Search

Bu çalışma, İstanbul'daki Feriköy Latin Katolik Mezarlığında bulunan yapıların üslûpaçısından incelenmesine yönelik bir araştırmayı içermektedir. Öncelikle Avrupa'damezarlıkların şehir dışına taşınması ile İstanbul'da bulunan Katolik mezarlıklarınkuruluşu ve tarihçesi ele alınmıştır. Katalog bölümünde, Feriköy'de bulunan 172mezar seçilerek bu yapılarda kullanılan süsleme ve bezeme unsurları ayrıntıları ileincelenmiş, işaret ve sembollerin anlamları da kapsamı içinde açıklanmıştır.Çalışmaya konu olan üslûp analizinin sonuçları ele alınırken, İstanbul'daki Katoliktoplumunun kültürel kimliği ile ilişkilendirilmesi ve dönemin kentsel mimarideğişimleri çerçevesinde değerlendirilmesi amaçlanmıştır. This study focuses on the Feriköy Latin Catholic Cemetery through a stylistic readingof its funerary monuments. A survey of the translocation of European cemeteries isfollowed by an overview of the expropriation of the Grands-Champs des Morts andhistory of Catholic cemeteries in the city. The catalogue is framed as an analysis ofstylistic features of 172 tombs. Symbolic elements are also explained in their specificcontext. The study aims to relate stylistic assessments of tombs at the Feriköycemetery to cultural identities of the Catholic community in Istanbul within theframework of architectural transformations in the urban environment. 581

Fransisken rahiplerin İstanbul'daki izleri 1220 yılına dek uzanmaktadır. Fransiskenlerin ilk kiliseleri İstanbul'un surları içerisinde Sant'Antonio dei Cipressi ismini taşıyordu ve Bizans imparatorların himayesi altındaydı. 1453'te İstanbul'un fethi sırasında rahipler şehrin savunmasında yer aldıkları için fetihten öldürüldüler ya da esir edildiler ve kilise ortadan kaldırıldı. Bir asırdan fazla izbe yerlerde ayin yapmak zorunda kalan rahiplere 1585 yılında Madam Clara Bertola adında Cenevizli dul bir kadın bir kilise ve bitişiğinde bir ev bağışladı. Bu kilisenin içinde Bizans devrinden kalma bir Meryem ikonası bulunmaktaydı. Bağışı yapan Madam Clara Bertola, kilisenin ailesinin soyadı, `Draperis` adınıtaşımasını istemişti. Ancak bu kilise 1660 yangınında ortadan kalkmış daha sonra 1662 yılında tekrar inşa edilmiştir. Fakat 1662'de inşa edilen kilise izin alınmadan yapıldığı için tekrar yıkılmış ve arazisi satılmıştır.Yıkılan bu kilise Galata'da günümüzde Mumhane olarak anılan bölgede denize yakın bir noktadayer almaktaydı.Yersiz kalan rahipler hayırseverlerin yardımları sayesinde 1678 yılında Pera'da Dörtyol olarak adlandırılan yerde bir arazi satınalmışlar ve kilise şuan bulunduğu yere taşınmıştır. Kilise toplamda 5 yangın geçirmiş ve kilisenin en eski eseri olan Meryem ikonası tüm bu yangınlardan kurtarılmıştır. Şuanki mevcut Santa Maria Kilisesi 1769 yılına tarihlenmektedir; ancak en son 1874 yılında Ludovico Seefelder isiminde Avusturyalı bir mimar tarafından baştan aşağı yenilenmiştir. Uzun sene Avusturya Macaristan İmparatorluğu'nun himayesinde kalmış, en son 1919 yılında tüm müesseseleriyle beraber İtalya Devleti'ne devrolmuştur. Yapı hem mimarisi hem de iç mekanda barındırdığı sanat eserleriyle dönemler üstü bir karakter göstermektedir. Ancak ağırlıklı olarak 19. yüzyılın Osmanlı ortamına aktarılmış olan özellikleri ön plandadır. The traces of the Franciscan priests in Istanbul date back to 1220. The first churches of the Franciscans were named as Sant'Antonio dei Cipressi in the walls of Istanbul and were under the patronage of the Byzantine emperors. During the conquest of Istanbul, the priests were killed or captured in 1453 because they were involved in the defence of the city and the church was annihilated.In 1585, a Genoese widowed woman named Madame Clara Bertola donated a church and a neighbouring house to the priests who had to carry out religious ceremonies in secluded places for more than a century. In this church, there was a Virgin Mary icon dating from the Byzantine era and it was located in a place near the sea which is known as Mumhane in Galata today. Donator Madame Clara Bertola demanded the church to be named after her family surname, Draperis. This church was destroyed by the fire in 1660 and rebuilt in 1662. However, the church built in 1662 was also demolished because it was built without permission and the land was sold.The unfortunate priests bought a land in the Quatre-Rues of Pera in 1678 with the help of benefactors and the church was moved to where it is now. The church had undergone five fires in total and the Mary's icon, the oldest work of the church, was rescued from all these fires. The present Santa Maria Church dates back to 1769; however, it was completely renewed in 1874 by an Austrian architect named Ludovico Seefelder. For a long time, it had been under the patronage of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and in 1919, it was succeeded by the Italian statewith all its institutions. The building has a character that goes beyond any periodwith both its architecture and interior works of art. However, the features, which were conveyed to the 19th century Ottoman environment, are predominantly in the foreground. 112

Paul Bonatz'ın Türkiye Yılları adlı tez, 1877-1956 yılları arasında yaşamış Alman mimar Paul Bonatz'ın Türkiye'de geçirdiği yıllara odaklanır. 1916, 1927 ve 1942 yıllarında muhtelif sebeplerle birer defa Türkiye'yi ziyaret etmiş olan mimar, 1943-1954 arasında geçen on bir yılda ülkede yerleşik olarak yaşamıştır. Tezin amacı, bir yandan Bonatz'ın Türkiye'deki ideolojik ve morfolojik üretimlerini arşiv belgeleri üzerinden ve mümkün olduğu kadar tarafsızca ortaya koymaya çalışmak, diğer yandan, söz konusu üretimlerin ülkenin mimarlık ortamında çarptığı yüzeyleri tespit edebilmek adına adı geçen yıllar ekseninde bir mimarlık tarihi okuması yapmaktır. Bu iki paralel okuma, Bonatz'ın Türkiye ve Türkiye'deki mimarlık çevreleriyle kurduğu ilişkiyi doğru yorumlayabilmek adına oldukça kritiktir.Bonatz'ın Türkiye yıllarının izini sürmeyi amaçlayan bu tez, özünde bir belge çalışmasıdır. Söz konusu amaç doğrultusunda dört adet arşiv (SALT Araştırma, Harika-Kemali Söylemezoğlu Arşivi, Rahmi M. Koç Arşivi & SALT Araştırma, Sedad Hakkı Eldem Arşivi, Paul Bonatz-Peter Dübbers Arşivi ve Belkıs Uluoğlu Arşivi) esas alınarak dokümanlar ışığında Paul Bonatz'ın bu coğrafya ile kurduğu benzersiz hikaye ortaya konmaya çalışılmıştır.Sözünü ettiğimiz ikili paralel okuma, belge çalışmasının yanında bir literatür taraması yapmayı zaruri hale getirir. Bu bağlamda mimarın Türkiye ile ilk kurduğu ilişki olan 1916 yılından, ülkeyi tamamen terk ettiği 1954 yılına kadar geçen zaman dilimi, var olan muhtelif mimarlık tarihi anlatıları üzerinden anlaşılmaya ve ortaya konmaya çalışılır. Başta Arkitekt ve Mimarlık dergileri olmak üzere dönemin yayınları taranır, dönem üzerine yazılmış metinler kapsamlı olarak incelenir. Bu suretle Paul Bonatz'ın üretimlerinin arka planı doldurulmaya, içerikleri daha yakından anlaşılmaya çalışılır.Tezin asıl odağı, mimarın Türkiye'de yerleşik olarak geçirdiği on bir yıl olmakla birlikte, öncesinde bu coğrafyaya değdiği tek seferlik serüvenler de detaylı birer okumaya tabi tutulur. Türk-Alman Dostluk Yurdu proje yarışması dolayısıyla Türkiye'ye ilk geldiği yıl olan 1916, yaptığı Doğu Avrupa gezisi dahilinde İstanbul'a uğradığı yıl olan 1927 ve Anıtkabir proje yarışması jürisi olarak ülkeye davet edildiği yıl olan 1942, hem saydığımız nedenler, hem de bu dönemlerin Türkiye ve Almanya bağlamlarındaki sosyo-kültürel ortamları doğrultusunda detaylı bir şekilde değerlendirilir. Bu çalışmanın ana fikri, Paul Bonatz'ın bir iktidar figürü olması üzerine kurulur. Milli Mimari söylemi bağlamında, Türkiye'ye geldiği andan itibaren, muhtelif birçok yöntemle iktidarını pekiştiren Bonatz'ın kullandığı tüm mecralar yakından incelenir ve tüm detaylarıyla analiz edilir. Sürekli olarak birbirini üreten bir sarmal içerisinde kıvrılan söylem ve iktidar dahilinde Paul Bonatz'ın pozisyonu anlaşılmaya çalışılır.Paul Bonatz'ın Türkiye Yılları adlı çalışma, Paul Bonatz'ın Türkiye'de geçirdiği yıllar üzerine yapılmış en kapsamlı çalışmalardan biri olma iddiasındadır. Aynı zamanda bir mimarlık tarihi anlatısı ortaya koymak suretiyle Bonatz'ın üretimlerinin altının doldurulmaya çalışıldığı bu tez, literatüre kendi konusu dahilinde önemli bir katkı yapmayı amaçlamaktadır. The dissertation called Paul Bonatz's Turkey Years tries to present a narrative as objective as possible through the four different archives in regards to Paul Bonatz's past associated with Turkey. Archives were respectively determined as SALT Research, Harika-Kemali Soylemezoglu Archive, Rahmi M. Koc Archive & SALT Research, Sedad Hakkı Eldem Archive, Belkıs Uluoglu Archive and Paul Bonatz-Peter Dübbers Archive. Of course, various other resources were examined to support this research. In all these contexts, the thesis can be characterized as an original document study. Most of the architectural historians will certainly agree with the fact that architectural history studies are actually social history studies. It is inevitable to establish connections directly existing between two disciplines especially approaching the recent history. At this point, the study required to make on the topic is based on considering the subject not only as an architectonic builder but as a social figure in a broad sense. This conceptual placement inevitably brings about background and subtext studies. The documents that constitute the primary resources in this thesis were supported with periodic social history readings and attempted to reach a conclusion with the inductive method. The main method for the segmentation of this study is chronological. This chronology was built according to each date range in which Paul Bonatz has a contact with Turkey. The period when Paul Bonatz first visited Turkey dates to 1916, right in the middle of the First World War. The architect came to Turkey to join in the Turkish-German Friendship House Competition held by Deutscher Werkbund (DW). In this study constituting the second chapter of the thesis, while the conditions of the mentioned competition won by German Bestelmeyer and finished by Bonatz in fifth place are examined, the surface hit by the competition in architectural production and practice of Turkish geography is subject to an architectural and socio-historical reading. Another reading is done with the institutions and organizations that have a voice in the field of architecture in Germany of the same period in the context of built environment production environment. While these two evaluations are made separately, Turkey-Germany dialogues are discussed and examined in detail in order to establish the critical connections and understand binary relations. This reading done on the first contact of Bonatz with Turkey will give the first hints about the positional attitude of the architect and reveal the conceptual infrastructure of the subsequent intersections.The second intersection date following this chapter, namely 1927, becomes different in an important point in the previous chapter: Paul Bonatz actually was not a professional actor when he visited Turkey in 1927. This visit of Bonatz was simply a touristic trip to the Eastern Europe with his family and friends. However, the year 1927 is extremely emblematic in the contexts of historical transformations of architectural productions both for Turkey and for Germany. This is because while the First National Architecture Period was conceptually over for Turkey, an alternative manifestation was exhibited with the construction of Weissenhofsiedlung Stuttgart in Germany. In this chapter, both hairpin turns of Turkey's Early Republican Period and New Architecture and the new modernist architecture movements beginning to leave a mark and as their negative on the other hand rising nationalist narratives are examined in detail; along with the positioning of Paul Bonatz in both courses, the architect's way of comprehending the architectural production is explained in detail. The fourth chapter of the thesis is the jury duty for Mausoleum Competition, which is certainly the turning point of Paul Bonatz's life. In the competition dated 1942, Paul Bonatz left his mark on the architectural practice of Turkey to which he was always close with his earlier students Arif Hikmet Holtay, Kemali Soylemezoglu, etc. Bonatz who also took over the presidency of the jury in the competition that can be considered as the starting point of the architect's power always played a big part as the principal actor in all the stages he experienced from the beginning of the process until 1953, opening date of the structure, despite the changing governments, management systems, and ideologies. It is reasonable that Bonatz who played the most important in all the processes of Anıtkabir (Ataturk's Mausoleum) regarded as the most important representative structure of the Early Republican Period may have established the close relations with the senior bureaucrat and directors, which would definitely stand him good stead later, by means of this competition. The mentioned close relations would particularly affect all productions by Bonatz in Turkey, the country of residence for eleven years between 1943-1954. It is not possible to reveal the architectonic analysis of Anıtkabir project without explaining the National Architecture Movement, the most common sociological context architectural tendency of the period. Turkey-Germany relations playing inevitably a big part in this movement are continued to be examined in this chapter, nationalism principle of Kemalism is explained in detail by means of deconstruction and architectural reflections of all this conceptual and historical background makes up the main direction of said chapter. Construction of the fifth chapter is different from the previous ones in certain points. In fact, this chapter which is the essence of the document study and examines the eleven years between 1943-1954 of Bonatz's living in Turkey examines all the items that have a great part in the architect's life in Turkey separately within their own processes. The chronological methodology is inevitably disrupted in this chapter, instead, the processes spanning over eleven years are analyzed item by item and revealed. This very chapter is basically an ordering of the tools Bonatz uses to build his power in the architectural scene of Turkey. The tools of power, in this chapter, are categorised by the practices, or, in other words, by adjectives Bonatz held when he was lving in Turkey.The first tool to be able to begin building the power is his mission as the exhibition commissar. Bonatz brought the `New German Architecture` exhibition, curated by Albert Speer in 1940, to Tukey in 1943, which was opened first in Ankara, then went to İstanbul and finally was showed in İzmir within the context of İzmir International Fair. This exhibition consisting of photos, drawings and models of the projects prepared for the Third Reich, in other words as a representation of the changing ideology in the third dimension, was a very big influence for the Turkish architects. The exhibition was also basically used as a Nazi propaganda tool as well and Bonatz, as a figure with fantastic relations with the bureucrats was chosen to be the commissar of the exhibition. He also gave two speeches within the scope of the exhibition, in which he used many quotes of Adolf Hitler.The second tool is Bonatz's duty as `Müşavir` of National Education Ministry, in charge of all the education buildings to be built in Turkey. He held this position from 1943 up to 1948 and in those five years he almost took part in every new education building, from universities to business schools. It would be fair to say that he not only played his part as Müşavir, but he also got very involved in the designs as an architect.Another very important tool intensifying his power was the jury duties. In eleven years he took part in so many competitions as a jury, where most of them he served as the head of the commitee and manipulated the decisions.Without doubt, the most important tool used by Bonatz was his outputs as an architect. Especially two paradigmatic projects, Saraçoğlu Settlement and Ankara Opera Building are investigated in this chapter as well as couple of late projects built in 1950 within the scope of the new ideology. His role as a professor in İstanbul Technical University is also investigated as a tool of power, where he could lead the students and inspired them with his own designing ideas.Another very important tool is his duty as an ingenieur, in other words as a constructor of bridges. Especially his ideas for the Bosphorus Bridge are mentioned in this very chapter, which was never realized but designed several years later in the same way Bonatz described it.Nothing lasts forever, neither did his role as a power figure in Turkey. In the late 1940s and early 1950s there were protests against Bonatz under the contexts of `Foreign Architects Problem`. He outlived several crisis in several projects until 1954, the year in which it was banned for a foreign architect to build in Turkey. This was the very same year that Bonatz took off and went back to Germany and never came back, which can also be discribed as the year in which his power ended. Paul Bonatz is a power figure in the context of Foucault. He produces discourse, feeds on discourse; and in this way, he strengthens his power. Close relations he established with the senior bureaucrats and directors, his supporters in architecture environment, training and jury duties skillfully manipulating the architecture environment, the texts pusblished in various publications, speeches he made and many similar courses constitute the basis of Bonatz's power. Conclusion chapter will try to locate the architect in his place in the history of architecture by means of performing conceptual analysis of his power which is inevitably doomed to be shaken. 380

Tez (Yüksek Lisans) -- İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, 2015, Thesis (M.Sc.) -- İstanbul Technical University, Institute of Science and Technology, 2015, Araştırma konusu olan Cihangir Camisi, Kanuni Sultan Süleyman tarafından, Haseki Hürrem Sultan’dan olan küçük şehzadesi Cihangir için 1559 – 1560 yıllarında Mimar Sinan’a yaptırılmıştır. Cami birçok kez yangın geçirdikten sonra 1889 – 1893 yıllarında Sultan II. Abdülhamit zamanında ise son kez, büyük ihtimal ile mimar Sarkis Balyan’a yaptırılarak günümüze ulaşmıştır. Caminin gerek ilk yapım dönemi olan 16. yüzyılda ve gerekse son yapım dönemleri olan 19. yüzyıldaki yapılarında değişmez plan şeması olarak dörtgen mekân üzerine kubbe ve yanlarda minare tasarımı kullanılmıştır. Geçirdiği bu dönemlerde, devrinin üslubuna göre biçimlenmiş olan cami son yapımıyla da Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nun batılılaşma dönemindeki örneklerinden birini oluşturmuştur. Cami son olarak yapıldığı dönemde de, klasik Osmanlı mimari karakterini kaybetmemiş ve plan şemasındaki klasik tasarımın hâkimiyeti korunmuştur. Caminin ilk yapılışından bu yana geçirdiği yangınlar, doğal afet ve zamanın da doğal sonucu oluşan yıpranma ve kayıpları olmuştur. Son olarak 19. yüzyılda ikinci kez yeniden yapım süreçleri üzerinde yapılan araştırmalar ve çalışmalardan gözlemlenen sonuç, orijinali Mimar Sinan tarafından yapılan dörtgen planlı, tek kubbeli, önce tek daha sonra çift minareli olarak yaptırılan caminin ana karakteri ve plan tasarımında değişiklik olmadığıdır. Fakat camiye bağlı diğer bölümlerin (Tekke, hazire, hücre odacıklar, imarethane, sıbyan mektebi, avlu, sarnıç) mimari özellikleri ve yerleşim düzenleri hakkında kesin bilgiler olmadığından aynı kanıya varmak mümkün olamamaktadır. Caminin sade, gösterişten uzak süslemeleri ve tasarım sadeliğine karşın, 19. yy. daki batılılaşma etkileri cephe süslemelerinde dönemin bir karakteristiği olarak barok, rokoko, neoklasik, ampir süslemeler ile kendini göstermiştir. İç mekânda aydınlatma unsuru olarak avize, kandil kullanılmış seccadelerle ve duvarları dönemin tanınmış hattatlarının isimlerini içeren, Kur’an’dan ayetlerin yazılı olduğu levhalar ve sade kalem işleriyle süslenmiştir. Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nun batılılaşma hareketinin getirdiği değişikliklerden, mimarlık alanındaki yapıtların da etkilendiği görülmektedir. Camimiz de bu değişiklikler süslemelerde ve özellikle yelpaze görünümünde açılan pencere düzenlemeleriyle açıkça görülmektedir. Bu bağlamda Cihangir Camisi, Sultan II. Abdülhamit zamanında son olarak yeniden yapılmasına rağmen klasik Osmanlı cami planından sapma göstermemiş ancak Dönem!in üslubunu yansıtan tasarım ve süsleme özellikleri ile birlikte Batı Mimarlığı izlerini de barındıran bir yapı haline gelmiştir., In this study we have examined and review the Mosque of Cihangir, during the years of 1559– 2015 which has been built under the reign of Süleyman the Magnificent for his son Cihangir; Who was also the son of Hürrem Sultan. Mosque was constructed in beetween 1559 and 1560 by Master Architect Mimar Sinan. The Mosque endured many fires but it has reached it’s latest outlook under the reign of Sultan Abdülhamit II, who has (strongly probable ) had the architect by Sarkis Balyan restore it between during the years1889 and 1893. We see that, during the building of the mosque, both in the 16. century and secondly in the 19. century, the unchanged plan of quatriladeral floor – base covered by one dome and minarets. Mosque remains one of the examples of classical Ottoman architecture. The original complex included other parts which not exists today.The design is the culmination of two centuries. With traditional Islamic Architecture and is one of the first mosque of the Classical period and secondly Westernization period.İnside decorations include verses from the Qur’an, many of them made by regarded as the greatest calligrapher of his time. The floors are covered with carpets, which are donated by the faithfull people and they are regularly replaced as they wear out. The many spacious windows confer a spacious impression glass windows with their intricate designs with Baroque elements and admit natural light. The many lamps inside the mosque were once covered with gold and gems. The great tablets on the walls are inscribed with the names of the caliphs and verses from the Quran. Considering all the periods that the mosque has seen, it should have been shaped according to those periods. However it can be seen that it has remained as the one of the last examples of the Westernisation period of the Ottoman Empire. Even during the last restoration it can be seen that it hasn’t lost it’s classical characterictics of Ottoman Architecture. it can be clearly seen that in it’s plan sheme; the rule of the classical theme.Ever since the Mosque’s first consruction; İt has endured many fires and a earthquake. Mosque’s final restoration was in the 19. century, it can be seen that it has kept it’s original scheme of plan from the Grand Architect Sinan ‘s period. We can cleary see Westernization influences and applications in the Mosque as being a masterpiece. However, it can’t be clearly understood the architectural specialities of the other portions of the Mosque. If the Mosque’s basic decorations and architecture are taken in to consideration, İt can be seen that during the 19 centuries in Westernization period the Baraque and rococo style decorations seen as the period characteristic of decorative style.If it can be judged , the aim of the Westernisation motives of the Ottoman period was not to change the cultural and artistic infrastructure but it was to fit in and to avoid the downfall of the Empire. Our subject the mosque of Cihangir encompasses all the characteristics of the time periods it has existed in .However it hasn’t shown any change from the classical Ottoman mosque plan sheme. But it can also be said that it has brought about certain architectural characrteristics according to Westernisation period.As a result it can be said that the mosques classical architecture can be redefined within the revaluation of the classical period. During Byzantine times, the area of the present neighborhood was probably not settled, although there were Byzantine buildings near present day Tophane and Fındıklı along the Bosphorus below Cihangir.During the reign of Süleiman the magnificent , the area was a forested hunting ground, it was one of the favorite places of Süleiman’s son Cihangir and after Cihangir’s death, Suleiman had mimar Sinan build a probably a wooden mosque there overlooking the Bosphorus. The neighborhood’s name comes from this mosque.Cihangir is one of the neigborhoods of the Beyoğlu district in İstanbul, the neighborhood has many narrow streets and it is located between Beyoğlu and Kabataş. The name means ’Conquerer’’ in Turkish and in turn, comes from the Persian compound word Johan+gir, meaning ‘’conqueror’’ of the world. The Cihangir mosque from which the neighborhood got it’s name, is like a prototype of the Dolmabahçe Mosque. Cihangir Mosque built by Mimar Sinan under the orders of Kanuni Sultan Süleyman, ( Suleiman the Magnificent) the original mosque, had quite a dramatic story, Suleiman, armed with the motive that his son Şehzade Mustafa ckoked to death. As a result, Hürrem’s son Şehzade Cihangir dies of grief and the mosque is constructed in his memory. İn late 19.th century, Levantines used to live in Cihangir, just like in Pera, In the 1920s and 1930s, Cihangir only consisted of two districts, In the 1940s and 50s the people that were working at entertainment spots in Beyoğlu began to live in Cihangir. This led to the construction of new buildings and the district became a settlement for well endowed people . After the second half of the 90s with the support of the public bodies and the efforts of the non-govermental organization the district gained it’s recent identity.The lexical meaning of the word ‘’Cihangir’’ is The person that captured the major part of the world ‘’ however, it is weird that such an ambitious word is the name for this mild district. To find out the fact we need to go back to the past to Suleyman the Magnificent had a son from Hürrem Sultan, named Cihangir. For the memory of his son, who died young. Suleiman had a mosque constructed in this place that looked like a large rock protruding from the sea The mosque that was constructed by mimar Sinan between the years 1559-1560 and was name Şehzade Cihangir Mosque this is how the district began to be called Cihangir. One of the places where you can see an amazing landscape of İstanbul.Cihangir Mosque’s garden has the best view of Bosphorus and İstanbul during the reign of Suleiman the Magnificent. The Cihangir district took it’s name from this mosque that sits high up on hill and overlooks the Bosphorus and is one of Mimar Sinan’s designs. İt was built in the 16th. century to commemorate Süleiman the magnificent son, Cihangir who in 1553 died of grief after his half brother Mustafa had been murdered by order of their father.Today building was reconstructed by Abdülhamit II in 1874 after the original building burnt down and althought it resembles the work of the famous architects the ‘’ Balyan Family’’they were not responsible fort his one. The mihrab inside has clouds painted on it that gives an impression of a stage set in a theatre. The picturesque Cihangir Mosque stands at the beginning points Cihangir Avenue. who died in Aleppo at the age of 22. When the mosque was totally damaged during the big fire in the 19.century. It was rebuilt by conntractor (foreman) Yani Kalfa and Todori Kalfa ( at he minaret ) and architect is unknown but strongly probably ( Sarkis Balyan ) with the order of Abdülhamit II. The Cihangir Mosque has one dome, two minarets and vaulted beautiful windows and interiorly decorated with distinctive examples of the line art . Baroque styled Cihangir Mosque looks similar to Dolmabahçe and Ortaköy Mosque., Yüksek Lisans, M.Sc.

Tez (Yüksek Lisans) -- İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, 2015, Thesis (M.Sc.) -- İstanbul Technical University, Institute of Science and Technology, 2015, Sanayi devrimiyle birlikte insan odaklı yapılmaya başlanan sanat ve kültür çalışmaları, İkinci Dünya Savaşı sonrası yaygınlaşan kitle iletişim araçları ile tüm dünyaya yayılma fırsatı bulmuş, değişen ekonomik dengelerin sonucunda ortaya çıkan kapitalizm, yarattığı pazarı desteklemek adına tüm sınıfsal farklılıkları ortadan kaldırmış, sanat ve kültür politikaları da kapitalizme hizmet etmeye başlamıştır. Kapitalizm yarattığı pazarı korumak ve büyütmek adına kullan-atçılığı özendirdiği bir tüketim kültürü yaratmış, bu kültür kitle iletişim araçlarının da gelişmesiyle popüler kültürü ortaya çıkarmıştır. Popüler kültür ve popüler kültür öğeleri, toplumların arasındaki sınıfsal ayrımı göz ardı edip, her kesime hitap eden tutumuyla hızlıca sevilip benimsenmiştir. Popüler kültürün benimsenmesini sağlayan bir diğer faktör, aynı dönemde ortaya çıkan Post-Modernizm hareketi olmuştur. Modernizm’in radikal geometisine, katı kurallarına, tek diline isyan niteliğinde ortaya çıkmış olan Post-Modernizm, tüketime dayalı, günlük yaşayan, değer bilmeyen bunların yanı sıra çok sesliliğe inanan bir kültür yaratarak popüler kültürü desteklemiş, kitle iletişim araçları sayesinde, bu tutumlar oldukça geniş alanlara yayılmıştır. Popüler kültürü destekleyen, tüketime dayalı yaşam koşulları özellikle ekonomilerde sıkıntılar yaratarak sanat olaylarını etkilemiştir. Önceden yalnızca elit ve entelektüel kesime hitap eden sanat, değişen ekonomik dengeler doğrultusunda kullandığı malzemeler ile her kesimin yönettiği bir olgu haline dönüşmüştür. Bu doğrultuda ortaya çıkan Pop Sanatı, malzemesini her gün tüketilen sıradan ürünlerden, bu ürünlerin markalarından, her gün kitle iletişim araçları vasıtasıyla maruz kaldığımız, popüler kültürün ortaya çıkardığı film yıldızları ve şarkıcılardan oluşturarak, bunları Pop sanatçısının kendi üslubuyla kattığı ironiyle harmanlayıp topluma geri sunmuştur. Pop Sanatı, döneminde olan toplum ve kültür olaylarını birebir topluma geri aktaran bir akım olduğu için, Post-Modernizm gibi açık sözlü bir akımla birlikte gelişme gösterebilmiştir. Pop Sanatı’nın mimariye yansımaları da benzer çıkış noktalarına dayanmaktadır. Pop Mimari, Post-Modern Mimarlık’ın benimsediği bir çok tutum içinden kendi kurallarına en yakın olanları süzgeçten geçirerek, bir akım olarak oluşmasa da mimarlıkta kendi dilini yaratmıştır. Post-Modern Mimarlık’ın iletişim kurmaya yönelik çoğulcu, ironiyi seven anlayışına ek olarak popüler kültür öğelerine yer vermesi, alışılageldik öğeleri alışılagelmedik şekilde kullanımı ile mimaride farklılıklar yaratmıştır. 1960’lardan günümüze dek örnekleri görülen Pop Sanatı’nın mimarideki yansımaları, yıllar geçtikçe değişen teknoloji ve kültürel koşullar doğrultusunda sürekli bir dönüşümde olsa da yapılarda temel öğelerini her zaman ön planda tutmuştur., After the industrial revolution, art and cultural works were done for humans and for life, and with the help of mass communication products, they spread all around the world. Capitalism appeared with the upset of the balances on economy, and fed from consumerism. With the help of capitalism, the gap between highbrow and lowbrow cultures disappeared. The differentiation between social classes started disappearing, so art and culture politics started to serve for the sakes of capitalism, not for highbrow culture anymore. To be able to spread and enlarge the market, capitalism created single-use things, cheap materials, fake, banal, vulgar goods for society to use and consume, this movement led to creation of popular culture. Popular culture was embraced by community so fast, because it ignored the differentiation between highbrow and lowbrow cultures and address to every human-being who is part of the community they live. Correspondingly, Post-Modernism movement showed up, while popular culture was being spread all around the world. Post-Modernism has been applied to art and architecture, which reacted against the radical geometric forms and strict rules of Modernism. Post-Modernism was marked by culture that based on consumption, carpe diem and believe in composition of different voices and these intentions overlap with the intentions of popular culture. Through the similar aims, Post-Modernism and popular culture supported each other and with the help of mass media, they both spread widely. With the change of living conditions that depended on consumption, popular culture affected the art and architectural works, starting from America, spread all around the world. Through this progress, art became a product for consumption culture. With the upset of economical balance, art works changed concept and materials, so that they didn’t address to highbrow only anymore. In this direction, Pop Art was born, using everyday consumed products, brandings, movie stars and singers and all those materials that created with the help of mass communication tools. The Pop Artists blend these materials with their own style, adding irony and giving back to community to use and have fun. Pop Art has developed with Post-Modernism because it transferred the community and culture events back to society in the same way it has happened. Pop Art tendencies on architecture depend on similar origin. Pop Architecture had been eliminated the Post-Modern manners that were close to its own rules, and created its own language, even Pop Architecture has never been an ism. Plural, ironic attitude, communicative approach, including popular culture elements, using familiar elements in an unfamiliar way have been the best reflections on architecture of Post-Modernism. Pop Art tendencies on architecture from 1960’s until today change in coordination with new technology and new cultural principles but it always conserves its main principles. In this study, Pop Art tendencies on architecture considered decade by decade since 1960’s, because 60’s have been a milestone for technological and cultural events. Right after World War II and its effects all around the world, cities, cultures, and communities started to reshape and regenerate. This progress was the main incident of 50’s, but it showed its clear reflections on 60’s. The research started with the formation of Post-Modernism and its effects on architecture. The first part, focuses on the reasons of how Post-Modern movement to occurred against Modernism. Supported with the leading architectural historian’s literature, the evaluation Post-Modern Architecture clarified. The next step was to explain popular culture and consumption culture, and how the both reflected economical and artistic events. Followed by the definition of Pop Art, the research focused on how technology, economy and cultural approaches affected an art movement. Explaining the visions of the leading Pop Artists, make it clear for understanding the Pop tendencies on architecture. After the evaluation of historical topics, the way of how the Pop Art reflected on architecture has been enlightened and the examples have been given on the works produced after the studies on history of architecture during 1960-2015. The buildings have been chose according to their relevance of the theoretical surveys and researches that have been done., Yüksek Lisans, M.Sc.

Bu çalışma iki savaş arası dönemde İtalyan ve Türk mimarlıklarında modernizmin geçirdiği dönüşümü incelemektedir. Mimarlık alanındaki bu dönüşümü anlamak adına farklı koşullar altında modernlik (modernity) ve gelenek (tradition) düşüncelerinin karşılaşma durumları incelenmektedir. Temelde bu iki kutup arasındaki çatışma tezin ana odağını oluşturmakla birlikte, modernlik ve geleneğe dair durum, düşünce ve temalar ayrıca açılmaya çalışılmaktadır. Benzer şekilde, bu iki terim arasındaki tarihsel çatışmayla yakından ilişkili olarak, iki savaş arası dönemde modernlik ve gelenek arasında bir denge kurma yükümlülüğüyle yüzleşen iki ülke mimarlık kültürleri, bu iki terimin alt metinleri açılarak ele alınmaktadır. Mimarlıkta modernizmin geçirdiği dönüşümü ortaya koymak adına modernlik, gelenek ve bunların alt gruplarının birbirleri ile girdikleri ilişki biçimleri ve karşılıklı dönüştürmeler, Gelenekten Modernliğe ve Modernlikten Geleneğe şeklinde çift taraflı bir yaklaşımla ele alınmaktadır. This thesis, studies the evolving conception of modernism in architecture of Italy and Turkey during interwar period. In order to understand the architectural transformations of the two countries in the period, it examines the confrontations of the ideas of modernity and tradition under certain conditions. The main dichotomy between the isolated poles of modernity and tradition becomes the focus of the study; however, underlying conditions, ideas and themes of modernity and tradition are extracted. Parallely, regarding the historical conflict between two terms; interwar architectural cultures of two countries, which faced the necessity of balancing the ideas of modernity with demands of tradition, are examined by opening the subtexts of modernity and tradition. In order to depict how two opposing groups mutually transformed themselves in the progressive journey of modernism in architecture, a two-directional approach is used in order to illustrate the plot of the trajectory: From Tradition to Modernity, and From Modernity to Tradition. 133