GÖSTEREN VE GÖSTERILEN: ÜÇ İSTASYON YAPISI ÖRNEĞİ ÜZERİNDEN MİMARLIKTA GÖSTERGEBİLİM

Öz

Mimari form birçok farklı parametre ışığında şekillenir. Bu süreç, çevresel bağlamın yanı sıra mimarın yapı aracılığıyla iletmek istediği mesajla da şekillenir. Mimarinin çevresiyle nasıl iletişim kurduğunu ortaya koyması açısından semiyotik kavramlar tarih boyunca yol gösterici olmuştur. Bu çalışma, mimaride göstergebilimsel kavramları istasyon binaları üzerinden ele almaktadır. İstasyon yapılarının seçilmesinin nedeni, bu yapıların çevreleri için tanıtıcı, yönlendirici ve karakter vurgulayıcı düğüm noktaları olmalarıdır. Çalışmada, göstergebilimin üç ana dalını oluşturan ikon, indeks ve sembol kavramları, mimari tasarımdaki karşılıkları olarak görülen üç farklı örnek olay yorumlanarak incelenmiştir. Analizlerin sonuçları, bu üç kavramın mimaride farklı karakterlerde oluşumlar yarattığını, ancak çevrenin karakteri, tarihsel ya da özgün yönlerinin ifadesi açısından kullanıcı üzerinde etkili olduğunu ortaya koymaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Mimari Tasarım
• ikon
• indeks
• sembol
• istasyon tasarımı

INDICATOR AND INDICATED: SAMPLING SEMIOTICS IN ARCHITECTURE THROUGH THREE STATION STRUCTURES

Öz

Architectural form is shaped in the light of many different parameters. This process is influenced by the environmental context as well as the message the architect wants to convey through the building. In terms of revealing how an architectural structure communicates with its environment, semiotic concepts have been guiding throughout history. This study deals with semiotic concepts in architecture through station buildings. The reason for choosing station buildings is that these buildings are nodes that are introductory, orientating and character-emphasising for their surroundings. In the study, the concepts of icon, index and symbol, which constitute the three main branches of semiotics, are examined by interpreting three different case studies that are seen as their equivalents in architectural design. The results of the analyses reveal that these three concepts create form formations of different characters in architecture, but they are effective on the user in terms of the character of the environment, the expression of its historical or unique aspects.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Architectural Design
• Icon
• Index
• Symbol
• Station Design

Kaynakça

1. Binney, M., & Hamm, M. (1984). Great railway stations of Europe. Thames & Hudson.
2. Calatrava, S. (2024, March 28). Stadelhofen Station. Retrieved from Santiago Calatrava Architects & Engineers : https://calatrava.com/projects/stadelhofen-station-zuerich.html
3. Džidić. S., & Snegar, L. (2019). Modern steel structures for bus stations. International Scientific Conference on Production Engineering Development and Modernization of Production, 268-273.
4. Eco, U. (1979). The role of the reader. Indiana University Press.
5. Edwards, B. (2005). The modern airport terminal: New approaches to airport architecture. Spon Press.
6. Ferreira, M. (2011). Interactive bodies: The semiosis of architectural forms. Biosemiotics, 5, 269 - 289. doi: 10.1007/s12304-011-9126-0.
7. Gerring, J. (2007). Case study research: Principles and practices. Cambridge University Press.
8. Göldeli, İ. (1984). Mimarlık göstergesi, mimarlık göstergesinde düzanlam ve yananlam (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Karadeniz Technical University, Trabzon, Turkey.

9. Huang, J., & Zhou, H. (2020). Analysis on the application of architectural semiotics in design. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 510. doi:10.1088/1755-1315/510/5/052023.
10. Isohauta, T. (2013). The diversity of timber in Alvar Aalto’s architecture: Forests, shelter and safety. Architectural Research Quarterly, 17(3-4), 269–280. doi:10.1017/s1359135514000086
11. Jencks C. (1977). The language of post-modern architecture. Rizzoli.
12. Jodidio, P. (2015). Calatrava: Santiago Calatrava, complete works 1979-today. Taschen.
13. Kalpaklı, Ü. (1998). Mimarlık göstergesi-nesne ilişkileri (işaret - belirti - simge) üzerine bir inceleme (Unpublished doctoral dissertation) Yıldız Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey.
14. Knümann, A. (2014, March 10). Haltestelle Neue Mitte Schafft’s ins Stadtmuseum Düsseldorf, WAZ. Retrieved April 2, 2024 from https://www.waz.de/staedte/oberhausen/haltestelle-neue-mitte-schafft-s-ins-stadtmuseum-duesseldorf-id9102654.html
15. Liebeskind, D. (2001). The space of encounter. Universe Publishing.
16. Lynch, K. (1960). The image of the city. MIT Press.
17. Mankus, M. (2014). Manifestations of symbolism in architecture of postmodernism. Journal of Architecture and Urbanism, 38(4): 274–282.
18. Medway, P., & Clark, B. (2003). Imagining the building: Architectural design as semiotic construction. Design Studies, 24, 255-273. doi:10.1016/S0142-694X(02)00055-8.
19. Peirce, C.S. (1994). The triad in reasoning. In J. Deely (Ed.), Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce (pp. 369-371). Harvard University Press (Original work published 1931)1994.
20. Rossi, A. (1966) The architecture of the city. MIT Press, 1984.
21. Rzepnicka, S. & Załuski, D. (2017). Innovative railway stations, IOP Conf. Ser.: Mater. Sci. Eng. 245. doi:10.1088/1757-899X/245/8/082009
22. Shoja, H., & Sajadzade, H. (2015). Application of Semiotics and its Concept in Architecture. European Online Journal of Natural and Social Sciences, 4, 539-541.
23. Snegar L., & Džidić, S. (2019a, April). Bus stations - architectural expression, structural systems and materialization. Paper presented at the 7th International Conference “Contemporary Achievements in Civil Engineering”, Proceedings (pp.811-824).
24. Snegar, L., & Džidić. S., (2019b, March). Innovative concrete structures for modern bus stations, Paper presented at the 7th International Scientific-Professional Conference “SFERA 2019 – Technology of Concrete“.
25. Tschumi B. (1996). Architecture and disjunction. MIT Press.
26. Tzonis, A. (1999). Santiago Calatrava: The poetics of movement. Universe Publishing.
27. Aalto University Wood Program. (2024, March 28). Retrieved March 28, 2024, from https://www.aalto.fi/en/wood-program
28. Venturi R. (1966). Complexity and contradiction in architecture. MoMa.
29. Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research design and methods (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
30. Zappulla, C., Suau, C., & Fikfak, A. (2014). The pattern making of mega-slums on semantics in slum urban cultures. Journal of Architecture and Urbanism, 38(4), 247–264. doi:10.3846/20297955.2014.987368