Re-Thinking the Limits of Architecture Through the Avant-Garde Formations During the 1960S: Projections and Receptions in the Context of Turkey
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
RE-THINKING THE LIMITS OF ARCHITECTURE THROUGH THE AVANT-GARDE FORMATIONS DURING THE 1960S: PROJECTIONS AND RECEPTIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF TURKEY A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF NATURAL AND APPLIED SCIENCES OF MIDDLE EAST TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY BY GÖKÇEÇİÇEK SAVAŞIR IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN ARCHITECTURE FEBRUARY 2008 RE-THINKING THE LIMITS OF ARCHITECTURE THROUGH THE AVANT- GARDE FORMATIONS DURING THE 1960S: PROJECTIONS AND RECEPTIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF TURKEY submitted by GÖKÇEÇİÇEK SAVAŞIR in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Department of Architecture, Middle East Technical University by, Prof. Dr. Canan ÖZGEN Dean, Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences ______________________ Assoc. Prof. Dr. Güven Arif SARGIN Head of Department, Architecture ______________________ Assoc. Prof. Dr. Ali CENGİZKAN Supervisor, Dept. of Architecture, METU ______________________ Examining Committee Members Assoc. Prof. Dr. Abdi GÜZER Dept. of Architecture, METU ______________________ Assoc. Prof. Dr. Ali CENGİZKAN Dept. of Architecture, METU ______________________ Assoc. Prof. Dr. Selahattin ÖNÜR Dept. of Architecture, METU ______________________ Assoc. Prof. Dr. Suha ÖZKAN Architect ______________________ Prof. Dr. Uğur TANYELİ Dept. of Architecture, Yıldız Technical University ______________________ Date: 08 February 2008 I hereby declare that all information in this document has been obtained and presented in accordance with academic rules and ethical conduct. I also declare that, as required by these rules and conduct, I have fully cited and referenced all material and results that are not original to this work. Gökçeçiçek SAVAŞIR Signature: iii ABSTRACT RE-THINKING THE LIMITS OF ARCHITECTURE THROUGH THE AVANT-GARDE FORMATIONS DURING THE 1960S: PROJECTIONS AND RECEPTIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF TURKEY Savaşır, Gökçeçiçek Ph.D., Department of Architecture Supervisor: Assoc. Prof. Dr. Ali Cengizkan February 2008, 255 pages An inquiry into the voyage of avant-garde within the domains of art and architecture makes it evident that avant-garde is ambiguous in meaning as a word, a term, a phenomenon and a concept. This study aims to decipher avant-garde and to offer a map for its conceptualization in architecture. Taken not as a monolithic statement but as a unitary concept incorporating a number of subjects and formations for granted, in this study, architectural avant-garde is conceptualized as diverse expressions of activated energy of various subjects that reveal completely different attitudes and productions. Unfolding the concept in different dimensions, this study is an endeavor to delve deeper into various layers of theoretical and historical formations; to form a framework for conceptualizing architectural avant-garde through scanning the twentieth-century avant-gardes; to focus on the avant-garde formations of the 1960s by applying this conceptual framework, and the debate on their receptions in the present architectural context of Turkey. Being on the verge of architecture, the avant-gardes during the 1960s, namely Constant Nieuwenhuys, Yona Friedman, Japanese Metabolists, Archigram, Archizoom, and Superstudio, point out that architecture is both an intellectual activity and a physical production. Projections and resonances of these avant-gardes in the Turkish architectural context of the subsequent periods are trail blazed through the expressions of a group of receiving subjects from the Turkish scene of architecture. Hence, this study offers to lay a common ground for debating on the limits of architecture by forming not only the topography of architectural avant- garde in this era, but also a ‘supra-discourse’ on architectural avant-garde. Keywords: avant-garde, conceptualization of avant-garde, architectural avant-garde, avant- garde in Turkey. iv ÖZ MİMARLIĞIN SINIRLARINI 1960’LARDAKİ AVANGARD OLUŞUMLAR ÜZERİNDEN YENİDEN DÜŞÜNMEK: TÜRKİYE BAĞLAMINDA YANSIMALAR VE ALIMLAMALAR Savaşır, Gökçeçiçek Doktora, Mimarlık Bölümü Tez Yöneticisi: Doç. Dr. Ali Cengizkan Şubat 2008, 255 sayfa Avangardın kelime, terim, kavram ve olgu olarak anlamlarının belirsizliği, sanat ve mimarlık alanlarındaki seyahati incelendiğinde açıkça görülür. Bu çalışma avangardı deşifre etmeyi amaçlar ve mimarlıkta avangardın kavramsallaştırılması için bir harita önerir. Bu çalışmada, tek ve mutlak bir önerme yerine pek çok özneyi kapsayan bütünleştirici bir kavram olarak kabul edilen mimari avangard, çeşitli öznelerin aktifleşmiş enerjilerinin tamamen farklı duruş ve üretimler şeklinde açığa vurulan ifadeleri olarak kavramsallaştırılmaktadır. Bu çalışma, kavramı farklı boyutlarda ele alarak, çeşitli kuramsal ve tarihsel oluşum katmanlarına ulaşma; mimarlıkta avangardın kavramsallaştırılması için 20. Yüzyıl avangardları üzerinden oluşturulan bir çerçeve sunma; 1960’lardaki avangard oluşumlara bu kavramsal çerçeveyle bakarak bu oluşumların Türkiye mimarlık ortamında yansımaları üzerine tartışma çabasıdır. 1960’lar ortamında, Constant Nieuwenhuys, Yona Friedman, Japon Metabolistler, Archigram, Archizoom, Superstudio gibi bıçak sırtında duruşlarıyla mimarlığın sınırlarına işaret eden bu oluşumlar mimarlığın fiziksel bir üretim olduğu kadar düşünsel bir faaliyet de olduğunun vurgusunu yapmışlardır. Bu oluşumların Türkiye mimarlık bağlamındaki yansımaları ve titreşimleri, Türk mimarlık ortamından bir grup alımlayıcı öznenin ifadeleri üzerinden tartışılmaktadır. Böylece, hem mimarlıkta avangard üzerine bir ‘üst söylem’, hem de bu dönemdeki mimari avangardların topografyası oluşturularak mimarlığın sınırları üzerine bir tartışma zemini oluşturmak hedeflenmektedir. Anahtar Kelimeler: avangard, avangardın kavramsallaştırılması, mimarlıkta avangard, Türkiye’de avangard. v To My Parents vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author would like to express her deepest gratitude to her advisor, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Ali Cengizkan, whose guidance, advice, criticism, insight and support made this dissertation possible. The hardest periods of this study could not be glided over without his support. He not only introduced me to the critical discourse, but also led me to the domain of criticism from within the Turkish architecture. The author is also grateful to the examining committee members, each of which has an irreplaceable significance for shedding valuable insight into this study. She would also express her sincere gratefulness to Prof. Dr. Uğur Tanyeli and Assoc. Prof. Dr. Abdi Güzer, who shared their professional and academic experience and made her felt their enthusiasm along the course of this study. Their encouragement as well as their criticism has contributed to this study. The author would also like to thank Assoc. Prof. Dr. Selahattin Önür and Assoc. Prof. Dr. Suha Özkan for their contributions and interpretations. The architects that have been interviewed throughout this study, Suha Özkan, Şevki Vanlı, Ersen Gürsel, Mehmet Konuralp, Doruk Pamir, Ragıp Buluç, Selahattin Önür, Haldun Ertekin, Atilla Yücel, Adnan Kazmaoğlu, İlhan Tekeli, Gürhan Tümer, and Doğan Tekeli, are also gratefully acknowledged. Without their contributions, the conceptualization of the past and present contexts of architecture would be narrower for the author. Their receptions were irreplaceably valuable in terms of tracing the oral history of the period. The author is indebted to her friends, Hümeyra Birol Akkurt, Fernando Alonso, H. İbrahim Alpaslan, Durnev Atılgan, Bahar Beşlioğlu, N. Müge Cengizkan, Elif Dirgin, Meryem Gemicioğlu, Deniz Güner, F. Feyzal Özkaban, Burkay Pasin and Zeynep Tuna Ultav, M. Barış Yağlı, Neriman Yörür for their supports, care and understanding. Finally, this work could not have been completed without the continuous understanding and support of her family. It is the biggest luck to feel this never ending patience and support. vii TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT...................................................................................................................... iv ÖZ...................................................................................................................................... v DEDICATION.................................................................................................................. vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.............................................................................................. vii TABLE OF CONTENTS.................................................................................................. viii LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................ x LIST OF FIGURES………............................................................................................... xi CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Aim of the Study................................................................................................ 1 1.2 The State-of-Art for the Study........................................................................... 7 1.3 Method of the Study........................................................................................... 8 2. A FRAMEWORK FOR CONCEPTUALIZING ARCHITECTURAL AVANT- GARDE……………………………………………………………………............ 12 2.1 On Deciphering Avant-garde............................................................................. 12 2.1.1 Word – Etymologically..............................................................................