KAMUSAL SANAT VE KÜLTÜR EKSENLİ KENTSEL DÖNÜŞÜM

Yıl 2018, Cilt: 3 Sayı: 5, 0 - 0, 31.12.2018

Şebnem Gökçen

Öz

Kamusal sanatın 1980 sonrası dönemde kamusal alanda salt estetik bir dokunuş olmanın ötesinde sosyal bütünleşme ve mekânsal aidiyet duygusunu artırdığı, kentsel mekânların canlandırılmasına katkıda bulunduğu, yaşam kalitesini yükselttiği, kimlik vererek görünürlük yarattığı, ziyaretçi nüfusu, kültür aktörleri (yaratıcı sınıf) ve yatırımları çektiği ve kültür ekonomisiyle girdi teşkil eden faaliyetleri tamamlayıcı olduğu savunulmaktadır. Bu yönüyle kamusal sanat özellikle kültür eksenli dönüşüm süreçleri için bir deva misyonu taşımaya başlamıştır. Bu makalenin amacı kentlerin yüzünü 21. yüzyıla dönen duruşlarında kamusal sanatın ne şekilde ele alınabileceği ve kültür politikalarının nasıl işlev görebileceğine ilişkin uygulamaları ve ardındaki ilkesel çerçeveyi ortaya koymaktır. Bu doğrultuda öncelikle kamusal sanat olgusunun içeriğini belirli kategoriler çerçevesinde tartışmak, sonrasında farklı zaman ve coğrafyaların üretimi olan kimi örnekler üzerinden kamusal sanatın kentsel tasarım ve planlamadaki rolünü ortaya koymak ve kültür politikaları içerisinde kamusal sanatın kentsel yeniden yapılanma süreçleri ile nasıl ilişkilendirilmekte olduğunu tartışmak amaçlanmaktadır. Bugün kentlerin pazarlanma hedeflerinin kültür ekonomisi ile ilişkilendirilmesi doğrultusunda kamusal sanatın kentsel dönüşüm süreçleri içerisindeki yerine ilişkin tartışmalar “kültür/sanatın üretimi”, “kültür/sanat üreticileri”nin kentteki kalıcılığı ve “kültür/sanat tüketimi”nin kentsel ekonomik girdi boyutu olmak üzere üç temelde tartışılabilir. Burada, kültür/sanat alanlarına ilişkin üretim, tüketim ve yaratıcı işgücünün kültür-eksenli kentsel dönüşüm için esas algoritmayı oluşturduğu söylenebilecektir. Ancak kültür-eksenli kentsel dönüşümün kültür/sanata ve sanatçılara/tasarımcılara atfettiği rol değişkendir ve sanat ve sanatçıların kentlerin yenilenmesinde/dönüşümünde bir dinamo etkisi yaratmaları amaçlı sürece dahil edilmelerine karşın imaj ve kimlik hedefleri ile dönüşen kentsel mekanlardaki yeni düzenin sonrasında yerel sanat gruplarının ekonomik sistem dışı bırakılması söz konusudur. Kamusal sanatın artan önemi ve etkinliği açısından neredeyse küresel ölçekli bir fikir birliği olmasına karşın, ortaya çıkan resim pürüzsüz olmayıp, benimsenen deva misyonunun ardında çözümlenmesi gereken sorun alanlarının bu anlamda farkında olunmalıdır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

kamusal sanat, kültür-eksenli kentsel dönüşüm, yaratıcı kent, kültür ekonomisi

Kaynakça

• Alvarez, F. (2005) Waterfronts of Art, Technologies of Information, Interactivity and Public Art. Remesar, A. (Ed.) Urban Regeneration A Challenge for Public Art içinde (97-102). Barcelona: University of Barcelona. Alves. T. (2007). Art, Light and Landscape New Agendas for Urban Development. European Planning Studies. 15(9). 1247-1260. Ashley, A.J. (2017). Examining an Alternative Take on Urban Development: The Alignment of Public Art and Conservation to Build Seattle’s Olympic Sculpture Park. Journal of Urban History. 43(3). 493-516. Balkır, N. ve Kuru, A.Ş. (2016). Sokak Sanatı ve Grafitinin Pedagojik Bir Yöntem olarak İşlerliği. İdil, 5(26). 1645-1658. Bianchini, F., (1993a). ‘Remaking European cities: the role of cultural policies’, F. Bianchini ve M. Parkinson (eds.) Cultural Policy and Urban Regeneration içinde (1-19). Manchester: Manchester University Press. Bianchini, F. & Parkinson, M. (1993b). Cultural Policy and Urban Regeneration: The West European Experience. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Blair, J.M., Pijawka, K.D., & Steiner, F., (1998). Public Art in Mitigation Planning: The Experience of the Squaw Peak Parkway in Phoenix. Journal of the American Planning Association, 64(2). 221-235. Bovaird, T. (2005). Public Art in Urban Regeneration: An Economic Assessment. Remesar, A. (Ed.)Urban Regeneration A Challenge for Public Art içinde (116-127). Barcelona: University of Barcelona. Boynudelik, Z, ve Eğrikavuk, I. (2006). Kamusal Sanat Pratikleri ve Temporary Services, Arredamento Mimarlık, 193, 116-120, İstanbul. Butler, T. (2007). Re-urbanizing London Docklands: Gentrification, Suburbanization or New Urbanism? International Journal of Urban and Regional Research. 31(4). 759-781. Cameron, S. & Coaffee, J. (2005). Art, Gentrification and Regeneration – From Artist as Pioneer to Public Arts. European Journal of Housing Policy, 5(1). 39-58. Cervinkova, H. (2013) The Kidnapping of Wroclaw’s Dwarves: The Symbolic Politics of Neoliberalism in Urban East-Central Europe. East European Politics and Societies and Culture. 27(4). 743-756. Chicago Public Art Plan, (2017). Chicago Belediyesi Resmi Websitesi. 07.10.2018. https://www.cityofchicago. org/content/dam/city/depts/dca/yopa/publicartplan17.pdf. Cork, R. (1991). Art in the City. M. Fisher & U. Owen, Whose Cities? Harmondsworth, Penguin. Çağlın, P. 2010. Kamusal Sanat ve Kent İlişkisi. İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi. 07 Ekim 2018. https://polen.itu.edu.tr/bitstream/11527/2316/1/10697. pdf. Deutsche, R. (1996). Evictions: art and spatial politics. Cambridge: MIT Press.Eustice, K. (2018). 5 Pointz Graffiti Artists Awarded $6.7M For Whitewashed Art In “Groundbreaking” Case. HiphopDX., 12 Ekim 2018. https://hiphopdx.com/news/id.45138/title.5-pointz-graffiti-artists-awardeddamages-for-whitewashed-art-in-groundbreaking-case#. Fabian, M. (2010). Towards integrating public art in Malaysian urban landscape. Pertanika J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. s. 251-264. Ferdinand Richard, İzmir Kültür Platformu İletişim Toplantısı Sunumu, 13.10.2018, İzmir Akdeniz Akademisi, İzmir. Finkelpearl, T. (2000). Dialogues in Public Art. Cambridge, London: MIT Press. Fleming, R. L. (2007). The Art of Placemaking: Interpreting Community through Public Art and Urban Design. London, New York: Merrell. Florida, R. (2002). The Rise of the Creative Class: and how it’s Transforming Work, Leisure, Community and Everyday Life. New York: Basic Books. Monclús, F.-J. (2003). The Barcelona Model: And An Original Formula? From ‘reconstruction’ to strategic urban projects (1979–2004). Planning Perspectives. 18(4). 399-421. Grodach, C. (2008). Looking Beyond Image and Tourism: The Role of Flagship Cultural Projects in Local Arts Development. Planning Practice & Research, 23(4). 495–516. Hall, T. & Robertson, I. (2001). Public Art and Urban Regeneration: Advocacy, Claims and Critical Debates Landscape Research. 26(1). 5–26. Hall, T. & Smith, C. (2005). Public Art in the City: Meanings, Values, Attitudes and Roles. Interventions. Advances in Art and Urban Futures, 175–179. Hamilton J., Forsyth L. & De Iongh, D. (2001). Public Art: A Local Authority Perspective. Journal of Urban Design. 6(3). 283- 296. Harvey, D. (2000). Spaces of Hope, Berkeley CA: University of California Press. Harvey, D. & Verwijnen, J. (2008). Public art and urban development. 07 Ekim 2018. http://www.eliaartschools. org/_downloads/publications/EJAE/2000/economy/Harvey__Verwijnen.pdf Hein, H. (2006). Public art: Thinking museums differently. Lanham: AitaMira Press. IFACCA (International Federation of Arts Councils and Culture Agencies) (2016). D’Art Report 49: International Culture Networks. A. Laaksonen., IFACCA. 17 Ekim 2018. http://media.ifacca.org/files/ DArt49_International_Culture_Networks.pdf. IstanbulArtNews, (2018). Sanat Eseri mi, Değil mi! IstanbulArtNews, Nisan 2018. 51. 12-14. Jacob, J., (1995). An unfashionable audience. Lacy, S. (Ed) Mapping the Terrain: New Genre Public Art,içinde (50-59). Seattle, Washington: Bay Press. Jasmi, M.F. & Mohamad, N.H.N. (2016). Roles of Public Art in Malaysian Urban Landscape towards Improving Quality of Life: Between aesthetic and functional value. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 222. 872-880. KEA (KernEuropeanAffairs), (2006). The Economy of Culture in Europe. Brussels: European Commission/ KEA. KEA (KernEuropeanAffairs), (2009). The Impact of Culture on Creativity. Brussels: EuropeanCommission/ KEA. KEA (KernEuropeanAffairs) & EuroCities, (2016) Successful Investments in Culture in European Cities and Regions: A catalogue of Case Studies. Culture for Cities and Regions. 11 Ekim 2018. http://nws. eurocities.eu/MediaShell/media/Catalogue_09112016-2.pdf.. Keshner, A. (2017). 5 Pointz artists awarded damages for whitewashed graffiti at L.I.C. art mecca. NY Daily News. 7 Ekim 2018. http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/5-pointz-artists-awarded-damageswhitewashed-graffiti-article-1.3617903. Erişim tarihi:17.10.2018. Art. (Ed.) Seattle, Washington: Bay Press. Landry, C., Greene, L., Matarosso, F. & Bianchini, F. (1996) The Art of Regeneration: Urban Renewal through Cultural Activity. Stroud: Comedia. Landry, C. (2000). The Creative City: a toolkit for urban innovators. (2nd.) London: Comedia. Markussen, A. & Gadwa, A. (2010) Creative Placemaking. Washington. 11 Ekim 2018http://arts.gov/pub/ pubDesign.php. Miles, M. (1997). Art, Space and the City: Public Art and Urban Futures, London and New York: Routledge. McCarthy, J. (2006). Regeneration of Cultural Quarters: Public Art for Place Image or Place Identity. Journal of Urban Design, 11(2). 243-262. Morris, H. (2016). The Polish City That’s Home to 163 Anti-Communist Dwarves. Telegraph. 17 Ekim 2018. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/destinations/europe/poland/wroclaw/articles/wroclaw-dwarves-theanti-communist-protest-movement-tourist-map-why-history/. Musca, T. (2017). How Developers Turned Graffiti Into a Trojan Horse For Gentrification. ArcDaily. 19 Eylül 2018. https://www.archdaily.com/871531/5-pointz-how-developers-turned-graffiti-into-a-trojan-horsefor-gentrification. Neuendorf, H. (2018). Street Artist Revok and H&M Settle Dispute Over an Ad That Featured His Work Without Permission., ArtNetNews, 7 Eylül 2018. https://news.artnet.com/art-world/revok-hm-adcampaign-1345127. Özdemir, D. (2005) Kent Merkezinde Kültür Eksenli Bir Dönüşüm Projesi: Temple Bar, Dublin, Arredamento Mimarlık, Mart, 98-105. Palermo, L. (2014). The Role of Art in Urban Gentrification and Regeneration: Aesthetic, Social and Economic Developments. Il Capitale Culturale: Studies on the Value of Cultural Heritage. 10. 521- 545. Remesar, A. (2005). Public Art: Towards a theoretical framework, Remesar, A. (Ed.) Urban Regeneration A Challenge for Public Art içinde (128-140). Barcelona: University of Barcelona. Rendell, J., (2006). Art and Architecture: A Place Between. New York: IB Tauris & Co Ltd.. Portland Public Art Committee. (2009). City of Portland, maine guidelines for the public art ordinance. 07 Ekim 2018. http://www.portlandmaine.gov/DocumentCenter/View/3418/Public-Art-Guidelines?bidId= Senie, H., & Webster, S. (1988). Critical Issues in Public Art: Content, Context, and Controversy. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press. Sharp, J., Pollock, V., & Paddison, R. (2005). Just Art for a Just City: Public Art and Social Inclusion in Urban Regeneration. Urban Studies, 42 (5/6). 1001–1023. Stein, E. (2017) The Cheeky Gnomes Taking Over Wraclow. BBC Travel. 17 Ekim 2018. http://www.bbc.com/ travel/story/20171017-the-truth-behind-wrocaws-cheeky-gnomes. Suwaidi, M.A.& Furlan, R. (2017). The Role of Public Art and Culture in New Urban Environments: The Case of Katara Cultural Village in Qatar. Architectural Research, 7(4). 109-122. Szymanski-Düll, B. (2015). Strategies of Protest from Wroclaw: The Orange Alternative or the Riot of the Gnomes. Journal of Urban History. 41(4). 665-678. Şengünalp, C. ve Doğruer, N. E. (2017). Kentsel Yeniden Canlandırma Modelinde Kültür ve Sanatın Yeri. idil, 6 (32).1337-1358. Tornaghi, C. (2007). Questioning the Social Aims of Public Art in Urban Regeneration Initiatives. The case of Newcastle upon Tyne and Gateshead (UK). Newcastle. 12 Ekim 2018. https://www.ncl.ac.uk/media/ wwwnclacuk/globalurbanresearchunit/files/electronicworkingpapers/ewp42.pdf. Trans Europe Halles, (2002) Factories of the Imagination. TEH Network. 17 Ekim 2018. http://teh.net/wpcontent/uploads/2016/01/Factories-of-Imagination-1.pdf - http://teh.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/ Factories-of-Imagination-2.pdf. UNCTAD& UNDP. (2008). Creative Economy Report 2008: The Challenge of Assessing the Creative Economy: Towards Informed Policy-Making. UNCTAD/DITC/2008/2. Geneva: United Nations. UNCTAD (2010). The Creative Economy Report 2010: Creative Economy: A Feasible Development Option. UNCTAD/DITC/TAB/2010/3. Geneva: United Nations. 11 Ekim 2018. http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/ ditctab20103_en.pdf. UNESCO - EY - CISAC. (2015) Cultural Times: The first global map of cultural and creative industries. (UNESCO - International Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers -CISAC and EY.) 11 Ekim 2018. http://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/ey-cultural-times-2015/$FILE/ey-culturaltimes-2015.pdf UNESCO – UNDP – UN. (2013). Creative Economy Report 2013 Special Edition: Widening Local Development Pathways. (2013). 11 Ekim 2018. http://www.unesco.org/culture/pdf/creative-economy-report-2013.pdf ; http://academy.ssc.undp.org/creative-economy-report-2013. UNESCO. (2016). Culture, Urban, Future: Global Report on Culture for Sustainable Urban Development. Paris, France: UNESCO. 11 Ekim 2018. http://www.unesco.org/culture/culture-for-sustainable-urbandevelopment/pdf-open/global-Report_en.pdf. UNIDO (2015). Mapping of Clusters in Cultural and Creative Industries in the Southern Mediterranean. United Nations Industrial Development Organization Reference Report 1013518. 11 Ekim 2018. ec.europa.eu/ DocsRoom/documents/9147/.../1/.../en/.../pdf. URL-1. Public Art: Architecture, Sculpture, Painting and Decorative Designs for the General Public. 07 Ekim 2018. http://www.visual-arts-cork.com/public-art.htm. URL -2. Bjarke Ingels Group Instagram hesabı yayını. 11 Mart 2018. Dome Bridge.https://www.instagram. com/p/BgL6SCQndAV/?utm_source=ig_share_sheet&igshid=b5idfr86cpih. Wang, L. (2016). Ai Weiwei covers Berlin concert hall with 14,000 refugee life jackets. Inhabitat. 17 Ekim 2018. https://inhabitat.com/ai-weiwei-covers-berlin-concert-hall-with-14000-refugee-life-jackets/. Yardımcı, S. (2005). Kentsel Değişim ve Festivalizm: Küreselleşen İstanbul’da Bienal. Cağaloğlu, İstanbul: İletişim.