Dergiler / A|Z ITU Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi / 2018 / Cilt: 15 - Sayı: 3

Scraping the layers: Tahsin Öz and his stylistic restorations in Topkapı Palace Museum

Sayfa
1–12
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

This paper aims to introduce the controversial approaches of Öz in Topkapi Palace Museum with an overview of what he realized and wrote, and focus simul- taneously on the atmosphere of preservation in Turkey until 1950s with voices of intellectuals and professionals supporting or disagreeing his decisions.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:State-led heritage conservation was first experienced in Tanzimat Period in Ottoman Empire.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:State continued being the major custodian of cultural heritage throughout the 1950s.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:This paper aims to introduce the controversial approaches of Öz in Topkapi Palace Museum with an overview of what he realized and wrote, and focus simul- taneously on the atmosphere of preservation in Turkey until 1950s with voices of intellectuals and professionals supporting or disagreeing his decisions.
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Alan Parametreleri

Özet

State-led heritage conservation was first experienced in Tanzimat Period in Ottoman Empire. State continued being the major custodian of cultural heritage throughout the 1950s. The general approach towards conservation of these early years was the maintenance of symbolic buildings that had been regarded as mon- uments. Yet, we can speak of a selective ideal of determining which monument to conserve and which period to exhibit. Starting his career as the chief accountant and later the deputy director of the Museum of Antiquities, Tahsin Öz was among the people who dominated the field of heritage preservation in the early Republican years. He acted throughout his life as an influential figure in decision making processes of heritage conservation. As one of the most important roles in his career, Öz was appointed as the director of Topkapı Palace Museum, which became a museum in 1924 with the approval of the young parliament. Although much neglected and in need of urgent repair, the buildings of the palace were still witnesses of the 19th century Ottoman taste. Un- til 1953, he was responsible and in charge of some rather ambitious restorations, which favored to erase the traces of one period and return back to a specific one. This paper aims to introduce the controversial approaches of Öz in Topkapi Palace Museum with an overview of what he realized and wrote, and focus simul- taneously on the atmosphere of preservation in Turkey until 1950s with voices of intellectuals and professionals supporting or disagreeing his decisions.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

COŞKUN, B. S. (2018). Scraping the layers: Tahsin Öz and his stylistic restorations in Topkapı Palace Museum. A|Z ITU Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 15 - Sayı: 3, 1–12. https://ajindex.com/articles/143108

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (21)

  1. Açıkgöz, Ü. (2014). On the Uses and Meanings of Architectural Preservation in Early Republican Istanbul (1923-1950) Journal of the Ottoman and Turkish Studies Association, 1 (1:2), 167-185.
  2. Altınyıldız, N. (1997). Tarihsel Çevreyi Korumanın Türkiye’ye Özgü Koşulları (İstanbul 1923-1973) (Circumstances Specific to Turkey in the Conservation of the Historical Environment, Istanbul 1923–1973). (Unpub- lished doctoral dissertation). İstanbul Technical University, İstanbul,
  3. Turkey Altınyıldız, N. (2007). The Architectural Heritage of İstanbul and the Ideology of Preservation, History and Ideology: Architectural Heritage of the Lands of Rum. Muqarnas, 24, 281-305.
  4. Akın, N. (2006). Koruma Alanının Büyük Kaybı: Cahide Tamer, Mimarlık, 328, 10-11.
  5. And, M. (2011). 16. Yüzyılda İstanbul: Kent - Saray - Günlük Yaşam. İstanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları.
  6. Anhegger-Eyüboğlu, M. (1986). Topkapı Sarayı’nda Padişah Evi (Harem), İstanbul.
  7. Arkan, E. (2008). Cumhuriyet Döne- minde Ayasofya (Hagia Sophia in Re- publican times). (Unpublished master’s thesis). Çanakkale On Sekiz Mart University, Çanakkale, Turkey. Atay, F. (2016). Ekrem Hakkı Ayverdi (1899-1984), Restorasyon Konservasyon (19), 3-13.
  8. Aygen, Z. (2013). International Her- itage and Historic Building Conserva- tion. USA: Routledge. Başgelen, N. (2006).
  9. İstanbul,
  10. City of the Sultans, İstanbul:
  11. Arkeoloji Sanat. Bilsel, C. (2011). Les Transforma- tions d’Istanbul: Henri Prost’s planning of Istanbul (1936-1951), İTÜ AIZ, 8 (1), 100-116.
  12. Binan, C. (2001). Türkiye’de Anıtsal Mimari Mirasın Restorasyonu ve Özgünlüğünün Korunması ile İlgili Riskler. TAÇ Vakfı 25. Yıl Kitabı (pp. 109-117). İstanbul:
  13. TAÇ Vakfı Yayınları.
  14. Coşkun, B. S. (2012). İstanbul’daki Anıtsal Yapıların Cumhuriyet Dönemindeki Koruma ve Onarım Süreçleri Üzerine Bir Araştırma. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Mimar Sinan Fine Arts University, İstanbul,
  15. Turkey. Çal, H. (1990). Türkiye Cumhuriye- ti Devri Taşınmaz Eski Eser Tahribatı ve Sebepleri, Ankara Üniversitesi Dil ve Tarih-Coğrafya Fakültesi Dergisi, 34(1- 2), 353-80. Eski Eserleri Koruma Encümeni 1949
  16. Yılı Mesai Raporu, TTOK Belleteni, Nisan (April) 1950, 99, 19-25.
  17. Eldem, S. H. ve Akozan, F. (1982).
  18. Topkapı Sarayı, Bir Mimarî Araştırma, Kültür Bakanlığı Eski Eserler ve Mü- zeler Genel Müdürlüğü, Ankara.
  19. Eyice, S. (1993).
  20. Tahsin Öz, Dünden Bugüne İstanbul Ansiklopedisi, 6, 197- 198, Türkiye Ekonomik ve Toplumsal Tarih Vakfı, İstanbul.
  21. Huse, Norbert (ed.) (1996) Den- kmalpflege. Deutsche Texte aus drei