Читать книгу The Borders of Europe - Группа авторов - Страница 11

Sedat Hakki Eldem (1908-1988) had studied Turkish architecture in Paris in the 1920s, and Ottoman architectural heritage is highly evident in his projects, even though most of them are modernist in their design, use of materials and aesthetics. In the latter half of the inter-war period, many architects turned their attention back to their national “roots” and the architectural heritage of the past, a romantic trend that was also evident in other totalitarian regimes during those years. In Turkey, this era became known as “the Second National Architecture Renaissance”. The legacy of Kemalettin Bey and Vedat Bey was continued, and Eldem introduced and formalised the study of Turkish secular architecture in a seminar he held at the art academy. This helped to establish a conceptual framework for further architectural development based on national characteristics.

With an innovative mind, Eldem reinterpreted the Ottoman architectural heritage to yield new idioms, for instance through the use of coarser dimensions rendered in reinforced concrete and glass. Many of his buildings feature the sofa element, the central room or hall that was common in traditional Turkish houses. The structuring of the façade and the design of the windows also contain reminiscences of older architecture. This was an approach Eldem would maintain throughout his career, as can also be seen in one of his later works, the Atatürk library near Taxim in Istanbul, built in 1973-75. The vertically proportioned windows, the characteristic overhanging eaves, and the use of wood and tiled panels all provide clear associations to the Ottoman architectural heritage. The floor plan is based on the hexagon, with hexagonal skylights in the roof, while the building sits on a triangular structural system.

As we have seen, the architecture that was built in the first decade of the 20^th century adopted many fundamental architectural principles from the Western academic tradition. These were implemented in buildings that were central to the Ottoman Empire’s modernisation process. Post offices, railway stations and banks were meant to serve the nation’s interests in the broader European community, and it is evident that the architecture of these buildings has many similarities with comparable structures elsewhere in Europe. The theoretical foundations of foreign architecture, in particular that of Germany and France, can also be described as hegemonic within the Western architectural tradition during this period. On the basis of this architectural theory, a state architecture emerged that incorporated influences from the Ottoman heritage, but which was interpreted as Turkish and defined as “national”.

Fig. 5. Sedat Hakki Eldem: The Atatürk Library near Taxim, Istanbul, 1973-75. Author’s photo, 2009.

Once the Republic had consolidated its ideology, its economic foundation and its political programme, the hegemony shifted from national connotations to the international ideology of modernism. Much the same happened in many other Western nations as well, with other new nation states exploring and reinterpreting their architectural heritage in the decades immediately before and after the turn of the century. The advent of modernism represents a fundamental change. Following the exploration of the defining traits of national styles, the ground was prepared for new social ideals developed in international arenas. The search for national character returned as a source of inspiration after World War II, as is also evident in Turkey’s late modernism. Similar phenomena are evident under the influence of postmodernism in the 1980s. New commercial buildings are still being built with traits of postmodern, Ottoman-inspired kitsch at the heart of the major cities, although these now represent little more than nostalgic elements in otherwise diverse cityscapes. Hence an awareness of the characteristics of the national architectural heritage, whether described as Ottoman or Turkish, is still apparent as one of many possible choices. Le Corbusier, who warned Atatürk against the negative aspects of modernisation, would undoubtedly recognise the reverberations of his influential modernist theory in Ankara – even if he himself was not in the position to carry it out. Istanbul’s city planners have, as he feared, eradicated much of the city’s former architecture without achieving much more than an efficient use of the available space. As far as architecture is concerned, the era of hegemonies is past, not just in Turkey, but in most other countries as well.