Discussing the object-oriented ontology of Harman and the changing status of architectural object

Yıl 2024, Cilt: 7 Sayı: 2, 571 - 590, 30.10.2024

Gülşah Güleç

https://doi.org/10.37246/grid.1384492

Öz

Object-oriented ontology, particularly the object-oriented ontology of Harman, affects architecture since the 1990s. It is realized due to this ontology that architectural object cannot only be a real or sensual object; it can be withdrawn from senses and relations. According to Harman’s object-oriented ontology, it is even independent from its environment. Hence object-oriented ontology is related to computer architecture by which objects are independently created within a computational and virtual environment. But it is not possible to literally adapt object-oriented ontology to architecture since architectural objects are generally bound up with formal and environmental relations. This ontology metaphorically affects architecture in such a way that architects see and realize object as an entity beyond its relations. Thus, they focus on the object itself. Digital technologies enable them to create architectural object composed of information not relation. There is accordingly a shift from relation to information in the architecture of the 2000s. The main contribution of the paper is to reveal this shift in contemporary architecture; so, it is discussed in the paper that object does not relate to anything but information in the digital age. It is the autonomous and information-oriented object that defines a new ontological framework for architects.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Architectural object, Digital object, Garaham Harman, Object-oriented ontology

Harman’ın nesne yönelimli ontolojisini ve mimari nesnenin değişen vaziyetini tartışmak

Öz

Nesne yönelimli ontoloji, bilhassa Harman’ın ontolojisi, 1990lardan beri mimarlığı etkilemektedir. Nesne yönelimli ontoloji sayesinde mimari nesnenin sadece gerçek ya da duyusal bir nesne olmadığı aynı zamanda duyulardan ve ilişkilerden bağımsız olarak var olabildiği fark edilmiştir. Harman’ın nesne yönelimli ontolojisi, nesnenin çevresinden de bağımsız olabildiğini göstermiştir. Bu yüzden nesne yönelimli ontoloji, nesnelerin sanal bir ortamda ve çevresinden bağımsız olarak tasarlandığı bilgisayar destekli mimari tasarımla ilişkilendirilmiştir. Ancak nesne yönelimli ontolojiyi tam olarak mimarlığa uyarlamak mümkün değildir; çünkü mimari nesneler genellikle biçimsel ve çevresel ilişkilere sahiptir. Yani, bu ontoloji, mimarlığı metaforik olarak etkilemektedir; öyle ki, mimarlar nesneleri sahip oldukları ilişkilerin ötesine geçebilen varlıklar olarak görebilmiştir. Böylece nesnenin kendisine odaklanabilmişlerdir. Dijital teknolojiler ise mimarların ilişkilerden değil bilgiden oluşan mimari nesneler yaratabilmesine aracılık etmiştir. Buna bağlı olarak, 2000li yılların mimarlığında ilişkiden bilgiye doğru yaşanan bir değişim gerçekleşmiştir. Makalenin mimarlık literatürüne olan en önemli katkısı çağdaş mimarlıkta gerçekleşen bu değişimi ve içinde bulunduğumuz dijital çağda nesnenin bilgiyle olan ilişkisini ortaya koymasıdır. Burada bahsedilen, mimarlar için yeni bir ontolojik çerçeve tanımlayan özerk ve bilgi yönelimli nesnedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Mimari Nesne, Dijital Nesne, Graham Harman, Nesne Yönelimli Ontoloji

Kaynakça

• Allen, S. (1997). From object to field. Architectural Design, 67(5-6), 24-33.
• Allen, M. (2018). The inner life of things: Object-oriented architecture, programming and ontology. SCAPEGOAT: Architecture|Landscape|Political Economy, 1(11), 108-129.
• Antoine, P. (2004). Architecture and the virtual: Towards a new materiality. Praxis: Journal of Writing + Building, 1(6), 114-121.
• Aureli, P. V. (2004). Architecture and content: Who's afraid of the form-object? Log, 1(3), 29-36.
• Baudrillard, J. & Nouvel, J. (2002). The singularity of objects (R. Bononno, Trans.). Minneapolis: The University of Minnesota Press.
• Bernier-Lavigne, S. (2016). The material modulation of objects. ACSA Fall Conference: Between the Autonomous & Contingent Object (pp. 268-276). Washington: ACSA Press.
• Deleuze, G & Guattari, F. (1987). A thousand plateaus. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
• Eisenman, P. (1984). The futility of objects: Decomposition and the processes of differentiation. Harvard Architecture Review, 1(3), 64–81.
• Gage, M. F. (2015). Killing simplicity: Object-oriented philosophy in architecture. Log, 1(33), 95-106.
• Gannon, T., Harman, G., Ruy, D. & Wiscombe, T. (2015). The object turn: A conversation. Log, 1(33), 73-94.
• Goldberger, P. (2009). Why architecture matters. New Haven: Yale University Press.
• Guarino, N., Oberle, D., Staab, S. (2009). What is an ontology? In S. Staab, R. Studer (Eds.), Handbook on Ontologies (pp. 1-17). Berlin: Springer.
• Hale, J. (2020). Buildings as objects and buildings as tool-being. In J. Bedford (Eds.), Is There an Object-Oriented Architecture? Engaging Graham Harman (pp. 89-110). London: Bloomsbury Publishing.
• Harman, G. (2013). An outline of object-oriented philosophy. Science Progress (1933-), 96(2), 187-199.
• Harman, G. (2020). What objects mean for architecture? In J. Bedford (Eds.), Is There an Object-Oriented Architecture? Engaging Graham Harman (pp. 15-38). London: Bloomsbury Publishing.
• Harman, G. (2022). Architecture and objects: Art after nature. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
• Hartoonian, G. (2006). Crisis of the object. New York: Routledge.
• Hui, Y. (2012). What is a digital object? Metaphilosophy, 43(4), 380-395.
• Hui, Y. (2016). On the existence of digital objects. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
• Koetter, F. & Rowe, C. (1980). The crisis of the object: The predicament of texture. Perspecta, 1(16), 108-141.
• Luhmann, N. (1995). Social systems (J Bcdnarz, D Baecker, Trans.). California: Stanford University Press.
• Ruy, D. (2012). Returning to (strange) objects. In S. Ruel-Bergeron (Eds.), Not Nature (pp. 38-42). New York: Pratt Institute.
• Schumacher, P. (2012). Architecture’s next ontological innovation. In S. Ruel-Bergeron (Eds.), Not Nature (pp. 100-107). New York: Pratt Institute.
• Schumacher, P. (2012) The autopoiesis of architecture II: A new agenda for architecture. Chichester: Wiley Publications.
• Schumacher, P. (2018). A critique of object-oriented architecture. In M. Benedikt, K. Bieg (Eds.), The Secret Life of Buildings (pp. 70-89). Austin: Center for American Architecture and Design.
• Weir, S. & Harman, G. (2021). Architecture and object-oriented ontology: Simon Weir in conversation with Graham Harman. ISPA, 5(2), 56-77.