Mimarlıkta Temsil Kavramının Sınırlarını Yeniden Düşünmek

Öz

Mimarlık, alternatif söylem ve pratiklerle zenginleşen, sürekli gelişen çok yönlü bir disiplindir. Mimari temsil hem bir iletişim aracı hem de bir araştırma konusu olarak yenilikçi yaklaşımlara açıktır. Bu alternatif yaklaşımlar, disiplinin kavramsal ve pratik sınırlarını genişleterek disiplinler arası etkileşimleri teşvik eder ve sınır kavramına ilişkin yeni bakış açıları sunar. Mimari temsil, genellikle yerleşik tanımlar ve araçlarla sınırlı olsa da dönüşüm potansiyeli, mimarların geleneksel pratikleri aşma ve yeni olanaklar öngörme becerisine bağlıdır. Bu çalışma, Perry Kulper, Neil Spiller, Nat Chard ve Smout-Allen (Laura Allen, Mark Smout) gibi beş vizyoner mimarın mimarlık söylemine ve temsiline alternatif katkılar sunan çalışmalarını incelemektedir. Bu araştırma, bu mimarların projelerinin analizinden yola çıkarak, pratiklerindeki kesişimleri ve disiplin üzerindeki ortak etkilerini vurgulayan “katalizör” olarak adlandırılan kavramsal çerçeveler tanımlamaktadır. Kulper’ın deneysel haritalama teknikleri, Spiller’ın fütüristik ve teknolojik vizyonları, Chard’ın belirsizliği benimseyen prototipleri ve Smout-Allen’ın çevresel spekülasyonları, mimari temsilin sınırlarını zorlayıp yeniden tanımlayan yaklaşımlar sunmaktadır. Bu yaklaşımlar, teorik ve pratik düzeyde mimari üretimin boyutlarını genişleterek daha esnek, çok katmanlı ve keşifçi bir anlatı çerçevesinin gelişmesini sağlamaktadır. Bu makale, bu mimarların spekülatif yöntemlerini, hibrit temsillerini ve kişisel anlatılarını inceleyerek, mimari temsilin dönüşümüne nasıl katkıda bulunduklarını vurgulamaktadır. Çalışma, bu pratikleri katalizör kavramlar üzerinden analiz ederek, mimari temsili dinamik, deneysel ve disiplinler arası bir araç olarak yeniden tanımladıklarını ve mekânsal keşif ve mimari yenilik için yeni fırsatlar sunduklarını ortaya koymaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Mimari temsil
• keşifsel
• hibrit temsiller
• kişisel anlatı
• spekülatif mimarlık

Rethinking the Limits of Representation Concept in Architecture

Abstract

Architecture is a continually evolving and multifaceted discipline, enriched by alternative discourses and practices. Architectural representation, as both a communicative tool and a subject of inquiry, remains receptive to innovative approaches. These alternatives expand the conceptual and practical boundaries of the field, fostering interdisciplinary engagement and introducing novel perspectives on the notion of limits. While architectural representation is often constrained by established definitions and tools, its transformative potential lies in the ability of architects to transcend conventional practices and envision new possibilities. This study examines the work of Perry Kulper, Neil Spiller, Nat Chard, and Smout-Allen (Laura Allen, Mark Smout)—five visionary architects whose approaches provide alternative contributions to architectural discourse and representation. Through an analysis of their projects, this research identifies shared conceptual frameworks, referred to as “catalysts”, which highlight the intersections in their practices and their collective impact on the discipline. Kulper’s experimental mapping techniques, Spiller’s futuristic and technologically driven visions, Chard’s prototypes embracing ambiguity, and Smout-Allen’s environmental speculations collectively challenge and redefine the limits of architectural representation. These approaches facilitate the development of a more flexible, multilayered, and exploratory narrative framework, expanding the theoretical and practical dimensions of architectural production. By investigating their speculative methods, hybrid representations and personal narratives, this article underscores how these architects contribute to the transformation of architectural representation. Analyzing their work through the lens of catalytic concepts, it argues that their practices redefine representation as a dynamic, experimental, and interdisciplinary medium, fostering new opportunities for spatial exploration and architectural innovation.

Keywords

• Architectural representation
• exploratory
• hybrid representations
• personal narrative
• speculative architecture

Kaynakça

1. Asar, H., & Dursun Çebi, P. (2020). Layering in representation : Rethinking architectural representation through Perry Kulper's works. ITU AZ, 17(3), 141-153. https://doi.org/10.5505/itujfa.2020.27879
2. Bafna, S. (2008). How architectural drawings work — and what that implies for the role of representation in architecture. The Journal of Architecture, 13(5), 535-564. https://doi.org/10.1080/13602360802453327
3. Bafna, S., & Kim, H. (2018). Beyond Instrumental Use: A Study of Writing on Architectural Drawings in the Late Twentieth Century. Arq : Architectural Research Quarterly, 22(1), 41-54. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1359135518000313
4. Bolt, B. (2004). Art Beyond Representation: The Performative Power of the Image. B. Tauris& Co.Ltd, p. 14-18. http://doi.org/10.5040/9780755604876
5. Butcher, M., & Pearson, L. C. (2019). Enduring Experiments: How the Architectural Avant-Garde Lives On. Architectural Design, 89(4), 6-13. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/ad.2451
6. Cantley, B. (2013). Two Sides of the Page: The Antifact and the Artefact. Architectural Design, 83. http://doi.org/10.1002/ad.1660
7. Carpo, M. (2013). The Art of Drawing. Architectural Design, 83(5), 128-133. http://doi.org/10.1002/ad.1646
8. Carreiro, M. B. T., & Pinto, P. L. (2013). The Evolution of Representation in Architecture. FutureTraditions - 1st eCAADe Regional International Workshop, Porto, 27-38. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/The-Evolution-of-Representation-inArchitecture-Carreiro-Pinto/d0605326f41d7728df82e42a596b8cd374aef107

9. Chard, N. (2005). Drawing Instruments. Architectural Design, 75(4), 22-29. http://doi.org/10.1002/ad.99
10. Chard, N. (2021). Making the Means to Draw Out Ideas. Architectural Design, 91(4), 60-67. http://doi.org/10.1002/ad.2713
11. Chard, N. (2024, December 7). Drawing Instruments. Retrieved from https://natchard.com/ (last access: 07.12.2024).
12. Cook, P. (2014). Drawing The Motive Force of Architecture. John Wiley & Sons.
13. Croset, P. A. (1988). The Narration Of Architecture. In J. Ockman & B. Colomina (Eds.), Architectu-Re-Production. Princeton Architectural Press.
14. Dunne, A., & Raby, F. (2013). Speculative Everything: Design, Fiction, and Social Dreaming. The MIT Press.
15. Duyser, M. S. (2010). Hybrid Landscapes: Territories of Shared Ecological and Infrastructural Value [Master's thesis, University of Cincinnati]. OhioLINK Electronic Theses and Dissertations Center. http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=ucin1277139665
16. Escoda Pastor, C. (2014). Allegory as Language: Narration and Representation in the Work of Daniel Libeskind. Ega : Revista De Expresión Gráfica Arquitectónica, 19(23), 126-136. https://doi.org/10.4995/ega.2014.2174
17. Gepshtein, S., & Malpas, J. (2025). Horizons and thresholds: boundary and representation in architecture and science. Architectural Science Review, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1080/00038628.2024.2436490
18. Gürer, T. K. (2004). Bir Paradigma Olarak Mimari Temsilin İncelenmesi, [Doctoral Dissertation, Istanbul Technical University].
19. Kanekar, A. (2015). Architecture’s Pretexts : Space of Translation. Routledge.
20. Kulper, P. (2013). A World Below. Architectural Design, 83(5), 56-63. http://doi.org/10.1002/ad.1663
21. Kulper, P. (2020). A (drawn) Practice(d) Construction: Relational Structuring, Chased. In M. Butcher & M. O’Shea (Eds.), Expanding Fields of Architectural Discourse and Practice, UCL Press (pp. 192-213). http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv13xps41.16
22. Kulper, P. (2024, November 10). Architectural Representation Masterclass: Perry Kulper [Video], Texas A&M College of Architecture. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgZGUzkW_5k (last access: 10.11.2024).
23. Martens, B., Mark, E., & Cheng, N. Y.-w. (2006). Thresholds between Analog and Digital Representations. 24th eCAADe Conference Proceedings, 372-383. http://doi.org/10.52842/conf.ecaade.2006.372
24. Norell, D. (2022). Cultivating the Erratic: Architectural Representation and Materialisation After the Digital Turn (Publication Number 29796567) [Doctoral Dissertation, Chalmers Tekniska Hogskola, Sweden].
25. Perez-Gomez, A. (1982). Architecture as Drawing. JAE, 36(2), 2-7. https://doi.org/10.2307/1424613
26. Pérez-Gómez, A. (2005). Questions of representation: the poetic origin of architecture. Architectural Research Quarterly, 9(3-4), 217-225. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1359135505000278
27. Pérez-Gómez, A., & Pelletier, L. (1992). Architectural Representation beyond Perspectivism. Perspecta, 27, 21-39. http://doi.org/10.2307/1567174
28. Psarra, S. (2009). Architecture and Narrative: The Formation of Space and Cultural Meaning in Buildings. Routledge.
29. Rapp, H., Freitag, F., Schlarb, D., Zerhoch, D., Mücke, L., Molter, C.,…Sommerlad, E. (2020). Immersivity: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Spaces of Immersion. Ambiances, 15. https://doi.org/10.4000/ambiances.3233
30. Riahi, P. (2017). Expanding the boundaries of architectural representation. The Journal of Architecture, 22(5), 815-824. https://doi.org/10.1080/13602365.2017.1351671
31. Ryan, M.-L. (2014). Space. In: Hühn, Peter et al. (eds.): The Living Handbook of Narratology. Hamburg, Hamburg University. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110316469.796
32. Sheil, B. (2005). Design Through Making: An Introduction. Architectural Design, 75(4), 5-12. http://doi.org/10.1002/ad.97
33. Smout, M., & Allen, L. (2008). Out of the Phase: Making an Approach to Architecture and Landscape. Architectural Design, 78(4), 80-85. http://doi.org/10.1002/ad.709
34. Smout, M., & Allen, L. (2024, November 12). Smout Allen, Projects. Retrieved from http://www.smoutallen.com/ (last access: 12.11.2024).
35. Spiller, N. (2007). The Art of Touching the Ground Lightly. Pamphlet Architecture: Augmented Landscapes, 28, 4-5.
36. Spiller, N. (2013). The Magical Architecture in Drawing Drawings. Journal of Architectural Education (1984-), 67(2), 264-269. http://doi.org/10.1080/10464883.2013.817173
37. Spiller, N. (2016). Future Fantasticals. In L. Allen & L. C. Pearson (Eds.), Drawing Futures (pp. 142-148). UCL Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt1ht4ws4.7
38. Spiller, N. (2024, November 15). Confluence Studio Lectures, [Video], Confluence Institute. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDMrcrAi8as (last access: 15.11.2024).
39. Stavric, M., Schimek, H., Wiltsche, A. (2007). Didactical Integration of Analog and Digital Tools into Architectural Education. In: Dong, A., Moere, A.V., Gero, J.S. (eds) Computer-Aided Architectural Design Futures (CAADFutures) 2007. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6528-6_5
40. URL-1. Perry Kulper: Revisited. Retrieved from https://dprbcn.wordpress.com/2009/10/15/perry-kulper-revisited/ (last access: 15.11.2024).
41. Vesely, D. (1987). Architecture and the Poetics of Representation. (p. 35). Daidalos.
42. Wilkins, G., & Burrow, A. (2013). Final Draft: Designing Architecture’s Endgame. Architectural Design, 83(1), 98-105. http://doi.org/10.1002/ad.1531