Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/11527/17727
Title: Türk Resminde D Grubu
Other Titles: Group D In Turkish Painting
Authors: Ögel, Semra
Çıtak, Esin
30662
Sanat Tarihi
Art History
Keywords: Güzel Sanatlar
D grubu
Resimler
Türk resim sanatı
Fine Arts
D group
Pictures
Turkish painting art
Issue Date: 1994
Publisher: Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü
Institute of Social Sciences
Abstract: Çag'daş Türk Rssmi ve gelişmesi çok uzun yılları kapsamaktadır. Minyatür sonrası Türk Resmi, hemen büyük gelişme gösterememiş, Batı'dan ve yöntemlerinden çok uzak kalınmıştır. Türkiye'de Cumhuriyet Dönemiyle birlikte gelişmeye başlayan Türk Resmi'nde ilk dört grubun dördüncüsü olan ve bu nedenle alfabenin dördüncü harfini, kendine grup ismi olarak alan D Grubu, önceki üç grubun daha deg'işmiş olanı ve batıdan daha çok etkileneni olarak ortaya çıkmıştır. Yavaş yavaş da olsa D Grubu ve sonrasında, artık çag'daşlaşan bir Türk Resmi'nden bahsedebiliriz. Bu çalışmamda, yazılı kaynaklar üzerinde durulmakla birlikte, sanatçı görüşlerinden de yararlanılmıştır, istanbul Resim ve Heykel Müzesi'ndeki D Grubu sanatçılarının tablolarının fotog'rafları bu çalışmaya konmuştur, flncak D Grubu belirgin bir akım olmaktan çok, bir "resim hareketi" olduğundan, farklı tutum görüşteki ve daldaki sanatçıların, hatta aynı sanatçının farklı dönemlerdeki resimleri de D Grubu sergilerinde yer alabildiğinden, bu çalışmadaki resimler bir akım bütünlüğü göstermeyebilir. Tez konusu, tek tek sanatçıları incelemekten çok D Orubu'nun anlatımını, sanatçıların birlikteliğini içerdiğinden, sanatçıların yaşamlarına çok geniş yer verilmemiş, hayatından çok sanatı üzerinde durulmuş katolog anlayışında çalışılmıştır.
As there is no doubt that all the different schools of painting have influenced Turkish painting, the D group which received a lot of both positive and negative critisism has also had an undeniable influence on Turkish painting. The D group took serious steps in westernisation through the way which was opened previously and within fifteen years progressed in this respect with the eighteen painters of the group »Despite all critisism, the group was quite successfull. The D Broup which was active in the years İ933 - 1947, believed that the painting and sculpture understanding in Turkey was 50 years behind its time. According to them, this delay had started with the oil painting artists in the mid 19th century, continued with the education given at the Fime Arts School and Şeker Ahmet Paşa, HUseyin Zekai Paşa, Süleyman Seyyit and finally ended with the academic impresssionism of Çallı ibrahim and his f rends. In fact Çallı ibrahim and his friends were those who opened the way to modern Turkish Art and made innovations in TUrkish Painting. However, the reason for Turkish Painting to tread behind was the fact that these artists did not show much interest in the new trends developing in the world of painting despite the fact that with the start of the centry Europe became the homeland of trends involving new outlooks, new feelings and new technics in plastic arts. Abstract art was born in Europe, Russia and Germany at the beginning of the centry, Cubism, Constructivism, Surrealism and various forms of abstract trends spread throughout the world. Turkish painting stayed out of this development from the middle of the 19th century until 1928 - 30. After the declaration of the Republic, a group of artists was sent abroad to put an end to this estrangement. When they returned, this same group of artists who had been educated abroadleft aside Impressionism that had been used repeatedly for years and started to introduce the new trends. - VÎII- These artists brought back Fauvism which developed in France in 1305, Cubism which developed in 1907 and an impressionism which developed in Germany in 19ÖS. ft group of these artists formed the D Group. The D Group was an important innovative attempt of the Republic period. The ideas of this group were by no means similar to the familiar academic understanding dominant in istanbul. The artists who established the D Group were first of all Post - impressionists who had gone beyond impressionism. Even though the artists who formed the D group and the critics in general stress that the D Group was not a school, this thesis claims that the D Group has in fact shown a unity, an integrity which makes it possible to call it a " school". The chract eristics of the D Group can be summarised as s 1. It was made up of Post __impresssionist artists who had reacted against impressionism. 2. The influence of Cezanne, Dufy, Matisse can be detected in their works. 3. Cubism, Fauvism and Abstract can be observed as a common characteristic in their paintings. 4. The members of the group tried to combine the colour understanding of the impressionist with an importance given to forms, fts the structure of forms lost its importance with impressionism, it became necessary to refer renaisance to the Renaissance artists to revive form structure and mass. They particularly adopted Leonardo Da Vinci's understanding of, " Painting is a product of the mind ". 5. Although they had different understandings, member of the D Group were in unision in a common sense of aesthetics and ideology such as bringing an intellectual approach to TUrkish painting and combining mastery and technic, idea and though in the work of art. IX 6. The first exhibition of 1933 consisted of drawings. These drawings showed the extent to which the D Group identified with classisism and tried to combine classisism and the trends of modern art influenced by such great Reneissance artists as Holbein, Durer, Leonardo Da Vinci. The desire for unity by a group made up of a limited number of friends who understood and loved each other was the reason behind the formation of the D Group. Another reason was the desire to spread contemporary, living art throughout the country and to get people interested in art. All six of the painters who formed the D Group, Z. Faik izer, Abidin Dino, Cemal Tollu, Nurullah Berk, Eif Naci, Zühtü Muridog'lu, were longing for a revolution in art and their main aim was to have frequent exhibitions. Therefore, they needed to have a unity among the artists to incite a liveliness in arts. As a result, they tried to introduce some of the contemporary art trends which had been in existence in the west for nearly half a century and which had become almost classics. However in their pursuit to introduce new art trends, they received both positive and negative critisism. The reason for the negative critisisms was the fact that the public who had just got used to impressionism could not rapidly adapt to this new, different and highly intellectual search. The main critisism that can be brought to the D Group is the fact that they always remained in line with the art trends in Europe rather than find something that was original. Despite this, these artists were able to accomplish original interpretations within the framework of the trends they followed. The answer to the question of how this group was evaluated within the fifteen years between 1933 - 1947 might be the following. Interestingly enough, the intellectual circles, the press and the daily papers gave a highly surprising importance to the exhibitions of the Group. However, the exhibitions met quite a variety of reactions and well known philosophers, writers, poets, university students of the time showed a serious interest in them. Along those who observed these new trends with suspicion and uncertainty, there were also those who found them praise - worthy. Some of the well known writers, poets, and art historians of the time supported or at least were tolerant of the ideas and works of the Group. Among this group were Fikret fldil, ismail Hakkı Baltacıo'g'lu, flhmet Eşref Fehim, M. Şevket ipşiro'g'lu, N. Fazıl Kısakürek, Hikmet ünir, Peyami Safa, Sabri Esat Siyavuşgil, Ercüment Ekrem Talu, Pı.H.Tanpmar, B. Toprak, Vedat Nedim Tor, Mustafa Sekip Tunç, Suut Kemal Yetkin. However, those who did not like the works of the D Group made up the majority and the number of the sarcastic cartoons published was quite high. Malik Piksel tried to remain impartial by bring up both positive and negative crititism. The Pirtists in the D Group and the trends they followed can be categorised as follows s 1. D Group artists influenced by Cezanneş Hakkı Pınlı reflects the influence of Cezanne with the depth in this landscapes, colour and form unity. Sabri Berkel's works reflect the influence of Cezanne with the colours and light in his landscapes between 1935 -1947. Berkel is more of an expressionist and leans towards classical culture. £. D group artists influenced by Cubism - Constructivism; Hakkı Pınlı used Cubism in his portraits and still lifes. Halil Dikmen has some cubist works in the 1960s. Infact, his works reflect the influence of the classical Italian artists. In her early works Eren EyUbog'lu used lot of colours and produced some constructivist works. In his later works Zeki Kocamerai used Constructivism. XI - 3. D Group artists influenced by Fauvism ( Matisse, Dufy ); Bedri Rahmi Eyübo'g'lu was influenced by Matisse and Dufy who are real representatives of fauvism. Moreever, some of his works between 1933 - 1936 reflect the influence of Picasso and Van Gogh and to some extent Cezanne. His paintings depict Anatolia, they are wery colourful, lively and naive. Nurullah Berk was influenced by Matisse. He also produced some constructivist works. 4. D Group artists influenced by abstract trends fifter the 1960s Eren Eyübo'glu produced abstract works. B. Rahmi Eyübo'g'lu also produced some abstract works. S.N. Uralli was influenced by Picasso in his abstract works. way. Turgut Zaim made use of the abstract in a very limited 5. Post - impressionist artists or those who made partial use of impressionism. flrif Kaptan and Eşref üren can be classified in this group. Sabri Berkel's answer to the question on the different phases that Turkish painting went through in the process of abstraction up to the present is as follows; " During my education in Italy I studied the powerful struct urism of the Renaissance masters. Construction has always been an area of interest for me. This is also the main aspect of Cubism which has atracted me. In the 50s Berk and I decided to creat a " Turkish Painting ". We based ourselves on Cubism and tried to project Turkish Culture through the subjects. Î have some paintings called " Simitçi " The Simit Seller ", Yoğurtçu" ( The Yoghurt Seller ) and " Cami " < The Mosque ) which date from this period. But I could only achieve this through this kind of subjects and I did not want to limit myself, ft trend is born, develops and then slips away from the artists hands. What remains is the spirit of the trends "
Description: Tez (Yüksek Lisans) -- İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, 1994
Thesis (M.A.) -- İstanbul Technical University, Institute of Social Sciences, 1994
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/11527/17727
Appears in Collections:Sanat Tarihi Lisansüstü Programı - Yüksek Lisans

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
30662.pdf19.48 MBAdobe PDFView/Open


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.