Bir İşaretler Sistemi Olarak Mimarlık Kültürü: Mekân Tasarımının Göstergebilimsel Okuması

Öz

Mimarlık, kültürel üretimin bir dışavurumu olarak, tasarım imgelerinin yaratımı ve tasarım anlamlarının yorumlanışı bağlamında çeşitli tarihsel bağlamlar boyunca hem çeşitlilik hem de ortaklık sergilemektedir. Her dönem, kendine özgü tasarım işaretlerini üretmiş; mimarlık kültürü ise bu göstergeleri biçimsel ve işlevsel olarak mekânsal ifadelere dönüştürmüştür. Bu makale, mimarlık kültüründeki benzerlikleri ve farklılıkları analiz etmek ve kavramsallaştırmak üzere yöntemsel bir çerçeve önermektedir. Temel mimarlık kavramları olan “biçim” ve “işlev” ile göstergebilimsel kavramlar olan “gösteren” ve “gösterilen” arasında kurduğu ilişki aracılığıyla, farklı bağlamlarda tasarım kalıplarını oluşturan kültürel kodların çözümlenmesine yönelik kuramsal bir zemin oluşturmayı amaçlamaktadır. Mimarlığın tarihsel olarak okunması, bağlamının imgesel ve anlamsal çerçevesinden etkilenerek kültürel bir yorumu da içermektedir. Bu doğrultuda makale, mimarlık kültürünün nesnel bir anlayışla yorumlanması ve tutarlı biçimde geliştirilmesine katkı sağlamak amacıyla göstergebilimsel bir araştırma yöntemi ortaya koymaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Mimarlık kültürü
• göstergebilimsel analiz
• tasarım göstergeleri
• biçim
• işlev

Architectural Culture as a System of Signs: A Semiotic Reading of Space Design

Abstract

Architecture, as a manifestation of cultural production, exhibits both diversity and commonality in the creation of design images and the interpretation of design meanings across various historical contexts. Each era has generated its own design signs, and architectural culture has formally and functionally shaped them into spatial expressions. This article proposes a methodological framework for analyzing and comprehending the similarities and differences in architectural culture. By correlating the fundamental architectural terms, form and function, with the semiological concepts of the signifier and the signified, it aims to establish a foundation for deciphering the cultural codes that generate the design patterns across various contexts. As the historical reading of architecture inherently involves cultural interpretation by being influenced by the imaginative and semantic framework of its context, this article undertakes a semiotic analysis to promote an objective understanding and coherent development of architectural culture.

Keywords

• Architectural culture
• semiotic analysis
• design sings
• form
• function

References

1. Agudin, M. (1995). The Concept of Type in Architecture: An Inquiry into the Nature of Architectural Form. Swiss Federal Institute of Technology.
2. Akkach, S. (2000). The Burden Of Difference: Rethinking the Role of Culture in Architectural Education. Architectural Theory Review, 5(1), 61–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/13264820009478387
3. Arnheim, R. (1977). The Dynamics of Architectural Form. University of California Press.
4. Barthes, R. (1977). Elements of Semiology. Hill and Wang.
5. Behne, A. (1996). The Modern Functional Building, trans. M. Robinson, (written in 1923). The Getty Research Institution for the History of Art and the Humanities.
6. Benevolo, L. (1978). The Architecture of Renaissance. Westview Press.
7. Benton, T. & Benton, C. (1975). Form and Function: A Source for the History of Architecture and Design. Open University Press.
8. Bringgs, M.S. (1967). Baroque Architecture. Da Capo Press.

9. Carpo, M. (2013). The Digital Turn in Architecture 1992-2012. Wiley Press.
10. Chandler, D. (2017). Semiotics: The Basis. New York: Routledge.
11. Colomina, B. (1996). Privacy and Publicity: Modern Architecture as Mass Media. MIT Press.
12. Conway, H. and Roenisch, R. (1994). Understanding Architecture: An Introduction to Architecture and Architectural History. Routledge.
13. Douglas, G.H. (2004). Skyscrapers: A Social History of the Very Tall Building in America. Jefferson: McFarland & Company.
14. Dupré, J. (2008). Skyscrapers: A History of the World’s Most Extraordinary Buildings. Black Dog & Leventhal Publishing.
15. Eco, U. (2019). Mimarlık Göstergebilimi. Daimon.
16. Eisenman, P. (1970). Notes of Conceptual Architecture: Toward a Definition, Design Quarterly 78, 1-5.
17. Eisenman, P. (1984). The End of Classical, Perspecta 21, 154-173, https://doi.org/10.2307/1567087
18. Fixson, S.K. & Park J.K. (2008). The Power of Integrality: Linkages Between Product Architecture, Innovation, and Industry Structure. Research Policy 37(8), 1296-1316, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2008.04.026
19. Framton, K. (1995). Studies in Tectonic Culture: The Poetics of Construction in Nineteenth and Twentieth Century Architecture. MIT Press.
20. Framton, K. (1999). Megaform as Urban Landscape. University of Michigan Press.
21. Garcia, M. (2007). Architextiles. Lagos: Academy Press.
22. Goldschmidt, G. 1998. Creative Architectural Design: Reference Versus Precedence. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research 15(3), 258-270, https://www.jstor.org/stable/43030466?seq=1
23. Grobman, Y. & Neuman, E. (2011). Performalism: Form and Performance in Digital Architecture. London and New York: Routledge.
24. Hays, K.M. (1984). “Critical Architecture: Between Culture and Form.” Perspecta 21,14-29, https://www.academia.edu/7069151/HAYS_K_Michael_Critical_Architecture_Between_Culture_and_Form
25. Hendrix, J.S. (2013). The Contradictions Between Form and Function In Architecture. New York: Routledge.
26. Hitchcock, H.R. & Johnson, P. (1932). The International Style: Architecture Since 1922. New York: W. W. Norton & Co.
27. Jencks, C. (2004). Toward an Iconography Of the Present. Log, 3, 101–108. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41765672
28. Jencks, C. (2005). The Iconic Building. New York: Rizzoli.
29. Krieger, R.E. (1975). Structure and Form In Modern Architecture. New York: Publishing Company.
30. Macdonald, A.J. (2018). Structure and Architecture. New York: Routledge.
31. Mitchell, W.J. (1975). The Theoretical Foundation of Computer-Aided Architectural Design. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 2( 2), 127-150. https://doi.org/10.1068/b020127
32. Moussavi, F. (2009). The Function of Form. Hardvard UniverSity Graduate School of Design.
33. Niven, J. (1996). Meaning In Architecture... Is The Traditional Semantic Model Adequate? Architectural Theory Review, 1(1), 130–134. https://doi.org/10.1080/13264829609478270
34. Picon, A. (2010). Digital Culture in Architecture: An Introduction for the Design Professions. Basel: Birkhäuser Architecture.
35. Preziosi, D. (1979). Architecture, Language and Meaning. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
36. Quincy, Q. (1788). The Encyclopedie Methodique. Hachette Livre-BNF. Sarkisian, P.M. (2011). Designing Tall Buildings: Structure as Architecture. New York and London: Routledge.
37. Saussure, F. (2013). Course in General Linguistics. London: Bloomsbury Academic
38. Schelling, F. (1859). The Philosophy of Art. University of Minnesota Press.
39. Smith, K. (2012). Function and Form. in Korydon H. Smith (ed), Introducing Architectural Theory: Debating A Discipline. London and New York: Routledge.
40. Tura, S.M. (1996). Freud’dan Lacan’a Psikanaliz. İstanbul: Ayrıntı Yayınları.
41. Vidler, A. (1994). The Architectural Uncanny. Cambridge: MIT Press.
42. Wagner, O. (1988). Modern Architecture: A Guidebook for His Students to This Field of Art. Getty Publications Virtual Library. https://www.getty.edu/publications/virtuallibrary/0226869393.html?imprint=gtrs
43. Winckelmann, J.J. (2006). History of the Art of Antiquity. Getty Research Institute.
44. Yoltay, E. (2023). A Critical Reading of Contemporary Architectural Literature on Form and Function: The Object of Desire in Analyzing Conceptual, Discursive, and Contextual Shifts Since the 1960s. (unpublished doctoral thesis, Middle East Technical University).
45. Zurko, E.R. (1957). Origins of Functionalist Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.