Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Title:||Bonatz, Holzmeister, Taut, Egli'nin Mimarlık Çizgileri, Türk Mimarlığı Üzerindeki Etkileri|
|Other Titles:||The Architecture Style Created By Bonatz, Holzmeister, Taut And Egll Their Effects On The Turkish Architectur|
|Publisher:||Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü|
Institute of Science and Technology
|Abstract:||Bu çalışmada, Cumhuriyet döneminde, Türkiye'ye gelen Paul Bonatz, Clemens Holzmeister, Bruno Taut ve Ernst Egli'nin mimarlık aktiviteleri, karakterleri, düşünce sistemleri çerçevesinde incelenmiş ve Türk mimarlığı üzerindeki etkileri araştırılmıştır. İlk bölüm giriş niteliği taşımaktadır. Burada çalışmanın amaçlan açıklanmaya çalışılmış, araştırmalarda göz önünde bulundurulacak olan bir takım prensip ve kriterlere değinilmiştir. Bu bölümde özellikle tezin ana konusunu oluşturan isimlerin incelenmesinde önemli bir kriter olan düşünce sistemleri ve yaratıcılık konusuna açıklık getirilmiştir. ikinci bölüm, söz konusu olan mimarların Türkiye dışındaki aktivitelerini, fikirlerini ve eğilimlerini içermektedir. Bu bölüm aynı zamanda yukardaki isimlerin Türkiye'deki mimarlık çalışmaların] daha iyi anlamamız hatta bir karşılaştırma yapabilmemiz açısından önemlidir. Üçüncü bölüm, Cumhuriyet'in ilam döneminde geçerli olan koşullan ve ihtiyaçlan belirlemekte, böylece Bonatz, Holzmeister, Taut ve Egli'nin de içinde yer aldığı yabana mimarların, Türkiye'ye davet edilmelerinin ardındaki nedenleri ortaya çıkarmaktadır. Dördüncü bölümde ise, söz konusu olan mimarların Türkiye'deki aktiviteleri incelenmekte, genel mimarlık çizgileriyle karşılaştırmalar yapılmakta ve Türk mimarlığı üzerindeki etkisi araştırılmaktadır Sonuç bölümü, Bonatz, Holzmeister, Taut ve Egli'nin mimarlıkları, özellikle de karakterlerinin ve düşünce sistemlerinin Türk mimarlığı üzerindeki etkileri hakkında vardığımız sonuçlan içermektedir. Bir anlamda bu bölüm bütün tezin bir değerlendirmesidir.|
The subject of this study is the architectural works belonging Paul Bonatz, Clemens Holzmeister, Bruno Taut and Ernst Egli. It must be noted that the foreign architects that visited Turkey during the early Republican Period are not only the foregoing. However, the studies constituting grounds for this study considered the effects of the architectural works of Bonatz, Holzmeister, Taut and Egli with regard to their training Turkish architects as well as notional structure. Following the studies and investigations, it has been concluded that the foregoing architects had influence on the Turkish Architecture with the architectural works they conducted in Turkey. The aim of the study is to introduce these four architects considering the developments that they have participated and evaluate their architectural works as well as their design systems. The studies evaluating the effects of foreign architecture mentioned the era of those four architects as a notable historical period. But, in these studies, there are some missing points i.e. the works of these four outside Turkey are not mentioned. Their works outside Turkey should of course be mentioned in order to get closer information about them. This study therefore evaluates the works of the architects in Turkey as well as outside Turkey. It may so be possible to make comparison between their works and tendencies in and outside Turkey in order to evaluate their works in Turkey at a more comprehensible basis. Invitation of the foreign architects including the four above, was a result of reformist environment created by Atatürk' s revolutions. The radical reforms which were xu commenced with the change in regime had also many reflections on architecture. One of the most significant duties of the architects who were invited to Turkey was to form the new Turkish Architecture. The four architects conducted their works in this environment. Considering the architectural characteristics of the foregoing, some activities and tendencies have been encountered. In addition to the governmental effects and conditions, their characters, thoughts and design methods have a significant share. The methods used by those four architects during design would be useful to explain some points of their works and ideas. Their ideas and works should be evaluated under some criteria. Collin Rowe, in his book named "Collage City", refers to the article written by Isiah Berlin with the name "The porcupine and the fox". In this article, Berlin lists the. way of thinking of people under two main categories. On one hand, the porcupines with a single and central point of view and a perfect system on the other hand, the fox, with the knowledge of many things and aiming even contradicting targets. As everything has a pre-determined and certain form in the former system, no relation with the surrounding conditions is needed. Certainties become permanent forms which restricts creativity, In another trend of thought, the subjects do not have a certain definition and they cannot be explained logically. Variability and uncertainty which are the properties of this system also force creativity. While the former has only one reality, the latter has many. Rowe tells that there İs no certain line between these two and explains the case with the "Le Corbusier" example. The reality is very hard to explain and takes infinite number of forms. But undefined and unexplainable is deemed to be dirty. Therefore, the porcupine mask should be put on in order to become believable. Le Corbusier followed this way to become better and believable. The trends of thought of these people (the architects in our study) effects the methods and designs used by them. Each architect may have exclusive methods and their trend of thought may cause them to be included in fox category while some others in Xlll porcupine category, and some others to both in different periods (as is the case for Le Corbusier example) During the evaluation of the four architects, their works, thought and trends are considered within a general frame while sometimes a conclusion is tried to be drawn by making comparisons between each other. The reflections of the thought trends and design properties of the architects and the effects of those on their works in Turkey as well as on the Turkish architecture has been evaluated. Second section following first one introducing the subject of the thesis deals with the works of the architects outside Turkey and their architectural trends. The architectural works of Bonatz who is referred to at the beginning was evaluated in three periods. From 1900 to 1920, in spite of being in accordance with the traditional architecture, the architect considered functions in his designs and opted for simplicity. The Stuttgart Railway Station Building which was designed by Bonatz is mentioned as an example to modernization trends. The architect realized modern design during 1920ies. Bonatz was naturally influenced during a period of modem architecture. The latest period of the architect is 1930ies during which he conducted traditional designs in cooperation with Nazis. Meanwhile, traditional design and monumentalism became important in Germany having been taken over by the National Socialists, wherefore Bonatz conducted accordant works. Second architect of the study is Clemens Holzmeister. The first attraction on his works is complexity and variability. Holzmeister's works should be evaluated under different functional headings. These functional structures include churches, theaters and stages, monumental structures, schools and houses. His architecture is not in accordance with any of the existing forms. He developed his own design rules and applied the same in his works. He used monumentiism, dramatic values and sometimes eclecticism in his works. XIV The most interesting architect of the study is Bruno Taut. An evaluation on the works of the Architect reveals that the architect conducted various types of works instead of creating same style ones. On one hand he defended cultural idealism in 1914 while on the other hand he defended social housing zones during 1918 as an indicator for the social democratic though prevailing in Germany. He was a designer who dared to design extraordinary structures as well as being a realist who is at the top of his career. Taut was among the most interesting ones of the 20th century designers, though he became less popular than the other contemporaries. The last architect evaluated within this study, i.e. Egli, constructed many buildings in Turkey. Egli's architecture may be considered as close to the Viennian Ecole of the modern architecture. Functions were always given the topmost importance in his designs which can also be seen from massive structure and facade. However, those buildings do not have attractive highlights with regard to their architectural properties. Third section deals with the conditions prevailing in Turkey when those architects were invited and the reasons lying behind such invitations. The prevailing circumstances when they were invited is assessed in order to evaluate the works of the foreign architects in Turkey and influence of their works on the Turkish architecture. Fourth section gives the works of Bonatz, Holzmeister, Taut and Egli in Turkey and their influence on the Turkish architecture. Bonatz, perhaps the most criticized one of the foreign architects who were invited to Turkey, made his designs under certain considerations. The limits of his creativity was traditional values and architectural monumentalism. He transferred his neo-classic and XV monumental design considerations into Turkish architectural thought. He believed that each country should create its own national architecture and supported second national trend of architecture. However, his usage of neo-classic elements which are not familiar to the Turkish Architecture and his attempts to interpret the Turkish architecture before obtaining a good knowledge about the Turkish architecture was criticized very much by the Turkish architects. There are some features primarily considered in the architectural works of Holzmeister which are similar to Bonatz. These are monumentalism, reflection of the regional features on the design and dramatic facade arrangements. When compared with Bonatz, Holzmeister is not so traditional and formal. He determined his rules instead of keeping promise to the existing ones. In that respect, he may be deemed more creative than Bonatz. The buildings designed by Holzmeister in Turkey illustrate his architectural rules. Of course, the most interesting one mentioned in our study is Bruno Taut. Recalling the classification made by Berlin, he may be assumed as a fox. He sought different designs during his architectural history. His latest target was creating a Turkish architecture in accordance with Turkey's conditions. Unfortunately, the restrictions faced by him in Turkey and his short time stay in Turkey caused him to become unsuccessful in realization of his imaginations. The creation period of the last architect evaluated in this study, i.e. Egli, was somehow restricted as was the case for Bonatz and Holzmeister. The works of the architects did never deviate from rational and functional modern architectural style. He reflected this features on the structures he designed in Turkey, he is well known by the Turkish contemporaries as well. Referring to their roles in training, it may be revealed mat both Bonatz and Holzmeister continued their architectural thought as trainer. On the other hand, it is well XVI known that Taut and Egli tried to educate new Turkish designers who would become autonomous in designing. As discussed above, these architects having different architectural trends and design properties, have influenced the Turkish architecture by adopting new trends thereon rather than imposing their applications or trainer privileges. Another matter to be dealt hereunder is the disapproval faced by these architects due to their designs and trainer status. Further to the evaluations carried out on the resources of that era, it may be found out that the Turkish architects disapproved the existence of foreign colleagues. Because many of the structures existing then was designed by these architects, it was interpreted as a mis-trust to the Turkish contemporaries. The Turkish architects founded organizations in order to oppose this situation. As another negative point, they aimed to be famous and well-known with the structures they designed in Turkey. (Bruno Taut should be excluded). In spite of all such objections, it should be noted that these architects brought modern ideas and trends from the western architecture into the Turkish architecture. Further, they helped our architectural institutes to gain today's level of modernity. The last note to be emphasized is their point of view. The resources belonging to that period as well as the ones from the near past have been evaluated. The evaluations have been carried out with regard to today's point of view, as it is deemed much more objective. For instance, it is well known that the periodical "Arkitekt" does not have a warm approach to the foreign architects and that it does not mention those names so much. This may be explained by the objections placed by the Turkish architects of the period to the foreign contemporaries. As it may be possible that the resources from that period to have pre-determined negative point of view as does the periodical "Arkitekt", the resources dating back to near past should be emphasized and the subject should be evaluated objectively using today's resources.
|Description:||Tez (Yüksek Lisans) -- İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, 1996|
Thesis (M.Sc.) -- İstanbul Technical University, Institute of Science and Technology, 1996
|Appears in Collections:||Mimarlık Lisansüstü Programı - Yüksek Lisans|
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.