As we finished the 1 st class, having a undergraduate portfolio became utmost concern for each of us. And as you catched, i have a “fresh” undergrad. Portfolio, too. 🙂 as i finish digital paging, the whole work including amateur photography will be available on site. KEEP IN TOUCH!
Here i publish the cover page only, wait for whole!
This week we’ve been talking about function of a building, it’s program (very basic program idea in their -builder’s- mind, the design idea) and we have been discussing about Ornament & Crime: When the ornament becomes crime, what is the crime level of ornaments and use of ornament. So Loos‘ gave us some ideas about these by help of his essay given to us. We learnt about industrial revolution, englightenment, black smokes on the sky after the revolution, it’s effects on social context and then how it effected the buildings & architecture.
- But middle of all these function and program things were going on, one painting took my attention and i strongly striked at this one. This is a painting by Caspar David Friedrich “Wanderer Above The Sea of Fog”, 18l8. It gives a special pleasure and a mind bloving things, brain storming about my and world’s past; the most attractive and successfull painting i’ve ever seen with a strong statement on it’s claim through it’s expression. Here it is. Please, don’t look: SEE.
“A man thinking about what’s going on in revolution age, what’ll be next without any information about future”
This week in ARCH 121 course we talked about social context and it’s effects on architecture, the progress of a building, and how does the historical context effect the progress of a building, structure, material; how does the politicial context of a building gives an identification to building. We also learned about Italian futurists, Russian contructivism, Lennin, Hitler, La Turquie Kemalistic / Ankara Construit, Gentrification.
The Most effective parts of the lesson for me were the informations about Ankara Construit, and my favorite building: Guggenheim Museum – Frank Gehry.
- First I want to show you Ankara Construit magazine. It was a magazine from the industrial and modern improvement age of Turkey Republic. It found to meet people with Ankara, capital of Turkey and it also delivered in Europe to show people there were things going on Turkey in industrial improvement, and the capital, Ankara, was built in a really modern, futuristic manner: Glass buildings, futuristic arts, exhibition halls built with the new materials of age.
- The second thing i want to talk about is the one which gives a pleasure even i introduce you. It’s The Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao which designed by famous architect Frank Gehry. The building has a strong importance for it’s historical context, because it is a masterpiece for the use of new materials in that terms. The building includes titanium, glass and steel as base material both used for facades and insides. The look of “arranged chaos” gives building a really unique and modern design. Here is the adress of formal site, and the museum.
Last Friday we had pre-jury, which was the first jury experience for each of us. We all were feeling terrrible before the jury, but after it we had the jury experience it all was gone. Because it was not like a judgement and critisizing all the bad things of your project. It was like motivating the arch student to reach the final one, and critisizing good/bad things together to make the student aware of what to keep and what to get rid of. Here is a taken shot while our instructors and jury members were critisizing on a work, i want to share it with you to emphasize it’s not a torture like experience, it’s more like a award which is given to you, to share your hard progress and present your work.
- Instructors of T.E.D.U.-ARCH 2012/2013 1st year class (graduated from and educated at M.E.T.U and Jury members (Practising architect (1), instructor from L.A.U. (1), proffessors of M.E.T.U 4th year class 2012/2013 (2), Assistant Instructor (1)
Our termwork for 121 course is making a research on Ulus İş Hanı (G. Beken, O.Bolak, O. Bozkurt 1954 – 1958), as searching it’s “Biography”. We are expected to collect some informations about it like: who builded that building and how/why/for what; is it restorated if it’s restorated why and what were it’s conclusions, does any projects planning for it, or is it still? if it has, what are the reactions of people, and what is the project about? How it’s related with it’s context? etc..
- Ulus İş Hanı (Ulus Office Building)
We (before having this work) did an architectural tour in Ankara to understand, and look like an architect at that structures. That was our first architectural tour, and with seeing that buildings first i also began to look at them in an architect’s eye. Now, as given in assignment, i’ll tell a bit about my first impressions about Ulus İş Hanı.
As a very first look, the relationship of Sümerbank & Ulus İş Hanı buildings took my attention strongly. Because the İş Hanı was had a convex form and Sümerbank which is placed cross İş Hanı had a concave form. So i though two buildings were formed as a induced-fit harmony for a balance which placed crossroads. I wanted to learn if it was a right impression of me or not so i asked my instructor about it and he said it was a contextual harmony between them and the main thing was it.
- Photograph which show the balance between Sümerbank and Ulus İş Hanı
Then i began to look at the facade of the building, it looked modern to my eye with evaluating it in it’s historical context. Because the glass used in facade, the harmony of metarials used in it, the convex form of the whole looked new, comparing with the other buildings we visited. One more thing, the blocks next to İş Hanı are connected by the colour and material used on them, and this idea is really successfull i think. Because when you look at them even they haven’t got the same convex shape you can see that they are related somehow and it makes you look at them as if they are connected in both ways. You are strongly able to see that the base column’s of grand floor at outside are connecting parts because hey all are covered with same material after construction.
An additional information, i remember that this building were planned in a competition by a group which had the members G. Beken, O.Bolak, O. Bozkurt in 1954 – 1958. Today what we see is also the winner of the competition, too.
this week we have an assignment for the 121 course again, and in this assignment our instructor wants us to summarize the essay of Adolf Loos on ornament and crime, which is also the title of the essay. Here is my summary of it:
Essay of Loos argues on ornaments and claims that ornaments are not as necessary or as inevitable as the people think in the past. More, he claims that they’re sometimes even like trifles and just made for fulfilment of the one so they’re like surplusses. He also says that the ornamented/detailed things were the masterpieces and most prefered ones, but now the modern age people has not that much desire to keep, buy or appreciate them. Also he argues that maybe ornamented objects were valuable things and the ornamental artisans were strongly respected by people in the past, but the people who is an ornamental artisan are not even the part of the society today and more, we don’t even call them as cultivated person. Because of that Loos says about, “a waste of labor and abuse of material”. But when we search for more we see that the ornamental workers enjoy doing this job for hours or even days long. We are aware that there’s something wrong at this point: More time, less appreciated. Because there’s something becoming more important than the thing called “ornament” day by day, of modern age: plain texture, which means the smooth and pure. Then he tells about the ornament for human: The ornament as a mask of today’s man: how much going on decides the strenght of the one’s spirit”. As a conclusion: More ornament, less pure: more mask, less from the spirit.*
* Paragraph is edited on 27.11.2012 for typos and spelling errors.
And my comment on it:
I may say that yes I agree with him, but not totally. I want to ask a question: does he say that the “classical ornaments” are some detailed garbages or surplusses or just some trifles? I think this essay has a bit absence on this point. And it feels like he don’t even care about some masterpieces of ornaments worked on different materials. There are things which are still important and precious called as ornaments. So that, I will say yes modern age people doesn’t use ornaments as much as used in the past, but they stil mean so much, maybe because of being less spread, they’re precios and they’re not so much. This causes a new thing: the ornamented things become more important, and this is the conclusion of what he told. This was the main thing that i wanted to underline.
- Loos, Adolf. “Ornament and Crime” in: Conrads, Ulrich (ed.) Programs and Manifestoes on 20th Century Architecture, The MIT Press, 1975.
We have again an ARCH 121 assignment for this week. The assignment is about giving/finding examples of city landmarks silhouettes etc, mostly the structures which defines Ankara best.
I did some sketches to express this city. Here are all of them.
- My Silhouette of Ankara
- ATAKULE in Ankara
- ANITKABIR in Ankara
EDIT: I want to share some additions with you. Here are other city image elements which he describes in the text.
- Node in Ankara: Güvenpark
- Edge in Ankara: (from) Atatürk Bulvarı
- District in Ankara: Çinçin
- Path in ankara: