KLASİK TAPINAK ALANLARINDA DOĞAL PEYZAJIN YAPILI ÇEVREYLE İLİŞKİSİ: BİR UZANTI VEYA BAĞLAM OLARAK DOĞA

Öz

Doğal peyzajın klasik mimarlıkla yakın ilişkisi yaygın kabul gören bir anlayış olmasına rağmen, bu konu üzerine yazılmış kaynaklar kısıtlıdır. Bu makale, argümanının odağına antik dünyada insan-doğa ilişkisinin dönüşümünü ve bu dönüşümün kutsal alan planlamasına yansımalarını alarak, geçmiş tartışmalara katkıda bulunmayı amaçlar. Sadece mimarlıkta değil, edebiyat ve sanat alanlarında da bu dönüşümün izlerini sürerek, antik dünyada insan-doğa ilişkisini bütüncül bir yaklaşımla açıklamayı dert edinir. Tanrı-insan ilişkisinin entegre tanımlandığı mitolojik gelenekte, doğayı mekan edinen antropomorfik tanrılar insanoğlunun kaderini ellerinde tutarlar. Dolayısıyla bu dönemde doğaya insan eliyle yapılacak bir müdahale tanrısal olanla anlaşmayı/bütünleşmeyi gerektirir. Arkaik dönem edebiyat ve sanatında doğa bir bağlam veya arka plan olarak değil, kahramanların bir uzantısı olarak betimlenir veya resmedilir. Delfi’deki Apollon kutsal alanında da benzer şekilde, doğal olan insan yapımı olanın bağlamını oluşturmaz. İnsan yapımı olan doğal olanın bir uzantısıdır, ondan ayrılmaz. Bu kutsal alanda tanrılar ve insanoğlu, insan yapımı ve peyzaj, deneyime dayalı bir mekansal organizasyon mantığı çerçevesinde entegre edilir. Makalede, bu deneyime dayalı mekansal organizasyon mantığı sinematik kavramlar çerçevesinde tartışılır. Kutsal alanın görünürde rastgele planı ziyaretçilerin her birinin deneyimleri ile ilişkilenen çoklu hareket/gözlem sekansları kurmalarına imkan verir. Farklı montaj sekansları gibi tanımlayabileceğimiz bu çoklu deneyimler sinema terminolojisinde genel plan diyebileceğimiz tasarlanmış kareler sayesinde, ortak bir zaman ve mekan bağlamına oturtulur. Bu kareler, insan yapımı olanı doğal olanın bir uzantısı olarak ona entegre tanımlar. İnsanoğlunun kendini tanrılardan ayırdığı Yunan kentinin demokratikleşme süreci sonucunda insanın doğa ile entegre ilişkisi kırılır. Bu kırılma sonucu insan, kendi kaderinin belirleyicisi olarak düzen kurmaya kendini muktedir saymaya başlar. Doğa tanrıların mekan tuttuğu kaotik bir yer olarak kentten soyutlanır. Kökü Helenistik sahne resimlerine dayanan Roma duvar resimlerinde, mitolojik peyzajlara, mimari bir çerçevenin arkasından bakılır. Bu mimari çerçeve, Lindos’taki Athena kutsal alanı veya Praeneste’deki Fortuna kutsal alanındaki kolonadlar gibi, insan yapımı olanı doğal olandan ayırır. Bu kutsal alanlarda, Helenistik dönemde perspektif konusundaki ilerlemeler sonucu gündeme gelmiş olabilecek bazı kavramlar, doğal peyzajdan kopuk kontrollü bir iç mekan yaratılmasında etkili olurlar. Ziyaretçinin hareketinin ve bakış açısının obsesif bir şekilde kontrol edildiği bu matematiksel soyut mekan anlayışı, çoklu hareket/gözlem sekanslarına izin veren Delfi’deki Apollon kutsal alanının mekansal organizasyon mantığından çok farklıdır. Mekansal kurgu kendi anıtsallığına odaklanır ve doğal bağlamdan kopar.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Antik Yunan ve Roma resim sanatı
• peyzaj-mimarlık ilişkisi
• klasik dönem tapınak alanları
• fenomenoloji
• perspektif

ON THE CLASSICAL SANCTUARY SPACE AND ITS NATURAL CONTEXT: NATURE AS EXTENSION OR CONTAINER?

Öz

Even though nature is accepted to be an integral part of classical architecture, there is limited scholarship on this aspect. This paper aims to contribute to this literature with a focus specifically on the transformation of attitudes towards nature in the classical culture and on the influence of this transformation to sanctuary planning. Through an argument focusing not only on architecture, but also on art and literature, it tries to establish an overall understanding of the natural in the classical culture. An earlier attitude towards nature was a result of the mythological tradition, in which the boundary between gods and humans was blurred. Anthropomorphic gods and goddesses, who controlled the human destiny, resided in the nature. So as the boundary between gods and humans were blurred, the boundary between the man-made and the natural was also blurred. In the Archaic Greek literature and art, nature was not depicted as a space or a background, in which the events took place, but it was integrated into the narrative as an extension of the figures integral to them. Similarly, in the Sanctuary of Apollo at Delphi, nature does not constitute a background/container, but it is an extension of the man-made, integral to the god’s abode made by humans. In this sanctuary, located at a magnificent landscape endowed with mythological significance, myth, nature and the man-made merge by way of an organizational logic that integrates gaze and movement as its major constituents. This paper attempts to explain this classical phenomenological logic by cinematic concepts. The seemingly haphazard planning of the sanctuary allows for multiple moving/viewing sequences, which can be thought of as multiple montages extending the space and time of the sanctuary to various geographies and times in history. These multiple montages are brought back to here and now through unifying frames resembling establishing shots in filmmaking. By these shots, the man-made is merged with the landscape in a single unified frame. A later attitude towards nature was a result of the philosophical tradition, in which man separated himself from the almighty gods and defined himself as the constructor of his own order through democratization of the polis. As a result of this separation, uncontrolled nature became the container of the mythical, separate from the controlled man-made realm. In Roman landscape paintings rooted in the Hellenistic stage paintings, nature as the realm of the mythical is viewed from behind the architectural screens like in the Sanctuary of Athena at Lindos or the Sanctuary of Fortuna at Praeneste. In these Hellenistic sanctuaries, perspectival concepts could be thought as instrumental in creating a controlled man-made interior that is detached from its natural environment. This interior can be defined as a mathematical abstract construct exercising an obsessive control over how the point of view of the observer should be located in space. The calculated axial spatial organization of these sanctuaries, therefore, contrasts starkly to the psychophysiological space of the Sanctuary of Apollo at Delphi, allowing various moving/viewing sequences in full integration with the surrounding nature.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Ancient Greek and Roman painting
• Classical sanctuary planning
• landscape- architecture relationship
• phenomenology
• perspective

Kaynakça

1. K. Algra, Concepts of Space in Greek Thought (Köln, 1994)
2. T. M. Anderson, Early Epic Scenery; Homer, Virgil, and the Medieval Legacy (Ithaca, 1976).
3. L. Bek, From Eye-Sight to View-Planning. The notion of Greek Philosophy and Hellenistic Optics as a trend in Roman Aesthetics and Building Practice, Acta Hyperborea 5, 1993, 127-150.
4. M. Bieber, The History of the Greek and Roman Theatre (Princeton, 1939)
5. H. G. Beyen, Die pompejanische Wanddekoration vom zweiten bis zum vierten Stil I (The Hague, 1938)
6. D. Birge, Sacred Groves in the Ancient World, unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California at Berkeley, 1982.
7. A. Boethius, Etruscan and Early Roman Architecture (Yale University Press, 1978).
8. A. Bonnafé, Poésie, nature et sacré. I: Homère, Hésiode et le sentiment grec de la nature (Lyon, 1984).

9. M. Caroll_Spillecke, Landscape Depictions in Greek Relief Sculpture: Development and Conventionalization (Frankfurt, 1985).
10. F. Çevirici, Polyksena Lahdi, unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation (Ege Üniversitesi, 2006).
11. R. de la Coste-Messeliére, Au Musée de Delphes. Recherches sur quelques monuments archaiques et leur décor sculpté (Paris, 1936)
12. J. J. Coulton, Greek Architects at Work: Problems of Structure and Design (Cornell University Press, 1977).
13. N. Dietrich, “Pictorial Space as a Media Phenomenon”, Cahiers Mondes Anciens, 9, 2017, 1-27.
14. K. A. Doxiades, Raumordnung im Griechischen Stadtebau (Verlag, Heildelberg and Berlin, 1937) J. Tyrwhitt (trans. and ed.) Architectural Space in Ancient Greece (MIT Press, 1972)
15. S. M. Eisenstein, “Montage and Architecture”, Assemblage 10, December 1989, 110-131.
16. W. Elliger, “Die Darstellung der Landschaft in der griechischen Dichtung,” Untersuchungen zur antiken Literatur und Geschichte 15 (Berlin, 1975).
17. H. R. Fairclough, Love of Nature among the Greeks and Romans (New York, 1930).
18. W. Filser, ‘Antike Terrassenheiligtümer: Monumentale Terrassentempel in der altägyptischen’, Antike Welt 2, 2013, 67-78.
19. J. Fontenrose, Python: A Study of Delphic Myth and its Origins (University of California Press, Berkeley, 1959).
20. P. Gros, “The Theory and Practice of Perspective in Vitruvius’ De architectura”, in M. Carpo and F. Lemerle (eds.), Perspective, Projections & Design, (Routledge, 2008) 1-17.
21. S. Güven, “Antik Vazo Betimlemelerinde Zaman ve Mekan Algısı”, in Ali Akın Akyol and Kameray Özdemir (eds. )Türkiye’de Arkeometrinin Ulu Çınarları Prof. Dr. Ay Melek Özer ve Şahinde Demirci’ye Armağan (Homer Kitabevi, 2012).
22. L.. Haselberger, “The Construction Plans for the Temple of Apollo at Didyma”, Scientific American, December 1985, 126-32.
23. M. Heinemann, Landschaftliche Elemente in der griechischen Kunst bis Polygnot (Bonn, 1910).
24. M .B. Hollinshead, Shaping Ceremony: Monumental Steps and Greek Architecture (University of Wisconsin Press, 2015)
25. M. B. Hollinshead, “Monumental Steps and the Shaping of Ceremony”, in B. D. Westcoat, and R. G. Ousterhout (eds.) Architecture of the Sacred: Space, Ritual, and Experience from Classical Greece to Byzantium (Cambridge University Press, 2012) 36-41.
26. J. D. Hughes, Environmental Problems of the Greeks and Romans (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2014).
27. J. D. Hughes, Pan’s Travail: Environmental Problems of the Ancient Greeks and Romans (Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994).
28. A. von Humboldt, Kosmos: Entwurf einer physischen Weltbeschreibung, Cosmos: A sketch of a Physical Description of Universe 2, E. C. Otté (trans.) (New York, 1844).
29. J. M. Hurwit, “The Representations of Nature in the Early Greek Art”, in D. Buitron-Oliver (ed.), New Perspectives in Early Greek Art, (National Gallery of Art, 1991) 33-62.
30. A. Jaquemin, Offrandes monumentales à Delphes (Paris, 1999)
31. İ. Üçer Karababa, “Bir Klasik Dönem Müzesi: Delfi’deki Apollon Kutsal Alanı”, in T. Elvan Altan and Sevil Enginsoy Ekinci (eds.) İnci Aslanoğlu için Bir Mimarlık Tarihi Dizimi (Ankara, 2019).
32. Kebric 1983 R. B. Kebric, The Paintings in the Knidian Lesche at Delphi and their Context (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1983)
33. G. S. Kirk - J. E. Raven - M. Schofield, The Presocratic Philosophers: A Critical History with a Selection of Texts (Cambridge University Press, 1975).
34. S. Kostof, “The Practice of Architecture in the Ancient World: Egypt and Greece”, in S. Kostof (ed.), The Architect: Chapters in History of Profession (Oxford University Press, 1977) 4-27.
35. E. W. Leach, The Rhetoric of Space: Literary and Artistic Representations of Landscape in Republican and Augustan Rome (Princeton University Press, 1988).
36. A. M. G. Little, Roman Perspective and the Ancient Stage (Star Press, Maine, 1971).
37. A. M. G. Little, “A Roman Source Book for the Stage”, American Journal of Archaeology 60, 1, 1956, 27-33.
38. A. M. G. Little, “Perspective and Scene Painting”, The Art Bulletin 19, 1937, 487-95.
39. A. M. G. Little, “Scaenographia”, The Art Bulletin 18, 3, 1936, 407-18.
40. A. M. G. Little, “The Decoration of Hellenistic Peristyle House in South Italy”, American Journal of Archaeology 39, 1935, 360-371.
41. E. Loran, Cezanne’s Composition (University of California Press, 1975).
42. H. F. Miller, Iconography of the Palm, unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation (University of California at Berkeley, 1979).
43. G. Murray, Greek and English Tragedy: A Contrast (Oxford, 1912).
44. H. Nicolson, Mountain Gloom and Mountain Glory: The Development of the Aesthetics of the Infinite (Ithaca, New York, 1959)
45. C. Norberg-Schulz, Genius Loci: Towards a Phenomenology of Architecture (New York, 1984).
46. C. Norberg-Schulz, The Meaning in Western Architecture (New York, 1975).
47. R. Osborne, Civilization: A New History of Western World (London, 2006).
48. E. Panofsky, Die Perspektive als ‘symbolishe Form,’ Perspective as Symbolic Form, C. S. Wood (trans.) (Zone Books, New York, 1991).
49. A. Perez-Gomez and L. Pelletier, Architectural Representation and the Perspective Hinge (The MIT Press, 2000).
50. P. M. Petsas, Delphi: Monuments and Museum (Athens, 2008).
51. J. J. Pollitt, The Ancient View of Greek Art (New Haven, 1974).
52. J. M. Redfield, Nature and Culture in Iliad: The Tragedy of Hector (Chicago, 1975).
53. E. Robbins, Why Architects Draw (The MIT Press, 1994).
54. P. Roesch, “La base des béotiennes à Delphes”, Comptes-Rendus des Séances: Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 128, 1, 1984, 177-95.
55. J. Ruskin, Modern Painters 3 (London, 1906).
56. J. C. F. von Schiller, “Über naive und sentimentalische Dichtung”, On the Naive and Sentimental in Literature, H. Watanabe-O’Kelly (trans.) (Manchester, 1981).
57. M. Scolari, Oblique Drawing: A History of Anti-Perspective (The MIT Press, 2012).
58. M. Scott, Delphi: A History of the Center of the Ancient World (Princeton University Press, 2014).
59. M. Scott, Delphi and Olympia: The Spatial Politics of Panhellenism in Archaic and Classical Periods (Cambridge University Press, 2010).
60. V. Scully, Architecture: The Natural and the Manmade (New York, 1991).
61. V. Scully, The Earth the Temple and the Gods; Greek Sacred Architecture (Yale University Press, 1965).
62. C. P. Segal, “Nature and the World of Man in Greek Literature”, Arion, 1963, 19-53.
63. R. Sinisgalli, Perspective in the Visual Culture of Classical Antiquity (Cambridge University Press, 2012)
64. J.P. Small, “Time in Space: Narrative in Classical Art”, The Art Bulletin 81, 4, 1999, 562-75.
65. A. M. Snodgrass, Narration and Allusion to Archaic Greek Art, J. L. Myres Memorial Lecture no. 11 (Leopard’s Head Press, London, 1982).
66. C. Sourvinou-Inwood, “Altars with Palm Trees: Palm Trees and Parthenoi”, Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies, 32, 1985, 125-146.
67. U. Soyöz, Drama on the Urban Stage: Architecture, Spectacles and Power in Hellenistic Pergamon, unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin.
68. M. D. Stansbury-O’Donnell, “Polygnotos’s Nekyia: A Reconstruction and Analysis”, American Journal of Archaeology 94, 1990, 213-35.
69. M. D. Stansbury-O’Donnell, “Polygnotos’s Iliupersis: A New Reconstruction,” American Journal of Archaeology 93, 1989, 203-15.
70. P. Stinson, Perspective Systems in Roman Second Style Wall Painting, American Journal of Archaeology 115, 2011, 403-26.
71. R. Tobin, “Ancient Perspective and Euclid’s Optics”, Journal of Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 53, 1990, 14-41.
72. J. M. C. Toynbee, The Art of Romans (Praeger, New York, 1965).
73. J. P. Vernant and P. Vidal-Naquet, Myth and Tragedy in Ancient Greece (New York, 1990).
74. A. Waterhouse, Boundaries of the City: The Architecture of Western Urbanism (University of Toronto Press, 1993).
75. B. Waywell, Landscape Elements in Greek Relief Sculpture, unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation (Cambridge University, 1969)
76. S. Wegener, Funktion und Bedeutung landschaftlicher Elemente in der griechischen Reliefkunst archaischer bis hellenistischer Zeit (Frankfurt, 198