Gelenekselden Güncele, Temsil Kullanımında Araç-Amaç Ayrışması

Öz

Mimarlık yıllar içinde önemli değişimlere uğramıştır, ancak bu değişimler her zaman mesleki tartışmalara yansımamıştır. Mimarlıkta yenilik ve ilerleme görelilik içerse de mimara atfedilen semantik rollerdeki dönüşüm genellikle fark edilmez. Bu çalışma, mimarlığın disiplinlerarası bir yapıdan uzmanlaşmış bir disipline dönüşümünü analiz ederek yeni bir tartışma alanı açmaktadır. Mimarlıkta temsil, gelişmeye devam eden daha odaklı ve uzmanlaşmış bir uygulamaya yol açmıştır. Bu çalışma, mimari temsili ‘çizim’ kapsamıyla sınırlandırmış ve alan içinde mimari çizimin yarattığı değişimleri ve dönüşümleri incelemiştir. Derinlemesine bir literatür taraması yoluyla, çalışma 5. yüzyıldan 21. yüzyıla kadar mimarlığın temsilindeki temel kırılma noktalarını belirleyerek araç-amaç ayrımını vurgulamaktadır. Bu kırılma noktaları, zaman içinde mimarlıktaki anlam değişimlerine karşılık gelmektedir. Çalışmanın sonucunda oluşturulan sentez grafiği, mimarlık ve temsil arasındaki ilişkide anlam krizinin yansımasını ortaya koymaktadır. Bu bağlamda çalışma, mimarlık temsilinde mimarlığın salt inşaat faaliyetleriyle eş anlamlılığını ortadan kaldırarak, araç-amaç ayrımının tartışılmasına yeni bir zemin oluşturarak mimarlık pratiğinin gelişimine ve ilerlemesine önemli bir katkı sunmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Mimari temsil
• Çizim
• Yenilik
• Mimarın kimliği
• Mimarlığın anlamı

From Traditional to Contemporary, Means-End Definition in the Use of Representation

Öz

Architecture has undergone significant changes over the years, yet these changes are not always reflected in professional discussions. While innovation and progress in architecture involve relativity, the transformation in the semantic roles attributed to the architect often goes unnoticed. This study opens a new field of discussion by analysing the transformation of architecture from an interdisciplinary structure to a specialized discipline. In architecture, representation has led to a more focused and specialized practice that continues to evolve. This study limits architectural representation to the scope of ‘drawing’ and examined the changes and transformations created by architectural drawing within the field. Through an in-depth literature review, the study identifies key breaking points in the representation of architecture from the 5th to the 21st centuries, highlighting means-end distinction. These breaking points correspond to shifts in meaning in architecture over time. The synthesis graphic created as a result of the study reveals the projection of the meaning crisis in the relationship between architecture and representation. In this context, the study significantly contributes to the development and progress of architectural practice by creating a new basis for discussing the means-end distinction, thus eliminating the synonymy of architecture with mere construction activities in architectural representation.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Architectural representation
• Drawing
• Innovation
• Identity of the architect
• Meaning of architecture

Kaynakça

1. Aristotle. (2005). Metaphysics. South Dakota: Nu Vision Publications.
2. Avella, F. (2010). Drawing between History and Digital Innovation. In F. Schillaci (Ed.), Construction and Design Manual Architectural Renderings: History and Theory, Studios and Practices (pp. 9-68). Berlin: Dom Publisers.
3. Carpo, M. (2017). The Second Digital Turn: Design Beyond Intelligence. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
4. Ceylan, E. (2010). Modern Mimari Temsil ve Performans Aracı Olarak Diyagram [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Mimar Sinan Güzel Sanatlar University.
5. Chalk, W., Cook P., Greene, D., Crompton D., & Herron R. (2018). Archigram - The Book, Circa Press.
6. Colquhoun, A. (2002). Modern Architecture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
7. Cook, P. (1999). Archigram. New York: Princeton Architectural Press.
8. Cook, P. (2008). Drawing: The Motive Force of Architecture. UK: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

9. Cridge, N. P. (2015). Drawing The Unbuildable. New York: Routledge.
10. Diaz, Á. M. (2020). Vitruvio affigurato. Cesariano y el dibujo para el conocimiento. EGA Expresión Gráfica Arquitectónica, 25(40), 116-133. https://doi.org/10.4995/ega.2020.13312
11. Eisenman, P. (1998). Post-Functionalism. In M. Hays (Ed.), Architecture Theory Since 1968 (pp. 234- 239). Cambridge: The MIT Press.
12. Eisenman, P. (2013). Architecture After the Age of Printing. In M. Carpo (Ed.), The Digital Turn in Architecture 1992–2012: AD Reader , 15-27. UK: Wiley
13. Emmons, P. (2020). Drawing Imagining Building. London: Routledge.
14. Foucault, M. (2002). The Order of Things An Archaeology of The Human Sciences. London: Routledge.
15. Forty, A. (2004). Words and Buildings: A Vocabulary of Modern Architecture. London: Thames and Hudson Ltd.
16. Frearson, A. (2016). Patrik Schumacher Calls for Social Housing and Public Space to be Scrapped. Retrieved August 02, 2021, from https://www.dezeen.com/2016/11/18/patrik-schumacher-social-housing-public-space-scrapped-london-world-architecture-festival-2016
17. Hadid, Z. (2004). Laureate Acceptance Speech. Retrieved May 20, 2021, from https://www.pritzkerprize.com/sites/default/files/inline-files/2004_Acceptance_Speech.pdf
18. Hays, K. M. (2002). Foreword. In J. Baudrillard & J. Nouvel (Eds), The Singular Objects of Architecture, vii-xiii. Minnesota: The University of Minnesota Press.
19. Hill, J. (2006). Drawing Research. Journal of Architecture, vol.11, no.3, 329-333.
20. Holst, J. (2017). The Fall of the Tektōn and The Rise of the Architect: On The Greek Origins of Architectural Craftsmanship. Architectural Histories, 5(1), 5. https://doi.org/10.5334/ah.239
21. Jencks, C. (2013). Nonlinear Architecture (1997). In M. Carpo (Ed.), The Digital Turn in Architecture 1992–2012: AD Reader ,80-107. UK: Wiley.
22. Kostof, S. (1986a) The Practice Of Architecture. In S. Kostof (Ed.), The Architect, 3-27. New York: Oxford University Press.
23. Kostof, S. (1986b) The Architect in the Middle Ages, East and West. In S. Kostof (Ed.), The Architect, 59-95. New York: Oxford University Press.
24. Lefebvre, H. (1991). The Production of Space. Oxford: Blackwell.
25. Libeskind, (2021). Micromegas Drawings. Retrieved May 19, 2021, from https://libeskind.com/work/micromegas
26. Liu, K. (2014). The Technical Development of Architectural Drawing In Modern China, Frontiers of Architectural Research, 3(2), 108-120.
27. Mariabruna, F. (2015). Kazimir Malevich’s Arkhitektons. Retrieved May 20, 2021, from https://socks-studio.com/2015/07/15/kazimir-malevichs-arkhitektons
28. Mateo-Cecilia, C., Finichiu, A., & Braschi, C. (2018). Nomadics against parasites: subversive practices in the contemporary city. Arte, Individuo Y Sociedad, 30(1), 9-27. https://doi.org/10.5209/ARIS.53080
29. Mekking, A. (2009). The Architectural Representation of Reality: The Built Environment as the Materialization of a Mental Construct, In A. Mekking & E. Roose (Eds.), The Global Built Environment as a Representation of Realities, 23- 50. Amsterdam: Pallas Publications.
30. Melendez, F. (2019). Drawing from the Model: Fundamentals of Digital Drawing, 3D Modeling, and Visual Programming in Architectural Design. Wiley.
31. Metropolitan Museum of Art, (2021). Cubiculum (bedroom) from the Villa of P. Fannius Synistor at Boscoreale. Retrieved May 03, 2021, from https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/247017
32. Mitchell, W. & McCullough, M. (1995). Digital Design Media. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
33. Moussavi, F., & Zaera-Polo A. (2013). Yokohama International Port Terminal. In M. Carpo (Ed.), The Digital Turn in Architecture 1992–2012: AD Reader, 57-61. UK: Wiley.
34. Parnell, S. (2013). Drawings Museum by Speech Tchoban & Kuznetsov. Retrieved August 07, 2021, from https://www.architectural-review.com/buildings/museum/drawings-museum-by-speech-tchoban-and-kuznetsov-berlin/8655729.article
35. Peirce, C. S. (1994). A Second Trıchotomy of Sıgns. In A. W. Burks (Ed.), The Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, 247-250. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
36. Plato. (1995). Statesman. Warminster: Aris & Phillips.
37. Panofsky, E. (1993). Perspective as Symbolic Form. New York: Zone Books.
38. Perez-Gomez, A. (1982). Architecture as Drawing. JAE, 36(2), 2–7. https://doi.org/10.2307/1424613 Perez-Gomez, A. & Pelletier, L. (1992). Architectural Representation Beyond Perspectivism. Perspecta, 27, 21–39. https://doi.org/10.2307/1567174
39. Roose, E. (2009). Breaking Boundaries: Towards a Global Theory of Architectural Representation. In A. Mekking & E. Roose (Eds.), The Global Built Environment as a Representation of Realities: Why and How Architecture (p. 7-22). Amsterdam: Pallas Publications.
40. Semper, G. (1983). London Lecture of November 11, 1853. H. F. Mallgrave & J. Rykwert (Ed.), RES: Anthropology and Aesthetics. 6, 5- 31. https://doi.org/10.1086/RESv6n1ms20166696
41. Schumacher, P. (2009). Parametricism: A New Global Style for Architecture and Urban Design. Archit Design, 79: 14-23. https://doi.org/10.1002/ad.912
42. Tanyeli, U. (2000). Simülasyon Çağında Mimarlık ve Woods, In M. Ekincioğlu (Ed.), Lebbeus Woods, 8-15. İstanbul: Boyut Yayın
43. Tanyeli, U. (2001). Mimarisiz Temsiliyetten Temsiliyetin Mimarisine, In M. Ekincioğlu (Ed.), Daniel Libeskind, 7-16. İstanbul: Boyut Yayın.
44. Tanyeli, U. (2005). Ait Olduğu Çağ Bağlamında Archigram. Garanti Galeri Archigram Sergi Kataloğu (22 Kasım-31 Aralık 2005), İstanbul.
45. Tavernor, R. (2019) Barbaro’s Vitruvius in Context: Text, Figure, and Body. In K. Williams (Ed.), Daniele Barbaro’s Vitruvius of 1567, xxxix-xix. Switzerland: Birkhasuser.
46. Tschumi, B. (1996). Architecture and Disjunction. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
47. UCLA Digital Library, (2012). The Plan of St. Gall. Retrieved May 02, 2021, from http://www.stgallplan.org/en/index_plan.html
48. Vasari, G. (1907). Vasari on Technique: Being the Introduction to the Three Arts of Design, Architecture, Sculpture and Painting, Prefixed to the Lives of the Most Excellent Painters, Sculptors, and Architects. London: J. M. Dent Company.
49. Vesely, D. (2004). Architecture in the Age of Divided Representation: The Question of Creativity in the Shadow of Production. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
50. Vitruvius. (1931). On Architecture, Volume I, Books 1-5. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.