A space of revolution: Ankara

Abstract

Present study is aimed to reconsider Turkish Revolution and revolution architecture in a more universal point of view. This evaluation takes the idea of universality, Turkish Revolution, Age of Enlightenment, and French Revolution into re-consideration. Two capital cities, Paris and Ankara were selected for the architectural research field. Most studies concerning Turkish Revolution and revolution architecture have an argument based on historical perspective. According to this, the age of Ottoman Empire and consecutive Turkish architecture are labeled Baroque, Rococo, ecclectisist-revivalist, first and second national architecture periods, corresponding to XVIII, XIX and XXth centuries, respectively. This approach tried to keep the historical evaluation of Western civilization in parallel with Turkish architecture. However, one important point is neglected: the intellectual and social background of western civilization does not properly match with Ottoman and Turkish development. Tailoring Turkish Revolution and revolution architecture according to time perspective and estimating it by the developments taking place in Europe lead us to come to inappropriate conclusions. While this point of view calls the improvement efforts of Ottoman Empire in XVIIIth century as “Enlightenment”; it puts also Turkish Revolution on a modernism project which is devoid of strong basis. The unsuitability of the time scale for this kind of comparison shows itself in the example of “printing press”. The invention of printing press stands at the beginning of civilization path; besides this facility reaches Ottoman Empire with some delay, approximately 250 years. This delay clarifies the phase shift between Western civilization and Ottoman Empire. However, a universal approach not only evaluates Turkish Revolution and revolution architecture correctly but also it locates Ottoman architecture in its place in history. The criterion derived from the concept of universality makes possible to evaluate the background of architecture as well as it helps to interpret the product with its production process more than its style. Although the concept of universality is described in various ways previously in time, during the age of Enlightenment it gained another meaning: “absolute independence”. This meaning expressed itself in concepts of “universal human” and “universal science”. Enlightenment struggled with three main dogmas: monarchy, institutionalized religion and metaphysics to move humankind forward in the way of absolute independence. The struggle between Enlightenment and these dogmas described the concept of universality and the criterion taken from this is used to evaluate the places where the revolutions took place. Paris and Ankara, two different places in the world, evidenced revolutions in different time periods, XVIIIth and XXth century, respectively. Both French and Turkish Revolutions struggled with monarchy, institutionalized religion and metaphysics. This struggle is reflected in the built environment and can be traced for an architectural comparison devoid of time scale. The struggle with the first dogma, monarchy, shaped the capital city on five stages: new capitol; new administrative and legislative buildings; designing for people; reforming society with architecture; reflecting the revolution idea on the architectural products. Although both tried to establish a new capitol city, only Turkish Revolution succeeded. French and Turkish Republics were established afterwards. Governmental buildings were constructed in Ankara and corresponding counterpart, Paris. These two revolutions which are aiming the civilization and freedom of the people, put primary importance on design for people. Both revolutions reflected their concepts and values on cities by means of architecture. French and Turkish The struggle with the second dogma, institutionalized religion, shaped the capital city on three stages: rejection of the past historical style; rejection of tradition; breaking the spell of religion at the expense of rational design. Architects of the Revolution refused the traditional ways in design; they rather have rationalism in mind and struggled with institutionalized religion. Rationalism is preferred not only for design but also for architectural education. The struggle with the third dogma, metaphysics, shaped the capital city on four stages: scientific thought, functionalism, utilitarianism and scientific education; industrial architecture; simple, clean geometrical shapes; new architectural materials and production methods. In this struggle, scientific approach is taken as the only helping hand in architectural productivity. This approach propelled the concept of shape and design, construction and material. In conclusion, this study shows that Turkish Revolution matches with French Revolution by a common denominator called “universality” which is described in Enlightenment concept. Capitol cities of these revolutions, Ankara and Paris present parallelisms in intellectual, operational and architectural productivity.

Özet

Bu çalışmanın amacı Türk Devrimi ve devrim mimarlığını dünya tarihi içinde evrensellik bakış açısıyla yeniden değerlendirmektir. Bu değerlendirmede evrensellik kavramı, Türk devrimi, Aydınlanma Devri, Fransız Devrimi karşılaştırması ve mimari araştırma alanı olarak XVIII. yüzyıl Fransız devrim mekânı Paris ve XX. yüzyıl Türk devrim mekânı Ankara kentleri ele alınmıştır. Türk Devrimi ve devrim mimarlığını zaman skalasından bakarak Avrupa’daki gelişmelerle değerlendirmek Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nda XVIII. yüzyıldaki iyileştirme çabalarını Aydınlanma olarak nitelerken Türk Devrimi’ni de temeli olmayan bir modernleşme projesine oturtmaktadır. Evrensellik perspektifinden yapılacak yaklaşım, bu durumu değiştirecektir. Aydınlanma bağımsızlık yolunda insanın ilerlemesi için monarşi, kurumlaşmış din ve metafizikle hesaplaşmıştır. Bu çalışmada, Aydınlanma’nın bu dogmalarla mücadele çerçevesinde tanımladığı evrensellik bir ölçüt olarak devrim mekânlarını değerlendirmekte kullanılmıştır. Fransız ve Türk devrimleri monarşiyi yıkarak cumhuriyeti kurmuş; her iki devrim de yeni bir başkent tasarlamıştır. İki devrim mekânında da yönetsel ve hukuksal binalar inşa edilmiştir. Halkın özgürlüğünü ve ilerlemesini hedef alan bu iki devrim, mimarlık alanında da halk için tasarıma yönelmiştir. Her iki devrim de kendi değer ve kavramlarını kentsel mekâna mimarlık üzerinden yansıtmışlardır. Fransız ve Türk devrim mimarları geleneği ve taklidi reddetmişler, tasarımda işlevsellik, yararcılık ve aklı esas almışlardır. Mimari ürün yaratmada bilimden yararlanma esası teşkil etmiş; biçim, yapım yöntemi ve malzeme alanlarında da devrim gerçekleştirmiştir. Bu sonuçlar Türk Devrimi’ni Aydınlanma’nın tanımladığı evrensellik temelinde Fransız Devrimi ile birleştirmekte; iki devrimin biçimlendirdikleri devrim başkentlerini düşünce, eylem ve mimari ürün boyutlarında ilişkilendirmektedir.