Nesne Yönelimli Ontoloji Perspektifinden Chichu Sanat Müzesi’nin Ontolojik Analizi

Öz

Bu çalışma, Nesne Yönelimli Ontoloji (NYO) kuramı temelinde, mimari nesneyi insan merkezli temsil ve deneyim odaklı yaklaşımların ötesinde konumlandıran ontolojik bir analiz yöntemi geliştirmeyi amaçlamaktadır.Tadao Ando’nun Chichu Sanat Müzesi (CSO) NYO kuramından hareketle geliştirilen beş kavramsal analiz parametresi (Ontolojik Otonomi, Maddenin Ontolojisi, Negatif Boşluklar, Eş-Düzlemli Gerilimler, Zaman-Dışı Derinlik) ışığında kavramsal olarak incelenmiştir. Analizler, mimari nesnelerin yalnızca biçimsel ya da işlevsel değil, kendi başlarına özerk bir varlık olarak anlam üretebildiğini ortaya koymaktadır. Işık, boşluk, malzeme ve yüzeymimari ögeler olarak, insan dışı aktörler olarak yapıların ontolojik derinliğini belirler. Bu bağlamda çalışma, mimarlık eleştirisine nesnelerin içkin potansiyelleri üzerinden yeni bir bakış sunmakta ve mimari nesneleri temsilin ötesinde, kendi varlık kiplerinde değerlendirmeyi önermektedir. Elde edilen bulgular, NYO’nun mimari düşünceyi dönüştürme potansiyelini ortaya koyarken, gelecekte farklı bağlamlara uygulanabilecek çoğul bir analiz zemini oluşturur.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Nesne Yönelimli Ontoloji (NYO)
• Chichu Sanat Müzesi
• Tadao Ando
• Mimari Ontolojik Analiz
• İnsan-merkezcilik eleştirisi

Ontological Analysis of the Chichu Art Museum from an Object-Oriented Ontology Perspective

Öz

This study aims to develop an ontological analysis method—based on the Object-Oriented Ontology (OOO) theory—that positions the architectural object beyond human-centered representations and experience-focused approaches. Tadao Ando’s Chichu Art Museum (CSO) has been conceptually examined in light of five conceptual analysis parameters (Ontological Autonomy, Ontology of Matter, Negative Voids, Coplanar Tensions, and Timeless Depth) developed from the OO theory. The analyses reveal that architectural objects can generate meaning not only through their formal or functional aspects but also as autonomous entities in their own right. Light, void, material, and surface—as architectural elements—determine the ontological depth of structures as non-human actors. In this context, the study offers a new perspective on architectural criticism through the intrinsic potentials of objects and proposes evaluating architectural objects not merely as representations but in their own modes of being. The findings highlight NYO’s potential to transform architectural thought while establishing a pluralistic analytical framework that can be applied to diverse contexts in the future.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Object-Oriented Ontology
• Chichu Art Museum
• Tadao Ando
• Architectural ontological analysis
• Critique of anthropocentrism

Kaynakça

1. Ando, T. (2012). Tadao Ando: Conversations with students. (M. Hunter, Çev.) Princeton Architectural Press.
2. Bedford, J. (2020). Is there an object oriented architecture?: Engaging Graham Harman. Bloomsbury Academic.
3. Bennett, J. (2010). Vibrant matter: A political ecology of things. Duke University Press.
4. Bennett, J. (2024). Canlı madde: Şeylerin politik ekolojisi. (B. Ağın, Çev.). Akademim Yayıncılık.
5. Bogost, I. (2012). Alien phenomenology, or what it’s like to be a thing. University of Minnesota Press.
6. Braune, S. (2020). Fetish-oriented ontology. Open Philosophy, 3, 298-313. https://doi.org/10.1515/opphil-2020-0101
7. Bryant, L. R. (2011). The democracy of objects. Open Humanities Press.
8. Bryant, L. R. (2014). Onto-cartography: An ontology of machines and media. Edinburgh University Press.

9. Bryant, L., Srnicek, N., & Harman, G. (Eds.). (2011). The speculative turn: Continental materialism and realism. re.press.
10. Clarkson, P. (2006). Constructing Ando—Building of the Pulitzer Foundation for the Arts: An owner's representatives view. Structures Congress 2006 (ss. 1-10). American Society of Civil Engineers. https://doi.org/10.1061/40889(201)115
11. Farhady, M., & Nam, J. (2011). Thresholds in the pluralistic architecture of Tadao Ando. Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering, 10(1), 31–36. https://doi.org/10.3130/jaabe.10.31
12. Gannon, T., Harman, G., Ruy, D., & Wiscombe, T. (2015). The object turn: A conversation. Log (33),73-94.
13. Göçmen, D. (2021). Materyalizm. M. A. Y. Saraç (Ed.), Sosyal bilimler ansiklopedisi (Cilt 1, A–E). TÜBİTAK Bilim ve Toplum Başkanlığı Popüler Bilim Yayınları. https://ansiklopedi.tubitak.gov.tr/ansiklopedi/materyalizm
14. Güleç, G. (2024). Discussing the object-oriented ontology of Harman and the changing status of architectural object. GRID - Architecture Planning and Design Journal, 7(2), 571-590. https://doi.org/10.37246/grid.1384492
15. Harman, G. (2002). Tool Being Heidegger and the metaphysics of objects. Open Court.
16. Harman, G. (2005). Guerrilla metaphysics: Phenomenology and the carpentry of things. Open Court.
17. Harman, G. (2011). The road to objects. Continent, 1(3), 171–179.
18. Harman, G. (2013). An outline of object oriented philosophy. Science Progress, 96(2), 187–199. https://doi.org/10.3184/003685013X13691199842803
19. Harman, G. (2017). Object-oriented ontology and commodity fetishism: Kant, Marx, Heidegger, and things. Eidos. A Journal for Philosophy of Culture, (2), 28–36. https://doi.org/10.26319/2913
20. Harman, G. (2018). Object-oriented ontology: A new theory of everything. Pelican Books.
21. Harman, G. (2022). Architecture and objects. University of Minnesota Press.
22. Heidegger, M. (1971). Building, dwelling, thinking. İçinde A. Hofstadter (Çev.), Poetry, language, thought (ss. 141–160). Harper & Row. (Özgün eserin yayın tarihi: 1951)
23. Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford University Press.
24. Meillassoux, Q. (2008). After finitude: An essay on the necessity of contingency (R. Brassier, Çev.). Continuum. (Özgün eserin yayın tarihi: 2006)
25. Merleau-Ponty, M. (2017). Algının fenomenolojisi (E. Sarıkartal & E. Hacımuratoğlu, Çev.). İthaki Yayınları. (Özgün eserin yayın tarihi: 1945)
26. Morton, T. (2013). Hyperobjects: Philosophy and ecology after the end of the world. University of Minnesota Press. Pallasmaa, J. (2005). The eyes of the skin: Architecture and the senses. Wiley-Academy.
27. Picon, A. (2003). Architecture and the virtual: Towards a new materiality? Thesis: Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Bauhaus-Universität Weimar, (3), 107–111.
28. Rossi, A. (2006). Şehrin mimarisi (N. Gürbilek, Çev.). Kanat Kitap. (Özgün eserin yayın tarihi: 1966)
29. Shiner, L. (2007). Architecture vs. art: The aesthetics of art museum design. Contemporary Aesthetics, 5. https://hdl.handle.net/2027/spo.7523862.0005.009
30. Shirazi, M. (2012). An investigation on Tadao Ando's phenomenological reflections. Armanshahr Architecture & Urban Development, 5(8), 21–31.
31. Soja, E. W. (2019). Postmodern coğrafyalar: Eleştirel toplumsal teoride mekanın yeniden ileri sürülmesi (Y. Çetin, Çev.). Sel Yayıncılık. (Özgün eserin yayın tarihi: 1989)
32. Zumthor, P. (2010). Thinking architecture (3rd expanded ed.). Birkhäuser.
33. Url 1: https://archeyes.com/chichu-art-museum-by-tadao-ando-light-and-space/ Erişim tarihi: 10.11.2025
34. Url 2: https://ar.pinterest.com/pin/242912973646440230/ Erişim tarihi: 10.11.2025
35. Url 3: https://www.magnificentworld.com/things-to-do-naoshima-japan/ Erişim tarihi: 16.11.2025
36. Url 4: https://unpointculture.wordpress.com/2016/02/16/larchitecture-comme-paysage-et-lieu-de-loeuvre-tadao-ando-au-chichu-art-museum-de-naoshima/ Erişim tarihi: 16.11.2025
37. Url 5: https://japan-almanach.de/shikoku/kagawa/naoshima/ Erişim tarihi: 16.11.2025
38. Url 6: https://pin.it/1FdAm1kue Erişim tarihi: 20.11.2025
39. Url 7: https://pin.it/6S0jPB4pR Erişim tarihi: 20.11.2025