Mescid ve Mimarî
Küçük Resim Yok
Tarih
2014
Yazarlar
Dergi Başlığı
Dergi ISSN
Cilt Başlığı
Yayıncı
Erişim Hakkı
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
Özet
Mimarın ve mimarînin var olma sebebi olan mabet, 20. yüzyıla kadar mimarlığın özü olarak kalacak “üslup”un da yaratıcısıdır. Millî, etnik ve kültürel kimliğin önemli bir tanımlayıcısı olarak 19. yüzyılda Batı’da ve Batı’nın doğrudan etkili olduğu merkezlerde karmaşık bir soruna dönüşmüş olan mimarî üslup, 20. yüzyılın ilk yarısında uluslararası bir estetiğe evrilmiş, ikinci yarısında ise ferdî üsluplar ve küresel “trend”ler içinde yok olmuştur. 1950’lerden sonra kilise mimarîsi, gelip geçici “trend”lerden uzak durmak şartıyla, sanatçı-mimarın ferdî yaklaşımının belirlediği modern mimarlığa açılmıştır. Batı’daki mimarî gelişmeleri yaklaşık 150 yıldır yakından takip eden Türkiye’de bir tek cami mimarîsi –o da ana akım mimarlık pratiğinin dışında kalması dolayısıyla– “klasik” kabul edilen bir üslubu sürdürmekte ve modernleşme baskılarına direnmektedir. 16. yüzyılın, özellikle de Mimar Sinan’ın camilerinin iyi kötü taklit edilmesi üzerine bina edilen ve aslında “neo-klasik” olarak adlandırılması gereken bu yaygın cami tipolojisi, 1950’lerden beri tarihselci (historiciste) yaklaşımların dışlandığı okullarda yetişen mimarların çoğunluğu tarafından, çağdaş yaratıcılığa kapalı oldukları için kıyasıya eleştirilmektedir. Gerçekte mimarlarla cami cemaatleri arasında, özellikle metinlerle desteklenen ortak bir zeminin olmaması, anakronik üslup tartışmasının sürmesine ve Türk şehirlerindeki mescidlerin gerçek sorunlarının gizlenmesine neden olmaktadır. Modern ve (neo) klasik cami arasında bölünmüş mescidin kavramsallaştırılmasındaki sorun her iki kutup için de aynıdır: mescid, “cami” adı verilen, “ibadet alanı” olarak ayrılmış bir parseli olan, kendi içinde başlayıp biten abidevi tekil kütlesiyle sembolik bir ifade taşıması gereken “sıradışı” bir yapıdır. Bu durumda uzlaşmazlık, apartman, işyeri ve yolların belirlediği sıradan şehir mekânı içinde, caminin sıradışılığını gösterecek biçimlerin tercihinden kaynaklanır. Hâlbuki mescidi ilgilendiren asıl sorun, onu toplumsal hayatın merkezinden uzaklaştıran ve şehir içinde mekânını “öteki”leştiren sosyal ve kültürel gelişmelerdir. Bu durumda mescidin gerçek konumunu biçimsel özellikleriyle değil, mekânının toplumla kurduğu işlevsel ilişkide görmek gerekir. Cemaatlerin sadece camiyle sınırlı kalması, mescid tasarımında yeni yaklaşımların içinde düşünülmesi gereken sorunlar arasındadır. Çağdaş mescid mimarîsinde önemli bir eksiklik, fertleri ibadetin dışında, günlük hayatın diğer kolektif birlikteliklerinde buluşturacak olan işlevlerin eksikliğidir. Modern bir cemaatin ihtiyaç duyduğu, günlük hayatın ferdî ihtiraslarını kolektif bir iyiliğe yönlendirebilecek yeni işlevsel programlara camiyle birlikte anlamlı bir mekân ve biçim vermek, bu çağda ancak ehil mimarlar tarafından yapılabilir. Kısacası, mimarlar için çok önemli bir hâle gelmiş olan ferdî yaratıcılık, tarihî, felsefi ve sosyolojik hususların hakkı iyi verilerek kullanılırsa, mescid mimarîsinin önünü açabilir. Ancak, sanatçı-mimarların ve cemaatleri oluşturan insanların mabetlere kaybolan güzellikleri ve işlevleri yeniden kazandırabilmelerinin yolu, belki de Nurettin Topçu’nun çeşitli yazılarında tarif ettiği, o çokluk içinde birliği arayan fert olmaktan geçecektir.
Being the raison d’être of the architect and architecture, the temple is the generator of “style”, which will remain as the essence of architecture until the twentieth century. In the nineteenth century, the architectural style as a significant illustrator of national, ethnic, and cultural identity became a complicated problem in the West and the centers under direct influence of the West. It evolved into an international aesthetics in the first half of the twentieth century and finally disappeared in personal styles and global trends “trends” in the second half of that century. Especially after 1950’s, the church architecture opened itself to modern architecture now shaped by the personal style of the artist-architect, while keeping its distance with global trends. In Turkey, which has been following closely the architectural changes in the West since about 150 years, it is only the mosque architecture which continues to have a style named “classical” and to resist the pressures of modernization – largely by means of staying outside the mainstream architectural practice. This common mosque typology, which is based on the imitation of the mosques of the sixteenth century, especially those of Sinan’s, and which must in fact be called “neo-classical”, has been criticized vehemently for being closed to contemporary creativity by most of the architects educated in schools where historicist attitudes have been rejected since 1950’s. In reality, the lack of common ground supported by texts between mosque communities and architects is the main reason behind the continuation of the anachronistic debate on style that veils the real problems of masjids in Turkish cities. The problem of conceptualization of the masjid, which is divided between the modern and [neo] classical mosque, is in fact the same for both poles: that masjid is an “extraordinary” structure named “cami”, which has to carry a symbolical expression on its monumental free-standing mass that starts and ends in itself in a lot reserved as “worship area”. Thus, the choice of forms which are to show the extraordinariness of the mosque within the urban fabric made of apartment blocks, office buildings, and roads becomes the main reason of the conflict. Nevertheless, the real problem with the masjid is to be looked for in social and cultural changes that displaced it from the center of social life, turning its space in the city into the “other space”. Therefore, the masjid’s real situation in contemporary Turkish society has to be seen not in its formal aspects, but in the functional relationship it establishes with people. New orientations in masjid design have to deal with the problem of mosques’ being usually restricted with a prayer hall. A very important element missing in contemporary masjid architecture is the spaces for gathering of individuals for other collective activities of daily life than praying. In our age, only proficient architects can give a meaningful space and form to what a modern community needs, which is new functional programs added to the mosque that can lead individualistic desires of daily life toward a collective good. In short, personal creativity, which has become a very important issue for architects, can open new horizons for masjid design only if it treats well the historical, philosophical, and sociological matters related with it. Yet, perhaps the only way that the artist- architects and the members of communities can give back to the temples their lost beauties and functions is by becoming the individuals who, in the sense described by Nurettin Topçu in his various writings, search for unity in multitude.
Being the raison d’être of the architect and architecture, the temple is the generator of “style”, which will remain as the essence of architecture until the twentieth century. In the nineteenth century, the architectural style as a significant illustrator of national, ethnic, and cultural identity became a complicated problem in the West and the centers under direct influence of the West. It evolved into an international aesthetics in the first half of the twentieth century and finally disappeared in personal styles and global trends “trends” in the second half of that century. Especially after 1950’s, the church architecture opened itself to modern architecture now shaped by the personal style of the artist-architect, while keeping its distance with global trends. In Turkey, which has been following closely the architectural changes in the West since about 150 years, it is only the mosque architecture which continues to have a style named “classical” and to resist the pressures of modernization – largely by means of staying outside the mainstream architectural practice. This common mosque typology, which is based on the imitation of the mosques of the sixteenth century, especially those of Sinan’s, and which must in fact be called “neo-classical”, has been criticized vehemently for being closed to contemporary creativity by most of the architects educated in schools where historicist attitudes have been rejected since 1950’s. In reality, the lack of common ground supported by texts between mosque communities and architects is the main reason behind the continuation of the anachronistic debate on style that veils the real problems of masjids in Turkish cities. The problem of conceptualization of the masjid, which is divided between the modern and [neo] classical mosque, is in fact the same for both poles: that masjid is an “extraordinary” structure named “cami”, which has to carry a symbolical expression on its monumental free-standing mass that starts and ends in itself in a lot reserved as “worship area”. Thus, the choice of forms which are to show the extraordinariness of the mosque within the urban fabric made of apartment blocks, office buildings, and roads becomes the main reason of the conflict. Nevertheless, the real problem with the masjid is to be looked for in social and cultural changes that displaced it from the center of social life, turning its space in the city into the “other space”. Therefore, the masjid’s real situation in contemporary Turkish society has to be seen not in its formal aspects, but in the functional relationship it establishes with people. New orientations in masjid design have to deal with the problem of mosques’ being usually restricted with a prayer hall. A very important element missing in contemporary masjid architecture is the spaces for gathering of individuals for other collective activities of daily life than praying. In our age, only proficient architects can give a meaningful space and form to what a modern community needs, which is new functional programs added to the mosque that can lead individualistic desires of daily life toward a collective good. In short, personal creativity, which has become a very important issue for architects, can open new horizons for masjid design only if it treats well the historical, philosophical, and sociological matters related with it. Yet, perhaps the only way that the artist- architects and the members of communities can give back to the temples their lost beauties and functions is by becoming the individuals who, in the sense described by Nurettin Topçu in his various writings, search for unity in multitude.
Açıklama
Anahtar Kelimeler
Sanat
Kaynak
Kutadgubilig: Felsefe Bilim Araştırmaları
WoS Q Değeri
Scopus Q Değeri
Cilt
0
Sayı
25
