THE SILENCE OF REPRESENTATION: THE LOSS OF SPATIAL IDENTITY IN THE DIGITAL INTERFACE OF THE GUGGENHEIM MUSEUM BILBAO

Yıl 2026, Cilt: 16 Sayı: 2 , 814 - 835 , 01.04.2026

Nergiz Amirov

https://doi.org/10.7456/tojdac.1857173

https://izlik.org/JA49XW97MY

Öz

The concept of representation in architecture does not merely convey the physical presence of a building; it also reproduces its sensory, aesthetic, and conceptual depth. However, in the digital age, this representational power of space often becomes a reduced experience when transferred to a two-dimensional screen surface. This study discusses the incompatibility between the artistic identity of physical space and its representation on the digital interface, using Frank Gehry's Guggenheim Bilbao Museum, an iconic example of the deconstructivist approach. Gehry's architectural language, based on fragmented geometries, fluid forms, and surfaces that constantly change with light, is met with a static visual layout and linear navigation on the museum's website. The article aims to reveal the impact of this representational rupture at both the visual and experiential levels. Using a qualitative visual analysis method, the study compares the museum's physical circulation structure and spatial atmosphere with the design dynamics of its website; it then proposes possible design strategies that could translate Gehry's style into the digital environment. The findings show that the digital interface should not only be an information platform but also a representational space that continues the poetics of the space. Ultimately, the study emphasizes that representation in contemporary museum design is not merely an aesthetic issue but a conceptual tool that enables the holistic transmission of the architectural experience.

Anahtar Kelimeler

representation , digital interface , guggenheim bilbao , deconstructivism , spatial experience

TEMSİLİYETİN SESSİZLİĞİ: GUGGENHEIM BILBAO MÜZESİNİN DİJİTAL ARAYÜZÜNDE MEKANSAL KİMLİĞİN KAYBI

https://izlik.org/JA49XW97MY

Öz

Mimarlıkta temsil kavramı, yalnızca bir yapının fiziksel varlığını aktarmakla kalmaz; aynı zamanda onun duyusal, estetik ve kavramsal derinliğini de yeniden üretir. Ancak dijital çağda mekanın bu temsil gücü, iki boyutlu ekran yüzeyine taşındığında çoğu zaman indirgenmiş bir deneyime dönüşmektedir. Bu çalışma, Frank Gehry’nin dekonstrüktivist yaklaşımın ikonik örneklerinden biri olan Guggenheim Bilbao Müzesi üzerinden, fiziksel mekanın sanatsal kimliği ile dijital arayüzdeki temsili arasındaki uyumsuzluğu tartışmaktadır. Gehry’nin parçalı geometrilere, akışkan formlara ve ışıkla sürekli değişen yüzeylere dayalı mimari dili; müzenin web sitesinde durağan bir görsel düzen ve doğrusal navigasyonla karşılanmaktadır. Makale, bu temsil kırılmasının hem görsel hem deneyimsel düzeyde yarattığı etkiyi ortaya koymayı amaçlamaktadır. Çalışma, nitel bir görsel analiz yöntemiyle, müzenin fiziksel sirkülasyon yapısını ve mekansal atmosferini web sitesinin tasarım dinamikleriyle karşılaştırmakta; ardından Gehry’nin üslubunu dijital ortama taşıyabilecek olası tasarım stratejileri önermektedir. Bulgular, dijital arayüzün yalnızca bir bilgi platformu değil, aynı zamanda mekanın poetikasını sürdüren bir temsil alanı olması gerektiğini göstermektedir. Sonuç olarak çalışma, çağdaş müze tasarımlarında temsiliyetin yalnızca estetik bir mesele değil, mimari deneyimin bütüncül aktarımını mümkün kılan kavramsal bir araç olduğunu vurgulamaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

temsiliyet , dijital arayüz , guggenheim bilbao , dekonstrüktivizm , mekansal deneyim

Kaynakça

• Ba Bachelard, G. (1958). The Poetics of Space. Boston: Beacon Press. Bolter, J. D., & Grusin, R. (1999). Remediation: Understanding New Media. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Böhme, G. (1993). Atmosphere as the fundamental concept of a new aesthetics. Thesis Eleven, 36(1), 113–126
• Böhme, G. (2017). The aesthetics of atmosphere. London: Routledge.
• Bringhurst, R. (2012). The Elements of Typographic Style (4th ed.). Hartley & Marks.
• Carpo, M. (2011). The alphabet and the algorithm. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Carpo, M. (2017). The second digital turn: Design beyond intelligence. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Christenson, M. (2019). Theories and Practices of Architectural Representation. Routledge.
• Cosgrove, D. (1998). Social Formation and Symbolic Landscape. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
• Curtis, W. J. R. (1996). Modern Architecture Since 1900. London: Phaidon.
• Dal Co, F. (1996). Frank O. Gehry: The Complete Works. New York: Rizzoli.
• Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1987). A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
• Derrida, J. (1976). Of grammatology (G. C. Spivak, Trans.). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
• Eisenman, P. (1984). Houses of cards. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Eisenman, P. (1992). Written Into the Void: Selected Writings, 1990–2004. New Haven: Yale University Press.
• Evans, R. (1995). The projective cast: Architecture and its three geometries. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Frampton, K. (1983). Towards a Critical Regionalism. In H. Foster (Ed.), The Anti-Aesthetic (pp. 16–30). Port Townsend: Bay Press.
• Frascari, M. (1981). The tell-the-tale detail. Via: The Yale Journal of Architecture, 3, 23–37.
• Garrett, J. J. (2011). The Elements of User Experience: User-Centered Design for the Web and Beyond (2nd ed.). New Riders.
• Gehry, F. O. (1999). Frank O. Gehry: The Complete Works. New York: Rizzoli.
• Gregory, D. (1994). Geographical imaginations. Oxford: Blackwell.
• Grosz, E. (2001). Architecture from the outside: Essays on virtual and real space. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Gürer, T. K., & Yücel, A. (2005). Bir Paradigma Olarak Mimari Temsilin İncelenmesi. İTÜ Dergisi/a: Mimarlık, Planlama, Tasarım, 4(1), 84–96.
• Hansen, M. B. N. (2006). Bodies in Code: Interfaces with Digital Media. Routledge.
• Harvey, D. (2006). Spaces of Global Capitalism: Towards a Theory of Uneven Geographical Development. London: Verso.
• Hays, K. M. (1998). Architecture theory since 1968. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Heidegger, M. (1993). Building, dwelling, thinking. In Basic writings (D. F. Krell, Ed., pp. 343–363). New York: HarperCollins.
• Holl, S., Pallasmaa, J., & Gómez, A. (2006). Questions of perception: Phenomenology of architecture. San Francisco: William Stout Publishers.
• Jodidio, P. (2014). Gehry Buildings. Köln: Taschen.
• Johnson, P., & Wigley, M. (1988). Deconstructivist architecture. New York: Museum of Modern Art.
• Kahn, A. (1994). “Representations and Misrepresentations: On Architectural Representation.” JSTOR.
• Kipnis, J. (1993). “Towards a New Architecture.” In P. Noever (Ed.), Deconstructivist Architecture. Vienna: MAK.
• Kostof, S. (1985). A history of architecture: Settings and rituals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Krug, S. (2014). Don’t Make Me Think, Revisited: A Common Sense Approach to Web (and Mobile) Usability (3rd ed.). New Riders.
• Latour, B. (2008). A cautious Prometheus? A few steps toward a philosophy of design (with special attention to Peter Sloterdijk). Networks of Design Conference Proceedings, Falmouth, Cornwall.
• Lavin, S. (1992). Quatremère de Quincy and the invention of a modern language of architecture. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Lefebvre, H. (1991). The Production of Space. Oxford: Blackwell.
• Lupton, E. (2020). Thinking with Type: A Critical Guide for Designers, Writers, Editors, & Students (3rd ed.). Princeton Architectural Press.
• Lynn, G. (1999). Animate form. New York: Princeton Architectural Press.
• Manovich, L. (2001). The Language of New Media. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Massey, D. (2005). For space. London: Sage.
• McCullough, M. (2004). Digital ground: Architecture, pervasive computing, and environmental knowing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Merleau-Ponty, M. (2012). Phenomenology of perception (D. A. Landes, Trans.). London: Routledge. (Original work published 1945)
• Mitchell, W. J. (1995). City of Bits: Space, Place, and the Infobahn. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Murray, J. (1997). Hamlet on the Holodeck: The Future of Narrative in Cyberspace. New York: Free Press.
• Norberg-Schulz, C. (1980). Genius Loci: Towards a Phenomenology of Architecture. New York: Rizzoli.
• Norman, D. A. (2013). The Design of Everyday Things (Revised and expanded ed.). Basic Books.
• Novak, M. (1995). Liquid architectures in cyberspace. In M. Benedikt (Ed.), Cyberspace: First steps (pp. 225–254). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Pallasmaa, J. (2012). The Eyes of the Skin: Architecture and the Senses (3rd ed.). Chichester: Wiley.
• Pérez-Gómez, A. (1983). Architecture and the Crisis of Modern Science. MIT Press.
• Pérez-Gómez, A., & Pelletier, L. (1997). Architectural Representation and the Perspective Hinge. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Picon, A. (2010). Digital Culture in Architecture. Birkhäuser.
• Ridgway, S. (2009). “The Representation of Construction: Architectural Theory.” Construction & Representation Journal.
• Saffer, D. (2010). Designing for Interaction. New Riders.
• Seamon, D. (2018). Life takes place: Phenomenology, lifeworlds and place making. New York: Routledge.
• Shields, R. (1999). Lefebvre, love, and struggle: Spatial dialectics. London: Routledge.
• Soja, E. (1996). Thirdspace: Journeys to Los Angeles and Other Real-and-Imagined Places. Oxford: Blackwell.
• Sönmez, B. (2025). Rethinking the Limits of Representation Concept in Architecture. PLANARCH - Design and Planning Research, 9(2), 232–242.
• Spiller, N. (2009). Digital Architecture Now: A Global Survey of Emerging Talent. London: Thames & Hudson.
• Spuybroek, L. (2004). NOX: Machining architecture. London: Thames & Hudson.
• Wigley, M. (1993). The Architecture of Deconstruction: Derrida and Eisenman. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Zumthor, P. (2006). Atmospheres: Architectural Environments – Surrounding Objects. Basel: Birkhäuser.