Yaşanan Mekan: Mimari Program İle Gündelik Yaşam Pratikleri Çakışması

Abstract

Mekanı soyut bir kavram ya da nesnel bir içeren olarak ele alan yaklaşımlar, mekanı yaşamdan ve özne ile olan ilişkisinden koparmaktadır. Mekana bu anlayışla yaklaşılması, mekanın özneden ve içinde geçen yaşamdan bağımsız bir varlık olarak ele alınmasına neden olur. Yaşanan mekan kavramı, mekanı özneyle ve gündelik yaşam pratikleriyle birlikte var olan ve bu yaşamla birlikte yeniden üretilen bir kavrayışı belirtir. Mekan, geometrik ilişkileri önceden planlanan ve soyut bir uzamda tasarlanan, bitmiş ve statik bir obje olarak değil; içinde geçen ve içinde bulunduğu yaşamla düzenlenen, yaşamın belirsiz ve sürekli akışı içinde ilişkileri, sınırları ve kurgusu sürekli yeniden tanımlanan dinamik bir valıktır. Mekanı bağlamıyla ve ilişkileriyle bütün olarak tartışan kuramcılar, mekanda geçen yaşama ve kullanıcıların mekanla olan ilişkisine vurgu yapmak için, mekan sözcüğü yerine yer, deneyimlenen mekan, yaşanan mekan gibi ifadeler kullanmışlardır. Öznenin mekana yerleşerek mekanı inşa edilmiş bir kabuk ya da insanı çevreleyen bir nesne olmaktan farklılaştıran, barınılan ve yaşanılan bir yere dönüşmesine elveren yere dair özellikleri araştırmışlardır. Mekanın fiziksel özellikleri, kullanım şekilleri, kullanıcının mekan deneyimi gibi farklı araştırma alanları, mekanı yer yapan nitelikler olarak ele alınmıştır. Bu çalışmada ise yaşanan mekanın, mimaride yaşamı kurgulama arası olan mimari programın ve gündelik yaşam pratiklerinin belirleyiciliğinde üretilme biçimleri araştırılmıştır. Araştırmada mimari programın fiziksel mekanı nasıl gerçekleştirdiği ve mimaride neleri kurguladğı araştırılarak, farklı program yaklaşımlarının mekan kurgusundaki rolleri araştırılmıştır. Araştırmanın ikinci bölümünde ise program ile kurgulanmış ve inşa edilmiş olan mekanda gündelik yaşamın kurulma biçimleri ele alınmıştır. Mimari programın kurguladığı ve gerçekleştirdiği mekanda gündelik yaşamın kendine nasıl bir düzen kurarak mekanı yeniden biçimlendirdiği araştırılmıştır. Mekanı kurgulayan mimari program, mekandaki yaşama dair öngörüler oluşturarak mekanı fiziksel gerçekliğine kavuşturur. Ancak yaşanan mekan, bu aşamadan sonra gerçekleşmeye başlar. Mekan, kullanıcıları ve içinde geçen yaşamla birlikte yaşamaya ve yaşamla kurduğu ilişkilerle dönüşmeye başlar. Gündelik yaşamın dönüştürdüğü mekan, mimari programın öngördüğü kurguyla örtüşüp ayrışabilir. Yaşam, mekan için öngörülen mekanı sürekli bozup yeniden yaratma eğilimindedir.

The approaches that describe the space as an abstract container in outer space,divide life and space into separate parts and break off its relationship with subject. These approaches to the space with this understanding,cause it to be an independent presence from the subject and the life that occurs in it. This study plans to investigate the lived space comprising of the superimposition of everyday life practices and architectural program,that is not generally discussed by the otherapproaches which address space as an abstract notion. Lived space is a place which is comprehended through the subjective perception and personal experience; and make the users live, feel, interact, remember and imagine with its all potential. It couldn’t be understood through the dimensions and abstract geometric relationship but itcould be through the users experience and their subjective perception. The theoreticians who discussed the space with its all dimensions and relations, have used phrases such as place, experienced space, lived space instead of the word space in order to make emphasis on the life that occurs in space.They have investigated the relationship arising from the settlement of the subject in a space. This fact cause to differentiate space from a constructed shell or an object that surrounds the humans and make it a hospitable and livable space. With the help of their inquiries, lots of different research theme such as physical characteristics of space, usage patterns, the experience of the users have been taken as the qualities that generate the space. In this study, lived space is taken as a superimposition of everyday life practices and architectural program which allows editing the life practices happening in the space. The concept of lived space will not explained by the abstract description of space, it needs to be taken with the all contexts of space that contains the life in it. The relationship between space and action, space and time and space and body are the properties that convert space to lived space. Having a life in it, converts the space to a place associated with everyday life practices. Space offers action possibilities to the subject. Subject move in the space with the relationship created between objects and its actions.It could be said that the main feature of the place is the action possibilities that determine everyday life. The time of a lived space has been associated with concept of lived time which is emerging as a critique of the absolute time. Lived time is a subjective time concept in which future and past time intertwine each other in contradiction to objective time perception based on the constant time flow. Time is defined as a component of a lived space. Phenomenological approaches, that proposed subjective experience and body as a method of understanding space, have been discussed as a critique of rational thought that took space separately in order to analyze it. It is seen that space is turned into a lived space after its relationship with the body. Space is not a free object that can be seen independent from the subject. Its existence could not be comprehended just through the mind. Subjective experiences are necessary to understand space. Subject could not be independent and separate from space while it exists in it. Subject is an existence that settle in a place and experience it with its body.Therefore the body can be determined as a component of the lived space. The components of lived space are put forward through the notion of place that contains everyday life and actions, time and body. The components of architectural program were investigated on through the selected architectural projects. The changes caused by different components of architectural program and its effects on the spatial fiction were examined. The fiction of action, time and body in architectural program were discussed through the analyses of selected architectural projects. The relationships between the components of program and selected projects were gathered and given in a mapping. The program map is not a rigid classification method in which sample projects are associated with just one component of architectural program. It is a flexible relationship network that shows the intersection points of projects and components and also it assists to comprehend what type of connection are established between them. Thus it helps to explore different relationships in architectural programs. The mapping with examining the intersections and making the comparisons between them, helps to read the changes on the spatial fiction which is caused by the different elements of architecture program. The program map shows the relations of the sample projects with the components of architectural program; action, time and body. The purpose of this mapping is not to classify projects according to the way of their spatial fictions. Revealing the relationships between program components and sample projects helps to investigate the role of the program components on spatial fiction. Therefore instead of a rigid classification method, in which each projects have been categorized under a single program component, a flexible reading method, which allow each projects to be associated with different program components, has been tried to discovered. Each studied project can be correlated with many program components. Therefore, the established relationship between projects and program components are opened to interpretation. In addition to the main program component that determines the project’s spatial fiction, the other correlations between the project and other components are also exemplified. With analyzing the map, the impact of changing components on the spatial fiction is planned to be discovered. Throughout the examination of sample projects, architectural program is shown as a design tool that can edit the space and regulate the life in it. It is useful to look at this relationship from a different point of view. It helps to understand the impact of everyday life practices on the lived space. It gives some information about how to re-produce the space with just life practices which is normally constructed by architectural program and how the users turns it to lived space by re-producing it. The experience of my own home space study and the reading of Terminal movie are given as an example to understand how to convert a built space to a lived space. On these studies, re-settling into a constructed building and different types of re-settlement forms are examined. In the experience of my own home space, re-production of space through my body and its movement is explained with the representations of my house experiences. In the film reading, it is seen that space is re-produced with the differentiation of spatial fiction through action and time. In these studies, re-production of space by the practice of everyday life is provided through the action, time and body components. Actions of everyday life would have re-produce space by converting the time and the relationship of the body with space. In the both study, the case of re-producing a space with the practice of everyday life and transformation of a programmed space to a lived space can be examined. Everyday life practices re-establish the space with the three components of architectural program; action, time, body. These two examples show that considering a space according to the architectural program, reduce its multi-layered nature based on the spatial experiences. Space is place that generates life possibilities in it and creates life. On the other hand it is constantly evolving by life. Space is not a static and unchanging structure. It could be easily transformed and re-established with the experiences of subject. Therefore the architectural program, although in some cases targeted in that way, could not design a finished and pre-defined life. Designed and programmed space is generally transformed into lived space, with the fiction of architectural program and variability of everyday life practices. Lived space is a product of these two production practices. It could be said that one of these two forms of production is architect’s fiction and the other is the subject’s fiction.The components of architectural program which are used by architect as an editing tool for the spatial fiction, is also an unconscious fiction format for the subject. These two production processes of everyday life and architectural program are successive and overlapping processes. Fiction that depends on the architectural program, transformed by the everyday life practices and overlapped on the fiction. Lived space is a multi-layered organism in which the continuity of life goes on with all the productions and overlapping situation.