SavedAdd your journal

Journals / A|Z ITU Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi / 2019 / Cilt: 16 - Sayı: 1

Architecture: Distinguished or ordinary network agents in the field of its representation

Burçin BAŞYAZICI
Belkıs ULUOĞLU
Pages
29–42
DOI
—
🏛️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)

They will be represented by network maps to discuss which mechanisms structure the representational field of Architecture with a capital A whether as a distinguished and/or ordinary phenomenon.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study will focus on the representation of Architecture with a capital A by questioning the phenomenon of ordinariness, starting with the question of where in the representations of Architecture can we trace the phenomenon of ordinari-ness?The paper goes on to disclose the paradoxical relationship between distinguish-edness and ordinariness.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Bourdieus concepts of habitus and field are specified as methodological tools to analyze this paradox within the following two themes (i) the representation of architecture and architects as related to the social classes to which they belong (habitus) and (ii) the influence of architectural institutions and their network agents on architecture as they are socially represented (field).
💡
Conclusion & Impact:They will be represented by network maps to discuss which mechanisms structure the representational field of Architecture with a capital A whether as a distinguished and/or ordinary phenomenon.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Özet

This study will focus on the representation of Architecture with a capital A by questioning the phenomenon of ordinariness, starting with the question of where in the representations of Architecture can we trace the phenomenon of ordinari-ness?The paper goes on to disclose the paradoxical relationship between distinguish-edness and ordinariness. Bourdieus concepts of habitus and field are specified as methodological tools to analyze this paradox within the following two themes (i) the representation of architecture and architects as related to the social classes to which they belong (habitus) and (ii) the influence of architectural institutions and their network agents on architecture as they are socially represented (field). The concept of habitus, will help us to understand the social mechanisms of ar-chitecture and architects as distinguished and/or ordinary phenomena, while the concept of field will help us to analyze the operative principles of representational mechanisms.The field of architectural institutions (as understood of Bourdieusian term) de-scriptive phrases stated by the institutional actors will be taken as major data to examine this paradoxical mechanism. They will be represented by network maps to discuss which mechanisms structure the representational field of Architecture with a capital A whether as a distinguished and/or ordinary phenomenon.

🔖

Cite This Article

BAŞYAZICI, B., ULUOĞLU, B. (2019). Architecture: Distinguished or ordinary network agents in the field of its representation. A|Z ITU Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 16 - Sayı: 1, 29–42. https://ajindex.com/articles/389411

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (14)

  1. Aravena, A. (2016). “Rationale” in Reporting from the Front: 15th International Architecture Exhibition Catalogue. Marsilio; Slp Edition, 21-30.
  2. Başyazıcı B., Uluoğlu, B. (2017). The Phenomenon of Being Distinguished in Architecture; a Study on Pritzker Prize. Paper presented at the meeting of ATINER 7th Annual International Conference on Architecture, Athens. Baudrillard, J., Nouvel, J. (2011).
  3. Tekil Nesneler. Yem Yayın, İstanbul.
  4. Benjamin, W. (2006). The Writer of Modern Life: Essays on Charles Baudelaire, Harvard University Press.
  5. Betsky, A. (2014). The New York Times Versus Architecture. Architect Magazine. Retrieved from http://www. architectmagazine.com/design/thenew-york-times-versus-architecture_o Betsky, A. (2016). Reporting from the Front: Postcard from the Venice Biennale. Retrieved from http://www. architectmagazine.com/design/exhibits-books-etc/reporting-from-thefront-postcard-from-the-venice-biennale_o Bingler S., Pedersen, M. C. (2014). How to Rebuild Architecture. The New York Times. Retrieved from https:// www.nytimes.com/2014/12/16/opinion/how-to-rebuild-architecture.html Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge University Press,
  6. New York. Bourdieu, P., (1985). Distinction; A Social Critique of Judgement of Taste. Harvard University Press,
  7. Massachusetts. Bourdieu, P. (1986). “The Forms of Capital” in Richardson, J. (Ed.) Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education. New York, Greenwood, 241-258.
  8. Britannica. (2017). Pritzker Family American Business Family. Retrieved from http://global.britannica.com/topic/Pritzker-Prize
  9. Britannica. (2018). Pritzker Prize International Architectural Award. Retrieved from https://www.britannica.com/topic/
  10. Pritzker-Prize Dimaggio, P. (1991). “Constructing an Organizational Field as a Professional Project: U.S. Art Museums, 1920-1940”
  11. In Dimaggio, P., Powell W. (ed.) The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis. The University of Chicago Press, 267-297.
  12. Eisenman, P. (2014). Interview with peter Eisenman. Dezeen. Retrieved from https://www.dezeen. com/2014/06/09/rem-koolhaas-at-theend-of-career-says-peter-eisenman/ Forster, K. (2010). “Interview with Kurt Foster”, in Levy, A., Menking, W. (2012) Architecture on Display: On the History of the Venice Biennale of Architecture. Architectural Association Press,
  13. London. Graw, I. (2006). “Beyond Institutional Critique”, in John C. Welchman (ed.), Institutional Critique and After. JRP Ringier, Zurich, 7-146.
  14. Grenfell, M.