Gündelik Kentsel ‘Cool’luğun Görselleştirilmesi: İstanbul’un Resmî Destinasyon İmgeleri Üzerine Göstergebilimsel Bir Analiz

Öz

Bu çalışma, İstanbul’un destinasyon imajının gündelik sahneler ve kompozisyonel tercihler aracılığıyla nasıl bir gündelik kentsel “coolness” inşa ettiğini incelemektedir. Analiz, GoTürkiye platformunda yer alan “Istanbul Bucket List” bölümündeki durağan fotoğraflara dayanmakta ve amaçlı olarak seçilen bir örneklem, görsel dilbilgisi ile bütünleştirilen bir semiyolojik okuma çerçevesinde yorumlanmaktadır. Gayriresmî sosyalleşme, rutin hareketlilik, gündelik tüketim ve içinde yaşanan kentsel mekânlara ilişkin tekrar eden temsiller, tutarlı bir temsil repertuarı oluşturmaktadır. İzleyici konumlandırması; dolaylı bakış, göz hizası perspektifi, ağırlıklı olarak orta sosyal mesafe ve açık kadraj aracılığıyla şekillenmekte, böylece hem yakınlık hem de gözlemci bir duruş kurulmaktadır. İncelenen görsel bütün içerisinde arzu edilirlik; erişilebilirlik, toplumsal canlılık ve ziyaretçiler için hâlihazırda kullanılan bir şehir algısı üzerinden iletilirken, ikonik unsurlar ikincil bir konumda tutulmaktadır. Bulgular, platformların gündelik yaşamı davetkâr ve paylaşılabilir kurgulayarak katılımı nasıl olağanlaştırdığını ortaya koymaktadır. Çalışma, gündelikliğin iletişimsel olarak etkili hâle gelmesini sağlayan görsel araçları ayrıntılandırarak ve bu araçların gündelik kentsel pratiklerle etkileşimi üzerinden anlamın nasıl şekillendiğini göstererek bu perspektifi geliştirmektedir. Bu yönüyle çalışma, destinasyon imajı, kentsel özgünlük ve temsil üretimi olarak “coolness” literatürüne katkı sunmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Destinasyon imajı
• Görsel dilbilgisi
• Gündelik kentsel yaşam
• Kentsel coolness
• Toplumsal semiyotik

Visualising Everyday Urban Coolness: A Semiological Analysis of Istanbul’s Official Destination Imagery

Öz

This study examines how Istanbul’s destination imagery constructs everyday urban coolness through ordinary scenes and compositional choices. The analysis draws on still photographs from the “Istanbul Bucket List” on GoTürkiye and interprets a purposive sample using an integrated semiological reading with visual grammar. Recurrent depictions of informal socialising, routine mobility, everyday consumption, and lived streetscapes form a consistent representational repertoire. Viewer positioning is shaped through indirect gaze, eye level viewpoints, predominantly medium social distance, and open framing, which create proximity and an observational stance. Across the corpus, desirability is communicated through accessibility, social vibrancy, and the sense of a city already in use for visitors, with iconic references kept secondary. The findings clarify how platforms normalise participation by framing everyday life as inviting and shareable. The study advances this perspective by detailing the visual devices that render ordinariness communicatively effective and by showing how their interaction with everyday urban practices shapes meaning. In this way, it contributes to research on destination imagery, urban authenticity, and coolness as a form of representational production.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Destination imagery
• Everyday urban life
• Social semiotics
• Urban coolness
• Visual grammar

Kaynakça

1. Aiello, G. (2006). Theoretical advances in critical visual analysis: Perception, ideology, mythologies, and social semiotics. Journal of Visual Literacy, 26(2), 89–102. https://doi.org/10.1080/23796529.2006.11674635 Ashworth, G. J. (1994). From history to heritage–from heritage to identity: In search of concepts and models. In G. Ashworth & P. Larkham (Eds.), Building a new heritage (RLE tourism) (pp. 13-30). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203068564
2. Chatzigeorgiou, C., Christou, E., & Simeli, I. (2025). From brochures to bytes: Destination branding through social, mobile, and AI—A systematic narrative review with meta-analysis. Administrative Sciences, 15(9), 371. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci15090371
3. Condevaux, A., Gravari-Barbas, M., & Guinand, S. (Eds.) (2021). Before and after tourism: How spaces “enter” and “exit” tourism. In Tourism Dynamics in Everyday Place (pp. 8-25). Routledge.
4. Ebejer, J. (2024). Local life at an urban destination and its relevance to tourism. In V. Katsoni & G. Cassar (Eds.), Recent advancements in tourism business, technology and social sciences. IACuDiT 2023. (pp. 1071– 1081). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-54338-8_64
5. Echtner, C. M., & Ritchie, J. R. B. (1993). The measurement of destination image: An empirical assessment. Journal of Travel Research, 31(4), 3–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/004728759303100402
6. Frisch, T., Sommer, C., Stoltenberg, L., & Stors, N. (Eds.). (2019). Tourism and everyday life in the contemporary city. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429507168
7. Garrod, B. (2009). Understanding the relationship between tourism destination imagery and tourist photography. Journal of Travel Research, 47(3), 346–358. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287508322785 GoTürkiye. (n.d.-a). Istanbul. https://istanbul.goturkiye.com (Accessed: 2026, April 30).
8. GoTürkiye. (n.d.-b). Istanbul bucket list. https://istanbul.goturkiye.com/istanbul-bucket-list (Accessed: 2026, April 30).

9. Hallett, R. W., & Kaplan-Weinger, J. (2010). Official tourism websites: A discourse analysis perspective. Channel View Publications.
10. King, B., Richards, G., & Yeung, E. (2024). City neighbourhood branding and new urban tourism. Current Issues in Tourism, 27(10), 1649–1665. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2023.2214719.
11. Kock, F. (2021). What makes a city cool? Understanding destination coolness and its implications for tourism. Tourism Management, 86, 104317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2021.104317.
12. Koens, K. (2021). Reframing urban tourism. Hogeschool Inholland. https://pure.buas.nl/ws/portalfiles/portal/15652793/koens_2021_inaugural_lecture.pdf (Accessed: 2026, May 01).
13. Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (2021). Reading images: The grammar of visual design (3rd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003099857
14. Larsen, J. (2019). Ordinary tourism and extraordinary everyday life: Rethinking tourism and cities. In T. Frisch, C. Sommer, L. Stoltenberg, & N. Stors (Eds.), Tourism and everyday life in the contemporary city (pp. 24–41). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429507168-2
15. Lobinger, K., & Mele, E. (2022). Visual methods and visual analysis in tourism research. In Z. Xiang, M. Fuchs, U. Gretzel, & W. Höpken (Eds.), Handbook of e-tourism (pp.865-892). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-48652-5_54
16. Manlee, N., & Kasemsarn, K. (2025). The authenticity challenge in digital and social media in cultural tourism: A systematic literature review. Heritage, 8(11), 478. https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage8110478.
17. Mattei, E. (2024). Approaching tourism communication with empirical multimodality: Exploratory analysis of Instagram and website photography through data-driven labeling. Frontiers in Communication, 9, 1355406. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2024.1355406.
18. Metro-Roland, M. M. (2011). Tourists, signs, and the city: The semiotics of culture in an urban landscape. Routledge.
19. Mitchell, W. J. T. (1994). Picture theory: Essays on verbal and visual representation. University of Chicago Press. Rose, G. (2016). Visual methodologies: An introduction to researching with visual materials (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
20. Stock, M. (2019). Inhabiting the city as tourists: Issues for urban and tourism theory. In T. Frisch, C. Sommer, L. Stoltenberg, & N. Stors (Eds.), Tourism and everyday life in the contemporary city (pp. 42–66). Routledge.
21. Urry, J. (2002). The tourist gaze (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.