Üçüncü biçimcilik: İstanbul'daki Arter binası üzerine bir inceleme

Abstract

Geçtiğimiz yüzyıl boyunca mimari söyleme iki ana biçimsel yaklaşım yön vermiştir: biçimsel özerklik ve biçimsel bağlılık. Biçimsel özerklik, mimarlığı sosyal, politik, kültürel ve fiziksel bağlamından koparırken, mevcut mimari yeni-pragmatizmin biçimsel bağlılığı, bu bağlamsal özelliklerin eleştirel değerlendirmesini nadiren sunabilmiştir. Anthony Vidler'in ufuk açıcı makalesi "Üçüncü Tipoloji"ye (1998) atıfta bulunarak bu makalede üçüncü biçimcilik olarak adlandıracağımız başka bir yaklaşım ise mümkündür. Bu üçüncü biçimcilik, biçim aracılığıyla dış bağlamsal koşullardan hem ayrılmayı hem de bunlarla ilişki kurmayı gerçekleştiren bir mimarinin olasılığını tartışır. Bu alternatif yaklaşım, Pier Vittorio Aureli tarafından The Possibility of an Absolute Architecture (2011) adlı kitabında farklı kavramlarla ifade edilmiştir. Bu makale, İstanbul'daki Arter binasını inceleyerek bu üçüncü alternatifi tartışmayı amaçlamaktadır. Grimshaw Architects tarafından tasarlanan ve 2019 yılında açılan Arter'in yeni binası, hızlı bir kentsel dönüşümün yaşandığı Beyoğlu, Dolapdere'de yer almaktadır. Arter, ne kentsel çevrenin dış güçlerini doğrudan takip eden ne de yalnızca mimarinin içkin biçimsel öğelerine odaklanarak bağlamını göz ardı eden sınırları tanımlı ve kati biçimi ile üçüncü biçimciliğe iyi bir örnektir.

Keywords

• Arter
• Mimari biçimcilik
• Mimari özerklik
• Yeni mimari pragmatizm
• Mutlak mimari

The third formalism: A study on the Arter building in İstanbul

Abstract

Two major formal approaches have governed architectural discourse over the last century: formal autonomy and formal engagement. While formal autonomy disengaged architecture from its social, political, cultural, and physical context, formal engagement of current architectural new-pragmatism hardly offered a critical evaluation of these contextual features. Another approach is possible, which we will name here as third formalism alluding to Anthony Vidler’s seminal article “The Third Typology” (1998). This third formalism discusses the possibility of an architecture that realizes both the separation from and engagement with the external contextual conditions via the form. Without naming it as such, this alternative approach has been articulated by Pier Vittorio Aureli in his book The Possibility of an Absolute Architecture (2011). This paper aims at discussing this third alternative by analyzing the Arter building in İstanbul. Designed by Grimshaw Architects and opened in 2019, Arter’s new building is located in Dolapdere, Beyoğlu, which witnesses a rapid urban transformation. Arter is a good example of the third formalism since its finite and definitive form neither directly follows the external forces of its urban surrounding nor disregards its context by solely focusing on the intrinsic formal elements of architecture.

Keywords

• Architectural formalism
• Architectural autonomy
• New architectural pragmatism
• Absolute architecture
• Arter

References

1. Akalın, E. Ö. (2003). Kentsel Dönüşümün Uygulanabilinirliğine Yönelik Bir Alan Araştırması, Dolapdere Örneği. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi, İstanbul.
2. Anay, H. (2012). Mimari Biçimcilik. Eskişehir: Osmangazi Üniversitesi Yayınları.
3. Anderson, S. (2002). Quasi-Autonomy in Architecture: The Search for an ‘In-between’. Perspecta 33, 31-34.
4. Aureli, P. V. (2013). Means to an End: The Rise and Fall of the Architectural Project of the City. In P. V. Aureli (Ed.), The City as a Project (pp. 14-38). Berlin: Ruby Press.
5. Aureli, P. V. (2011). The Possibility of an Absolute Architecture. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
6. Aureli, P. V. (2009). More and More and Less and Less: Notes Toward a History of Nonfigurative Architecture. Log 16, 7-18.
7. Aureli, P. V. (2008). The Project of Autonomy: Politics and Architecture within and against Capitalism. New York: The Temple Hoyne Buell Center for the Study of American Architecture, with Princeton Architectural Press.
8. Aureli, P. V. (2004). Architecture and Content: Who’s Afraid of the Form-Object? Log 3, 29-36.

9. Baird, G. (2007). “Criticality” and Its Discontents. In W. S. Saunders (Ed.), The New Architectural Pragmatism: A Harvard Design Magazine Reader (pp. 136-149). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
10. Baltacı, G. & Karataş, B. (2021). Tarlabaşı-Dolapdere Kadın Odak Grup Görüşmeleri Raporu. Erişim tarihi: 28.06.2022. https://sehirplanlama.ibb.istanbul/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/BeyogluSenin_Tarlabasi-Dolapdere-Kadin-Odak-Grup-Gorusmeleri-Raporu.pdf
11. Bingöl, Ö. (2007). Mimarlıkta Tip ve Tipoloji Kavramı. Doktora Tezi, Mimar Sinan Güzel Sanatlar Üniversitesi, İstanbul.
12. Boullée, É-L. (1976). Architecture: Essay on Art. In H. Rosenau (Ed.), Boullée & Visionary Architecture (pp. 81-116). London: Academy Editions.
13. Corbo, S. (2014). From Formalism to Weak Form: the Architecture and Philosophy of Peter Eisenman. London: Routledge.
14. Deborah, F. (1996). The Oppositions of Postmodern Tectonics. ANY 14, 48-57.
15. Eisenman, P. (2014). Aspects of Modernism: Maison Dom-ino and the Self-referential Sign. Log 30, 139-151.
16. Eisenman, P. (2008). Foreword: [Bracket]ing History. In Anthony Vidler, Histories of the Immediate Present: Inventing Architectural Modernism (p. viii). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
17. Eisenman, P. (2000). Autonomy and the Will to the Critical. Assemblages 41, 90-91.
18. Eisenman, P. (1984). The End of the Classical: The End of the Beginning, the End of the End. Perspecta 21, 154-173.
19. Ergün, S. (2022). Galerilerden Müzelere Mekanlar ve Alanlar: İstanbul Dolapdere Semtinde Sanatsal Soylulaştırma. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Hacettepe Üniversitesi, Ankara.
20. Forty, A. (2004). Words and Buildings: A Vocabulary of Modern Architecture. London: Thames & Hudson.
21. Hays, M.K. (1984). Critical Architecture: Between Culture and Form. Perspecta 21, 14-29.
22. Kaufmann, E. (1952). Three Revolutionary Architects, Boullée, Ledoux, and Lequeu. American Philosophical Society 42(3), 431-564.
23. Komez. Daglioglu, E. (2020). Reclaiming Context: Between Autonomy and Engagement. In C. J. Burns & A. Kahn (Eds.), Site Matters: Strategies for Uncertainty Through Planning and Design (pp. 26-37). New York: Routledge.
24. Lefebvre, P. (2017). What Difference Could Pragmatism Have Made? From Architectural Effects to Architecture’s Consequences. Footprint 20, 23-36.
25. Martin, R. (2007). Critical of What? Toward a Utopian Realism. In W. S. Saunders (Ed.), The New Architectural Pragmatism: A Harvard Design Magazine Reader (pp. 150-161). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
26. Ockman, J. (2000). The Pragmatist Imagination: Thinking About “Things in the Making”. New York: Princeton Architectural Press.
27. Osman, M., Ruedig, A., Seidel, M. & Tilney, L. (2002). Editors’ Statement. Perspecta 33, 7.
28. Pintos, P. (2020). Arter Museum/Grimshaw. ArchDaily. Retrieved February 24, 2022, from https://www.archdaily.com/943460/arter-museum-grimshaw
29. Rowe, C. &. Koetter, F. (1978). Collage City. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
30. Sennett, R. (2019). The Open City. Lotus International 168, 117-129.
31. Somol, R. & Whiting, S. (2002). Notes Around the Doppler Effect and Other Moods of Modernism. Perspecta 33, 72-77.
32. Spencer, D. (2016). Less than Enough: A Critique of Aureli. This Thing Called Theory (pp. 283-291). London and New York: Routledge.
33. Toorn, R. V. (2007). No More Dreams? The Passion for Reality in Recent Dutch Architecture… and Its Limitations. The New Architectural Pragmatism: A Harvard Design Magazine Reader (pp. 54-74). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
34. Utkan Özden, H. (2020). Çağdaş Sanat Müzelerinin Kent Kültürüne Etkisi: Tate Modern ve Arter Örneği. UNIMUSEUM 3 (2), 75-81.
35. Vidler, A. (2008). Histories of the Immediate Present: Inventing Architectural Modernism. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
36. Vidler, A. (2002). The Ledoux Effect: Emil Kaufmann and the Claims of Kantian Autonomy. Perspecta 33, 16-29.
37. Vidler, A. (1998). The Third Typology. In K. Hays (Ed.), Oppositions Reader: Selected Readings from a Journal for Ideas and Criticism in Architecture 1973-1984 (pp. 13-16). New York: Princeton Architectural Press.