SYMBOLIC DESIGN AND KITSCH PRODUCTION IN ARCHITECTURE IN A HYPERREAL POSTMODERN CONTEXT

Öz

Kitsch can be defined as the unimaginative product of a false relationship that the image, which is detached from the place, time, and context it belongs to, establishes with a different reality. Kitsch which tries to influence a large number of people by using the common values, expectations, and tastes of the consumer society in the hyperreal and multi-identity cultural environment of the postmodern age, leads to the rapid consumption of products with high emotional intensity and simplicity. The change in the dynamics of consumer culture and the rapid consumption of selective image production by society paved the way for kitsch production in architecture. In this study, using the document analysis method, the aesthetic, socio-cultural, economic and political dimensions of the kitsch phenomenon in architecture; It is aimed to reveal the reasons for the widespread use of kitsch in the post-modern period and its possible usage areas in architecture. In the postmodern world, the use of ready-made images and simulacra, loaded with connotations that take the pulse of the consumer, has become widespread over time in art and architecture. The main reasons for this situation are; the use of architecture as a propaganda tool, the impact of global capital on art and architecture, and the change in the tastes, needs, and preferences of the consumer. While kitsch aesthetics previously appealed to the subculture and middle class, in today's age where the continuity of consumption is considered important, now it is also among the preferences of the capital class, increasing its sphere of influence.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Kitsch
• Postmodernism
• Hyperreality
• Image use
• Consumption Culture
• Kitsch, Postmodernism, Hyperreality, Image use, Consumption Culture

Kaynakça

1. Akyıldız, E. C. (2020). Mimarlıkta kitsch ve estetik deneyim: Bosphorus city. Mimarlık ve Yaşam, 5(2), 517-528.
2. Balık, D., & Allmer, A. (2015). This is not a mountain!: simulation, imitation, and representation in the Mountain Dwellings project. Copenhagen. arq: Architectural Research Quarterly, 19(1), 30-40.
3. Berk, E. (2017). Halk zevki ve zevksizlik arasında: Bir kitsch sosyolojisine doğru . Journal of Ulakbilge Sosyal Bilimler, 5(14), 1205-1226.
4. Binkley, S. (2000). Kitsch as a repetitive system: a problem for the theory of taste hierarchy. Journal of material culture. 5(2), 131-152.
5. Birol, G. (2008). “Trafo” mu,“ev” mi? “Dekore edilen” trafo yapılarının düşündürdükleri. Journal of Megaron, 31-33.
6. Boratav, O., & Gürdal, N. (2017). Disegno’dan kitsche sanatta fikir. Journal of Art-Sanat(7), 197-206.
7. Bourdieu, P. (2018). Distinction a social critique of the judgement of taste. In Inequality Classic Readings in Race, Class, and Gender (s. 287-318). London: Routledge.
8. Congdon, K. G., & Blandy, D. (2005). What? Clotheslines and popbeads aren't trashy anymore?: Teaching about kitsch. Studies in Art Education, 46(3), 197-210.

9. Fındıklı, E. B. (2021). İdeolojik bir tema parkı olarak Eskişehir. Journal of Dîvân: Disiplinlerarası Çalışmalar(51), 81-113.
10. Fırat, A. F., & Ulusoy, E. (2011). Living a theme. Consumption markets & culture, 14(2), 193-202.
11. Garip, S. B., & Garip, E. (2015). Copying urban identity and pasting it on residential architecture:'themes' for gated settlements in İstanbul.
12. Greenberg, C. (2011). Avangart ve Kitsch. Sanat ve Kuram, 577-587.
13. Greg, C., & Molly, H. (2018). Faux real. Interiors, 9(1), 20-29.
14. Gurallar, N. (2016). Tarihselcilik-tarihsicilik [Historicism]: Bir mimarlık terminoloji tartışması ve 2000’ler Türkiyesinde tarihsici mimarlık. METU Journal of the Faculty of Architecture, 32(2).
15. İlkyaz, A. (2015). Çağdaş sanatın çıkmaz sokağı: Kitschin zaferi. İstanbul Aydın University Journal of the Faculty of Art, 1(1), 11-20. Kulka, T. (2015). Kitsch and art. Penn State Press.
16. Kuyrukçu, E. Y., & Kuyrukçu, Z. (2015). Mimarlıkta yer(sizliğ)in Antalya’daki turizm yapıları üzerinden incelenmesi. Journal of Mimaran, 9(12), 27-33.
17. Londos, E. (2006). Kitsch is dead—Long live garden gnomes. Home Cultures, 3(3), 293-306.
18. Miller, D. (2006). Things that bright up the place. Home Cultures, 3(3), 235-249.
19. Özaslan, N., & Akalın, N. (2011). Architecture and image: the example of Turkey. Middle Eastern Studies. 47(6), 911-922.
20. Özel, F. B., & Mumyakmaz, A. (2018). Max Horkheimer ve Theodor W. Adorno’da Modern İnsan ve Tüketim İdeolojisi. Akademik Hassasiyetler, 5(10), 61-82.
21. Remizova, O. (2020). Architectural memory and forms of its existence. Journal of Architecture and Urbanism, 44(2), 97-108.
22. Yurttaş, N. B., & Semiz, S. (2018). Turizm sektöründe yenilikçi bir yaklaşım: temalı otel tasarımı. Journal of Atlas, 13.