Edimselleşme: Mimarlıkta Eyleme Biçimlerinin Açılması Üzerine

Abstract

Dünya üzerindeki mimarlık üretimlerinin ne kadarı yeni bir söz söyler, ne kadarı yeni potansiyellere açıktır? Bu çalışma böyle bir kaygıyla filizlendi. Peki mimarlık eyleme biçimlerini nasıl kapattı? Kuşkusuz gündelik hayatı ve gündelik mekanları kuran sermaye ve (mimarlık iktidarı dahil) otoritenin, bu kapalılıkta etkisi büyük. Bu düzen içinde artık nitelikten çok nicelik üreten mimarlıklar, ürettikleri mekanları da deneyimden yoksun bırakmaktadır. Bu araştırma, mimari üretimin zamanda değişen ve deneyim ile düşünce üreten bir pozisyonda olabileceğini işaret ederek, bazı mimarlıkların ayırdedilebilmesi için, araç edindiği felsefe ile bir eleştiri çerçevesi kurar. Mimarlık ve diğer yaratıcı üretim pratiklerinin eylemselliği açabildikleri aralıkların peşindedir. Bu aralık, Deleuze ve Bergson’un fark ve zaman kavrayışı ile kurulmuş, bu kavrayışı olumlayan mimari örnekler tartışılmıştır. Kavramsal çerçevesi kurulurken, Bergson’un Bölme yöntemi esas alınarak, ikili olarak varlığın hareketi ele alınmıştır. Eyleme biçimlerinin kapalılığı için gerçekleşme, eyleme biçimlerinin açıklığı için ise edimselleşme hareketleri tariflenir. Bu terimler, Deleuze ontolojisinin varlığın hareketi anlatısından (biçimsel neden hareketi ve etkin neden hareketi olarak) gelmektedir. Gerçekleşme diye nitelendirilen sürecin şartları benzerlik ve sınırlandırma, edimselleşme diye adlandırılan sürecin şartları ise fark ve yaratma olarak kabul edilir. Mimarlık pratiğinde üretim sürecine karşılık gelen Gerçekleşme ve Edimselleşme, organizasyonel işleyiş olarak iki tür çoklukta Düzen Çokluğu ve Örgütlenme Çokluğu olarak tanımlanır. Ele alınan örnek üretimler, mekan oluşumları açısından yeni potansiyeller barındıran ve zamansal doğası olan mimarlıklardır. Her yapının edimselleştiği ve edimselleşmediği durumları olabilir. Bu yüzden buradaki örnekler birbirlerinden edimselleşme süreçleri ve koşulları bakımından farklılaşacak şekilde seçilmiştir. Toplu konut gibi kentsel ve yapısal anlamda katı bir mimarlık üretiminin edimselleşmeye ne kadar açılabildiği Paris 17° konut bloğu projesiyle; dini bir yapı olarak hem de tek aktörlü üretim olan Zumthor’un Bruder Klaus Şapel inin edimselleştiği süreç ve virtüellikleri; ve son olarak örgütlenme biçimlerinin en görünür olduğu örnek olan HafenCity Üniversitesi projesi UdN in edimselleşme süreçleri tartışılmaktadır. Edimselleşme ile düşünebilmek, yaratıcı üretim pratiklerine bir eleştiri gözlüğü sunabilir, hem de henüz tasarlanmamış gelecek üretimler için, eyleme biçimlerine yönelik açıcı bir bakış açısı olabilir. Çalışmanın niyeti, inşa edilmiş yapıları anlamlandırmak değil, (anlamlandırmak dışsallaştırmak olurdu), özgürleştirici bir düşünsel yaklaşımı, bu tarz bir üretimin alanına yaymaktır.

Architecture around the world, has become a discipline of building quantity rather than quality. How many of them bring forth new potentials? Proportionally, it must be so less when it is considered that there are so much investments in construction in recent years. What stops innovation? Apparently capital and authority are the fundamental issues of underlying causes. The space and everyday life which goes throuh that space are determined by those causes. And that brings on spaces which are lack of experience. Actually, this study is mostly interested in the conditions which make architecture open for change, rather than the conditions which close it. Everything “designed”is brand new and different. So where is the line when you say that a building is “different” or “qualified”? According to this study, it is about vitality and time concept of designed space. To analyse spaces in the concept of time, philosophy of Henri Bergson and Gilles Deleuze is used as a tool. By the help of “the division method” of Bergson, the frame is set up in comperatively two paths. In the first one, the “formal cause movement” of the being is belong to a linear time belief. So it is a passive movement which the being doesn’t change itself, or make others change. The second one “efficient cause movement”, is about being’s producvitiviy and producibility. “Formal cause” is the movement of the “possible” and “efficient cause” is the movement of “virtual”. Possible turns into “real”, virtual turns into “actual”. To make this terminology of virtual and actual clear, we need some definitions. “Possible” and “Virtual” are two of the terms which Bergson used in his books ‘Time and Tree Will’ and in ‘Matter and Memon’. “The real” is what exist here and now, “the possible” is what can exist. What can happen always depends on what already happens. The possible turns into real by “realization”. On the other hand “virtual” is not a possibility, it is an alternative reality which has not been realized. Virtual comes up to life as by “actualisation”. Moreover, the rules of realization are resemblance and limitation. And the rules of actualization are difference and of creation. In order to be actualized, the virtual must create its own lines of actualization in positive acts. Meanwhile, according to the division method, beings can be divided according to their difference type. “Difference in kind” and “difference in degree”. Since operating architecture can be perceived as “the organization of space”, and the output of the movements are mostly “multiplicity”, the last part of the theoretical frame is very related to architecture. “Multiplicity of order” is related to realization, since it is a predicted and static event. On the other hand “the multiplicity of organization” is related to actualisation since it is an unforeseeable event. Multiplicity of order has differences in degree which are homogeneous and static. On the contrary multiplicity of organization has differences in kind which are heterogeneous and changing. Eventually the direction of the study is going to be in the context of “virtual” and “actual” of Bergson reading of Deleuze, tracing the differentiation lines of some architectural projects. It is a critique of realisation and an affirmation of actualisation. Since it is about multiplicity, event is the thing now, not the being. So this study is chasing experience and change in space. During actualisation things change over time. What is the act of making difference in architecture? When people feel themselves in space, they feel like they can change something. They can feel it if the space is “open” to effects of time, nature and people. They realize that being in a space makes a difference. Even though they were generated with an architect/ architects, the three case studies are spaces where they are open to change over time. The projects mentioned are like they are planned and drawn as the “possible”. Then during realization it differentiates (from what was planned). So it is actualized. Therefore it means it is managed to design the “virtual”. The first one is Bruder Klaus Chapel of Peter Zumthor. The actualisation takes place in the process of thei construction because of the way the wood is used. Therefore you can see changes in material. It is not possible to represent the walls constructed by burning the tree logs down. It is an experience. And also the space itself is also “living” or “vital” because it is not resisting against time. It differentiates in time. The second one is Paris 17° housing blocks by Lacaton, Vassal and Druot. It is an existing building, which was planned to be demolished and built a new one. The group of architects (their name is “Plus”) suggests not to demolish it, but to extend the building outwards of its border. This is creating a potential, which can change itself and affect others. The actualisation occur in the process of organization and will also occur during the life of the building. The actors related to this project are the city authorities, architects, the people living in the building and the other residents of the city. Plus architects, managed to organize multiplicity and let each user affect and develop the space. In the end each apartment has “unprogrammed extra space” to change it. What is more, the public areas of the block is also extended. Building turned into a luxury housing apartment, not in general meaning, but for personal meaning. The third and the last one is UdN (University of Neighbourhood) project of HafenCity University in Hamburg. It is an old building, which is going to be demolished. HCU owns the building for five years and use it as a both 1/1 scale space production and to make research in the district including itself. They reuse waste materials from other construction sites. Design process, construction process, living process and even the process of organization of the actors are mixed altogether. In every moment it is being used, and everytime it is in change. For every programme, a new organisation is created. And during that programme it is rebuilt for several times. Neither the building nor the actors resist to change in time. The users can feel the vitality of the space everytime. It is “operating architecture” by creating differences and experience. In conclusion, actualisation as a thinking method for creative design practices such as architecture, provides a critique filter. The intention of the study is not to give meaning to the space, it would be extrinsic. However it is expected to create a liberating and intellectual approach of space of built environment. It seems important to liberate operating architecture from the capitalist system and the authorities, to create a differentiation line for itself.