AI Summary & Key Takeaways
AI InsightBy pointing to groups of architects struggling with the constraints of mainstream architectural practice, the article argues that instead of isolating or depoliticizing themselves and having a desire for control in the professional context, architects can achieve autonomy by responding to the social context of the profession on the basis of collaboration and sharing control.
📌 3 Key Takeaways
Abstract
The idea of autonomy and whether architecture itself is autonomous has been a subject of discussion in architectural theory and discourse from different perspectives. Autonomy is a fruitful concept to discuss both the ways in which architecture is situated as a discipline and a profession, and the ways in which architects determine their own positions and actions within their professional practice. Rather than continuing the debate on whether architecture is autonomous or not, this article brings autonomy to the agenda in order to question the relationship that architects have established with their profession and the positions they have taken. While architecture operates according to its own disciplinary principles, today it is driven by market conditions. The need of architectural products for capital and the precariousness of architects in the face of the dynamics affecting their practice should not be denied. However, individual and collective influence of architects in determining and limiting the profession should not be ignored. Therefore, it is considered important to examine the tendencies of architects in terms of their professional practices by contextualizing them together with the reasons and historical conditions that reveal their quest for autonomy. Methodologically, the article traces the different manifestations of architects’ quest for autonomy from a historical perspective and includes a critical evaluation of the positions taken by architects within the framework of theory and practice. In the article, it is aimed to expand the approaches in the literature that question the ways in which autonomy has been adapted to architecture, and to establish a discussion ground on a different understanding of autonomy and an alternative architect identity. In this context, the historical process that began with the professionalization of architecture in the 19th century, continued with the instrumentali¬zation of architecture by capitalism, and in which autonomy was awakened as a dominant discourse in architecture in the second half of the 20th century, is discussed as processes that were effective in architects developing a professional ideology in which they prioritized the quest for autonomy. In the professionalization processes of architecture in the 19th century, architects, as professionals authorized to perform architec¬tural functions, positioned themselves to strengthen their status in the production of the built environment. For architects, the means of ensuring the legitimacy of the profession has been to emphasize the superiority of their expertise and to declare what kind of knowledge and expertise they offer that distinguishes them from other professionals in the field. Although architects have attempted to establish an autonomous space for themselves by defining their expertise in terms of their technical and aesthetic skills, with the instrumentalization of architecture by capitalism, the dictation of the service provisions of architecture by those who control the capital has led to a significant loss of control of the architect over building activity. At the end of the 19th century, they prioritized the public interest, based on an autonomy that included the belief that they were free from any self-interest in the face of profit-seeking investors and contractors. However, since the architects’ mission to improve people’s lives did not intend to consult people, it did not open up space for the autonomy of individuals in society. Although autonomy means the freedom to act and make decisions without being controlled, the autonomy of architects becomes problematic when they impose their own design ideas on people. Since the second half of the 20th century, the discourse of autonomy has become dominant in architecture as a demand to develop critical architectural positions in the face of the inequalities of the capitalist economic system. … Architects’ quest for autonomy, which manifests itself in the form of the separation of the architectural profession and the closure of the profession into itself, reveals the flaws in the way architecture has been positioned as a modern profession and the rela¬tionship architects have established with their profession. In order to place the profession of architecture on a more valid profes¬sional basis, it is necessary to approach autonomy with a different understanding. Rather than seeing autonomy as unconditional independence, grounding it in ethical action and morality enables the imagination and construction of an alternative architect identity. By pointing to groups of architects struggling with the constraints of mainstream architectural practice, the article argues that instead of isolating or depoliticizing themselves and having a desire for control in the professional context, architects can achieve autonomy by responding to the social context of the profession on the basis of collaboration and sharing control.
Özet
Özerklik düşüncesi ve mimarlığın özerk olup olmadığı, mimarlık teorisi ve söyleminde farklı bakış açılarıyla tartışılmıştır. Bu makalede özerklik, mimarların meslekleriyle kurdukları ilişkiyi ve pratikleri dahilinde aldıkları konumları sorgulamak üzere gündeme getirilmektedir. Makale; tarihsel bir perspektiften mimarların özerklik arayışlarının farklı tezahürlerinin izini sürmekte ve mimarların teori ve pratik çerçevesinde aldıkları konumların eleştirel bir değerlendirmesini içermektedir. Makalede, özerkliğin mimarlığa adapte edilme biçimlerini sorgulayan literatürdeki yaklaşımları dayanak alarak genişletmek ve özerkliğe ilişkin daha farklı bir kavrayış üzerinden, alternatif bir mimar kimliğine yönelik bir tartışma zemini kurmak hedeflenmektedir. Bu eksende, mimarlığın 19. yüzyıldaki profesyonelleşmesiyle başlayan ve kapitalizmin mimarlığı araçsallaştırmasıyla devam eden süreçler, mimarların özerklik arayışını önceledikleri bir meslek ideolojisi geliştirmelerinde etkili olan süreçler olarak incelenmiştir. Mimarların özerklik ideolojileri, bir tarafta meslek pratikleri içinde kendi konumlarını güçlendirme istencini, diğer tarafta kapitalist üretim anlayışına karşı eleştirel olarak hareket etme taleplerini içermiştir. Mimarlık mesleğinin sınırlarının çizilerek kontrol edilmesi ve bir savunma mekanizması olarak kendi içine kapanması biçiminde sonuçlar veren özerklik arayışları, mimarları piyasa taleplerinden özgürleştiremediği gibi, toplumun ihtiyaçlarından da uzaklaştırmıştır. Bu durum, mimarlık mesleğini daha geçerli bir profesyonel temele oturtmak açısından, özerkliğin daha farklı bir kavrayışla ele alınmasını gerektirmektedir. Makalede, ana akım mimarlık pratiğinin kısıtlamalarıyla mücadele eden mimar gruplarına işaret ederek; mimarların kendilerini soyutlamaları, depolitize olmaları ve mesleki bağlamda bir kontrol tutkusu taşımaları yerine; iş birliği ve kontrolü paylaşmak temelinde, etik değerlere bağlı kalarak ve mesleğin toplumsal bağlamına yanıt vererek özerkliklerini sağlayabilecekleri öne sürülmektedir. Özerkliği koşulsuz bir bağımsızlık olarak görmek yerine; etik eylemle ilişkili yönünü temel almak, alternatif bir mimar kimliğinin tahayyülünü ve inşasını olanaklı kılar.