SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Türkiyat Mecmuası / 2026 / Cilt: 35 Sayı: 1

Synthesis of Art in Greek and Turkish Cultures: A Comparative Analysis of Mycenaean and Tile Art

Yunan ve Türk Kültürlerinde Sanatın Sentezi: Miken ve Çini Sanatının Karşılaştırmalı Analizi

Savaş Sarıhan(Haliç University, Faculty of Fine Arts, Department of Graphic Design)0000-0003-4346-0077
Eren Akoğlu(Haliç University, Faculty of Fine Arts, Department of Cartoon and Animation)0000-0002-7494-4886
Ayça Aydoğan Kaymaz(Haliç University, Faculty of Fine Arts, Department of Graphic Design)0000-0001-9064-486X
Pages
259–277
Publication Date
2025-06-23
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The findings present an innovative perspective that bridges the artistic expressions of the past and the future.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study examines Mycenaean and tile art from a comparative perspective, exploring the cultural, aesthetic, and functional features of both artistic forms.
📊
Key Findings & Data:While Mycenaean art holds a significant place in the Late Bronze Age Aegean with its geometric abstractions and masculine architectural designs.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The findings present an innovative perspective that bridges the artistic expressions of the past and the future.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Miken Sanatı · Çini Sanatı · Venn Diyagramı

Abstract

This study examines Mycenaean and tile art from a comparative perspective, exploring the cultural, aesthetic, and functional features of both artistic forms. While Mycenaean art holds a significant place in the Late Bronze Age Aegean with its geometric abstractions and masculine architectural designs. Tile art emerges as an expression deeply rooted in Anatolia’s rich cultural heritage, blending religious and aesthetic elements. The shared characteristics of Mycenaean and tile art, such as the use of ceramics, symbolism, and functionality, are highlighted, while their differences are analyzed within historical and geographical contexts. The historical interaction between art, technology, and culture is further enriched by the opportunities provided by today’s digital technologies. Artificial intelligence technologies like Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs) and Variational Autoencoders (VAEs) play a transformative role in analyzing and reproducing these traditional art forms. In this context, the similarities and differences between the two arts were revealed using a Venn diagram based on the parameters of material, aesthetic, and religious influence. This study discusses how digital technologies contribute to the understanding of traditional art forms and shape modern artistic approaches. The findings present an innovative perspective that bridges the artistic expressions of the past and the future.

Özet

Bu çalışma, Miken ve Çini sanatlarını karşılaştırmalı bir perspektifle ele alarak, her iki sanat biçiminin kültürel, estetik ve işlevsel özelliklerini incelemektedir. Miken sanatı, geometrik düzenlemelere dayalı soyut estetiği ve maskülen mimarisiyle Ege Geç Tunç Çağı’nda önemli bir yer tutarken, Çini sanatı Anadolu’nun zengin kültürel mirasından etkilenerek daha çok dinî ve estetik unsurları bir araya getiren bir ifade biçimi sunmuştur. Çalışmada, Miken ve Çini sanatlarının ortak paydaları arasında seramik kullanımı, sembolizm ve işlevsellik ön plana çıkarılmış, ayrıştıkları noktalar ise tarihî ve coğrafi bağlamlar çerçevesinde analiz edilmiştir. Sanatın tarihsel bağlamda teknoloji ve kültürle olan etkileşimi, günümüz dijital teknolojilerinin sunduğu olanaklarla daha kapsamlı bir şekilde değerlendirilmek tedir. Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs) ve Variational Autoencoders (VAEs) gibi yapay zekâ teknolojileri, bu geleneksel sanat biçimlerinin hem analizinde hem de yeniden üretiminde etkili bir rol oynamaktadır. Bu bağlamda, Venn diyagramı kullanılarak her iki sanatın benzerlik ve farklılıkları materyal, estetik ve dinî etki parametreleri baz alınarak ortaya konulmuştur. Çalışma, dijital teknolojilerin geleneksel sanat formlarının anlaşılmasına ve modern sanatsal yaklaşımların şekillenmesine nasıl katkıda bulunduğunu tartışmaktadır. Elde edilen bulgular, geçmiş ve geleceğin sanatsal ifade biçimlerini birleştiren yenilikçi bir yaklaşım sunmaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Sarıhan, S., Akoğlu, E., Kaymaz, A. A. (2025). Synthesis of Art in Greek and Turkish Cultures: A Comparative Analysis of Mycenaean and Tile Art. Türkiyat Mecmuası, Cilt: 35 Sayı: 1, 259–277. https://doi.org/10.26650/iuturkiyat.1628622

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (35)

  1. Bayazit Murat ve İskender Işık. “Geçmişten Günümüze Çini Sanatı ve Kütahya Çiniciliği”, Batman Üniversitesi Yaşam Bilimleri Dergisi, 1/1 (2012): 891-894. google scholar
  2. Cetinic Eva and James She. “Understanding and Creating Art with AI: Review and Outlook”, (2021): 1-17. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv. 2102.09109. google scholar
  3. Darvishi Neda and Sara Narimani. “The Symbolic Role of Tulip and Pomegranate Flowers in the Tiling Art of Iran and Ottoman Turkey”, Journal of Art & Civilization of the Orient, 10/35 (2022): 23-28. https://doi.org/10.22034/jaco.2022.329920.1234. google scholar
  4. Dawood Mina and Mayssa Elfa. “Using Artificial Intelligence for Enhancing Human Creativity”, Journal of Art, Design and Music, 2/2 (2023): 106-120. https://doi.org/10.55554/2785-9649.1017. google scholar
  5. Erman, Deniz Onur. “Türk Seramik Sanatının Gelişimi: Toprağın Ateşle Dansı”, Acta Turcica, 4/1 (2012): 18-33. google scholar
  6. Fletcher Alexandra, Baird, D., Spataro, M. and Fairbairn, A. “Early Ceramics in Anatolia: Implications for the Production and Use of the Earliest Pottery. The Evidence from Boncuklu Höyük” Archaeological Journal, 27/2 (2017): 351–369. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S0959774316000767. google scholar
  7. Flower Jean and Howse, J. “Euler Diagram Generation” Journal of Visual Languages & Computing, 19/6 (2008). 675-694. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jvlc.2008.01.004. google scholar
  8. Gökçe, Ezgi. “Iznik Ceramics: History And Present-Day”, Athens Journal of Humanities & Arts, 5/2 (2018): 225-242. https://doi.org/10.30958/ ajha.5.2.5. google scholar
  9. Gökçe Can ve Emre Feyzoğlu. “A General Overview of Portrait Works on Ceramic Surfaces” The Turkish Online Journal of Design Art and Communication, 14/3 (2024): 763-784. https://doi.org/10.7456/tojdac.1464181. google scholar
  10. Harris, Robert L. Information Graphics: A Comprehensive Illustrated Reference. New York: Oxford University Press,1999. google scholar
  11. Hunt, Earl. “The Design Of Ballantines. Behavior Research Methods” Instruments, & Computers, 18/3 (1986). 277-284. google scholar
  12. Hutson James, Jason Lively, Bryan Robertson, Peter Cotroneo and Martin Lang. Creative Convergence the AI Renaissance in Art and Design, New York: Springer, 2024. google scholar
  13. Kacar, Vedat. “Cumhuriyet’in 100. Yılında Türk Çini Sanatı”, Yedi: Sanat, Tasarım ve Bilim Dergisi, (Özel Sayı) (2023): 32. google scholar
  14. Kahveci, Mücella. “21. Yüzyıla Girerken Geleneksel Türk Sanatları”, Folkloristik: Prof. Dr. Dursun Yıldırım Armağanı, 387-397. Ankara: Turkiye Diyanet Vakfi Matbaası, 1998. google scholar
  15. Kotsonas, Antonis. “Ceramics, Ancient Greek”, Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology, New York, 2014. google scholar
  16. Lis, Bartłomiej, Hans Mommsen and Joseph Maran, Susanne Prillwitz. “Investigating Pottery Production and Consumption Patterns at the Late Mycenaean Cemetery of Perati”, Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, 32/102453 (2020): 2 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2020.102453. google scholar
  17. Manovich Lev and Emanuele Arielli. “Artificial Aesthetics: Generative AI, Art and Visual Media.” Access December of 10, 2024. https:// manovich.net/index.php/projects/artificial-aesthetics. google scholar
  18. Mansel, Arif Müfid. Ege ve Yunan Tarihi. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1995. google scholar
  19. Moktefi Amirouche and Lemanski, J. “On The Origin Of Venn Diagrams” Axiomathes, 32/3 (2022): 887-900. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10516- 022-09642-2. google scholar
  20. Nagapushpa B. M., Kanchana P, Monish. “Revolutionizing Art and Design through AI: Balancing Innovation, Ethics, and Future Prepared- ness”, International Journal of Scientific Research in Engineering and Management, 8/11 (2024): 1. google scholar
  21. Öney, Gönül. “Anadolu Selçuklu Çini ve Seramik Sanatı”, Osmanlıda Çini ve Seramik Öyküsü, editör Ara Altun, 11-14. İstanbul: Creative Yayıncılık ve Tanıtım Ltd, 2000. google scholar
  22. Özgünel, Coşkun. “Batı Anadolu ve İçerlerinde Miken Etkinlikleri”, Belleten, 47/187 (1983): 697-744. https://doi.org/10.37879/belleten. 1983.697. google scholar
  23. Postman, Neil. Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology. New York: Vintage Books, 1993. google scholar
  24. Rutter, Jeremy B. “Mycenaean pottery”. The Oxford Handbook of the Bronze Age Aegean in, editor E. H. Cline,415, Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2010. google scholar
  25. Samkoff, Aneta. “From Central Asia To Anatolia: The Transmission Of The Black-Line Technique And The Development Of Pre-Ottoman Tilework”, Anatolian Studies, 64/2 (2014): 199-215. google scholar
  26. Sanghvi, Tanish M, Ricky, Shivani Rajkumar and Tirishaant Kartik, Sonia Maria D’Souza. “Brushstrokes of Tomorrow: Exploring the Art of AI”, International Journal of Scientific Research in Science Engineering and Technology, 11/3 (2024): 356-362. https://doi.org/10. 32628/IJSRSET24113140. google scholar
  27. Satır, Seçil. “A Current Evaluation of Traditional Iznik Tiles and Ceramics”, Design Discourse, 2/3 (2007): 1-12. google scholar
  28. Sherratt, E. Susan, and Crouwel, Joost H. “Mycenaean pottery from Cilicia in Oxford”, Oxford Journal of Archaeology, 6/3 (1987): 325-352. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0092.1987.tb00160.x. google scholar
  29. Tekin, Oğuz. Eski Yunan Tarihi. İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları, 1995. google scholar
  30. Turani, Adnan. Dünya Sanat Tarihi. İstanbul: Remzi Kitabevi, 1992. google scholar
  31. Van Wijngaarden, Gert Jan. Use and Appreciation of Mycenaean Pottery in the Levant, Cyprus and Italy:(ca. 1600-1200 BC). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2002. google scholar
  32. Victoria and Albert Museum (V&A). “Plate, Fritware Decorated With Red Carnations and Green Cypress Trees; Turkey, 1600 to 1650.” Access November of 28, 2024. https://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O114554/plate/. google scholar
  33. Victoria and Albert Museum (V&A). “Bulbous vase decorated with tulips and carnations, Turkey (probably Iznik), ca. 1575.” Access December of 2, 2024. https://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O86656/vase-unknown/. google scholar
  34. Yılmaz, Seyhan. “Traditional Objects That Sources to Contemporary Turkish Ceramic Art”, Art-Sanat Dergisi, 0/13 (2020): 417-441. https:// doi.org/10.26650/artsanat.2020.13.0017. google scholar
  35. Cetinic Eva and James She. “Understanding and Creating Art with AI: Review and Outlook”, (2021): 1-17. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv. 2102.09109. google scholar