ITU A|Z • Vol 16 No 2 • July 2019 • 1-17 Re-evaluating modernism through a spatial collection: İstanbul complex of retail shops and collaboration of art and architecture

Ezgi YAVUZ [email protected] • Department of Architecture, Gebze Technical University, Kocaeli, Turkey

Received: December 2017 • Final Acceptance: March 2019

Abstract The increasing dialogue between the arts and architecture in the period of post-World War Two emerged as a significant issue in the international arena in both architectural discourse and practice, and Turkey was not excluded from this phenomenon at the time. The article rethinks contemporary discussions and the materialized works in Turkey with reference to the wider international frame of the architectural context. Formalized around the concept of ‘situated modernism’ and the publicness of architecture, the example of the Complex of Retail Shops is examined. This subject is questioned with particular focus on the ambivalence between the international and the local in postwar architecture, and the efforts to establish a connection with the public. The novel perspective that the article suggests is a re-reading of the complex together with the questioning process of the international modern and the uneven relationship between the arts and architecture. The article aims to unearth the implicit meaning and the constructive role of this uneven relationship, specially the collaboration efforts, under the circumstances of the period. Keywords Collaboration of arts and architecture, Integration of arts and architecture, doi: 10.5505/itujfa.2019.98852 doi: İstanbul complex of retail shops, Postwar architecture, Publicness. 2

1 1. Introduction İstanbul Complex of retail shops with 1 This paper is After World War Two, the modern various panels and reliefs, the mosaic based on the PhD movement that had dominated early panel by ceramic artist Gencay Kasapçı dissertation titled 20th-century architectural culture for METU Faculty of Architecture, ‘An Aesthetic faced questions regarding its ‘modern’ the ceramic wall in the AKM building Response to an Architectural sense, i.e. contextual considerations by ceramic artist Sadi Diren, and the Challenge: of locality and public meaning, ceramic wall by ceramic artist Jale Architecture’s which actually resulted from current Yılmabaşar in Istanbul Governorship Dialogue with the demands. It was particularly criticized Hall.6 These developments make the Arts in Postwar for preventing adaptation to current postwar period particularly remarkable Turkey’ submitted in 2015 to METU, circumstances. The intricate line of for reading the uneven relationship Architectural questioning that emerged, seeking between the arts and architecture. History Graduate a new architectural discourse, While these examples all have their Program. revealed various perspectives and own dynamics and modes of operation Supervisor: Prof. affected design activity. Meanwhile, related to integrating the arts, the 1958 Dr. Elvan Altan. architecture’s relationship with the arts Brussels Fair Turkish Pavilion and 2 In fact, postwar was also re-evaluated and rethought in İstanbul Complex of retail shops are the architecture an attempt to move beyond the impasse prominent ones in terms of including is a fairly new in modern architecture. artwork as an integral part of an overall topic regarding Similar discussions and practices architectural design. The former, the studies in architectural were witnessed in Turkish art and which could be the subject of another history. There are architectural milieu in this period. It article on its own, situated the mosaic only a few studies seems that the integration of arts into wall at its center as an inextricable part on this topic with architecture was an important issue of the design to link two separate units a focus on Turkey although being barely discussed in the of the structure. While the architects as well. Most of 2 these studies only historiography. When searching the of the latter considered the artworks lightly touch on publications of the day, it is observed even during the initial design process. the integration that several themes arose from these Designed by a team including Doğan of the arts into discussions: how to implement Tekeli, Sami Sisa and Metin Hepgüler, architecture, such collaborative work; the duality İstanbul Complex of Retail Shops or only a few 7 specific examples between the past and the west; issues of exemplifies a ‘spatial collection’. So, are covered and permanency; publicity; functionality; this makes it a remarkable one for mostly discussed and the mutuality of collaboration.3 examining how artworks came to be to emphasize the These considerations brought out integrated into modern architecture artistic results. not only the debates on integrating through publicness and an oscillation Arda, F. (early 1970s). Türkiye’de the arts but also efforts to realize this between the local and the international, Başlangıçtan ideal. One remarkable artistic initiative particularly its use of several artworks Günümüze Kadar was Türk Grup Espas [Turkish Group with traditional roots, its way of locating Duvara Çakılı Espace, 1955], which embarked on artworks within the structure, and Mozaik ve Seramik the idea of synthesis and total design its design process featuring modern Olarak Duvar through team spirit, while another approach with planned integration, Resmi (thesis, 8 not submitted,/ group called Kare Metal [Square meaning a collaboration. Sanatta Yeterlilik Metal, 1955] was closely related to the The main question that emerges Tezi). Istanbul discourse and the practices of Türk related to the postwar modernist Academy of Fine Grup Espas.4 approach to architecture is why, in Arts, Istanbul. Yasa Yaman, Z. (1978). While the integration of the arts into this period in particular, modern Cumhuriyet architecture was sometimes uneven architecture desired to integrate modern Dönemi and precarious - despite starting with art into its structure. In the Turkish Duvar Resmi inexperienced moves- a discursive case, the aim was to bring an ‘aesthetic (Unpublished background was formed from the mid- quality’ and ‘civic-mindedness’ to Graduation thesis). Hacettepe 1950s onwards, especially between modern buildings (Bozdoğan & Üniversitesi, 1955 and 1958, when Türk Grup Espas Akcan, 2012:131). Another argument Ankara. Yavuz, members were active.5 In practical about postwar modernism concerned D. (2008). terms, the 1950s-1970s witnessed a the orientation of postwar architecture Mimarlık-Sanat significant progress, such as the mosaic in Latin America, the Mediterranean, Birlikteliğinde 1950-70 Aralığı. wall by painter Bedri Rahmi Eyüpoğlu, the Middle East and South Asia, Mimarlık, 344, the pylon by sculptor İlhan Koman for which were ‘rewriting’ modernism by 70-76. Yılmaz, A.N. the1958 Brussels Fair Turkish Pavilion, using local references, thus making it (2006).

ITU A|Z • Vol 16 No 2 • July 2019 • E. Yavuz 3

appropriate for all localities (Bozdoğan, 1950-1960 and 1960-1980.10 In terms of 2008:64). building facilities, he defines the period This study draws on research between the years 1950-60 as a “search that embraces the critical aspects of for an international solution” that modernism, meaning a cross-reading alludes to the effects of the new political of the local and the international orientation with populist approaches approaches of the modern. The and better international relations. article therefore rereads the Complex Gülsüm Baydar (2012: 119) claims that from a perspective that accentuates the ideology of architectural profession the role of this planned integration paralleled the political ideology of the – collaboration - in ‘rewriting time. For her, this choice was nothing modernism’ and redefining the public less than maintaining their very own meaning of architecture. This raises positions in professional manner the question of whether there was any (Baydar, 2012: 119). So, it can be said connotation in terms of displaying the that the architectural milieu adopted Bir Mekan country’s own form of modernism moves in line with the political scene, Estetiği: ‘Groupe Espace’ ve Türk when collaborating with artists. Also, which consisted of a populist tone in its Sanatındaki regarding the public meaning of attempts and discourses. Yansımaları. Cey architecture, another question can be Meltem Gürel (2016: 3) claims Sanat, 13, 18-22. asked: Does art have a role to play in that Turkey’s architectural milieu Kaçel, E. (2007). responding to criticisms of modern was captivated by the opportunity of Fidüsyer: Bir Kollektif Düşünme architecture when its social utility was participating in the international arena Pratiği. In M. stressed? and impressed by the ‘re-interpreted Cengizkan (ed.), version of inter-war modernism’. Haluk Baysal- 2. Ambivalence between the local This led architects towards solutions Melih Birsel (pp. and the international integrated with modernist discourse, 7-32). Ankara: Mimarlar Odası. Turkey first experienced a multi- while dealing with a new client, Cengizkan, A. party political system after the World the private sector, and new public (2002). Bedri War Two, leading to new economic enterprises. This directly affected Rahmi’nin and socio-cultural developments and architecture, creating fertile ground bilinmeyen a new trajectory in both domestic and for experimenting in new techniques, Mozaiği: Mimarlık 11 ve Duvar Resmi. foreign politics. Turkey integrated materials and approaches. Their 9 In Modernin more into the West and merged application of anonymous international Saati.(229- with its capitalist system (Zürcher, characteristics led Turkish architects 245). İstanbul: 2000: 341), receiving foreign aid and to consider themselves part of the Mimarlar Derneği investments that were also a part West. The dominant approach between Yayını. Pillai, J. (2010). The Lost of developing closer relations with 1950 and 1960 employed basic Mosaic Wall / the West (Feroz, 1993: 118). As, the prismatic forms, mostly rectangles Kayıp Mozaik political relationship with the capitalist and squares, used a grid system on Duvar. Lefkoşa: world intensified, it brought forth a the façade, and mainly included plain Sidestreets. new economic approach, which applied surfaces throughout the design. Turgut 3 The journals and liberal principles. Participating in the Cansever states that plain forms were the newspapers, international economic system created preferred in the 1950s due to modern which were new demands and a new way of life technology, although he also notes that searched, can be along with new consumption patterns this formal approach had been seen stated as such: that resulted in new types of building previously in the plasticity of Ottoman Akademi, Ankara sanat, Arkitekt, and transportation (Tapan, 2005: 112). architecture (Cansever, 1970:41). Bayındırlık işleri One of the significant government According to Uğur Tanyeli (1998:237), dergisi, Eser, Esi, program was the investment in public from 1950 to 1960, nobody was Güzel sanatlar, works and infrastructure. Between the concerned about a sense of identity or Mimarlık, years 1950-1954, the total amount of bringing individualistic touches to a Mimarlık ve sanat, Türk yurdu, Ülkü, investments increased by a remarkable design. But how was this international Yapı, Yapı ve İmar 256 percent, which were achieved approach perceived by contemporary İşleri Dergisi, primarily in the areas of roadwork architectural circles? Yeditepe, Yeni infrastructure, construction facilities After the proclamation of the insan; Cumhuriyet, and agriculture. (Zürcher, 2000: 327). new constitution in 1961, a new Milliyet, Pazar Postası, Ulus, Yeni Tekeli (2005: 28) examines the advancement began, which generated İstanbul. period from 1950 to 1980 in two parts: extraordinary changes at various

Re-evaluating modernism through a spatial collection: İstanbul complex of retail shops and collaboration of art and architecture 4 levels. The positive effect of the new constitution is believed to have created a freer and more socialist atmosphere, which eventually, is said to affect directly the intellectual sphere of the art and architecture milieus. By the 1960s, as a result of the emerging idea of social consciousness, approaching the public and entering in a cycle of self-criticism were seen parallel to the concerns of the Western world. In that kind of context, in response to criticisms of modernist discourse’s solid functionalism, Turkish architects sought new solutions, such as breaking the ‘international’ prism, and being concerned with plasticity, organic forms, and regional and traditional values (Gürel, 2016: 4). Üstün Alsaç (1973: 17) defined the particular decade as that of “the idea of searching for solutions in architecture via free forms.” Tekeli (2005:31) labels developments in the 1960s as ‘multi-faceted’ in terms Figure 1. Doğan Tekeli, Sami Sisa, general view of IMÇ. Photo courtesy of SALT Research Gültekin Çizgen archives, code: of both intellectual area and practice in GCTS0003. architecture. Turkish architects were in search of a new architectural ideal that synthesis, as a concrete expression of would represent the new course of the the transformation of modern Turkish country, as well as within the newly architecture from imitation to novel defined borders or in broad terms, production through adding local the prospects of the era. Batur (2005: and individual flavor appropriate to 54) commented that the socialist Turkey’s changing circumstances. He views began to affect the very core of asserts that the design is a testimony to the discipline and brought along the the blending of Western construction promising self-questioning process. methods with the traditional bazaar Related with these internal queries, construction. Regarding local Tanyeli (1998: 241) interprets the references, the materials used in the 1960s and 1970s as the process of the structure were selected to harmonize internalization of modern architecture, with the building’s surroundings, aside which incorporates the freeing of ideas, from just durability (Tanyeli, 1994:63). voicing criticism and the search for an The horizontal bearings and railings acceptable interpretation. were left as exposed concrete, while The design of the Complex the outside facades covered in lattice- expressed similar aspirations and style elements were made from brick. decisions. In fact, it has been praised Although the Complex has a long for showing considerable sensitivity façade, measuring 800 meters, the to Istanbul’s historical silhouette, as fragmented approach allowed small every effort was made to integrate multi-blocks to suit the historical it into its surroundings through a environment and human scale. ‘public-orientated’ scheme (Bozdoğan Doğan Tekeli, one of the architects & Akcan, 2012:175). Formed out of of the project, stated that Le Corbusier a series of small low-rise blocks, and had been their main influence during incorporating several courtyards and this period. This supports the idea galleries, the structure occupies a large that architects were concerned with area in the heart of the city, situated embedding local references and making on a large boulevard on the historic the artworks important parts of their peninsula [Figure. 1]. According to design. The Complex contains nine Üstün Alsaç (1973:22), it represents a artworks: ceramic panels by Sadi Diren

ITU A|Z • Vol 16 No 2 • July 2019 • E. Yavuz 5

(Abstract Composition, 1965) and arts as part of buildings (Redstone, Füreya Koral (Abstract Composition, 1968:146), which also aimed to 1965); mosaic panels by Eren Eyüpoğlu preserve their intellectual and artistic (Composition: Impressions from dominance (Damaz 1959: 69). In his 4 The founders of Kare Metal are Anatolia journeys, 1965), Bedri Rahmi essay, ‘A Synthese des Arts Majeurs’, sculptor İlhan Eyüpoğlu (Abstract Composition, 1965 Le Corbusier promoted this approach Koman, sculptor and Istanbul, 1965) and Nedim Günsür to ensure the French art community’s Şadi Çalık, (Horses, 1967); a sculpture near the welfare (Boesiger, 1999 : 155). He decorator Sadi pool by Yavuz Görey; a metal relief by explains the synthesis as ‘a new spirit’, Öziş and Mazhar Süleymangil. Kuzgun Acar (Birds); and another relief which, in Von Moos’ words (2010: 97), The founders by Ali Teoman Germaner (Abstract ‘stands for a way of thinking and, by Turk Grup Espas Composition, 1965). implication, the spirit of an entire era was founded by Tekeli stated at the time that, – and not primarily for the idea of the sculptor Hadi because he expected the building total work of art, the Gesamtkunstwerk, Bara, İlhan Koman and to remain permanently, it should comprising painting and sculpture architect-urban include some contemporary Turkish under the aegis of architecture’. designer Tarık works of art since it would provide The discussions, meetings and Carım (it was them with a secure home (E. Yavuz, experimental works, many which later joined by personal communication, May 14, made the issue of collaboration a focal Sadi Öziş). The group officially 2013). He therefore took an integrated, point, were evidence of the collective announced their planned approach to the task so that spirit and the intense struggles in foundation with the artworks would not be simply that era. Indeed, the critical overtones a manifesto decorative objects but rather an toward modern architecture actually published in 1955. integral part of the design (E. Yavuz, focus on its scope, outcomes and how Even with its solid arguments personal communication, May 14, it is associated with the demands of and enthusiastic 2013). In defining his objective, Tekeli the time. In this respect, the CIAM approach, it was referred to the mosaic wall of the 1958 meetings were important platforms short lived. The Brussels Pavilion that featured one wall that gave voice to the collective spirit of articles directly that was entirely artwork, which was the time. These meetings pondered on related with the group can be exactly what he wanted for the project decreasing distance from everyday life stated as: Kalmık, (E.Yavuz, personal communication, and creating a bond with the people. E.(1956). Groupe May 14, 2013). The sketches of the They implied a different type of spatial Espace. Esi, 6, 4. building and Tekeli’s own account experience, which appeals to sensual Kalmık, E. (1956). indicate that the project resulted from and aesthetic requirements. At that Plastik Sanatlar Birleşimi. Esi, 1, collaboration. point, the synthesis of the arts became 4. D’aujourd’hui, Since architects do not think or their focal point, which is the crucial L (1955). operate in complete isolation from point to touch upon briefly in the scope Synthese des Arts their own context, architecture is a of this part. et L’UNESCO. product of both inside and outside In fact, this synthesis first became L’architecture D’aujourd’hui, 58, agents, or, in other words, local and prominent at the CIAM (Congres 9. Bara, H. (1955). international considerations (Tekeli, Internationaux d’Architecture Moderne Plastik Sanatlar 2005:15). Thus, it is also necessary to ) Athens meeting of 1933, when Sentezi. Arkitekt, consider international discussions and Fernand Leger discussed the subject. In 279, 21,24. Bara, events. In the early years of the 20th 1934, the group l’Ar t Mural discussed H. (1955). Grup th Espas. Arkitekt, century and even in the late 19 century, their collective work in the journal 280, 79. various groups in the West aspired Cahiers D’Art, declaring that their main Also for more the unity of arts and architecture. goal was to ‘recreate the link’ between information about These initial efforts contributed to the architect, sculptor and painter. The these groups postwar achievements by establishing journal L’Architecture d’Aujourd’hui and postwar architecture a theoretical background for the re- also featured discussions, such as in Turkey see cooperation of art and architecture. Andre Bloc’s article in the special ‘Art Yavuz, E. (2015). During this period, concrete examples et Architecture’ volume of 1945, in Designing the of such a re-cooperation, defined as which he commented on ‘Synthese des Unity: Türk a synthesis, increasingly appeared in arts majeurs: architecture-peinture- Grup Espas and Architecture in different geographies. sculpture’. The 1946 special issue of the Postwar Turkey. In France, for example, this journal concentrated on architecture, METU JFA, 32(2), development was a part of a government painting, sculpture and tapestry works 117-132. funding program for including the fine by Le Corbusier, Brancusi, Picasso,

Re-evaluating modernism through a spatial collection: İstanbul complex of retail shops and collaboration of art and architecture 6

Giacometti, Savina, Leger, Miro and SAA, MG 5099). Jean Lurçat in relation to the question Lewis Mumford (1967:30) claims of artistic collaboration (Ockman, that regionalism is not a degradation 2000: 65). to the use of local materials, nor is it The issue of synthesis maintained imitation of the formal characteristics its popularity in the following CIAM of the past; rather, it reflects the aim of meetings. At the 1947 meeting, for acknowledging the ‘actual conditions of instance, two questionnaires were life’ and creating a sense of belonging. presented focusing on the exclusion of This phrase ‘actual conditions of life’ the arts from public areas, under the is reminiscent of a statement by Özer 5 It is important to title of ‘The Questions of Aesthetics and about the actual problems or demands mention that most of Architecture’s Relationship to the that should be defined in order to of the influential Other Arts’ (Ockman, 2000:65). At the internalize and modify modern forms texts on this 1949 Bergamo meeting, one session was to create appropriate solutions. An particular subject devoted to the theme of the synthesis of important issue that Turkish architects were written by artists, mostly the arts (Mumford, 2000:192). During faced during this period is raised by Bedri Rahmi the discussions, Jose Luis Sert asserted by Stuart Hall (1993:33). He argues Eyüpoğlu and Fethi that collaboration was possible among that the local aspect is a natural Arda. painters, architects and sculptors, while reaction when people are subjected to 6 Le Corbusier recommended creating a globalization as one of the unavoidable For a comprehensive center to explore what the plastic arts aspects of modernity. This introduces list of the realized could do for architecture (Mumford, a more complicated rhetoric that works see Appendix 2000: 80-81, 84). The 1951 Hoddeston remains within the limits of an A. meeting, which concentrated on ‘the identification situated between local 7 core’, included a section ‘Architecture, and international characteristics. This phrase actually belongs to Painting and Sculpture in The Core’ by The decision to integrate artworks Andre Bloc, which Jose Louis Sert. In Paris, specifically, into the Complex can be linked to these is quoted by Siren various other collaborative groups considerations of locality. However, in Çalık (2004:37). emerged, such as the Union pour l’Art, order to fit within its urban context, the 8 Association pour une Synthese des building has a paradoxical character: The term collaboration Arts Plastiques and Group Espace. All on the one hand, it marginalizes itself refers to a planned these initiatives and discussions raised from the traditional environment integration of the awareness of the concept of Synthese through the conflicting posture of artworks organized des Arts Majeurs and increased the its modern appearance; on the other by the architect. In search for ways to bring about a unity. hand, its fragmented design and use of such a process, the 12 artwork becomes These considerations are valuable artworks is reconciliatory. an indispensable in the sense that Turkish practitioners According to Goldhagen, component of were not unconcerned and inevitably, practitioners’ efforts to respond to new the structure. I responded to them. Architect Bülent social demands and needs by finding prefer to use the Özer (1964:79) cited examples of Le local solutions to international forms term insertion for artworks that Corbusier’s works in Chandigarh, and or concepts led to a socially formed feature within the those of Giedion, Sert and Wiener in modernism, which she calls ‘situated structure after its South America, suggesting that these modernism.’ Goldhagen (2000:306) completion without regional approaches could inspire defines this as ‘situating the users of any forethought. Turkish architects to create something the buildings socially and historically, 9 With the changing similar in their context. On the other in place and time’. The Complex is an circumstances hand, Vedat Nedim Tör (MSUK, SAA, ideal case for examining this concept, and the balance of MG 5099) warned that Turkish art which includes several parameters power throughout and architecture could only become that need to be discussed to analyze the world, the modern by simultaneously integrating the main goal of the design, such U.S. arose as a superpower, a new contemporary requirements and the as transparency, site specificity, the channel and new tradition in a new synthesis beyond path taken within the space, personal intellectual and the arbitrary importing of stereotyped freedom and the reinforcing of a sense cultural center, forms. He specifically referred to Seyfi of place. which resulted Arkan’s design for Haberler Bürosu The building has an obviously in a change in the traditional [the Press Office] in the Hilton Hotel transparent character within its meaning of the west into, in which he had integrated galleries and courtyards that provide to include both the traditional art pieces (Tör, MSUK, a view of the Süleymaniye Mosque, US and Europe.

ITU A|Z • Vol 16 No 2 • July 2019 • E. Yavuz 7

‘common man’.13 The architects’ insistence on individual expression and their contributions to the current lexicon of modern architecture are surely associated with the notion of ‘personal freedom’ within the concept of ‘situated modernism’. In the Complex, the architects embedded their personal 10 This is also vision into this very public building by presented as a including artworks and collaborating preferred scheme with the artists. by Tapan and The relationship between the public Yücel, Batur, Bozdoğan and and the building is also emphasized Akcan while through another parameter of situated articulating modernism, which ‘reinforces a sense on those years’ of place’ through design attitudes. architectural Figure 2. Kuzgun Acar, Birds, metal relief, Thus, the artworks not only make the practices. When IMÇ. Reprinted Özcan , N. et al.1969. considering the Complex’s design humanist but also indispensable attempt to create a public identity that effects of the traditional residential patterns and the culminates in a sense of place from political system, nearby ancient aqueduct. The attention the public’s perspective. That is, by its arrangements paid to this silhouette was a particularly integrating artworks into the project, and executions respected and acknowledged quality of on the general the architects strengthened the sense transformation, the proposal (Vanlı, 2006:269). Indeed, of place, primarily through the pieces’ the postwar years the design’s small-scale, fragmented compositional and formal features. in Turkey used to character was inherited from this The artists, especially Eyüpoğlu, be divided in two location. Beyond this, however, it sought to reintroduce traditional parts in order to can be argued that the integration of better evaluate arts and crafts into contemporary the facts and artworks tied the building to the site as art production; that is, they aspired ongoing activities well. to unite the techniques and the in this changed The articulation of space via these expressive manner of Western painting circumstances. artworks and their role in directing with traditional narratives [Figure. This division is users are other prominent aspects. made according 3]. They aimed to create a synthesis to the breaking The artworks serve as a welcoming falling somewhere between modern points occurred in element, with sculptor Kuzgun Acar’s art and traditional Turkish art. Using 1960 and 1980, relief particularly highlighting the abstract features alongside simplified both of which refer starting point of the Complex. In this expressions of folkloric themes, the to the military way, the space evolves into another interventions artists contributed to the visual drama and the new phase where users and passers-by gain of the building while reconciling the constitutions in the a new experience while also answering local and the international [Figure. following. criticisms that art is isolated from the 4-8]. Yet, more than that, integrating the arts into the design was a means of communicating and reestablishing ties with the public through the use of familiar signs and symbols related to a shared past. Thus, one can interpret this initiative as a social effort that evokes a notion of public identity and forms a kind of social adherence, invoking feelings of familiarity and/or a sense of belonging.

3.Rapprochement with the public During the postwar years, the architectural debates tried to figure out Figure 3. Bedri Rahmi Eyüpoğlu, İstanbul, mosaic panel, IMÇ. how to apply the concept of unity and Author’s archive. the arrangement of different languages

Re-evaluating modernism through a spatial collection: İstanbul complex of retail shops and collaboration of art and architecture 8 and mediums in one entity alongside searching for the publicness of architecture. Regarding the arguments in this article, the agenda of the CIAM meetings, which included the synthesis of arts, creating humanist spaces and the publicness, worth highlighting. In fact, questioning of modern architecture in that kind of a sphere has the potential to trigger similar debates in Turkish architectural milieu. This, on the other hand, supports another assertion in this article, which is emphasizing this particular era, meaning postwar period, when the intensity of these debates is seen. Figure 4. Bedri Rahmi Eyüpoğlu, Abstract Composition, mosaic panel, IMÇ. Author’s archive. Criticisms of modern architecture dealt with its isolation from the public, with one possible solution being to reevaluate its principles and embrace society by reintegrating user demands into design so as to create democratic spaces. There seems to have an anxiety about the status of modern architecture that could cause alienation and distance from everyday people, in other words: isolation. At the 1947 CIAM meeting, this idea is also clearly put forward by Giedion together with integrating arts: “If we really agree the right of the emotional world to exist in this sphere, then architecture and town planning can no longer be regarded Figure 5. Ali Teoman Germaner, Abstract Composition, relief, in isolation from their sister arts.” IMÇ. Author’s archive. (Giedion, 1951:35). At the 1949 CIAM meeting, in Commission II, the Report B addressed the issues of contemporary art, the man in the street as well as urbanism and the synthesis of the arts. Under the section “l’Urbanisme et la Synthese des Arts”, it is stated that, in order to gain a social function, the visual arts and architecture have to be integrated.( Ungers, O.M. & Ungers, L., 1979). Critics argued that modern architecture had to be acceptable for all strata of society, and that everyone should be able to recognize and understand it. This implied that architecture should appeal Figure 6. Sadi Diren, Abstract Composition, ceramic panel, IMÇ. to the public’s feelings in order to be Author’s archive. internalized. In parallel with this concern, architecture was also felt in Turkish architectural debates in Turkey focused architectural circles, particularly on the need to strengthen the dialogue during the 1960s. Şevki Vanlı (1970:49), between architecture and society. This for example, claims that the similarity ‘anxiety’ (Golhagen & Legault, 2000:13) of 1950s architectural design in Turkey about the present state of modern and in the international arena was due

ITU A|Z • Vol 16 No 2 • July 2019 • E. Yavuz 9

motto ‘Architecture for Society’. In a report for the chamber, architect Vedat Dalokay (1968:13) argued that the notion originated in the economic and political shifts between 1954 and 1968, and their effect on architects. He linked the criticisms within architecture to the context, which could be considered a social act itself. In a context that highlights the social aspect so firmly, how did this Complex create a link with society? A pragmatic solution emerged in the form of humanistic spaces that appeal to all members of the public. However, this raises further questions: Figure 7. Nedim Günsür, Horses, mosaic panel, IMÇ. Author’s What is implied by this humanistic archive. approach in architecture? How it can be framed? Regarding the architecture of humanism, Geoffrey Scott (1969:15, 17) points to the concept of delight as the sine qua non, with its utilitarian purpose; meaning, what gives architecture its aesthetic quality and stimulates the users’ emotions. This concept, as an extension of human function and a major component in design, was another issue discussed at CIAM meetings. Accordingly, collaboration with the arts could be an effective response to this concern. The painter Ercüment Kalmık (1956: 4) notes in his essay ‘Plastik Sanatlar Figure 8. Eren Eyüpoğlu, Composition: Impressions from Anatolia Birleşimi’ [synthesis of Plastic Arts] journeys, mosaic panel, IMÇ. Author’s archive. that such collaboration can create an atmosphere that satisfies the people’s to ignoring the values of the public or needs. This emphasizes the people’s the popular majority. demands within a space, as appealing Cengiz Bektaş (1970: 38) set forth to their emotional needs and labeling the notion of designing with respect the issue as a problem of function. to the demands of all strata of the This integration was regarded as a new society. His criticism focused on the aspect of design that was expected disconnected manner of architecture to fulfill the public’s essential needs after 1950; he criticizes it as not having humanistically and with social utility, considered the realities of society and while also addressing the issue of doing nothing more than following a publicness. That is, an artwork fits trend. The solution, he claimed, was in the space if it creates a stable plastic finding the real and simple solutions cohesion that delights beholders. (Bektaş, 1970: 38). Aydın Boysan (1970: To this end, the design team of the 11 In addition, 39) described how the relationship Complex consolidated the publicness in line with between architecture and society had the increasing of the building by siting artworks at its international begun to evolve after the 1950s. He entrances, visible from the main street. relations, an argued that the first upheaval in the The Complex’s close proximity to a important issue society was made at the intellectual busy axis in the city means that it is both that the architects level, which shed light on architecture highly visible and perceptible. It was urged upon was and its disconnection from the society. to integrate with predicted at the time that the building, the Union of Accordingly, the social aspect of Turkish constructed on an abandoned site, International architecture was also an issue for the would provide a link to the boulevard, Architects (UIA). Chamber of Architects, reflected in its thereby improving the location’s status

Re-evaluating modernism through a spatial collection: İstanbul complex of retail shops and collaboration of art and architecture 10 and drawing attention to the building itself (Arkitekt, 1960:123). Apart from the mosaic walls, the architects deliberately left one wall blank for the metal relief to serve as a starting point and symbol for the building (E. Yavuz, personal communication, May 14, 2013). As a means of expression Figure 9. Doğan Tekeli, Sami Sisa, a sketch of the exterior view, and location within the structure, IMÇ . Reprinted from Özcan, N. et al.1969. this abstract relief clearly contrasts with the surface it is mounted on. In fact, the building’s rectilinear form is broken up by the relief’s dynamic and relatively natural characteristics. This approach also helps lessen the tension between the rigid geometry of these international forms, the building’s context and the public. The intention in placing the artwork on the public side of the building, deliberately exposing it to public scrutiny, hints at a desire to gain public recognition and reconcile architecture with the people by allowing Acar’s work to leave its mark on the minds of the public. Figure 10. Füreya Koral, Abstract Composition, ceramic panel, It thus becomes clear that the IMÇ. Author’s archive. architects included artworks with a specific intention rather than as composition from the perspective of a random decisions [Figure. 9]. This person in the street. This determined makes the placement of artwork within her choice of forms, particularly the a space important and determinative if three points that could easily be seen architecture is assumed to create a bond from a certain distance on the street with the public. As in this example, (Kulin, 2012:396) [Figure. 10]. artwork can be sited on the outside The integration of artworks into 12 A book published in 1969 by the surface facing the public or within an architecture may be based on either cooperative interior space to welcome the public. the client’s or architect’s vision for presented the In one of his interviews on the the structure. In particular, the Complex of Retail painting-sculpture-architecture appreciation shown towards public Shops as new in synthesis, Sculptor Şadi Çalık (1956:5) spaces and incorporating artworks the context of the old Istanbul, claimed that this approach, which is into the design can be considered a stressing the connected to people’s needs, leads to the result of the desire to emphasize a paradox between integration of the arts into their living building’s publicness. İlhan Tekeli the new and the space. Once they become an integral (2005:28) argues that contemporary old that had been part of architecture, paintings no politics, described as populist, and created with the construction of the longer require a canvas and sculpture the country’s intense international building within the is no longer just a self-contained object relations at that time affected the urban landscape (Çalık, 1956:5), which is undoubtedly design of public buildings. This (Özcan , N. et al., the case in the Complex. underlines the changing circumstances 1969). Yet, this The notion of publicness can be due to increased consumerism and the also reveals the contribution of also a concern of artists. For instance, greater role of the private sector. the building to the Koral, when describing the creation of During this period, the growing transformation her work for this building, stated that association between the artistic realm of the historical she visited the place several times and and the private sector as patron peninsula, where stood there for hours in front of the is a remarkable development that the building reflects the modern wall to examine the different effects coincided with a desire among artists corporate vision of of the daylight (Kulin, 2012:396). to find suitable outlets for their art, the new patronage She then walked repeatedly up and such as private galleries. This supports and the new down the boulevard to get a feel of the Bozdoğan’s (2008: 65) argument economy in Turkey.

ITU A|Z • Vol 16 No 2 • July 2019 • E. Yavuz 11

about ‘creating surplus value in in the social relations of production, architecture’ in relation to the alliance having sought permanent shelter and between business and the arts. This a wider audience for their work, and development gave architecture the having voiced their concerns about arts’ role of providing suitable locations for permeation into daily life, considering artworks to perform its role as part the spatial designs of architects. of the unity with architecture. That According to Turan Erol (1967: 2), the is, architectural practice was able to state should provide the means for art adapt its perspective and incorporate to contribute to society and penetrate the desires of its patrons. Apart people’s lives. His formulation consists from the Complex, there are several of extending the borders of paintings examples. The humanistic intent and turning them to ceramic or fresco of the Vakko Factory’s architect to surfaces or stained-glass works. This create an environment that improves suggested recipe recalls Bedri Rahmi the workers’ productivity is clearly Eyüpoğlu’s (1952: 3) statements in expressed (Baysal & Birsel, 1970: 161) which he offered a solution to avoid the while Füreya Koral’s ceramic work, painting from being a transient piece ‘Kuşlar’ [Birds], for the Divan Hotel or in his own terms, “from a nomadic Patisserie aimed to offer a welcoming life”. element for the space and provide a suitable backdrop for the company’s 4. Conclusion products. Istanbul Complex of Retail Shops The assertion about engaging with is considered an important milestone society reveals another issue at the because it represents a shift within center of the artistic realm. As Hilde Turkish architectural culture away Heynen points out, the duality of from merely replicating modern the social and the individual aspects architectural practice (Alsaç, 1973:22). feature in the arts. Following Adorno’s That is, the structure applied an view, Heynen (1999:192) argues that international vocabulary without artistic practices may be perceived in compromising the local, with the two distinctive ways: ‘in the perspective inclusion of artworks making a of their social definition and social crucial contribution to its hybridity. relevance’ and ‘in the perspective of More importantly, the collaborative their autonomy as aesthetically shaped execution of the project and its objects’. She explains this social aspect intended integration support the claim 13 This aspiration and its influence on the arts using the that it exemplifies ‘situated modernism’. to integrate the term ‘material’, quoting from Adorno’s The project’s intentions thus situate arts into all areas argument, clarifying that the term it beyond the uneven territory of a of everyday life refers to both ‘the physical material’ possible relationship lying between the was certainly one and ‘the techniques at the artist’s arts and architecture. of the primary concerns of the disposal, his arsenal of images and The architects’ approach and the artistic sphere memories, the influence of the context integration of artworks demonstrate that started in the on the work’ (Heynen, 1999:188). the simultaneous pursuit of a new early stages of the Adorno describes this notion, a fait rhetoric and adaptation of international Turkish Republic. social,14 as follows: formulas. Indeed, the move towards Kalmık claimed that integrating ‘Social forces of production, as well collaboration with the arts occurred artworks into as relations of production, return in at a convenient time to fill a newly- daily life would artworks as mere forms divested of recognized need. In the Complex, it transform a their facticity because artistic labor is seems that art was a tool for resolving city into a giant social labor; moreover, they are always the issues facing modern architecture. museum and elevate the art the product of this labor’ (Adorno, The building’s design concept shows culture/aesthetic 2002:236). that the applied approach goes beyond taste of society This fait social argument also merely collecting artworks because (Kalmık, 1944:2). applies to Turkish architecture culture. they in fact become an important Regarding the artistic and architectural component of the structure. In the 14 The term is mentioned discussions of the time, criticism was same way, the artworks find themselves by Adorno unsurprisingly redirected to a social effective roles in the ongoing oscillation (2002:225). level. Artists also became involved between the local and the international.

Re-evaluating modernism through a spatial collection: İstanbul complex of retail shops and collaboration of art and architecture 12

The effort to revise modern Bektaş, C. (1970).1970’de architecture’s principles in an attempt to Mimarimiz. Mimarlık, 86. respond to contemporary critiques, the Boesiger, W. (1999). Le Corbusier initiative of utilizing arts by embedding Oeuvre Complete vol 4. Basel; Boston: them into the spatial considerations, Birkhäuser. undoubtedly, helped architects realize Boysan, A. (1970).1970’de the vision of “architecture for society”. Mimarimiz. Mimarlık, 86. Within the tension between the Bozdoğan, S. (2008). Haluk functionalists versus the humanist Baysal-Melih Birsel Kitabı: Modern approaches, even the use of traditional Mimarlığımızın Ustalarına Gecikmiş references in artworks undertook Bir İthaf. Mimarlık, 340, 62-69. the role of a mediator. Due to their Bozdoğan, S., Akcan, E. (2012). potential to provide a connection with Turkey, Modern Architectures in the public and generate a sense of History. London: Reaction Books. belonging, these artworks, eventually, Cansever, T. (1970). 1970’de became major elements to strengthen Mimarimiz. Mimarlık, 86, 40-42. the publicness of the building. Çalık, S. (1956). Resim-Heykel- This critical analysis of the Complex Mimari Sentezi Üzerine. Esi, 2, 5. shows how the building’s intended Çalık, S. (2004). Şadi Çalık. İstanbul: integration helped transcend the split İşbankası. between different fields and resolve Dalokay, V. (1968). Mimarlar Odası ambiguities between the arts and 1968 Yılı Çalışma Raporu Üzerine. architecture, specifically the uneven Mimarlık, 55, 13-14. relationship between them. In short, Damaz, P. (1959). Art in European this building is a remarkable example Architecture. New York: Reinhold from Turkey’s postwar architecture Publishing Corporation. of this engaging relationship, in Erol, T. (1967, September 5). II. that it manifests a local dialectic of Kalkınma Planı ve Kültür İşleri (II). modernism while mediating between Ulus, 2. the arts and society. Eyüpoğlu, B.R. (1952, March 13). Mozaik Hakkında. Cumhuriyet, 3. References Feroz, A. (1993). The Making of Unpublished sources Modern Turkey. London and New Tör, V. N. (Undated). Bir Güzel York: Routledge. Örnek Daha. TBMM Milli Saraylar Giedion, S. (1951). The Bridgwater Uzmanlık Kütüphanesi Seyfi Arkan Questionnaire, Contemporary Arşivi, MG 5099. Architecture and Common Man. In Published sources S. Giedion (ed.), A Decade Of New Adorno, T. (2002). Aesthetic Theory. Architecture. Zurich: Girsberger Trans by R. Hullot-Kentor, London, Goldhagen, S. W. & Legault, New York : Continuum. R. (2000). Introduction. In S. W. Alsaç, Ü. (1973). Türk Mimarlık Goldhagen & R. Legault (eds.), Anxious Düşüncesinin Cumhuriyet Dönemindeki Modernisms: Experimentation in Evrimi. Mimarlık, 121, 12-25. Postwar Architectural Culture (11- Arkitekt. (1960). İstanbul 23). Montreal: Canadian Centre for Manifaturacılar Çarşısı Proje Architecture; Cambridge, Mass: MIT Müsabakası. Arkitekt, 300, 122-132. Press. Batur, A. (2005). The post war Goldhagen, S. W. (2000). Coda: period: 1950-60. In A. Batur, A Concise Reconceptualizing the Modern. In S. History : Architecture in Turkey During W. Goldhagen & R. Legault (eds.), the 20th Century (pp. 45-76). Ankara: Anxious Modernisms: Experimentation Chamber of Architects of Turkey. in Postwar Architectural Culture (301- Baydar, G. (2012). Osmanlı-Türk 323). Montreal: Canadian Centre for Mimarlarında Meslekleşme. Ankara: Architecture; Cambridge, Mass: MIT Mimarlar Odası. Press. Baysal, H., Birsel, M. (1970). Vakko Gürel, M.Ö. (2016). Introduction. Turistik Elişi Eşarp ve Konfeksiyon In M.Ö. Gürel (ed.), Mid-Century Fabrikası. Arkitekt, 340, 159-166. Modernism in Turkey. Architecture

ITU A|Z • Vol 16 No 2 • July 2019 • E. Yavuz 13

Across Cultures in the 1950s and 1960s of the Development of Architecture (1-8.). London, New York: Routledge. in Turkey. In R. Holod, A. Evin, and Hall, S. (1993). The Local and The S. Özkan (eds.), Modern Turkish global. In A. King (ed.), Culture, Architecture (15-36). Ankara: Mimarlar Globalization and the World System Odası. (19-40). London: Macmillan. Ungers, O.M. and Ungers, L. (1979). Heynen, H. (1999). Architecture and CIAM 7 Bergamo 1949 Documents. Modernity. Cambridge, Massachusetts, Nendeln: Kraus Reprint. London: MIT Press Vanlı, Ş. (1970). 1970’de Mimarimiz. Kalmık, E. (1944). Mimaride Resmin Mimarlık, 86, 49-54. Yeri. Mimarlık, 6, 2,9. Vanlı, Ş. (2006). Mimariden Kalmık, E. (1956). Plastik Sanatlar Konuşmak: Bilinmek İstenmeyen Birleşimi. Esi, 1, 4. 20.yüzyıl Türk mimarlığı, Eleştirel Kulin, A. (2012). Füreya. İstanbul: Bakış. Ankara: VMV Yayınları. Everest Yayınları. Yücel, A. (2005). Pluralism Takes Moos, S. V. (2010). Art, Spectacle, Command: the Turkish Architecture and Permanence. Notes on Le Scene Today. In R. Holod, A. Evin, Corbusier and the Synthesis of the & S. Özkan (eds.), Modern Turkish Arts. Docomomo Journal, 42, 90-99. Architecture (125-156). Ankara: Mumford, E. (2000). The CIAM Mimarlar Odası. Discourse on Urbanism, 1928-1960. Zürcher, E.J. (2000). Modernleşen London, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Türkiye’nin Tarihi. Trans Gönen, Y.S., Mumford, L. (1967). The South in İstanbul: İletişim. Architecture. reprint of the 1941 ed. New York: Da Capo Press. Appendix A Ockman, J. (2000). Architecture Building, architect, year, city, artist- Culture 1943-1968 . New York: (Application year of the artwork) Colombia Books of Architecture/ 12 Radar Tower, Ragip Buluç, Rizzoli. Istanbul, Mustafa Pilevneli-2002 Özcan , N. et al. (1969). İstanbul 4. Levent Residential Estates, Kemal Manifaturacılar ve Kumaşçılar Çarşısı. Ahmet Arû, Rebii Gorbon, 1954, İstanbul: Güzel Sanatlar Matbaası. Istanbul, Bedri Rahmi Eyüpoğlu, Eren Özer, B. (1964). Rejyonalizm, Eyüpoğlu, Nurullah Berk Üniversalizm ve Çağdaş Mimarimiz Agricultural Products Ofice Üzerine Bir Deneme. İstanbul: İTÜ. Headquarters, Özsan, Bektaş, Vural, Redstone, L. (1968). Art in 1964, Ankara, Erdoğan Ersen, Eren Architecture. M New York: McGraw- Eyüpoğlu-1969, Turan Erol Hill. Ahmet Kanatli High School, Scott, G. (1969). The Architecture Eskişehir, Devrim Erbil-1970 of Humanism. New York: Charles Akbank Şişli Branch, Istanbul, Nasip Scribner’s Sons. İyem-1967 Şahinler, O. (1965). Mimari Biçim ve Akbank Şişli Branch, Istanbul, Nasip Çevre Üzerine Düşünceler. Mimarlık, İyem 17, 21-22. Akün, Emek İnşaat, Adnan Unaran, Tanyeli, U. (1994). Doğan Tekeli- Adnan Yücel, 1968, Ankara, Cemil Sami Sisa, Projeler Yapılar 1954-1994. Eren Istanbul: YEM Yayınevi. American-Turkish Foreign Trade Tanyeli, U. (1998). 1950lerden Bu Bank, Istanbul, Nasip İyem-1965 Yana Mimari Paradigmaların Değişimi Anitkabir, Emin Onat, Orhan Safa, ve ‘Reel’ Mimiarlık. In Y. Sey (Ed.), 75 1952, Ankara, Hüseyin Anka, Zühtü yılda Değişen Kent ve Mimarlık (235- Müritoğlu, İlhan Koman, Hadi Bara 254). Istanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yayınları. Anka Ajans, Eren Eyüpoğlu-1964 Tapan, M. (2005). International Ankara University Faculty Of Style: Liberalism in Architecture. In R. Medicine Hospital, Ankara, Eren Holod, A. Evin, and S. Özkan (eds.), Eyüpoğlu, Bedri Rahmi Eyüpoğlu-1965 Modern Turkish Architecture (111- Apartment In Topağaci, M3 122). Ankara: Mimarlar Odası. Architecture Studio, Asim Mutlu, Tekeli, I. (2005). The Social Context Utarit İzgi, Esad Suher. Istanbul,

Re-evaluating modernism through a spatial collection: İstanbul complex of retail shops and collaboration of art and architecture 14

Füreya Koral (Site Mimarlık), 1960, İstanbul, Bedri Ari Cinema, Ankara, Cemil Rahmi Eyüpoğlu, Eren Eyüpoğlu, Eren1968, Hamiye Çolakoğlu, Eren Kuzgun Acar, Füreya Koral, Yavuz Eyüpoğlu Görey, Nedim Günsür, Sadi Diren As Cinema, İstanbul, Şadi Çalik Çanakkale Seramik, Çan, Atilla 1966 Galatali Atatürk Cultural Centre, Ruknettin Çankaya Komutanlik Lojmanlari, Güney, Feridun Kip-Phase 1, Hayati Cengiz Bektaş, 1965-68, Ankara, Turan Tabanlioğlu-Phase 2-3, 1946-1969, Erol, Neşet Günal, Erdoğan Ersen İstanbul, Mustafa Pilevneli, Sadi Diren Çelik Palas Hotel, Bursa, Eren Aygaz Headquarters, İstanbul, Eyüpoğlu-1966 Mustafa Pilevneli 1978 Çeşme Motel, İzmir, Devrim Bahçelievler Renkli Cinema, Erbil-1975 Ankara, Ferruh Başağa- 1955-56 Çinar Hotel, Rana Zipci, Ahmet Başak Insurance Building, İstanbul, Akin, Emin Ertam, 1959, İstanbul, Füreya Koral Unknown- Wall Panel And Mural Bilkent University Faculty Of Darka Swimming Pool, İznik, Sadi Engineering, Ankara, Hamiye Diren Çolakoğlu 1999 Divan Hotel, Rüknettin Güney. Bilkent University Library, Erkut Renovation:Abdurrahman Hanci Şahinbaş, Selim Vural, 1993-95, And Aydin Boysan, 1972-75, İstanbul, Ankara, Hamiye Çolakoğlu Mustafa Pilevneli, Erol Akyavaş, Bonn Turkish Republic Foreign Jale Yimabaşar, Füreya Koral, Ilhan Affairs Embassy, Oral Vural, Cengiz Koman, Bedri Rahmi Eyüpoğlu, Bektaş, Vedat Özsan, 1967, Bonn, Mustafa İslimyeli, Gencay Kasapçi, Bedri Rahmi Eyüpoğlu Hayati Misman British Embassy Primary School, Dragos Hotel, İstanbul, Devrim Cengiz Bektaş, Ankara, Turan Erol Erbil-1978 Broadcasting House, Utkular, Eczacibaşi Headquarters, İstanbul, Erginbaş, Güney, 1945, İstanbul, Zeki Şadi Çalik- 1962 Faik İzer- Mural 1949, Özdemir Altan- Emek Building, Enver Tokay, 1959, Tapestry, Eren Eyüpoğlu-1972-73 Ankara, Kuzgun Acar, Turan Erol Brussels Pavilion, Utarit İzgi, Erden-Berrin Onur House, Muhlis Türkmen, Hamdi Şensoy, İlhan Eskişehir, Devrim Erbil-1974 Türegün, 1958, Brussels, Bedri Rahmi Etap Hotel, Gencay Kasapçi Eyüpoğlu, İlhan Koman, Sabri Berkel Etibank, Tuğrul Devres-Tuncer Buyuk Sinema Grand Cinema, Yilmaz-Vedat Özsan, 1955-60, Ankara, Abidin Mortaş, 1949, Ankara, Turgut Eren Eyüpoğlu Zaim, Nurettin Ergüven European Council Building Capital Market Building, Ankara, Strasbourg, Strasbourg, Sadi Sadi Diren Diren-1977 Central Bank, Samsun, Yavuz Fitaş Cinema, İstanbul, Sadi Diren Görey-Before 1973 Fruko Factory, İstanbul, Sadi Diren Cep Cinema, Ankara, Sadi Diren Garanti Bank Beşiktaş Branch, Cerrahpaşa Hospital, İstanbul, Eren İstanbul, Devrim Erbil-1976 Eyüpoğlu 1978 Garanti Bank Nişantaşi Branch, Chamber Of Commerce Building, İstanbul, Devrim Erbil-1973 Orhan Şahinler 1963-70, İstanbul, Gayrettepe School Of Architecture Neşet Günal, Şadi Çalik, Özdemir And Engineering, İstanbul, Nasip Altan, Devrim Erbil, Tamer Başoğlu, İyem-1968 Adnan Çoker, Murat Şahinler, Yalçin General Dictorate Of Highways, Karayağiz, Emre Zeytinoğlu 9th Region Facility, Diyarbakır, Turan C.H.P. Headquarters, Ankara, Erol-1959 Hamiye Çolakoğlu 1978 Grand Ankara Hotel, Ankara, Turan Coca Cola Factory, Adana, Sadi Erol Diren Grand Efes Hotel, Paul Bonatz, Complex Of Retail Shops, Doğan Fatin Uran, 1964, İzmir, Atilla Galatali, Tekeli, Sami Sisa, Metin Hepgüler Nasip İyem, Salih Acar, Şadi Çalik,

ITU A|Z • Vol 16 No 2 • July 2019 • E. Yavuz 15

Eren Eyüpoğlu, Güngör Kabakçioğlu Istanbul University Faculty Of Cevat Şakir, Bedri Rahmi Eyüpoğlu, Economics, İstanbul, Şadi Çalik 1964 Ferruh Başağa, Cevdet Altuğ, Erdoğan Italian Airlines Office, Feridun Ersen, Adnan Turani, Yavuz Görey, Akozan, Hüseyin Baban, 1957, Erdoğan Değer İstanbul, Unknown-Mosaic Panel Hacettepe Children’s Hospital, İhsan Doğramaci House, Hamiye Ankara, Eren Eyüpoğlu 1978 Çolakoğlu 1990 Hacettepe University Hospital, Istanbul Chamber Of Commerce Ankara, Eren Eyüpoğlu-1966 Building, New, İstanbul, Mustafa Hacettepe University Department Pilevneli 2000 Of Morphology, Ankara, Atilla Istanbul Governorship Hall, İlhan Galatali, Eren Eyüpoğlu-1965 Tayman, Avni Yüncüoğlu, İstanbul, Hacettepe University Faculty Of Jale Yilmabaşar Dentistry, Ankara, Füreya Koral 1965 İş Bank Headquarters, Ankara, Halil Bektaş Primary School, Ferruh Başağa 1965, Gencay Kasapçi Denizli, Turan Erol-1970 İşbank Osmanbey Branch, İstanbul, Harbiye Officers’ Club, İstanbul, Devrim Erbil-1973 Atilla Galatali İşbank Pangaalti Branch, İstanbul, Haydarpaşa Chest Diseases Hospital, Devrim Erbil-1970 İstanbul, Eren Eyüpoğlu 1979 İşbank Taksim Branch, İstanbul, Heybeliada Naval College, İstanbul, Eren Eyüpoğlu-1972 Ferrun Başağa 1956 İşbank Taksim Branch, İstanbul, Hilton Hotel, Som, Sedat Hakki Devrim Erbil-1974 Eldem, 1952, İstanbul, Bedri Rahmi Jak Kamhi Watersiide House, Utarit Eyüpoğlu, Jale Yilmabaşar İzgi, İstanbul, Şadi Çalik-1974 Hilmi Bodur House, Hamiye Karaköy Aksu İşhani, İstanbul, Çolakoğlu 1991 Bedri Rahmi Eyüpoğlu Intercontinental Hotel (Today Karaköy Pharmacy, İstanbul, Sadi The Marmara Hotel), Fatin Uran. Diren Müellifler: Ruknettin Güney, Karaköy Tatlicilar Patisserie, Dekorasyon: Abdurrrahman Hanci, İstanbul, Eren Eyüpoğlu-1965 Aydin Burteçene, Reşat Seviçsoy, Kizilay İşhani, Ankara, Eren 1975, İstanbul, Altan Adali, Oktay Eyüpoğlu-1966 Anilanmert, Sadi Diren, Afet Koç Company, İstanbul, Sadi Diren Erengezgin, Bülent Erkmen, Attila Konak Cinema, Ruknettin Güney, Galatali, Fuat İzer, Reyhan Kaya, 1959, İstanbul, Şadi Çalik Hüsamettin Koçan, İsmail Hakki Öcal, Lale Cinema And Theatre, Ankara, Mustafa Plevneli , Mazhar Resmor, Eren Eyüpoğlu-1972 Mustafa Aslier, Elif Ayiter, Muammer Land Forces Headquarters, Ankara, Bakir, Ferruh Başağa, Barbaros Baykal, Hamiye Çolakoğlu 1984 Sabri Berkel, Gülşen Çalik Can, Lido Swimming Pool, Halit Femir, Mahmut Celâyir, Mengü Ertel, Veysel 1941-44, İstanbul, Bedri Rahmi Erüstün, Güngör İblikçi, Hasan İlday, Eyüpoğlu Ergin İnan , Ragip İstek, Fevzi Karaköç, Lisbon Turkish Republic Foreign Fethi Kayaaip, Gülseren Kayali, Kadri Affairs Embassy, Orhan Şahinler, Özayten, Sona Sirapyan, A. İsmail Muhlis Türkmen, Hamdi Şensoy, 1963, Türeman, Uğur Üstünkaya, Demet Lisbon, Gülsün-Devrim Erbil, Şadi Yersel, Saim Süleyman Tekcan Çalik,Sabri Berkel, Hüseyin Gezer Istanbul City Hall, Nevzat Erol, Maçka Hotel, İstanbul, Ruzin 1953-60, İstanbul, Nuri İyem, Ferruh Gerçin-1970, Eren Eyüpoğlu-1971 Başağa, Şadi Çalik, Hüseyin Gezer, Markiz Patisserie, İstanbul, Mazhar Nazim Koşkan Resmor Istanbul Naval Museum, İstanbul, Marmara Hotel, Ankara, Füreyya Atilla Galatali Koral, Sadi Diren, Bedrirahmi Istanbul University Faculty Of Eyüpoğlu, Eren Eyüpoğlu 1966 Sciences, Emin Onat, Sedat Hakki Masion Of Chief Of General Staff Eldem1944, İstanbul, Neşet Günal And Commanders In Chief Of Armed -After 1954 Forces, Ankara, Turan Erol-1964-65

Re-evaluating modernism through a spatial collection: İstanbul complex of retail shops and collaboration of art and architecture 16

Mersin Harbor, Mersin, Şadi Çalik- 1964, İstanbul, Ferruh Başağa, Mustafa 1963 Pilevneli, Nasip İyem, Sadi Diren, Salih Metu Faculty Of Architecture, Acar Altuğ-Behruz Çinici,1963, Ankara, Teacher’s Bank Headquarters, Gencay Kasapçi-1968 Ankara, Gülsün-Devrim Erbil Metu U3 Lecture Hall, Altuğ-Behruz Tofaş Headquarters, İstanbul, Çinici, Ankara, Şadi Çalik Mustafa Pilevneli 1974 Ministry Of Energy And Natural Tpao Head Office, Ankara, Atilla Sources Building, Ankara, Devrim Galatali Erbil-1975 Turkish İşbank Kadiköy Branch And Ministry Of Public Works, Cihat Apartment, Perran Doğanci, Altay Burak Erol, S. Giritlioğlu, Cavit Özedey1957, Mola Hotel, Ankara, Nasip İyem- İstanbul, Mediha Akarsu 1969, Ruzin Gerçin-1970 Turkish National Assembly, Nato Headquarters, Jacques Carlu Clemens Holzmeister, 1963, Ankara, (Abdurrahman Hanci Was Involved In Ferruh Başağa The Team For Interior Design), 1960, Turkish Petrol Headquarters, Paris, Bedri Rahmi Eyüpoğlu Demirtaş Kamçil, Rahmi Bediz, 1962- Necip Sait Barlas Waterside House, 74, Ankara, Unknown Metal Stylized İstanbul, Nasip İyem-1963 Wall Panel, Ceramic Panel Odakule Center, Kaya Tecimen, Ali Turkish Petrol Gölbaşi Night Club, Kemal Taner, 1976, İstanbul, Salih Acar Ankara, Nuri İyem 1970 Opera House, Şevki Balmumcu, Uğur Mumcu House, Ankara, Paul Bonatz, 1933, Renovation:1948, Hamiye Çolakoğlu 1996 Ankara, Bedri Rahmi Eyüpoğlu, Cemal Ulus Center, Bozkurt, Beken, Bolak, Tollu 1954, Ankara, Adnan Turani, Arif Ottoman Bank Ankara Branch, Kaptan, Füreyya Koral, Nuri İyem, Ankara, Nasip İyem-1969 Eren Eyüpoğlu Ottoman Bank Bursa Branch Office, United Nations, Le Corbusier, Oscar Bursa, Bedri Rahmi Eyüpoğlu 1971 Niemeyer, Sir Howard Robertson, Et Pension Fund Building, Eskişehir, Al. With Harrison And Abramovitz, Devrim Erbil-1973 1947-53, New York, Şadi Çalik- 1970 Pe-Re-Ja Factory, İstanbul, Sadi Vakiflar Bankasi Galatasaray Diren Branch, İstanbul, Nasip İyem Residence In Kireçburnu, İstanbul, Vakko Factory, Haluk Baysal, Devrim Erbil-1966 Melih Birsel, 1969, İstanbul, Bedri Residence Of The President, Ankara, Rahmi Eyüboğlu, Metin Şahinoğlu, Mustafa Pilevneli 1989, Sadi Diren Nevzat Yüzbaşioğlu, Jale Yilmabaşar, Restaurant Mehmetali, Güngör Haluk Tezonar, Tankut Öktem, Şadi Kaftanci, 1965, Güzelyalı, Devrim Erbil Çalik, Eren Eyüpoğlu, Hasan Kavruk, Riza Yalman House, Abdurrahman Mustafa Pilevneli, Teoman Madra Hanci, 1952, İstanbul, Bedri Rahmi Yapi Kredi Bank Beyoğlu Branch, Eyüpoğlu İstanbul, Nasip İyem Sadiklar Apartment, Emin Necip Yapi Kredi Bank Kizilay Branch, Uzman, 1951, İstanbul, Mazhar Mukbil Gökdoğan, Sabri Oran, Resmor 1962-71, Ankara, Şadi Çalik, Ruzin Samatya Ssk Hospital, İstanbul, Gerçin-1971 Bedri Rahmi Eyüpoğlu-1959 Yapi Kredi Bank Antalya Branch, Sheraton Hotel, Ahe Mimarlik, Ankara, Devrim Erbil-1976 İstanbul, Eren Eyüpoğlu-1972-73 Yapi Kredi Bank Beykoz Branch, Sumerbank Pavilion, Affan Kirimli, Ahmet Oral, 1971, İstanbul, Erdinç Muhlis Türkmen, Muhteşem Giray, Bakla 1948, İzmir, Hüseyin Anka Yapi Kredi Bank Headquarters, Şekerbank Kizilay Branch, Ankara, Ahmet Oral, 1971, İstanbul, Ruzin And Gencay Kasapçi, Sadi Diren Atilla Galatali, Gültekin Çizgen Tam Sigorta Building, Ankara, Yapi Kredi Bank Headquarters, Füreya Koral 1969 Ankara, Eren Eyüpoğli- 1970 Tarabya Hotel, Kadri Erdoğan, Yapi Kredi Bank Kordon Branch,

ITU A|Z • Vol 16 No 2 • July 2019 • E. Yavuz 17

İzmir, Şadi Çalik 1971 İstanbul, Devrim Erbil-1987 Yapi Kredi Bank Tepebaşi Branch, Ziraat Bank, İstanbul, Füreya Koral İstanbul, Ruzin Gerçin-1971 1966 Yapi Kredi Insurance (Previously Ziraat Bank Headquarters, Ankara, Halk), İstanbul, İlhan Koman 1971 Nasip İyem-1966 Yildiz Technical University Ziraat Bank Karaköy Branch, Auditorium, İstanbul, Devrim İstanbul, Şadi Çalik 1970 Erbil-1989 Ziraat Bank Kizilay Brach, Ankara, Yildiz Technical University Library, Gencay Kasapçi 1963

Re-evaluating modernism through a spatial collection: İstanbul complex of retail shops and collaboration of art and architecture