Tahsin Öz and His Stylistic Restorations in Topkapı Palace Museum
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
ITU A|Z • Vol 15 No 3 • November 2018 • 1-12 Scraping the layers: Tahsin Öz and his stylistic restorations in Topkapı Palace Museum Burcu Selcen COŞKUN [email protected] • Department of Architecture, Faculty of Architecture, Mimar Sinan Fine Arts University, Istanbul, Turkey Received: January 2018 • Final Acceptance: September 2018 Abstract State-led heritage conservation was first experienced in Tanzimat Period in Ottoman Empire. State continued being the major custodian of cultural heritage throughout the 1950s. The general approach towards conservation of these early years was the maintenance of symbolic buildings that had been regarded as mon- uments. Yet, we can speak of a selective ideal of determining which monument to conserve and which period to exhibit. Starting his career as the chief accountant and later the deputy director of the Museum of Antiquities, Tahsin Öz was among the people who dominated the field of heritage preservation in the early Republican years. He acted throughout his life as an influential figure in decision making processes of heritage conservation. As one of the most important roles in his career, Öz was appointed as the director of Topkapı Palace Museum, which became a museum in 1924 with the approval of the young parliament. Although much neglected and in need of urgent repair, the buildings of the palace were still witnesses of the 19th century Ottoman taste. Un- til 1953, he was responsible and in charge of some rather ambitious restorations, which favored to erase the traces of one period and return back to a specific one. This paper aims to introduce the controversial approaches of Öz in Topkapi Palace Museum with an overview of what he realized and wrote, and focus simul- taneously on the atmosphere of preservation in Turkey until 1950s with voices of intellectuals and professionals supporting or disagreeing his decisions. Keywords doi: 10.5505/itujfa.2018.41033 doi: Tahsin Öz, Topkapı Palace Museum, Viollet le-Duc, Restoration. 2 1. Introduction favour of conservation and repair (Or- By the 19th century, approaches to başlı, 2008, 21). historic monuments by Eugéne Vio- Although conservation theory has llet-le-Duc in France and Sir George adopted the conservationist approach Gilbert Scott in England challenged as the main path to follow, in practice the idea of architectural conservation many others who have been occupied in Europe. For these architects, resto- with the restoration of monuments ration of monuments used to mean the followed the footsteps of Viollet le- completion and recreation of a build- Duc and proposals to rebuild historic ing according to its most significant buildings or to restore them with ad- period, using analogy and historical ditions that may have been used at the research. These monuments then be- time when they were built, continue to came ‘frozen illustrations of particular be proposed. When it is at stake to re- moments’ in one nation’s history (Jok- store historic buildings, it is not hard to ilehto, 1999, 7). The restorations they say that architectural conservation as had undertaken were mostly shaped a practice has never truly abandoned by their particular desire of creating an stylistic unity approach. imagined aesthetic unity and generally Tahsin Öz in Turkey, an influential disregarded the buildings’ history and figure in conservation history is among development over time. Today they are these ‘others’, who like Viollet le-Duc, considered as subjective interventions preferred to see historic buildings at by conservation experts, which caused a specific time of their lives. He guid- the loss of the authentic material of the ed the extensive restorations of 1940’s monument. at the Topkapı Palace Museum where In England A. W. N. Pugin, John he acted as the director. In order to Ruskin and William Morris opposed evaluate his contributions and his to Scott’s church restorations which personal approach to conservation of favored to return the monument to a monuments, one needs to have brief specific time of its history and scrape information on the period of Öz, in the off the later historic stratification and scope of architectural conservation in additions it had put on as it evolved Turkey. through time. Dehio (1905), another leading personality for anti-restoration 2. Conservation of monumental movement in Germany wrote in the heritage in Turkey throughout early years of 20th century: 1923-1950 The Historicism of the 19th century State-led heritage conservation ini- has- as well as its genuine daughter, Con- tially started to be institutionalized in servation- fathered an illegitimate child, Tanzimat Period (1839-1876) in Otto- Restoration. They are often confused but man Empire and continued throughout they are diametrically opposed. Conser- the early Republican period without vation strives to preserve existing things, many changes. The general approach of restoration aims to recreate nonexistant these early years towards architectur- things. The difference is striking. On the al conservation was the maintenance one hand sits reality, reduced and faded, and safeguarding of symbolic historic but always real- on the other sits fiction buildings that had been regarded as (Huse, 1996, 141). monuments. During the foundation The conservation theory which has years of the Republic, the nation lacked developed after the WWI, is based on enough economical sources in all fields this conservationist approach which and thus, there were also limited ac- had developed as a reaction to the tivities in the construction industry. ongoing restorations in Europe and The few conservation activities in the aimed at the preservation of histor- country generally aimed at saving the ic stratification and avoided falsifica- lives of symbolic buildings, such as tion. Athens Charter, as an outcome mosques, inns or caravanserais in Ana- of Athens Conference held in 1931 is tolia. Only a small group of architects the first international document out- and technicians were commissioned in lining modern conservation policy. It the restoration projects of these monu- discouraged stylistic restorations in mental buildings, some of which were ITU A|Z • Vol 15 No 3 • November 2018 • B. S. Coşkun 3 given new functions such as museums (Arseven), maintained their positions, or state offices. Whilst founding a new it acted as the main advisory body on state in the post-war period starting preservation in Istanbul (Altınyıldız, from 1920s, the focus was on the capital 2007, 287). The first official govern- city, Ankara and surroundings, which mental institution of the Republic carried undoubtedly new meanings which deals with issues of preservation for the nation building process. Bilsel of historic buildings throughout the (2011) suggests that İstanbul, as the country was established much later, in former capital city of Ottoman Empire 1951 and undertook the duties of this might have been intentionally deprived Comission. The mission of theHigh of public funds in the early republic Council for Historic Real Estate and years, in order to let the recent traces of Monuments (Gayrimenkul Eski Eserler the Imperial rule die away. On the oth- ve Anıtlar Yüksek Kurulu) was to de- er hand, no matter how scarce the re- termine the principles of protection, sources had been, there was still a con- repair and restoration of architectural tinuous activity for rescuing significant and historical monuments in the coun- buildings from demolition. Decisions try and organize the programs relat- 1Shaw (2007) sees the conversion on how to preserve some of the most ed with these principles. The Council of the Empire’s important monuments, like Hagia So- primarily acted as the chief supervisor most important phia1 or Topkapi Palace complex were on the realization of these principles. ceremonial discussed thoroughly and they were It commented on complex issues and mosque, Hagia eventually given new functions as mu- solved conflicts related with historic Sophia into a 2 museum in 1934- seums (Coşkun, 2012; Açıkgöz, 2014). monuments while providing scientif- 35 as an act of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk’s telegram ic assessment in the decision making ‘memorializing the to İsmet Inonu from Konya during his process. Ottoman political Anatolia trip in March 1931 highlight- In 1943, Ali Saim Ülgen, an experi- power manifested ed the issue of neglected monumental enced state-architect who worked on in the conquest of the Byzantine buildings in the country which needed restoration of historic buildings pub- Empire and at urgent care. The telegram can be con- lished the first book in Turkey on the the same time sidered as a warning for the dilapidated topic of conservation of monuments. secularizing it.’ state of architectural heritage in central ‘Anıtların Korunması ve Onarılması 2Giving historic Anatolia. With the motivation derived I’ (‘The Conservation and Repair buildings new from the telegram, a commission for of Monuments I’) reflected Ülgen’s function as the protection of historic buildings was knowledge and experiences he gained museums was a immediately established. The commis- during his apprenticeship in France at preference that the sion published a report in 1933 which the beginning of his career and at the state favored in the early years of drew attention to issues like the need times he worked in state institutions the Republic, while for a central institution managing the responsible of various restorations of this allowed the facilities related with the conservation mainly monumental buildings (Ülgen, state to select and of monuments and the significance of 1943). Introduced by a short text by Al- easily visualize a raising public awareness for protection bert Gabriel, the book had a introduc- particular past, construct an of historic buildings (Madran, 2002). tion section on the history of architec- identity out of it The Turkish Republic had inherited tural conservation in Europe and gave and then represent ‘a comprehensive legislative framework information on some general concepts it to its people. and some weak institutions’ from the of conservation of historic buildings.