Ayak İzlerinden Parmak İzlerine: Sarkis ile Ortografik Çizimi Yeniden Düşünmek

Abstract

Sarkis’in OPUS serisi, sanatçının özel ilgi duyduğu, farklı zaman ve mekânlardan seçilmiş, inşa edilmiş ya da edilmemiş mimari yapıların planlarının suluboya yorumlarından oluşmaktadır. Sarkis’in bir müzik notasının yorumlanmasına benzettiği bu eylem, kağıt üzerinde parmakla gerçekleştirildikten sonra neon bir çerçeve ile aydınlatılmaktadır. Ortaya çıkan ürün mimari bir plan görünümündeyken, aynı zamanda ondan bağımsız bir nitelik kazanmaktadır. Bu makalede OPUS serisinin bu ikili yapısı üç bölümde incelenecektir. İlk bölümde mimari çizimin ontolojik yapısı ve çalışma mekanizması ortografik çizim özelinde tartışılacaktır. İkinci bölümde sanatçının mimarlıkla ilişkisi ve eserlerindeki temel unsurların izi sürülecek, üçüncü bölümde ise Charles Sanders Peirce’ın 10’lu işaret sistemi kullanılarak Sarkis’in OPUS serisi üzerinden mimari temsilin semiyotik doğası sorgulanacaktır. Metodolojiyi tarihsel analiz, vaka çalışması ve göstergebilimsel analiz oluşturmaktadır. Sarkis, geleneksel gösterge ilişkilerini bozarak parmak izlerini diyagramatik bir yapıya dönüştürmekte, modern projeksiyon sistemini sorgulamakta ve yeni temsil olanaklarına kapı aralamaktadır. Uygulamaya yönelik teknik çizimin ötesinde, mimari temsilin içinde barındırdığı potansiyelleri keşfetmek ve tasarım süreçlerinde araçsallaştırmak için Sarkis’in sanatsal yaklaşımına bir yöntem olarak yaklaşmak mümkün olabilir.

Keywords

• Mimari Temsil
• Ortografik Çizim
• Göstergebilim
• İkon
• Sarkis

Ethical Statement

Araştırma etik standartlara uygun olarak yapılmıştır.

Thanks

Bu makalenin mevcut ve önceki versiyonlarına yönelik yapıcı eleştirileri ve yoğun emekleri için hakemlere ve editörlere teşekkür ederim. Bu süreç boyunca bana verdiği destek için Gülşah Aykaç'a minnettarım.

From Footprints to Fingerprints: Rethinking Orthographic Drawing via Sarkis

Abstract

Sarkis Zabunyan's OPUS series consists of watercolor interpretations of the plans of architectural structures, built or unbuilt, selected from different times and places, in which the artist has a personal interest. This action, which Sarkis likens to the interpretation of a musical score, is carried out with the finger on paper and then illuminated with a neon frame. While the resulting product has the appearance of an architectural plan, it also acquires a completely independent quality which reveals a critical distance. By dividing the architectural plan into both indexical and iconic signs, the fingerprint shakes the iconic representational relationship created by orthographic projection and makes a breakthrough towards the difference by reminding the subject's somatic body and power of action. The paper aims to understand this critical distance and how it reveals new relationships between art, architecture and semiotics. The methodology includes historical analysis, case study and semiotic analysis. By disrupting traditional sign relations, Sarkis questions the modern orthographic projection system and opens the door to new possibilities of representation. It is possible to consider Sarkis' artistic approach as a method to discover the potentials inherent in architectural representation and to instrumentalize them in design processes.

Keywords

• Architectural Representation
• Orthographic Representation
• Semiotics
• Icon
• Sarkis

Ethical Statement

All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards.

Thanks

I would like to thank the reviewers and editors for their constructive criticism and hard work on the current and previous versions of this article. I am grateful to Gülşah Aykaç for her support throughout this process.

References

1. Altürk, E. (2008). Architectural representation as a medium of critical agencies. The Journal of Architecture, 13(2), 133–152. https://doi.org/10.1080/13602360802023989
2. Bałus, W., & Kunińska, M. (2024). Mapping iconologies: Concepts and contexts. In W. Bałus & M. Kunińska (Eds.), Art historiography and iconologies: Between West and East (pp. 3-24). Routledge.
3. Baykal, E. (2019). Sarkis: Çaylak Sokak. Arter Yayınları.
4. Bergson, H. (2005). Matter and memory (8th ed., N. M. Paul & W. S. Palmer, Trans.). Zone Books.
5. Bredekamp, H. (2016). Leibniz’ Reflexion von Vitruvs Ichnographia und Scaenographia. In P. Sanvito (Ed.), Vitruvianism: Origins and transformations (pp. 13–18). De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110422283-003
6. Camerota, F. (2004). Renaissance descriptive geometry: The codification of drawing methods. In W. Lefèvre (Ed.), Picturing machines 1400–1700 (pp. 175–208). MIT Press.
7. Carpo, M. (2013). Craftsman to draftsman: The Albertian paradigm and the modern invention of construction drawings. In A. Spiro & D. Ganzoni (Eds.), The working drawing (pp. 278–281). Park Books.
8. Cousseau, H.C. (2016). Sarkis: İkonların Bakışı Altında (Roza Hakmen, Trans.). In Uwe Fleckner (Ed.), Sarkis Külliyatı Üzerine: Bellek ve Sonsuz (pp.103-113). Norgunk.

9. Deleuze, G. (2005). Cinema 1: The movement-image (H. Tomlinson & B. Habberjam, Trans.). University of Minnesota Press.
10. Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1997). A thousand plateaus: Capitalism and schizophrenia (B. Massumi, Trans.). University of Minnesota Press.
11. Emmons, P., & Foote, J. (2012). Making plans: Alberti's ichnography as cultural artefact. In A. Sharr (Ed.), Reading architecture and culture: Researching buildings, spaces and documents. Routledge.
12. Ericson, M. (2019). Ordinary geometry. In 107th ACSA Annual Meeting Proceedings (pp. 463-547).
13. Evans, R. (1989). Architectural projection. In E. Blau & E. Kaufman (Eds.), Architecture and its image: Four centuries of architectural representation, works from the collection of the Canadian Centre for Architecture (pp. 18–35). Canadian Centre for Architecture.
14. Evans, R. (1995). The projective cast: Architecture and its three geometries. MIT Press.
15. Evans, R. (1997). Translations from drawing to building and other essays. MIT Press.
16. Farias, P., & Queiroz, J. (2006). Images, diagrams, and metaphors: Hypoicons in the context of Peirce's sixty-six fold classification of signs. Semiotica, 162, 287–307. https://doi.org/10.1515/sem.2006.081
17. Fleckner, U. (2016). Varoluşun Derinliklerinde: Sarkis'in Yapıtlarında Kutsal ve Seküler İkonlar (Erden Kosova, Trans.). In Uwe Fleckner (Ed.), Sarkis Külliyatı Üzerine: Bellek ve Sonsuz (pp.114-129). Norgunk.
18. Goodman, N. (1968). Languages of Art: An Approach to a Theory of Symbols. The Bobbs-Merrill Company.
19. Houser, N. (1991). A Peircean classification of models. In: M. Anderson & F. Merrell (Eds.), On Semiotic Modeling (pp.431-439). Mouton de Gruyter.
20. Köksal, A. (2010). Sarkis'in “Opus” dizisinde anlam katmanları [Exhibition booklet]. Galerist OPUS Exhibition Booklet. (March 5–April 10, 2010).
21. Lefèvre, W. (2004). The emergence of combined orthographic projections. In W. Lefèvre (Ed.), Picturing machines 1400–1700 (pp. 209–244). MIT Press.
22. McCurdy, W. J. (2013). The structure of C. S. Peirce’s ten-sign classification system: An exploration in formal semeiotic. Chinese Semiotic Studies, 9, 236–251.
23. Mitchell, W. J. T. (1986). Iconology: Image, text, ideology. University of Chicago Press.
24. Munro, C. F. (1987). Semiotics, aesthetics and architecture. British Journal of Aesthetics, 27(2), 115–128.
25. Panofsky, E. (1972). Studies in iconology: Humanistic themes in the art of the Renaissance. Icon Editions.
26. Peirce, C. S. (1960). The collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, Volumes I-VI. Hartshorne & P. Weiss (Eds.). The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. (Original work published in 1933)
27. Peirce, C. S. (1977). Semiotics and significs: the correspondence between Charles S. Peirce and Victoria Lady Welby. C.S. Hardwick (Ed.). Indiana University Press.
28. Peirce, C. S. (1998). The Essential Peirce: Selected Philosophical Writings. Vol.2 [1893–1913]. Peirce Edition Project (Ed.). Indiana University Press.
29. Perez-Gomez, A. (1982). Architecture as drawing. Journal of Architectural Education, 36(2), 2–7. https://doi.org/10.1080/10464883.1982.10758306
30. Pérez-Gómez, A., & Pelletier, L. (1997). Architectural representation and the perspective hinge. MIT Press.
31. Pérez-Gómez, A. (1999). Juan Bautista Villalpando's divine model in architectural theory. In A. Pérez-Gómez & S. Parcell (Eds.), Chora 3: Intervals in the philosophy of architecture. McGill-Queen's University Press.
32. Pérez-Gómez, A. (2005). Questions of representation: The poetic origin of architecture. Architectural Research Quarterly, 9(3–4), 217–225. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1359135505000278
33. Pérez Gómez, A. (2014). Ethics, emotion, and aesthetics: Architecture after the crisis of modern science. Architecture_MPS, 4(2), 1–2. https://doi.org/10.14324/111.444.amps.2014v4i2.001
34. Pérez-Gómez, A., Niculae, L., Mejia Hernandez, J., & Havik, K. (2021). How to Speak? A Conversation with Alberto Perez-Gomez about the Necessity of Language to Understand and Practice Architecture. Writingplace, (5), 113–133. https://doi.org/10.7480/writingplace.5.5880
35. Ridgway, S. (2009). The representation of construction. Architectural Theory Review, 14(3), 267–283. https://doi.org/10.1080/13264820903341647
36. Zabunyan, E. (2011). Sarkis: Ondan bize/From him to us. Yapı Kredi Yayınları.