Mimarlık-göstergebilim ilişkileri/mimarlıkta iletişim yolları üzerine bir inceleme

Abstract

Bu çalışmada, mimarlık ürününün de içinde sınıflan dığı anlamlı bütünleri inceleyen, göstergebilim ışığında, mimarlık, göstergebilimsel yöntemler açısından incelenmiş, mimarın iletişim süreci içinde varmak istediği anlamlar ya da izleyici/kullanıcı tarafından nasıl yorumlandığı ör- neklenmiştir. Dil göstergesinde olduğu gibi mimarlık gös tergesinin de çeşitli bağlamlardaki anlamları araştırılmış tır. I. Bölüm "giriş bölümü" olup, bu bölümde konunun ge nel bir tanıtımı yapılmıştır. II. Bölüm' de, Kültür, dil ve mimarlık kavramlarının çevrenin biçimlenmesine etkisi ve bunların birbiriyle i- lişkileri ele alınmıştır. Bu ilişki içinde biçimlendirme eylemi ve çevrenin dildeki metinler gibi okunabileceğine ilişkin teorik yaklaşımlara değinilmiştir. III. Bölüm' de, Biçim ve mekanın dilbilimsel açıdan yapısı incelenmiş, dilde ve mimarlıkta göstergebilimsel yaklaşımlar genel çerçevede ele alınmış, mimarlık göster gesinin iletişim süreci içindeki yeri ortaya konmuştur. IV.Bölüm'de, anlamın bir süreç, bir ortam içinde ile tildiği kabul edilirse ki bu sürece "iletişim süreci" di yoruz. İletişim sürecinin işlevleri belirlenmiş, mimar - yapı - kullanıcı arasındaki iletişim ilişkisi ele alın mıştır. V. Bölüm* de ise, dildeki karşılıklarında olduğu gibi anlamı oluşturan işlemler çeşitli mimarlık çalışmaları üzerinde incelenmiş ve örneklenmiştir. VT. Bölüm' de çalışmanın sonuçları saptanmıştır.

Function a lis m was the main concern of the tendancies dominant in architectural and urban planning theories dur ing the first half of our century; criticism of these ten dencies was oriented towards the one-dimensional urbanal settlements they had produced. The fast changing open systems of the contemporary cities are not hyper significant systems making reference to the cultural behavioral whole like those of the previous ones but rather they are hypo significant cities. Hypo-signifieancy describes a limited absolute meaning for the constructed city, this system beginning from the industrial revolution has become subject to an endless ra tionalisation, where in consequence urbanal system has be come an operational space. For this reason structuralism (and afterwards by means of linguistics and semiology) can be considered as a response to functinalism in architecture and urban planning. Critisizing the functional attitudes because of the alienated environments they reveal, the njSw approach brings investigation of meaning forth investi gation of meaning made possible architectural "theory meet with semiology. By the probability of communication it offers, archi tecture becomes a subject for semiology for this reason, it is possible to treat and explain architecture by the concepts and definitions of semiology. When the architec - tural object is treated as a phenomenon of language, it is called "architectural sign" we are to find the same di vision in architectural sign parellel to the division of natural language sign into the concepts of "signified" and "signifier". The signified component of the architectural sign is composed of the primary functions (meanings) and the se condary functions (cannotational meanings) of the archi tectural sign. -vi- The adresser (the architect) for the production of connotative associations refors to the operations of "metaphor" through similarity and "syntax'' through and "words ". The adresser applies the connotative operations to color and reinforce the first meaning. The adressee, evaluates the message generally from the view of his own personal repertory. For this reason, the meaning load of an architectural object is the sun of the personal associa tions it evokes. The aim of this study is to examine the relation of architectural and language, by accepting that, architec tural becomes language and architectural object becomes a sign. In the studies of semiology, to examine carefully the relations of language and communication, to establish the give message that the architect want to send, at last to establish, the modes of architectural communication by examp 1 i f y in g. The first chapter comprises a general definition of this thesis. Chapter two, is about the effects of the cultural structure, language of the communities and architectural concepts related with communication. At the same time the relationship of these concepts are determined. It is also emphasized that the transmission of cultu ral values from one generation to the other is only pos sible with a common medium and that this common medium is a language. The language concept can be considered in two cate - gories : i. natural language, ii. artifical language. Besides being historical, natural languages (English, Turkish, etc.) depend on the common life and culture of a community. Artificial languages (mathematical symbols, formulas etc.) are languages whose development doesn't depend on a common life. It is explained that language is a system of verbal or written symbols that enables communication among people, and these symbols are called semiotics. Since -Vll- semiology examines both linguistic and non- linguistic sign systems, and since language is only one of the semiotic, it is stated that linguistic is a sub- system of semiology. Language is also defined by its social and personal functions and its description characteristics as well as its communication function. When words are considered in their relationship to the human organism- that is as acts they become behariant. But when they are considered in terms of their relation - ship to one another producing lexican, grammer, syntax and so forth they become language the subject matter not of psychology but of the science of linguistic. It is put forward that there are some spaces and distrietive space relationships in architecture correspond ing to nouns, adjectives and prepositions in language. These relationships are shown below.. place - noun > space - preposition. character - adjective. Moreover it is made clear that the artificial and natural categories of language also exist in architecture. In this study, it is determined that the natural language of architecture has a subjective structure. It is emphasiz ed that this language creates different images on indivi duals and? is a. kind of cultural element for it carries definite social symbols and traces of common life. The artificial language of architecture is stated to have a more regular, universal and objective structure. Conse quently, it is enlightened that it is the architecture itself, that is in the basis of the natural language of architecture. The space concept precisely analysed, since it forms the natural language of architecture and its element that constitutes its essence. Besides, the architectural space is mentioned and it was noted as a concretization of existential space. It is made clear that architectural space is concerned not only with man's existence, but also with surviving and dwelling. It is also pointed out that architectural space has a certain character. -Vlll- It is put forward that architectural space is kind of form of environment and life that is designed accord ing to a certain aim. Besides, architectural space is determined to be formed of a series of elements. These elements are ; - place and node - path and axis - domain and district. To give shape to his environment is the first condi tion, of human being. Because, adaptation to his environ ment is in accordance to derivation of form. Shortly, we call that to give shape to his envi - ronment that is perceiving, defining, interpreting, is a first step to life. We can interpret, to form environment, that is a language; communicate cultur from generation to generation. To understand and interpret a form, we have to say its meanings. This interpreting is different from one to other. architect architectural language traditions perception form X ^spectator existent environment In the third chapter of the study, general semiolo- gical approaches along with the semiological approaches in the field of architecture are introduced and discussed; differentiating and overlapping features of natural and architectural language are discriminated. The architectural language -where communication is in complete unlike the natural language- is treated from the semantic point of view. This incemplete communica - tion could be analysed from the standpoints of both the -ax- adresser and the adressee. In the architectural communication procedure, the adresser is active while the adressee is passive. In the third chapter, the aim is to analyse the se-^ mantic dimension of the architectural sign from standpoint of the adressee in a frame of a survey- In the 4th chapter, in the architectural communica tion, between architect and the users, the sign systems are communicated. The schemata of to communicate information is below: architects > users aggregations of signs and information [design] syntactic rela tion ship Building (object) architect P semiological relationship users. perception pragmatic, functionalist relationship. Generally, communication is defined below, adresser fc> report (information) > receiver In the 5th chapter, according to the model-archi tectural semiology-posed that make up the third chapter, the architectural sign is decomposed into its syntactical -x- elements, old and new buildings and building which has different characteristics which had gained style is in terrogated in a comparative method. Besides, the connotational meanings of the architec tural sign is analysed in accordance with the stylistic different kinds of building examples. The study with its theoretical and practical aspects can be evaluated in the architectural style education. - The study, may contribute to the formation of concience of space and form in the architect and the students of architecture Who are familiar to the examples.