As I shared before in a smaller scale, Ottoman and Italy (Venice) had 400 years together, in history. And again as I mentioned before, This direct connection of two countries made all the exchanges as culture, politics, education and Daily life systems possible and happen. Because the connection caused interactions between, and this led to a strict exchange of even basic traditions. Mostly, art and culture are affected, as we all can guess. And as a further effect, the traditions of Ottoman architecture and current architecture of Venice (16th century) got integrated into each other for some issues, and this led to even developing together to have a perfect plans of Külliyes*, Mosques and Churches. To mention and remind again, The approach of this research on these 400 years, especially last 100 years of 16th century, is to go and have a deeper information on this cultural synthesis, to have a wider view in architectural values of this situation.
In earlier steps of it, research had it’s reference from the book “History of Architecture” by Spiro Kostof. The article which was a focus for the research was “Istanbul and Venice” which mentions about those exchanges in architectural world of these two countries. Now I want to mention more about this article first.
The article “Istanbul and Venice” is, also as an advantage of being an “architectural” approach to the subject, is mostly focusing on architectural qualities of the interaction and integration of them. It is getting detailed in Wall ornaments, columnar details, and archial differentiations and similarities of the buildings, which begins with comparing and defining the plans of compared buildings such as Külliye of Süleyman (Istanbul), Mosque of Süleyman (Istanbul) and The Church of II Redentore (the redeemer), (Venice). First the analysis begin with basic approaches on basic plans of them, than it goes deeper in even the ornaments, opening details and similarity in dome designs and use of buildings. But at this points I have some questions in my mind because of “having different purposes but same architectural qualities”. Because as I know, Külliye’s are the educational places which are educating positive sciences less than religion based lectures, and mosques are the places for the people of Islam, to practise their daily worships and prays. And on the other side, I mean what happens in Venice, we have churches and their structural details which are very similar to other 2 types of buildings. So actually we don’t have very different buildings of purposes. The main approach for all of them is to have a “most beautiful” plan of designs, and to have a “greatness” of the religion purposed places. Not including the research, but this was a point that I wanted to emphasize. As a conclusion, the purpose of first article is mostly focusing on architectural details of this interaction and going deeper in architectural details, with a basic summary of current 16th century Ottoman & Venice.
As an “enriching” resource, I want to integrate the article “Venice between East and West: Marc’Antonio Barbaro and Palladio’s Church of the Redentore” by Deborah Howard from Cambridge University. To compare, this article has more on political side, the “base” of the integration history of these countries. More than using architectural qualities as a base, the article uses the architectural similarities as a “proof” of this interaction. It, in detail, gives information of politicial sequences in Venice, and Marc’Antonio, Barbaro and Palladio’s political positions in a sequential way, by also referring these changes to the architecture. And also the article has details in architectural side of the subject, but it is including more general explanations for the buildings. And to compare it is giving more examples of buildings such as Sinan’s Sokhollu Mehmet Pasha Kadirga*, which is given in plan as an illustration. And also it is the only building given in plan, in this article. Also as an addition, the Exchange of architectural styles between Palladio and Sinan is given in a different way in this article. Because in earlier reading, I was always coming across with the fact that only they had dominant effects on this cultural and architectural Exchange. but now in this article I see that, Barbaro was the actual man who was preparing and representing paper to the senate, to integrate “good” applications of Ottoman tradition of 16th century. So here we see that, actually the “main” guy is Barbaro, more than Palladio.
To sum up, now it is progressing by two compare & define based articles and as viewpoints, they have differences but similarities. As I see the most basic difference is happening on focus countries, and the detail based differentiations. But not to pass, they all absolutely have valuable contents feeding this research.
Thanks for reading, Seçil.
*Külliye: The schools which are specialized for Ottoman education, mostly religionist structures of education.
*Kadırga: Usual Galley or Galliot specialized for Ottoman structure.
As we all know, history is full of events, which leaded each other by the world history goes on telling itself. Many cultures disappeared, some of them got greater and greater, and some other had unbalanced dynamism while surviving in history. But in this period, surely, there has been “something” which has never changed: Interaction issue.
Interaction is a word which has many different kinds as examples. And we can clearly see those examples if wee look especially to the middle periods. Many balances changing in world in many fields as economy, art, tradition, technology and such, which are able to effect or change the cultural identifications of current civilizations. But not to miss, I think we all can agree on a really basic 2 words: “art and culture”, the most effected and transformed issues through those interactions. And when we talk about art and culture, especially about art, we are able to observe and give direct references for them, to the field of architecture.
Now, I want to put emphasis on Venice, and İstanbul culture in given period focusing on 1100-1500, and the interactions happened commercially, economically and politically between these two countries. Ss I see, there are interesting and serious resarches, analysing examples and comparing contrasting texts on these two cultures. In all those referemces I got, there’s a really interesting one which is named as “Church and Mosque: Religious Arcitecture in Venice and Istanbul”, and exhibitions made in Istanbul with the name “Venice and Istanbul during Ottoman Empire”. As a common point, they both are expressing come facts on 400 year old richness between these countries as sibling cities, which are leading us back to the 15th century. And as a more sharp comparison, the first film, gives direct comparison and contrast on Andrea Palladio’s Redentore Church in Venice, and Mimar Sİnan’s Sokollu Mehmet Pasha Mosque in Istanbul. It also gives references from Deborah Howard’s Venice and East: The Impact of the Islamic World on Venecian Architecture 1100-1500, about these two architects who areboh applied architectural traditions changed and innovated by these interactions.
As firs observations and researches, here the introduction for you. Thanks for reading, Seçil.