SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Art-e Sanat Dergisi / 2018 / Cilt: 11 - Sayı: 22

FROM ONTOLOGY OF ART TO ONTOLOGY OF ARCHITECTURE ONTICAL STATUS OF ARCHITECTURAL WORKS

SANAT ONTOLOJİSİNDEN MİMARLIK ONTOLOJİSİNE MİMARİ YAPITLARIN ONTİK STATÜSÜ

Rıfat Gökhan Koçyiğit
Pages
264–301
Publication Date
2022-10-12
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)

Finally, these two theories are compared: the analytical theories suggesting that architectural works belong to only one category of the pair versus multi-layered theories suggesting that they may belong to both categories in the pair.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In this study, the specific differences of ontology of architecture -as a newly established field of knowledge- from ontology of art are revealed and ontic status of architectural works is questioned by utilizing theories of general ontology and ontology of art.
📊
Key Findings & Data:For this purpose, the theories produced in the field of ontology of art are reinterpreted with a critical attitude in terms of architectural works and new ontic analysis are tried to be obtained in the face of specific problems arising from the unique structure of architecture.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Finally, these two theories are compared: the analytical theories suggesting that architectural works belong to only one category of the pair versus multi-layered theories suggesting that they may belong to both categories in the pair.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

In this study, the specific differences of ontology of architecture -as a newly established field of knowledge- from ontology of art are revealed and ontic status of architectural works is questioned by utilizing theories of general ontology and ontology of art. For this purpose, the theories produced in the field of ontology of art are reinterpreted with a critical attitude in terms of architectural works and new ontic analysis are tried to be obtained in the face of specific problems arising from the unique structure of architecture. Hence, within the framework of the study, a logical analysis method is adopted instead of historical analysis. In this framework, basic categories that are frequently used in the field of ontology such as modes of existence, universalparticular, object-property, physical-mental, concrete-abstract are utilized. Finally, these two theories are compared: the analytical theories suggesting that architectural works belong to only one category of the pair versus multi-layered theories suggesting that they may belong to both categories in the pair.

Özet

Bu çalışmada -yeni kurulan bir bilgi alanı olarak- mimarlık ontolojisinin sanatontolojisinden özgül farklılıkları ortaya konmakta, genel ontoloji ve sanat ontolojisikuramlarından yararlanılarak mimari yapıtların ontik statüsü sorgulanmaktadır. Bu amaçlasanat ontolojisi alanında üretilen kuramlar, mimari yapıtlar özelinde eleştirel bir tutumlayeniden yorumlanmakta ve mimarlığın kendine has yapısından kaynaklanan özgül sorunlarkarşısında yeni ontik çözümlemeler elde edilmeye çalışılmaktadır. Dolayısıyla, çalışmaçerçevesinde, tarihsel çözümleme yerine mantıksal bir çözümleme yöntemibenimsenmiştir. Bu çerçevede var oluş kipleri, tümellik-tikellik, nesne-özellik, fiziksellikzihinsellik, somutluk-soyutluk gibi ontoloji alanında sık kullanılan temel kategorilerdenyararlanılmaktadır. Sonuçta mimari yapıtların bu kategori çiftlerinden yalnız birine aitolduğunu varsayan analitik kuramlarla birden çok kategoriye bir arada ait olabileceğinisavunan çok katmanlı kuramlar karşılaştırılmaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Koçyiğit, R. G. (2022). FROM ONTOLOGY OF ART TO ONTOLOGY OF ARCHITECTURE ONTICAL STATUS OF ARCHITECTURAL WORKS. Art-e Sanat Dergisi, Cilt: 11 - Sayı: 22, 264–301. https://ajindex.com/articles/449610

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (23)

  1. Alexander, C. (1965).
  2. A City is Not a Tree, Architectural Forum, Cilt 122, No 1, s. 58-62.
  3. Alexander, S. (1925).
  4. Art and the Material, Manchester: The University Press.
  5. Atıcı, M. (2000). “Önceden Kurulmuş Uyum ve Mimarlık”, Mimarlık ve Felsefe içinde, İstanbul: Yapı Endüstri Merkezi Yayınları, s. 80-87. Aristotle, (1984). Categories, in The Complete Works of Aristotle, der. Jonathan Barnes, Cilt 1 Princeton: Princeton University Press. Aristoteles, (2009). Poetika, çev. İsmail Tunalı. İstanbul:
  6. Remzi Kitabevi.
  7. Çitil, A. A. (2012).
  8. Çağdaş Felsefe, Eskişehir: Anadolu Üniversitesi Yayınları.
  9. Beardsley, M. C. (1958). Aesthetics: Problems in the Philosophy of Criticism, New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company. Cohen, S. (1974). Physical Context/Cultural Context: Including it All, Oppositions (2), s. 1-39.
  10. Copleston, F. (1998). Platon, çev. Aziz Yardımlı, İstanbul:
  11. İdea Yayınevi.
  12. Cox, R. (1985). “Are Musical Works Discovered?”, The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Sayı 43 (4), s. 367–74.
  13. Croce, B. (1965) Guide to Aesthetics, çev. G. Laterza e figli; Patrick Romanell, Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, (Breviario di estetica, Bari: 1913).
  14. Currie, G. (1989).
  15. An Ontology of Art, London: Macmillan. Dodd, J. (2000). “Musical Works as Eternal Types”, The British Journal of Aesthetics, 40 (4): 424–440.
  16. Graham G. (2005). Philosophy of The Arts, 3. Basım, New York: Routledge. Grünberg T., Grünber D. (2013). Metafizik, 4. Basım, Ankara: Anadolu Üniversitesi Yayını. Güçlü A. vd. (2003).
  17. Felsefe Sözlüğü, Ankara:
  18. Bilim ve Sanat Yayınları.
  19. Hartmann, N. (2014). Aesthetics, çev. Eugene Kelly of Ästhetik, Berlin: De Gruyter. Ingarden R. (1989). The Ontology of the Work of Art, çev. Max Niemeyer; Raymond Meyer with John T. Goldthwait, Athens:Ohio University Press. (Untersuchungen zur Ontologie der Kunst: Musikwerk, Bild, Architektur, Film, Tübingen). Illies, C., Ray, N. (2009). “Philosophy of Architecture”, Philosophy of Technology and Engineering Science içinde, der. A. Meijers (Handbook of the Philosoph of Sciences, Cilt 9, s. 1199-1256) London:Oxford, Elsevier Science. Illies, C., Ray, N.(2014). “An Aesthetic Deontology: Accesible Beauty as a Fundamental Obligation of Architecture”, Architecture Philosophy, Cilt 1, s. 1. Joad, C.E.M., (1936).
  20. Guide to Philosophy, London: Victor Gollancz. Kant, I. (2003). Arı Usun Eleştirisi, 1. Basım, İstanbul:
  21. İdea Yayınevi.
  22. Khatchadourian, H. (1960). “Works of Art and Physical Reality”, Ratio, Sayı 2, s. 148–161.
  23. Kivy, P. (1983). “Platonism