21. Yüzyılda medyanın mimarlığın kuramsal söylemindeki hareketlilikleri

Öz

Disipliner sınırların artan geçirgenliği farklı disiplinler arasında kuramsal ve kavramsal hareketlilikler meydana getirmiştir. Bu hareketler içerisinde mimarlık kuramı özel bir konumda yer alır; çünkü mimarlıkta kuram, disiplinler-arası yaklaşımlar ile gittikçe genişleyen bir bilgi alanına dönüşmüştür. Çalışma, mimarlığın disipliner sınırlarının genişlemesine ve yeniden tanımlanmasına neden olan bu benimsemelerin sınırlarını ve yönlerini açığa çıkarmayı hedefler. Bu hedef doğrultusunda, mimarlık ve medya kesişimindeki geniş literatürden, çeşitli veri tabanlarında üç aşamada gerçekleştirilen aramalar ile belirlenen bir ön değerlendirme listesi oluşturulmuş ve bu listeden ağırlıkla medya ve mimarlığa odaklanan çalışmalar seçilerek bir inceleme listesi belirlenmiştir. Bu listedeki çalışmalar ise baskın temalarına göre sınıflandırılmış ve Michael Ostwald’in kuram/kavram benimsemelerini tek yönlü benimseme, hibritleşme ve çok yönlü benimseme şeklinde açıklayan modeli aracılığı ile çözümlenmiştir. Çalışmada yapılan çözümlemeye göre mimarlık, medya kuram ve kavramlarını ağırlıkla ve daha kolaylıkla tek yönlü olarak benimsemekte ve bu tek yönlü benimseme ile kendi bilgi alanını genişletmektedir. Ancak, hibritleşme ve çok yönlü benimsemenin de olduğu görülür; bu iki benimseme biçimi disipliner bilgi için daha önemli etkiler oluşturur. Bunun nedeni medyadan alıntılanan kavram veya kuramın disipline tam olarak nüfuz etmesi ve bu nedenle mimarlık için önerdiği dönüşümdür. Özellikle, çok yönlü benimsemede mimarlık kuramı ve medya kuramının olabilecek en üst seviyede iç içe geçtiği görülmüştür. Çalışma, kavramsal hareketliliklerin elverişliliğinin bu iki bilgi alanının uzantı/protez kavramlarında açığa çıkan ortak kökeninin altında yattığı sonucuna varır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Mimarlık kuramı
• Disiplinlerarasılık
• Medya kuramı
• Medya
• Dijital ortam

Mobilities of media in architecture’s theoretical discourse in the 21st century

Abstract

Increasing permeability of disciplinary boundaries results in the theoretical and conceptual mobilities among different disciplines. Architectural theory has a unique position within these transactions since it transformed into an ever-expanding knowledge terrain via interdisciplinary perspectives. By undertaking different modes of appropriations in the architecture-media relationship, this study aims to disclose the directions and extents of these transactions. For this reason, a comprehensive literature survey was performed on certain databases. From these searches an examination list is created by selecting the studies focusing on media and architecture. Next, these studies are categorized based on their dominant themes and analyzed via Michael Ostwald's model, which is composed of uni-directional, hybridization, and multi-directional appropriation modes. The study found that architecture predominantly and more easily engages with media in the uni-directional mode since this mode does not affect the basic premises of the discipline and just expands its knowledge domain. Yet, hybridization and multi-directional appropriations are also observed, resulting in more significant impacts on architecture’s disciplinary knowledge. This significance is primarily due to the interpenetration of the concept or theory appropriated from media and the transformations it suggested for architecture’s premises. Specifically, in multi-directional appropriation, architectural theory and media theory intertwine preeminently. The study concludes that it might be the shared origin of two knowledge fields as revealed in the concepts of extension/prosthesis that underlie the convenience of these conceptual transactions.

Keywords

• Architectural theory
• Interdisciplinarity
• Media theory
• Media
• Digital media

References

1. Agacinsk, S. (1992). Shares of invention. D: Columbia Documents of Architecture and Theory, 1.
2. Aksu, I. (2022). Mimarlıkta etkileşimli medya tasarımlarının fayda potansiyellerinin incelenmesi (Investigation of the utility potentials of interactive media designs in architecture). Unpublished Master Thesis, Eskişehir Technical University.
3. AlYousefi, A. (2019). Genres of ‘architectural theory now?’. Architectural Research Quarterly, 23(4), 300-303. doi:10.1017/S1359135520000019
4. Bal, M. (2002). Traveling concepts in the humanities: A rough guide. University of Toronto Press.
5. Basaran, D. (2016). Medya cepheleri ve mimarlık ilişkisinin incelenmesi (Researching the relationship between media facades and architecture), Unpublished Master Thesis, İstanbul Technical University.
6. Blacksell, R. & Walker, S. (2016). Architecture and the spaces of information. Architecture and Culture 4 (1).
7. Boyacıoglu D. B., Erkarslan. E. O., & Erenoglu, T. (2015). Küresel mimarlık pazarında yeni bir aracı olarak dijital medya (Digital media as a new tool in the global architecture market). Mimarlık, (384), 74-77.
8. Brown, J. (2018). Mediated Space. Riba Publishing.

9. Brynskov, M., Dalsgaard, P., and Halskov, K. (2015). Media architecture, engaging urban experiences in public space. In J. Lossau (Ed.), The uses of art in public space. Routledge.
10. Buckley, C. (2019). Graphic assembly: montage, media and experimental architecture in the 1960s. University of Minnesota Press.
11. Cairns, G. (2013). The architecture of the screen: essays in cinematographic space. Intellect books.
12. Cairns, G. (Ed.). (2017). Visioning technologies: the architectures of sight. Routledge.
13. Colangelo, D. (2021). We live here: media architecture as critical spatial practice. Space and Culture, 24(4), 501-516. doi:10.1177/1206331219843809
14. Colomina, B. (1991). Domesticity at war. Assemblage, (16), 14-41.
15. Colomina, B. (1994). Privacy and publicity. The MIT Press.
16. Colomina, B. (1999). The private site of public memory, The Journal of Architecture, 4 (4): 337-360.
17. Colomina, B. (2001). Information obsession: the Eameses' multiscreen architecture, The Journal of Architecture, 6(3), 205-223.
18. Colomina, B. (2009). Unclear vision. In M. Bell and J. Kim (Eds.), Engineered transparency: The technical, visual, and spatial effects of glass. Princeton Architectural Press.
19. Crysler, C. G., Cairns, S. & Heynen, H. (2012). Introduction – 1: Architectural theory in an expanded field. In S. Crysler, S. Cairns and H. Heynen (Eds.), The sage handbook of architectural theory. Sage Publications.
20. Dorrian, M. & Kakalis, C. (Eds.). (2020). The place of silence: Architecture / Media / Philosophy. Bloomsbury.
21. Eisenstein, S, Bois,Y. & Glenny, M. (1989). Montage and architecture. Assemblage, 10, 110-131.
22. Ellsworth, E. (2004). Places of learning: Media architecture pedagogy. Routledge.
23. Erdem, K. B. (2021). Yeni medyada mimarlık eleştirisi ve yayıncılığı (Architectural criticism and publishing in new media). Unpublished Master Thesis. Istanbul Technical University.
24. Esen, I., & Dinç-Kalaycı, P. (2021). Rise and functions of new media in architecture: an investigation via Archdaily. GRID Architecture, Planning and Design Journal, 4(1), 1-25. https://doi.org/10.37246/grid.776887
25. Freud, S. (2010). Civilization and its discontents (Reprint ed.) W.W. Norton and Company. (Original work published 1930).
26. Hays, K. M. (Ed.). (1998). Architecture theory since 1968. MIT Press.
27. Häusler, M. H., Tomitsch, M. & Gardner, N. (2010). Infostructures: a transport research project. Freerange Press
28. Häusler, M. H., Tomitsch, M. & Tscherteu, G. (2013). New media facades – a global survey. Hoxton Mini Press.
29. Hight, C. (2009). Meeting the new boss: after the death of theory. Architectural Design, 79(1).
30. Kandemir, O. (2012). Bilişim teknolojileri ile dönüşmekte olan mimarlık nesnesi ve maddesiz ögeleri (Impacts of information technologies o the architectural object and its immaterial attributes). Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. Istanbul Technical University.
31. Kioumarsi, N. (2016). Montage and architecture: a method for temporal design. Unpublished Master Thesis. The Pennsylvania State University The Graduate School College of Arts and Architecture.
32. Kittler, F. A. (1990). Discourse networks: 1800/1900, ed. Michael Metteer and Chris Cullens. Stanford University Press.
33. Kittler, F. A. & Griffin, M. (1996). The city is a medium. New Literary History, 27(4), 717–29.
34. Kut, S. (2013). Sibertektonik mekan (Cybertectonic space), Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Istanbul Technical University.
35. Leach, N. (Ed.) (1997). Rethinking architecture: A reader in cultural theory. Routledge.
36. Lyotard, J. F. (1984). The postmodern condition: a report on knowledge. Manchester University Press.
37. Martin, R. (2003). The organizational complex. The MIT Press.
38. Mattern, S. (2015). Deep mapping the media city. University of Minnesota Press.
39. McGrath, B., & Gardner, J. (2008). Cinemetrics: embodying architectural representation in the digital age. Architectural Theory Review, 13(1), 29–51. doi:10.1080/13264820801915104
40. McLuhan, M. (1994). Understanding media: the extensions of man (Rev. ed.). The MIT Press.
41. McQuire, S. (2008). The media city. Sage.
42. Micconi, A. & Serra, M. (2008). “On the concept of medium”, International Journal of Communication 13(2019). Eva Horn “There are no media” Grey Room 29, (2008): 6–13.
43. Molinari, C. (2021). Sequences in architecture: Sergei Ejzenštejn and Luigi Moretti, from images to spaces, The Journal of Architecture, 26(6), 893-911.
44. Moretti, L. (2002). Structures and sequences of spaces, in Luigi Moretti: works and writings, ed. by Federico Bucci and Marco Mulazzani. Princeton Architectural Press, 177–81.
45. Nesbitt, K. (Ed.). (1996). Theorizing a new agenda in architectural theory. Princeton Architectural Press.
46. Ostwald, M. (1999). Architectural theory formation through appropriation. Architectural Theory Review, 4(2), 52-70.
47. Semper, G. (1989). The four elements of architecture and other writings (H. F. Mallgrave and W. Hermann, Trans.). Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1851).
48. Tasdelen, H. S. (2018). Mimarlığın dijital habitusu, erken tasarım sürecinde internet kullanımı, (Digital habitus of architecture: internet using in the early design phase) Unpublished Master Thesis, İstanbul Technical University.
49. Troiani, I. & Kahn, A. (2016). Film as architectural theory. Architecture and Culture, 4(3), 485-498.
50. Tscherteu, G., Pop, S. Stalder, U. & Struppek, M. (2012). Urban media cultures. Avedition.
51. Tschumi, B. & Ingraham, C. T. (1992). Afterwords: architecture and theory conference. D: Columbia Documents of Architecture and Theory, 1.
52. Vidler, A. (2000). Warped space: Art, architecture, anxiety in modern culture. The MIT Press.
53. Wiethoff, A. & Hussmann, H. (Eds.). (2017). Media architecture: using information and media as construction material. De Gruyter.
54. Wigley, M. (2001). Network fever. Grey Room, (4), 82-122.
55. Wigley, M. (1991). Prosthetic theory: The disciplining of architecture. Assemblage, (15), 6-29.
56. Wilson, R. (2015). Image, text, architecture: the utopics of the architectural media. Routledge.