklikler takip edilebilmiştir. Bununla birlikte, fotoğraf sergisinin taslak ve final programlarında yer alan metinler ve mimari eserler, Türkiye’deki mimari üretimin dönemselleştirilmesinde hangi faktörlerin rol oynadığına dair fikir vererek, geçmişin temsilinin/ temsillerinin inşasında alınan kararları ortaya çıkarmıştır. Bu belgelere ek olarak, farklı aktör ve kurumlar arasındaki yazışmalar, bu etkinliğin organizasyonunun arkasında yatan hedef ve sebeplerin anlaşılmasında önemli bir rol oynamıştır.
Son olarak, Leavy’nin (2011,4) “bireylerden anlatı toplama yöntemi”915 olarak tanımladığı sözlü tarih çalışmasına başvurularak, yayının önemli aktörlerinden dördü ile görüşmeler yapılmış ve onların sergi ve seminerin organizasyonu ve kitabın üretimi üzerine hatırladıkları ile birlikte, konu hakkındaki fikirleri alınmıştır. Görüşülen dört
915 Leavy, Patricia. (2011). Oral History: Understanding Qualitative Research. Oxford University Press. p.4
526
aktör, kitabın ilk tematik bölümünü yazan, Prof. Dr. İlhan Tekeli; Modern Turkish Architecture (1984) kitabının düzenlemesini yapan ve giriş bölümünü yazan Prof. Dr. Renata Holod ve Prof. Dr. Ahmet Evin ve hem sergi ve seminerin düzenlenmesinde önemli rol oynayan, hem Yıldırım Yavuz ile birlikte kitabın ikinci ve üçüncü bölümlerini yazan, hem de Holod ve Evin ile birlikte kitabın 2005 ve 2007 basımlarının düzenlemesini yapan Prof. Dr. Suha Özkan şeklindedir. Görüşmelerde aktörlerin konuya bakış açılarını ve kitabın yayınlanmasına giden yoldaki olayların seyrini anlamak için açık uçlu sorular kullanılmıştır. Görüşülen kişiler, fotoğraf sergisi ve seminer ile ilgili anılarını ve görüşlerini paylaşmış, kitabın içeriği ve yaklaşımlarına ve kitabın içinde üretildiği dönemin sosyal, kültürel ve siyasi koşullarına ilişkin görüş ve hatıralarını aktarmıştır. Bu anlamda yapılan sözlü tarih çalışması teze önemli bir katkıda bulunmuştur.
***
Tezin organizasyonundan bahsedecek olursak, bu çalışmanın altı bölümden oluştuğu görülecektir. Birinci bölüm olan “Giriş” kısmında, çalışmanın amacı ve önemi ile tezin araştırma soruları aktarılmış, Modern Turkish Architecture (1984) kitabının içeriği ve seçilme nedenlerine değinilmiş ve bu yayının neden temsili bir nesne olarak görüldüğü açıklanmıştır. Bu bölüm kitapta kullanılan yöntem, kaynak ve belgelerin anlatımı ve tezin organizasyonunun açıklanması ile sonlanmaktadır. İkinci bölüm olan “Mimarlık Tarihi, Temsil ve İdeoloji” kısmında, temsil kavramı ve bu kavramın tarih ve mimarlık tarihi alanlarıyla olan ilişkisine değinilmiş, anlatısallığın geçmişin/ geçmişlerin temsilindeki rolü tartışılmıştır. Bununla birlikte, bu çalışmada esnek ve kapsayıcı bir terim olarak kullanılan ideoloji kavramı ve bu kavramın temsil süreçleriyle olan ilişkisi aktarılmıştır.
Üçüncü ve Dördüncü bölümler, Modern Turkish Architecture (1984) yayınının üretiminin bağlamının incelendiği ve sonra da analizinin yapıldığı çalışmanın esas iki bölümünü oluşturmaktadır. “Modern Turkish Architecture (1984)’ün Üretiminin Bağlamı” başlıklı üçüncü bölümde, önce 1980’lerin toplumsal ve politik koşullarına değinilmiş ve bu dönemde kitabın üretimini etkileyebilecek 1980 askeri darbesi,
527
Yükseköğretim Kanunun çıkarılması ve Atatürk’ün Doğumunun 100. Yılı, olayları incelenmiştir. Bu bölüm sonrasında ise aktörlerin akademik ve eğitimsel geçmişleri araştırılmış, kurum ve aktörlerin arasında var olan bağlantılar ortaya konulmuştur. Bunlara ek olarak, Contemporary Architecture in Turkey, 1920-1980 isimli fotoğraf sergisi ve semineri araştırılarak, serginin temsildeki amaçlarına ilişkin fikirler edinilmiş ve Türkiye’de mimarlık mesleği ve pratiğinin uluslararası temsilinin inşasında kullanılan bileşenler incelenmiştir. Bu bileşenler içerisinde, sergi ve seminerin dönemselleştirilmesi, dahil edilen mimari ürünler ve açıklamaları ve mimari üretimin farklı dönemlerini açıklayan kısa metinlerin araştırılması bulunmaktadır. Son olarak bu bölümde, Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nun ve Türkiye’nin mimari üretimi üzerine ilişkin mimarlık tarihi yazımının bağlamına bakılmış ve Modern Turkish Architecture (1984) yayınında saptanan temaların, daha önce basılan yayınlarda nasıl bir yer edindiği tartışılmıştır.
“Modern Turkish Architecture (1984)’ün Anlatılarında Temsil” başlıklı dördüncü bölümde ise kitaptaki anlatı/lar geçmişin/ geçmişlerin temsilinde görev üstlenen tema ve bileşenlerini anlamak için analiz edilmiştir. Bu analiz, kitaptaki temsilde rol oynayan ideolojik ve mimari temalar etrafında şekillendirilmiştir. İdeolojik temaların analizinde kitaptaki anlatıyı şekillendirmekte öne çıkan üç ideoloji “Nasyonalizm”, “Modernlik”, ve “Liberalizm” olarak belirlenmiştir. Analizde bu üç ideolojinin yayındaki farklı yorumlamaları ve anlayışları araştırılmıştır. Mimari temalar ise “Kent/ler”, “Kamusal ve/veya Konut Yapı Tipleri”, ve “Mimari yapılar, Mimarlar ve Sembolik Anlamlar” başlıkları ile kategorize edilmiş, bu mimari temaların ideolojik temalarla olan ilişkilerine bakılmıştır. Bu bölüm, görsel kullanımlarının anlatılarda inşa edilen geçmişin temsilinde/ temsillerinde nasıl bir rol oynadığını anlamak amacıyla “Görsel Temsil” üzerine bir kısım ile sonlandırılmıştır.
Beşinci bölüm olan “Tartışma” kısmında, Contemporary Architecture in Turkey, 1920-1980 isimli fotoğraf sergisi ve semineri ve Modern Turkish Architecture (1984) yayını yeniden ziyaret edilmiş, bu farklı medyalarda kurgulanan geçmiş temsilleri incelenmiştir. Bununla birlikte, fotoğraf sergisi ve yayın arasındaki benzerlik ve farklılıklar, dahil edilen/ edilmeyen mimari ürünler, ürünlerin açıklamaları ve metin
528
içerikleri gibi temsilde etkisi bulunan bileşenler üzerinden kıyaslanmış ve geçmişin temsilinde bir fark yaratıp yaratmadıkları sorgulanmıştır. Ek olarak hem fotoğraf sergisinden hem de kitaptan “hariç tutulanlar” a bakılmış ve neden dahil edilmedikleri sorgulanmıştır. Bölüm, Modern Turkish Architecture (1984)’ün mimarlık tarihi yazımındaki yeri üzerine bir tartışma ile sonlandırılmıştır.
Altıncı ve son bölüm olan “Sonuç” kısmında, kitabın yayınlanmasına yol açan süreçler, bağlantılar ve olaylara değinilerek, bu etmenlerin geçmişin temsillerinin inşasındaki etkisi tartışılmıştır. Bununla birlikte Modern Turkish Architecture (1984) yayınındaki geçmişin temsilinin/ temsillerinin inşasında rol oynayan ana tema, bileşen ve faktörler, tezde kitabın üzerinden yapılan ideoloji kategorileri ve bunların mimarlık/lar ile ilişkileri tartışılmış ve çalışmanın araştırma soruları bağlamında değerlendirilmiştir.
***
Bu tez ile ilişkili kavramlara kısaca değinecek olursak, öncelikle “tarihin tarihi”,916 ya da “tarihle ilgili soruların sonuçları ve tarih üzerine olan yazımlar”917 olarak anlaşılabilecek historiyografi kavramından bahsetmek gerekmektedir. Tarih yazımı, belge ve kanıtlara dayanılarak yazılmış olan tarihlerin918 betimlemelerinden sonuç çıkarımı yapmaya çalışan bir bilim alanı olarak tanımlanabilir.919 Amerikalı tarih filozofu Hayden White, historiyografiyi, “tarihin sözlü imgeler ve yazılı söylemde
916 Lange, John. (2010). The Philosophy of Historiography. New York: E-Reads.p.37
917 Tucker, Aviezer. (2009). A Companion to the Philosophy of History and Historiography. John Wiley and Sons. p.2
918 Legault, Régean. (1991). Architecture and Historical Representation. Journal of Architectural Education 44 (4): 200–205.
919 Tucker, Aviezer. (2009). A Companion to the Philosophy of History and Historiography. John Wiley and Sons. p.2
529
temsili” olarak tanımlamaktadır.920 Bu tanımlamaların doğrultusunda, mimari historiyografi, mimarlık tarihlerini inceleyen bir alan olarak anlaşılabilir. Tarihler ve Mimari Tarihler arasında farklar olsa da bu yazımların farklı yöntem, kaynak, arşivleri kullanarak, tarihçi ya da mimarlık tarihçilerinin perspektiflerinden kurgulanmış geçmiş temsilleri olduğu söylenilebilir.
***
Bu çalışmanın bir başka önemli kavramı olan ve günümüzde kullanıldığı hali ile “modern” bir fikir olarak anlaşılabilecek “temsil” ise, var olmayan bir şeyin yeniden sunumu, ya da “var olmayanın var edilmesi” olarak tanımlanabilir.921 Temsil, anlamın üretildiği sürecin bir parçası olarak anlaşılabilir. Herhangi bir konunun temsilinde, nasıl temsil edileceği, hangi bakış açısıyla temsil edileceği ve kime yönelik olarak temsil edileceğini belirleyen kararlar bulunmaktadır.922 Bu temsil dilinin kurgulanmasında rol oynayan işaretler, bir obje ve onu yorumlayan görüş arasında bağlantı sağlayarak, var olmayanı akla taşıyan bir araç olarak çalışabilmektedir.923 Burada bahsedilen dil, sadece yazılı ya da sözlü dili değil, farklı göstergelerin bir araya gelmesiyle anlam oluşturabilecek farklı temsil sistemlerini ifade etmektedir.924 Bu farklı temsil sistemlerine verilebilecek örnekler arasında, resim, fotoğraf, mimarlık, film, ya da bu tezde ele alındığı üzere mimarlık tarihi anlatıları, metinleri ya da kitapları bulunmaktadır. Mimarlık tarihi anlatıları, genellikle fotoğraf, teknik çizim,
920 White, Hayden. (1988). Historiography and Historiophoty. The American Historical Review 93 (5): 1193–99. p.1193
921 Pitkin, Hanna Fenichel. (1969). Representation. New York, Atherton Press, 1969.p.16
922 Morphy, Howard. (1986). Reflections on Representations. Anthropology Today, 2(2), 24-26.
923 Peirce, Charles Sanders. (1931). Collected Papers. Cambridge: Harvard University.
924 Hall, Stuart. (1997). Representation: Cultural Representations and Signifying Practices. London; Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 1997, c2003.
530
sözlü tarih ve arşiv belgeleri gibi farklı tip medyalar ile birlikte, bunları aktaran tanımlama ve açıklamaları içinde barındıran bir temsil sistemi olarak anlaşılabilmektedir. Bu çalışmada önemli bir yer taşıyan “tarih” kavramına baktığımızda ise tarihin geçmiş, günümüz ve geleceği bir araya getiren bir alan olduğunu söylemek mümkündür.925 Rüsen (2005, 2) tarihi, zamanın anlam ve algı kazanmış hali olarak tanımlamaktadır.926 Tarihe bu özelliği kazandıran ise tarihçinin ya da mimarlık tarihçisinin bu süreçteki rolü olarak tanımlanabilir. Stråth (2006, 28) bu durumu, tarihin geçmiş değil, geçmiş ile ilgili olduğunu söyleyerek aktarmaktadır.927 Bu tanıma göre tarih, geçmişin günümüze bir çevirisi ve bir yorum eylemidir.928 Bir başka deyişle tarih ve mimarlık tarihi, tarihçinin/ mimarlık tarihçisinin güncel perspektifi ile yorumlanan ve geçmişin bir temsilini sunan bir kurgu olarak tanımlanabilir. Bu durum geçmişin/ geçmişlerin farklı dönemlerde, farklı tarihçi/ mimarlık tarihçileri tarafından, farklı şekillerde yorumlanabileceği ve temsil edilebileceği anlamını taşımaktadır.
***
Bu tezde kullanılan bir başka önemli kavram ise ideoloji ya da ideolojilerdir. Sosyal bilimlerin pek çok anlama sahip kavramlarından biri olan ideoloji hem akademik çalışmalarda hem de kitle iletişim araçlarında sıklıkla kullanılmaktadır. Ancak kavramın günlük ya da geleneksel kullanımlarından ötürü, insanlarda olumsuz bir etki bıraktığı görülmektedir. Freeden (2003, 1) ideolojinin insanlar üzerinde bıraktığı bu olumsuz etkili ile ilgili olarak, ideolojinin güçlü duygusal tepkiler uyandıran bir kelime olduğunu söylemekte ve insanların bu kelimeyi genellikle komünizm, faşizm veya
925 Rüsen, Jörn. (2005). History: Narration, Interpretation, Orientation. Berghahn Books. p.2
926 a.e. p.2
927 Stråth, Bo. (2006). Ideology and History. Journal of Political Ideologies, 11(1), 23-42. p.28
928 a.e. p.28
531
anarşizm gibi “izm” lerle ilişkilendirildiğini belirtmektedir.929 Ancak Freeden’ın açıkladığı gibi, her “izm” bir ideoloji değildir930 ve ideoloji tanımı pek çok çeşit fikir sisteminden bahsetmek için kullanılabilmektedir.931 Bu sebeple de ideoloji sabit ve olumsuz bir kavram olarak yerine, fikir sistemlerini anlatan ve bir sosyal grup ya da akım tarafından takip edilen esnek bir tanım olarak ele alınmalıdır.932 Bu fikir sistemleri ise genellikle politik, sosyal ve dini görüşleri kapsayan yapıları ifade etmekte olsa da, taşıdığı görüşler kişi ve grupların perspektiflerine göre olumlu ya da olumsuz anlamlar taşıyabilmektedir.933 Stuart Hall (1996, 26) bu esnek ve kapsayıcı ideoloji kavramını, “farklı sınıfların ve sosyal grupların, toplumların nasıl işlediğini anlamak ve anlamlandırmak için kullandığı zihinsel çerçeveler – diller, kavramlar, kategoriler, düşünce imgeleri ve temsil sistemleri – olarak açıklamaktadır.934 Teun van Dijk (1998, 8) ise ideolojileri bir grubun üyeleri tarafından paylaşılan sosyal temsillerin temeli olarak tanımlamakta ve bu grup üyelerinin farklı sosyal inanç ve hareketlerine bu temel üzerinden karar verdiklerini söylemektedir.935 Bir başka deyişle ideolojiler bir grup, topluluk veya kolektifin sosyal kimliğini tanımlamakta rol
929 Freeden, Michael. (2003). Ideology: A Very Short Introduction. OUP Oxford. p.1
930 a.e.
931 Dijk, Teun A. van. (2007). Ideology and Discourse: A Multidisciplinary Introduction. Unpublished English version of the Spanish version published by Ariel, Barcelona, 2003. Accessed on: 16.07.2021, Available from: www.discourses.org.
932 a.e.
933 a.e.
934 Hall, Stuart. The Problem of Ideology: Marxism without Guarantees. In Morley, David & Chen, Kuan-Hsing. (1996). Critical Dialogues in Cultural Studies. Routledge. p.26
935 Dijk, Teun A. van. (1998). Ideology: A Multidisciplinary Approach. SAGE Publications. p.8
532
oynayan sosyal ve kültürel temsil pratiklerini barındırmakta, ve bu ortak fikirler farklı temsil sistemleri ya da diller üzerinden yeniden üretilmektedir.936
İdeolojilerin yeniden üretiminin gerçekleştiği medyalardan biri ise bilgiyi sistematik bir şekilde organize eden bir temsil sistemi olan mimarlık tarihi metinleridir. Mimari ürünler sadece fiziksel objeler olarak aktarılmak yerine, üretildikleri politik ve sosyal bağlamlarla birlikte ele alındıklarında,937 mimarlık tarihleri tarihsel olaylar ile iç içe geçerek geçmişin/ geçmişlerin temsili haline gelir. Bu sarmal yapısı sebebiyle de mimarlık tarihi metinleri farklı anlamlar yüklenerek “göstergeler” ya da “ideolojik objeler”938 olarak davranabilmektedir. Volosinov (1973, 9) ideolojik objeyi tanımlarken, herhangi bir ideolojik ürünün gerçekliğin bir parçası olmasının yanı sıra, herhangi bir fiziksel beden, enstrüman, ya da tüketim aracı gibi kendi dışındaki bir gerçekliği de yansıtabildiğini söylemektedir. Bu tanıma göre ideolojik olan her şeyin bir anlamı vardır, yani ideolojik ürün kendi dışında olan bir şeyi temsil ve tasvir eder.939 Bir başka deyişle ideolojik ürün bir göstergedir ve göstergeler olmadan ideoloji olmaz.940 Bu tanımları düşündüğümüzde mimarlık ürünleri ideolojilerin, ideolojideki yön değişimlerinin ya da ideolojilerin sonuçlarının materyal temsilleri olarak düşünebiliriz. Bu gözle bakıldığında, mimarlık tarihi metinlerini, ideolojilerle ve bu ideolojiler ile bağlantılı söylemlerle iç içe bir yapıda olan geçmiş/ geçmişlerin materyal bir temsili olarak kabul edebiliriz. Bu noktada söylemlerin sadece ideoloji temelli pratikler olmadığını ancak ideolojilerin kurgulanmasında ve yeniden
936 Dijk, Teun A. van. (2006). Ideology and Discourse analysis. Journal of Political Ideologies, 11(2), 115-140.
937 Arnold, Dana., Altan Ergut, T. Elvan, & Turan Özkaya, Belgin. (2006). Rethinking Architectural Historiography. Routledge. p. xvii
938 Voloshinov, Valentin Nikolaevich., Matejka, Ladislav & Titunik, I.R (Translators). (1973). Marxism and the Philosophy of Language. Studies in language, Seminar Press, New York and London. p.9
939 Voloshinov, Valentin Nikolaevich., Matejka, Ladislav & Titunik, I.R (Translators). (1973). Marxism and the Philosophy of Language. Studies in language, Seminar Press, New York and London p.9
940 a.e. p.9
533
üretiminde rol oynadıklarını söylemek önem taşımaktadır.941 Bu sebepler göz önünde bulundurulduğunda, mimarlık tarihi metninin hangi bağlamlarda, kimler tarafından ve nasıl üretildiğinin ortaya çıkan temsil ürününü etkileyebileceği düşünülmektedir.
***
Modern Turkish Architecture (1984) yayınının içinde üretildiği bağlamlara baktığımızda ilk değinilmesi gereken konu tarihi ve politik bağlamdır. 1980’ler, 12 Eylül 1980’de gerçekleşen askeri müdahale sebebiyle pek çok sosyal, politik, kültürel ve ekonomik değişimin yaşandığı karmaşık bir dönem olarak anlaşılabilir. Bu bağlamda, askeri müdahale sonrasında akademik dünyada artan baskı ortamı, Yükseköğretim Kanunu ve Atatürk’ün Doğumunun 100. Yılı etkinlikleri hakkında çıkan kanun, Modern Turkish Architecture (1984) yayınının üretimini etkileyebilecek olaylar olarak kabul edilmiştir. “Türk-İslam Sentezi” ideolojisini benimsemiş olan Milli Güvenlik Kurulunun eylemlerinde, bu ideolojiye paralel olarak “Milli Kültür” fikrine ve orduyu temsilen de “Atatürkçü” görüşe önem verdiği görülebilmektedir.942 Bu dönemde “Milli Kültür”, rejim tarafından sistematik şekilde yayılması gereken bir kavram olarak anlaşılmış ve bu anlayışla Yükseköğretim Kurulu kurulmuştur.
1981 yılında kabul edilen Yükseköğretim Kanununda, üniversitelere “Milli Kültür” fikrinin nasıl entegre edilmesi gerektiği aktarılmış ve öğrencilerin nasıl eğitilmesi gerektiği konusunda tanımlamalar yapılmıştır.943 Bu tanımlamalara göre öğrencilerin, “(1) Atatürk inkılapları ve ilkeleri doğrultusunda Atatürk milliyetçiline bağlı” ve “(2)Türk milletinin milli, ahlaki, insani, manevi ve kültürel değerlerini taşıyan, Türk
941 Dijk, Teun A. van. (1998). Ideology: A Multidisciplinary Approach. SAGE Publications.
942 Tekeli, İlhan. (2010). Tarihsel Bağlamı İçinde Türkiye'de Yükseköğretimin ve YÖK'ün Tarihi. Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları.
943 T.C. Resmi Gazete. (Kasım 6, 1981). Yükseköğretim Kanunu. Sayı: 17506, Kanun No. 2547, Date of Kabul Tarihi 4/11/1981. Erişim tarihi: 25 Temmuz 2021, Adres: https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/arsiv/17506.pdf
534
olmanın şeref ve mutluluğunu duyan” vatandaşlar olarak yetişmesi gerekmektedir.944 Bir başka deyişle, bu kanun yoluyla üniversite eğitimine milli bileşenler eklenmiş, ve akademik çalışanların öğrencilerini bu doğrultuda yetiştirmesi istenmiştir. Üniversitelere merkezi bir kurum yoluyla etki edebilen Yükseköğretim Kurulunun kurulması bunun yanı sıra akademik dünyadaki baskıyı da arttırmıştır. Zürcher’e (2014, 280) göre 1982 yılının sonlarına doğru 300’den fazla akademik çalışan işlerinden görevden alınmış, bu durum 1983 yılında ikinci bir dalga ile devam etmiş ve bazı çalışanlar da görevden alınmanın getirdiği problemlerden ötürü istifa etmişlerdir.945
Bununla birlikte 1980’ler, ordunun ideolojisinin bir uzantısı olarak, Atatürk ve onun fikirleri ile reformları üzerine de vurgunun yapıldığı bir dönem olarak görülmektedir. Bu bağlamda okullarda milli marşın söylenmesi, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk’ün Gençliğe Hitabesi’nin okunması gibi yeni rejimin sembolü haline gelen uygulamalara geçilmiştir.946 Atatürk imgeleri kamusal alanlarda sıklıkla kullanılmaya başlanmış, ülkenin farklı yerlerinde Atatürk büst ve heykelleri dikilmeye başlanmıştır.947 1981 yılının Atatürk’ün Doğumunun 100. Yılı olarak ilan edilmesi de bu bağlamda okunabilecek gelişmelerden biridir. Atatürk’ün Doğumunun 100. Yılı’nın kutlanması ve Ankara’da Atatürk’ün anısı için ve Cumhuriyet’in bir sembolü olarak bir kültür merkezi inşa edilmesi hakkında kanun, darbeden sadece iki hafta sonra, 26 Eylül 1980 tarihinde kabul edilmiştir. Bu kanun sonrasında yurtiçi ve yurtdışında konferanslar, seminerler, seremoniler, balolar, yemekler, resepsiyonlar, performanslar, konserler, sergiler, yarışmalar ve yayınlar gerçekleştirilmiştir. Bu kapsamda yurtdışında
944 T.C. Resmi Gazete. (Kasım 6, 1981). Yükseköğretim Kanunu. Sayı: 17506, Kanun No. 2547, Date of Kabul Tarihi 4/11/1981. Erişim tarihi: 25 Temmuz 2021, Adres: https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/arsiv/17506.pdf. p.2-3
945 Zürcher, Erik. J. (2014). Turkey: A Modern History. I.B. Tauris. p.280
946 Karacan, Elifcan. (2015). Remembering the 1980 Turkish Military Coup d‘État: Memory, Violence, and Trauma. Springer Vs. p.149
947 a.e.
535
gerçekleştirilen etkinliklerden biri de Contemporary Architecture in Turkey, 1920-1980 isimli fotoğraf sergisi ve seminerdir.
***
Bu etkinliğin gerçekleşmesinde rol oynayan aktörler ve kurumlar arasındaki bağlantılar ise şu şekilde özetlenebilir. Etkinliği organize eden iki üniversitenin, Pennsylvania Üniversitesi ve Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi’nin arasındaki bağlantı 1950’lere, ODTÜ’nün kurulma yıllarına dayanmaktadır. İki üniversite arasındaki bağlantılar yıllar içerisinde devam etmiş ve karşılıklı olarak akademisyen ziyaretleri, öğrencilerin farklı program ve derslere katılımlarıyla süregelmiştir. Bu bağlamda kitabın ilk tematik bölümünü yazan İlhan Tekeli’nin de Pennsylvania Üniversitesine gittiği ve ODTÜ’nün kuruluş yıllarında rol oynamış bir aktör olan Charles Abrams’dan ders aldığı bilinmektedir. Bununla birlikte etkinliğin organizasyonu ve kitabın yayınlanmasında rol oynayan Sibel Bozdoğan ve Salih Memecan’da o dönemde Pennsylvania Üniversitesinde doktoralarını yapmaktalardır. Etkinliğin organizasyonuna giden yol ise o dönemki ODTÜ rektörü Mehmet Kıcıman ve rektör yardımcısı Suha Özkan arasında bir konuşma ile başlamaktadır. Kıcıman, Suha Özkan’a Othmar Pferschy’nin fotoğraflarının bulunduğu bir yayını göstererek, 1936 yılında fotoğraflanan bu yerlerin o dönemde tekrar çekilmesi projesini sunmuştur. Suha Özkan’ın konuyu Renata Holod ile görüşmesi sonrasında ise proje çağdaş Türk mimarlığını ele almayı hedefleyen bir projeye dönüşmüştür. Renata Holod’un genç nesil akademisyenlerin bu projede yer almasını istemesiyle Suha Özkan kitabın yazarları olan, İlhan Tekeli, Yıldırım Yavuz, Afife Batur Üstün Alsaç, Mete Tapan, Atilla Yücel ve Yıldız Sey’i bu projeye dahil etmiştir. İlk jenerasyon mimarlık tarihçi ve/veya eleştirmenleri olarak tanımlanabilecek bu ekol, birbirlerini eğitimsel geçmişleri ve sonraki çalışmaları sebebiyle büyük oranda tanımaktadır. Bu anlamda yazarların çoğunun yetiştiği ve/veya çalıştığı İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi’nin bu bağlantıların sağlanmasında önemli rolü olduğu görülmüştür. Bununla birlikte Renata Holod birlikte bir kazıda yer aldığı Selçuk Batur dolayısıyla Afife Batur’u ve diğer
536
yazarların çoğunu tanımaktadır. Projenin özellikle fonlanmasında rol oynayan önemli aktörlerden biri de o dönemki Kültür İşleri Büyükelçisi Talat Sait Halman’dır.948
***
Bu aktörlerin bir araya gelmesi sonrasında organize edilen Contemporary Architecture in Turkey, 1920-1980 isimli fotoğraf sergisi ve seminer, 12 Mart 1982 tarihinde açılış yapmıştır. 12 ve 13 Mart tarihlerinde gerçekleştirilen seminerde yazarlar, seminer metinlerinin sunumlarını yapmışlardır. Bu metinler Modern Turkish Architecture (1984) yayınındaki kronolojik ve tematik organizasyonu takip etmektedir. Etkinliğin amacı, Atatürk’ün kurmuş olduğu Türkiye’de mimarlık ve mimarlık mesleğinin gelişimini uluslararası bir platformda temsil etmektir. Fotoğraf sergisinde ise biri İstanbul’un kuş bakışı görseli olmak üzere, toplam 67 fotoğraf sergilenmiş ve Türkiye’deki mimarlık akımları beşe ayrılarak hem bu dönemlere hem de sergiye dahil edilen yapıların fotoğraflarına dair açıklamalar yapılmıştır. Sergi ile ilgili çıkarımlara değinmeden önce, kitabın üretiminin bağlamlarından biri olan, mimari historiyografik bağlamdan bahsetmek önem taşımaktadır.
***
Bu tezde mimari historiyografik bağlam Modern Turkish Architecture (1984) yayınının basım zamanına kadar olan mimarlık tarihi kitapları üzerinden incelenmiştir. Yayının Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nun son dönemlerinden başlayarak 1980’lere kadar olan zaman dilimindeki mimari üretimi incelenmesi sebebiyle mimari historiyografik bağlam, Osmanlı ve Türkiye’deki mimarlık üzerine olan çalışmalar şeklinde ikiye ayrılarak tartışılmıştır. Osmanlı Mimarlığı üzerine olan yayınlara bakıldığında, mimarlık tarihi yazımına “nasyonalist” yaklaşımın on dokuzuncu yüzyılın sonlarında var olduğu görülmüştür. Türkiye’deki mimarlık üzerine olan ilk yayınlardan biri kabul edilen Usûl-i Mi'mârî-i Osmânî örneğinde görülebilen bu yaklaşımın, “Oryantal” ve
948 Suha Özkan bu bağlantı ve gelişmelerin bir bölümünü kitabın ikinci (2005) ve üçüncü (2007) basımlarındaki giriş yazısında aktarmıştır. Bu özete dahil edilemeyen başka kurum ve aktörlere tezin içerisinde yer verilmiştir.
537
“Batı” gibi ikililikleri beraberinde getirdiği tespit edilmiştir. Bu tartışmalarda, mimaride “Osmanlılık” ve/ veya “Türklük” fikrinin, Osmanlı mimarlığı anlatısının önemli bir parçası olduğu görülmüştür. Bunlarla ilişkili olarak Mimar Sinan ve ona ait ürünlerle birlikte Osmanlı mimarlığının “klasik” döneminin methedildiği ve “klasik” dönem sonrası mimarlıkta “Batı” etkilerinin Osmanlı mimarlığının saflığını bozduğunun ifade edildiği anlatıların ortaya çıktığı anlaşılmıştır. Bu “nasyonalist” mimarlık tarihi yazımı yaklaşımında bu kavramların bazılarının yeniden yorumlanarak ve bağlamsallaştırılarak cumhuriyetin kurulmasından sonra da devam etmesi konusuna yer verilmiştir.
Türkiye’deki mimari üretimi konu alan yayınlara bakıldığında ise, Modern Turkish Architecture (1984) yayınında tespit edilen ana ideoloji ve temaların var olan çalışmalarda yer edinmiş olduğu görülmüştür. Farklı dönemlere ait ideolojilerin ve tarihsel dönüm noktalarının mimarlık tarihi anlatısını şekillendirmede önemli bir rol oynadığı anlaşılmış, özellikle “nasyonalizm”, “batılılaşma”, “modernite”, ve “liberalizm” kavramlarının bu anlamda önemli kavramlar olduğu tartışılmıştır. Bu kavramlar ile benliğin “öteki” fikri üzerinden tanımlandığı ve “Osmanlı”, “Batı”, “İslami” gibi “ötekiler” ile kıyaslamalar yapılarak mimarlıktaki “Türklük” fikrinin farklı dönemlerde, farklı ideolojiler ile ilişkili olarak yeniden kurgulandığı belirtilmiştir. Bu anlamda kullanılan temaların, dahil edilen mimari ürünlerin, bu mimarlık yapılarının kentlerinin, mimarlarının, müşterilerinin, sembolik anlamlarının ve sosyal yönlerinin bütüncül ve “nasyonalist” bir mimarlık tarihi yazımını oluşturduğu anlaşılmış ve “nasyonalist” bir geçmiş temsilinin yapıldığı üst anlatıya bu yayınların katkıda bulunduğu savunulmuştur. Bu sebeplerle, bu yayınların homojen ve sabit bir geçmiş temsili/ temsillerine yol açtığı tartışılmış ve yeniden üretilen bu geçmiş imajı/ imajlarının sorgulanması gerektiği savunulmuştur.
***
Modern Turkish Architecture (1984) yayının analizinde önce geçmişin temsilinde rol oynayan ve anlatıyı şekillendiren ideolojik temalara değinilmiştir. “Nasyonalism”, “Modernite” ve “Liberalizm” olarak kitaptan çıkarılan üç ana ideolojinin taşıdığı
538
anlamlar incelendikten sonra, kitapta bu kavramların nasıl işlediğine bakılmıştır. Bu anlamda 1950’ler sonrasında kitabın anlatısının yönünü değiştiren “Liberalism” ayrı tutularak, kitabın her döneminde bir yorumunu gördüğümüz “Nasyonalizm” ve “Modernite” kavramları yayındaki kullanımları değerlendirilerek kategorize edilmiştir. Bu kategoriler, “Türk Nasyonalizmi”, “1930’lar Nasyonalizmi”, “1940’lar Nasyonalizmi” ve “1950’ler sonrası Nasyonalizm” ve bu kategorilere karşılık gelecek şekilde, “Gizli Modernite”, “Cumhuriyetçi Modernite”, “Nasyonalist Modernite” ve “Çoğulcu Modernite” şeklindedir. Bu kategorilerin anlatılardaki işleyişleri incelendikten sonra ise, “Kent/ler”, “Kamusal ve/veya Konut Yapı Tipleri”, ve “Mimari yapılar, Mimarlar ve Sembolik Anlamlar” şeklinde organize edilmiş mimari temsil temalarına geçilmiş ve bu mimari temaların ideolojik temalar ile olan ilişkilerine bakılmıştır. Bu ilişkiyi incelerken, ideolojilerdeki kategorilere karşılık gelen dört farklı mimari üretim kategorisi tanımlanmıştır. Bu mimari kategoriler ise “Ulusal Mimari”, “Cumhuriyet Mimarisi”, “Ulusal/ Modern Mimari” ve “Çoğulcu Modern Mimari” olarak çevrilebilir. Bu noktada tezde anlatılardan yola çıkarak oluşturulmuş bu kategorilerin Modern Turkish Architecture (1984) yayınındaki anlatılardan yola çıkılarak yazar tarafından yapıldığını belirtmek önemlidir.
***
Modern Turkish Architecture (1984) yayının analizi ve üretiminin bağlamının incelenmesi, Contemporary Architecture in Turkey, 1920-1980 isimli fotoğraf sergisi ve seminerine detaylı bakılması ve fotoğraf sergisi ile kitap arasında yapılan kıyaslama sonucunda ulaşılan sonuçlar ise şöyledir. Öncelikle aktörler ve kurumların arasındaki bağlantıların geçmişin temsilinin kurgulandığı anlatılardaki önemi anlaşılmıştır. Bu anlamda en çok dikkati çeken ise etkinliğin organizasyonu ve kitabın üretiminde iş birliği yapan Pennsylvania Üniversitesi ve Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesine ek olarak, yazarların konuya yaklaşımlarının şekillenmesinde rol oynadığı gözlemlenen üçüncü bir üniversitenin, İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesinin bulunması olmuştur. Bu anlamda ilk jenerasyon mimarlık tarihçileri ve/veya eleştirmenlerinden bazıları olarak tanımlayabileceğimiz yazarların, eğitimsel ve akademik geçmişlerinin anlatılarının şekillenmesine olan etkisi görülmüştür. Bu anlatıların şekillenmesini etkileyen bir
539
başka faktör ise mimari historiyografik bağlam olarak anlaşılmıştır. Bunun sebebi ise kitabın analizinde tespit edilen birçok temsil temasının, var olan mimari historiyografik bağlamda yer almasıdır. Bu durum benzer tema ve fikirlerin bu ideolojik ürünlerde yeniden üretildiğinin de göstergesi olabilecek niteliktedir. Bu fikirlerden bazılarına değinecek olursak, yayında Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nun son yıllarındaki mimari üretimin açıklamalarında bulunan “eklektik” ve “kötü-karışım” gibi olumsuz yaklaşımlar; “Türklük” fikrinin Osmanlı İmparatorluğu ve/ veya “Batı” üzerinden kurgulanması; ideolojilerin, özellikle de “Nasyonalizm” ve “Modernite” nin farklı dönemlerdeki mimari eğilimleri değerlendirme ve açıklamada kullanılması; kentlerin anlatılardaki vurgusu, özellikle İstanbul ve Ankara gibi büyük şehirlerin öne çıkarılması; “yerli” ve “yabancı” mimarlar ve onların ürünlerine olan yaklaşımlar, şeklindedir. Ancak mimari historiyografik bağlam ve analiz arasında görülebilen benzerliklere rağmen, mimari eserleri politik, sosyal, ekonomik ve kültürel bağlamları ile ele alan ilk çalışmalardan biri olan Modern Turkish Architecture (1984) yayınının önceki çalışmalardan farklı olduğu görülmüştür. Bunun sebebi ise bahsedilen ideolojilerin farklı yorumlarına bilinçli olarak değinilmesi ve bu sayede bu konunun tartışılması için bir zemin hazırlanması olarak ifade edilebilir.
Geçmişin temsilini/ temsillerini etkileyen bir başka faktörün ise yayının üretildiği dönemdeki tarihsel ve politik bağlam olduğu görülmüştür. Türk-İslam Sentezi ideolojisini benimseyen askeri rejimin “Nasyonalizm” ve “Atatürk” üzerine olan iki yönlü bakışı, Atatürk’ün Doğumunun 100. Yılı kutlamalarına sebep olmuş, ancak “milli kültür” vurgusu da dönemde önemli bir yere sahip olmuştur. Her ne kadar Contemporary Architecture in Turkey, 1920-1980 isimli fotoğraf sergisi ve semineri ana akım kutlamalardan farklı olsa da – çünkü bu etkinlikteki vurgu Atatürk ya da onun başarıları üzerine değil, mimari üretim üzerinedir – etkinlik, Türkiye’de akademik çevrelerde baskının arttığı dönemde, “nasyonalist” bir çevre içinde gerçekleştirilmiştir. Bu anlamda Türkiye’nin mimari başarılarının fotoğraf sergisi, seminer ve daha sonra da kitapta vurgulanması, iki farklı bakış açısıyla okunabilmektedir. Bunların ilki, yayının ve etkinliğin ifade edilen amacı olan, Türkiye’deki mimarlık mesleğinin ve pratiğinin uluslararası temsilinin global bir kitleye ulaştırılmasıdır. Bir diğer bakışta ise, küresel bir kitleye “ulusal” mimariyi, yani
540
“Türk” mimarisini temsil etmek fikri olarak anlaşılabilir. Bunun yansımaları ise, kitaptaki “Ulusal” mimari/lerin, “Ulusal” kimlikler ile olan ilişkileri üzerinden kurgulanan “Türklük” fikrinden ortaya çıkan “Biz” ve “Onlar” arasındaki kutuplaşmalarda görülebilmektedir.
***
Modern Turkish Architecture (1984) yayınındaki tema ve fikirlerinin izinin sürülmesinde ise, anlatısallığın ve mimari üretimin dönemselleştirilmesinin “Nasyonalizm”, “Modernite” ve “Liberalizm” ideolojileriyle iç içe olduğu görülmüştür. Kitaptaki anlatıların incelenmesi ile “Türk Nasyonalizmi”, “1930’lar Nasyonalizmi”, “1940’lar Nasyonalizmi” ve “1950’ler sonrası Nasyonalizm” ve bunlara karşılık gelecek şekilde, “Gizli Modernite”, “Cumhuriyetçi Modernite”, “Nasyonalist Modernite” ve “Çoğulcu Modernite” şeklinde saptanan kategorilere ise daha yakından bakıldığında şu sonuçlar ortaya çıkmıştır. Osmanlı İmparatorluğu'nun kabaca 1930'lu yıllara kadar devam eden son yıllarında vurgunun “Türk Nasyonalizmi” üzerinde olduğu ve bu ideolojinin mimari alandaki etkisinin Ziya Gökalp'in iki temelli düalist teorisiyle açıklandığı görülmektedir. Bu dönemde “Modernite” ye mimari eserler ve bu eserlerde kullanılan demir ve/ veya cam gibi malzemeler veya teknolojiler üzerinden ya da Ankara Palas örneğinde olduğu gibi yaşam tarzı üzerinden bazı göndermeler yapılmışsa da dönemin öne çıkan ideolojisinin “Türk Nasyonalizmi” olduğu ve ancak bir “Gizli Modernite” den bahsedilebileceği anlaşılmıştır.
1930'larda bu ideolojilere atfedilen roller tersine çevrilerek, bu çalışmada “1930'lar Nasyonalizmi” olarak kategorize edilen ve ulus devletin “resmi ideolojisi” ile doğrudan ilişkilendirilen bir “Cumhuriyetçi Modernite” tanımlanmıştır. Ziya Gökalp'in "dualist" kültür teorisinden farklı olarak, “Nasyonalizm” in bu yorumu, "bir Türk" ün birincil kimliğini vurgulayan "tekil" bir ideoloji olarak kurgulanmıştır. Ancak 1930'ların anlatısında “Türklük” vurgusu yerine, daha çok hukuk, eğitim ve kültür gibi birçok alanda referans olarak alınan “Batı” ile bir bağlantı kurulmuştur. Diğer bir deyişle, 1930'lara kadar öne çıkan "Nasyonalizm" vurgusu, 1930'larda
541
"Modernite" ye kaymış ve bu kavramlar 1940'larda, bu tezde "1940’lar Nasyonalizmi " ve "Nasyonalist Modernite " tanımlanan kategorilere uyacak şekilde yeniden yorumlanmıştır.
1940’lı yıllarda, Suha Özkan’ın fotoğraf sergisinin taslak kullanımında yaptığı benzetmesini kullanacak olursak, ideolojilerdeki bu sarkaç salınımlarının dengeli bir hale geldiği ve bir ideolojinin diğerinin önüne geçmediği görülmektedir. Kitabın kapağında bulunan Sedad Hakkı Eldem’in Taşlık Kahvesi yapısı da bu döneme ait bir yapı olarak bunu yansıtmakta ve Suha Özkan’ın anlatımına göre, “Çağdaş” ve “Türk” arasındaki eşiği simgelemektedir. Her ne kadar “İkinci Ulusal Mimarlık Akımı” döneminde “Türklük” vurgusu ön plana çıkmakta olsa da kitaptaki ideolojilerin göreceli olarak dengeli durumda olduğu ve mimari üretimin hem “Nasyonalist” hem de “Modern” kavramları üzerinden tanımlandığı görülmektedir. Ancak Modern Turkish Architecture (1984) yayının anlatısına bakıldığında, 1950’lerden sonra kitaba eklemlenen “Liberalizm” kavramı sebebiyle 1940’ların farklı bir eşik görevi daha gördüğü anlaşılmıştır.
Üçüncü öne çıkan ideoloji olan “Liberalizm” in dahil edilmesiyle birlikte, mimarlıkta “ulusal” eğilimlerin devam etmesine rağmen kitabın anlatısındaki “Nasyonalizm” in geri plana itildiği görülmektedir. Öte yandan “Modernite” 1950’ler sonrasındaki dönemde “Uluslararası Üslup” ile ilişkilendirilmiş, 1980’lere kadar olan dönemde sürekliliğini korumuş ve çoğulcu mimari ortamın aktarılmasında rol oynamıştır. Bir başka deyişle, kitapta 1950 sonrasının öne çıkan ideolojileri “Liberalizm” ve “Modernite” olmuş ve mimarlık/lar buna göre değerlendirilmiş ve tanımlanmıştır. Bu durum aynı zamanda mimari üretimin ideolojideki değişimlere göre resmedildiğini yansıtmaktadır.
Anlatı/larda mimarlık ve ideoloji arasındaki bu sarmal ilişkinin 1950’ler sonrasındaki dönemde yarattığı anlatısal dönüşümün iki farklı mimarlık tarihi hattı oluşmasına sebep olduğu anlaşılmıştır. Bu bağlamda giriş ve tematik bölümler haricindeki anlatılar, “devlet merkezli mimarlık tarihi” ve “market merkezli mimarlık tarihi” olarak tanımlanmıştır. Bu iki ana hatta, Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nun son yıllarındaki
542
mimari üretimin tarihini de eklemek mümkündür. 1923 yılından 1950’lere kadar olan zaman dilimini kapsayan “devlet merkezli mimarlık tarihi” nde toplumun dönüşümünün ve gelişiminin devlet kurumları, sosyalleşme, kültür ve eğitim yapıları üzerinden kurgulandığı anlaşılmıştır. Bu mimarlık tarihi hattında “Nasyonalizm” ve “Modernite” söylemleri şekillendiren ideolojiler olarak karşımıza çıkmıştır. 1950’ler ve 1980’ler arasını kapsayan “market merkezli mimarlık tarihi” anlatı/larında ise, ticarileşme ve endüstrileşme süreçlerinin üzerine bir vurgu yapılarak, ilk mimarlık tarihi hattındaki yapı tiplerine ek olarak, otel, ofis, dükkân ve fabrika yapıları gibi mimari eserlerin ön plana çıktığı bir anlatı kurgulanmıştır. Modern Turkish Architecture (1984) yayınındaki anlatının bütününe bakıldığında ise bu iki hattın da bütüncül ve “Nasyonalist” bir geçmiş temsili oluşturduğu ortaya çıkmıştır. Bu temsilde Türkiye sürekli bir gelişme ve ilerleme sürecinin içerisindedir ve mimari ürünler bu süreçleri temsil edilen objeler olarak çalışmaktadırlar.
***
Fotoğraf sergisi ve Modern Turkish Architecture (1984) yayını arasında yapılan karşılaştırmalarda ise üç temel farklılık ortaya çıkmıştır. Bunların ilki sergide Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nun son dönemlerindeki mimari üretimin dahil edilmemiş olmasıdır. Bu farklılık kitapta gördüğümüz Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nun düşüş ve Cumhuriyet’in yükseliş anlatısının sergide olmamasına sebep olmuştur. Yine bu sebeple “Birinci Ulusal Mimarlık” döneminin mimari üretimi Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’ndaki mimarlık ile kıyaslanmamış, dolayısıyla onun üzerinden bir tanımlama yapılmamıştır. Bu farkın bir başka etkisi ise “eski” ve “yeni” arasında kurulan ikililiğin ortadan kalkması şeklinde olmuştur. Sergi ve kitap arasındaki ikinci fark ise konut mimarisinin nasıl ele alındığıdır. Kitapta ve seminerde kendi dinamikleri ve problematikleri ile ayrı bir konu olarak ele alınmış olan konut mimarisi, fotoğraf sergisinde (sayıları az olmakla beraber) dönemlerin içine yerleştirilmiştir. Bu durum kitapta kamusal ve konut yapı tipleri arasında bir ayrıma sebep olmuş ve kamusal yapıların gelişen ve dönüşen Türkiye imajına katkı vermiştir. Sonuncu ve belki de en önemli farklılık ise ideoloji ve mimarlık arasındaki kurgunun biçimi olarak karşımıza çıkmaktadır. Kitapta
543
“Nasyonalizm” ve “Modernite” nin farklı dönemlerdeki yeniden yorumları mimari üretimi değerlendirme ve aktarmakta önemli bir rol oynarken, sergide vurgulanan Cumhuriyet’in kurulması ile ortaya çıktığı aktarılan “resmî ideoloji” olmuştur. Bu durum sergideki temsilde Türkiye’nin gelişim ve ilerleme süreçlerinin “resmî ideoloji” ile başladığının altını çizmiştir.
Bu farklılıkları kenara koyacak olursak, kitap, sergi ve seminerde mimari üretimin aynı kronolojik dönemselleştirmeyi kullandığı ve bu dönemselleştirmenin mimarlıktaki iki sabit olan “belirli bir Türk mimarisi arayışı” ve “modernite arayışı” üzerinden şekillendiği görülmüştür. Bu iki sabitin kitaptaki “Nasyonalizm” ve “Modernite” ideolojilerine karşılık geldiği de bu noktada belirtilmelidir. Kitapta, sergi ve seminerde kadın mimarlarının işlerinin dahil edilmemesi ya da çok sınırlı dahil edilmesi ile dini yapıların dahil edilmemesi durumları dikkat çekmektedir. Dini yapıların “dini kimlik” ve sembolik ilişkilendirmeler sebebiyle dahil edilmediği düşünülürken, kadın mimarların işlerinin dahil edilmemesinde, kadınların bu alandaki çabalarını büyük ölçüde göz ardı eden mimarlık tarihi geleneğinin olduğu savunulmuştur. Sonuç olarak, bu tezde bir ekolün mimarlık tarihi yazımına yaklaşımlarının, Modern Turkish Architecture (1984) yayınındaki anlatıları şekillendiren temaların ve bir kitabın üretim bağlamının geçmişin kurgusunda oynadığı rolün altı çizilmiştir. Bununla birlikte anlatılardaki yaklaşımların geçmişin temsil/lerini nasıl dönüştürebileceği, dolayısıyla bu anlatıların sabit ve homojen olmadığı vurgulanmıştır.
544
L. THESIS PERMISSION FORM / TEZ İZİN FORMU

REPRESENTATION AND HISTORIOGRAPHY IN MODERN TURKISH ARCHITECTURE (1984)
TEZİN TÜRÜ / DEGREE: Yüksek Lisans / Master Doktora / PhD
1. Tezin tamamı dünya çapında erişime açılacaktır. / Release the entire work immediately for access worldwide.
2. Tez iki yıl süreyle erişime kapalı olacaktır. / Secure the entire work for patent and/or proprietary purposes for a period of two years. *
3. Tez altı ay süreyle erişime kapalı olacaktır. / Secure the entire work for period of six months. *
* Enstitü Yönetim Kurulu kararının basılı kopyası tezle birlikte kütüphaneye teslim edilecektir.
A copy of the decision of the Institute Administrative Committee will be delivered to the library together with the printed thesis.
Yazarın imzası / Signature ............................ Tarih / Date …………………………