Çağdaş İstanbul post-modern mimarisinde neoklassisizm

Özet

18. Yüzyıl’ın ikinci yarısında Geç Barok ve Rokoko’ya tepki olarak Avrupa’da ortaya çıkan Neoklâsisizm akımı antik yapıların listelenmesi ve sınıflandırılmasıyla birlikte, klâsik üslûba ve Antik dünyaya duyulan hayranlıkla Eski Yunan ve Roma Antik mimarilerini ve 16. Yüzyıl’da İtalya’da gelişmiş olan klâsik eğilimi, yani Rönesans’ı taklit eden mimarlık anlayışı olarak tanımlanmıştır. Neoklâsisizm’de yapının bölümlerinin birbirleriyle orantılı ve ahenkli olmaları hedeflenmiş ve Antik mimarideki düzenler tasarım diline ve kurgusuna tekrardan dahil edilmiştir. Geçmiş üslûpları tasarımlarına dahil etmeyi kendilerine ilke edinen ve Post-Modernizm akımı doğrultusunda ürün veren mimarların Neoklâsisizm’i de repertuarlarına almalar,ı akımın geçmiş mimarî üslûplardan biri olması nedeniyle kaçınılmazdı ve nitekim de öyle oldu. Zira Neoklâsisizm’in 1980’li yıllardan bu yana çağdaş mimarlık tarihinde Post-Modernizm akımı çerçevesinde dünyada deyim yerindeyse ‘canlandığı’ bir gerçektir. Bu canlanma sürecinde 1990’lı yıllarda aralarında Leon Krier, Demetri Porphyrios, Aldo Rossi, Robert Stern, Quinlan Terry, Robert Adam, Giorgio Grassi, Charles Jencks, Christian Norberg-Schultz, Colin Rowe’ın bulunduğu mimar ve mimarlık tarihçileri Klâsisizm’in türleri ve tanımlarını yeniden masaya yatırmışlardır. Böylece tarih kavramının kendisi de tekrar sorgulanmıştır. Son yirmi yıldır dahil edilen yapılarda, düzenler, kemerler, arşitravlar ve damlalık türü klâsik repertuarın ögeleri kullanılmaya başlanmıştır. Bu makalede Post-Modernizm akımı dahilinde ürünlerini veren Yeni Klâsisizm’in tanımı ve dünyadaki örnekleri verildikten sonra, İstanbul’da rastlanılan uygulamalardan yola çıkılarak özelliklerine odaklanılmış ve dünyada ‘Serbest Üslûp Klâsisizmi’ şeklinde anılan akımın ‘Fibrobeton Klâsisisizmi’ne geçişinin nedenleri örnekler üzerinden açıklanmıştır.

Abstract

Neoclassicism which appeared in the second half of 18th century in all over Europe along with the classification of Antique monuments as a reaction to late Baroque and Rococo, is defined in classical terms as the style which reinterpreted the Roman and Greek Antique architecture and the classical tendency or Renaissance which developed in 16th century in Italy. The aim of Neoclassical architecture was to achieve a demonstrable harmony and proportion of the parts of the building and the orders were again introduced to the language and structure of the architectural design. It was inevitable for the architects who include historic styles to their designs and who work according to post-modernistic principles to take Neoclassicism into consideration as the style is in fact one of the historic tendencies. It is a well confirmed fact that from 1980s onwards the style has come to life again within the limits of Post- Modernism in contemporary history of architecture. It has been observed for twenty years now that Neoclassicism has reappeared on the Turkish architectural scene and that the examples in Istanbul merit to be analysed. Thus in buildings classified under ‘Newclassicism’ such elements of the classical repertoire as orders, arches and architraves are being used again. During this process of revival, in the 1990s, architects and architecture historians such as Leon Krier, Demetri Porphyrios, Aldo Rossi, Robert Stern, Quinlan Terry, Robert Adam, Giorgio Grassi, Charles Jencks, Christian Norberg-Schultz and Colin Rowe’ın discussed the kinds and definitions of Classicism. While the concept of history was being questionned once more, the style of Neoclassicism was handled too. Namely the historian and author Charles Jencks broadened the conventional definition of the tendency because he thought that today’s classical revival is so unlike any other that it forces architects and critics to reassess the basic meaning of the term, and thus to change the meaning of classicism. Accordingly Jencks argued that classicism is defined broadly as a tradition more than a Greco- Roman style, a tradition which includes some periods, such as Gothic and Mannerist, which are often regarded as anti-classical. This redefinition thinks Jencks has the virtue of illuminating the ideas behind current Free Style Classicism and the limits of classicism. in general. After giving the definitions and examples of the style in the world in general, the focus is made on the characteristics and varieties of the different tendencies within Post-Modernism. On this occasion it should be stressed that along with Venturi, Jencks and Portoghesi’s definitions, Robert Stern’s understanding of the term has been presented too. Among the examples presented are Ricardo Bofill’s and Taller de Arquitera’s ‘Les Arcades du Lac’, Michael Graves’ Humana Buliding and Michael Wilford & Associates’ Staatsgalerie in Stuttgart. Thus the neoclassicist component of Post-Modernism is being handled and its main aim is being dealt upon. It is important to stress on this occasion that the main aim of Post-Modern Neoclassicism is to communicate directly but in a suggestive way with the user of the buildings instead of communicating with them openly. In order to communicate with the user, metaphor, ornament and polychromy is introduced to design. The reason to name this tendency Classicism is the fact that classical elements such as column, arch, dome develop the international gramer and syntax. After a general presentation and sampling is realised, the stambouliote examples and the reasons for the change of the movement’s name from ‘Free Style Classicim’ to ‘Fiberconcrete Classicism’ are explained. Among examples which are analysed we can cite Celal Sultan Hotel by Koç Mimarlık, Toprak Studio by Dimtaş A.Ş.,, Taksim Plaza Hotel by Hamdi Şensoy, Seres Hotel by Tahsin Ertürk, Taksim Park Plaza Hotel by Site A.Ş., Orjin Boss by Ömerler A.Ş. and Arap-Turkish Bank by Site A.Ş. The main purpose to present these samples is to underlie the different aspects Post-Modern Neoclassicism presents in Istanbul. In the article presented below it is concluded that while the style appears in mainly touristic buildings in 1980’s it spreads to almost every social layer and that it even appears in ‘infill’ buildings within the city. It seems important to note that the examples encountered in Istanbul do not carry the responsability to necessarily communicate with the user and that it mainly has a historicist character. It is dealt on the other hand that the movement is being prefered for stylistic reasons more than ideological ones.