Mimarlıkta bilimin yeri: Dekonstrüktif mimarlığa bir bakış
The Position of science in architecture: A View to deconstructive architecture
- Tez No: 66629
- Danışmanlar: DOÇ. DR. AYŞE ŞENTÜRER
- Tez Türü: Yüksek Lisans
- Konular: Mimarlık, Architecture
- Anahtar Kelimeler: Belirtilmemiş.
- Yıl: 1997
- Dil: Türkçe
- Üniversite: İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi
- Enstitü: Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü
- Ana Bilim Dalı: Mimarlık Ana Bilim Dalı
- Bilim Dalı: Bina Bilgisi Bilim Dalı
- Sayfa Sayısı: 157
Özet
ÖZET Mimarlık, bilim ve felsefe tarihin ilk çağlarından beri birbiriyle ilişkide bulunan disiplinlerdir. Bilim, kavram ve olguları tanımlama ve bunları gözlemsel olaylarla test etme uğraşı iken, felsefe insanın evren içindeki yerini ve varlığını tanımlama amacıyla bir dünya görüşü oluşturma çabasıdır, iki disiplin arasındaki en önemli farklılıklardan biri olarak, bilimin doğru tahminde bulunabilmek için kullandığı dili kontrol etmesi gösterilebilir. Ancak XX. y.y. ü. yansından itibaren mimarlıkta felsefe ile olan ilişkiyi savunurken, bilimsel düşünmenin nesnelliğine eleştirel yaklaşan kimi ifadelere rastlanması, mimarlık ve bilim ilişkisi üzerine düşünmeye neden olmaktadır. Tarihin ilk zamanlarından beri insanın evrende varolan düzeni anlamasına yardımcı olan bilimin XX. y.y.'da relativite ve quantum fiziği gibi gelişmelerle birlikte nesnel olma ve süreklilik gibi özelliklerinden dolayı eleştirilere uğradığı görülmektedir. Bilimsel düşünmeyi eleştirmek onun nasıl tanımlandığı ile ilişkili olarak ele alınabilir. Buna göre bilimsel düşünme modern dönemin rasyonalist tavrıyla ilişkili olarak ele alındığında bilginin sadece akıl ile edinilip, değişebileceği düşünülmezken; aklın ve gözlemin birlikteliğini savunan rasyonel anlayışla birlikte ele alındığında gözlemlerden edinilen sonuçlarla değişebilirlıği kabul edilmektedir. Bilimde yeni kuramların kabulünü birer devrim olarak ele alan yaklaşımların yanısıra, bunu evrimsel bir süreç olarak ele alan yaklaşımların da varolması bilimsel düşünmenin gelişim sürecinin sürekliliği ile ilgili iki farklı yaklaşım olarak ele alınabilir. Mimarlıkta XX. y.y.'ın ü. yansından itibaren kendini gösteren Dekonstrüktif Düşünce ve mimarlıktaki yansımasının kendini“Karmaşıklık ve Çelişki”ile karakterize ederek bilimsel düşünmenin nesnelliğine eleştirel yaklaştığı görülmektedir. Düşünce tarihinde Hegel'in diyalektik mantığıyla kendini gösteren çelişki, düşüncenin gelişiminde önemli bir yer tutsa da, bilimin içindeki gelişmeleri birer çelişki olarak yorumlayıp,“çelişkilerin ziyanı yok”anlayışını temel alan kuram oluşturma çabası, Kari Popper'a göre nesnel eleştirinin varlığını tehdit eder görünmektedir. Yapılan açıklamalar arasında, bilimin içinde çelişkiler taşıyabildiği, ancak bunlan hemzamanlı olarak kabul etmediğini belirten görüşlerin olması dikkat çekicidir. Sonuç olarak, disiplinler arası çalışmalarda felsefenin varlığı yeni ufuklara yol açabilir; ancak bu ilişkide disiplinlerin kendi“yapılannın”korunup korunmadığını kontrol edebilmek için bilimsel düşünmeye de ihtiyaç duyulmaktadır. XX. y.y. sonundaki tüm çözülmelere rağmen insanlığın ihtiyaç duyduğu ve yok edemeyeceği tek şey belki de bu“yapının”kendisi ve üzerinde düşünülmesi gereken nesnelliğidir. Son söz olarak Popper'a atıfta bulunmak gerekirse,“Objective Knowledge”adlı kitabının önsözünde yazdığı gibi:“...bilginin nesnel bir kuramını getirmeye kalkışıyorum. Bu cüretli bir sav olabilir, ama onun için özür dileyecek değilim...”
Özet (Çeviri)
SUMMARY The Position of Science in Architecture: A View to Deconstructive Architecture Architecture, science and philosophy are related with each other from the early age of the history. Science is a discipline which defines the concepts and phenomena and tests the theories by means of observable events. Philosophy is a discipline which generates worldview to help define and explain existence and position of mankind in the universe. The most important difference between them is to control the language used by science in order to make objective conjectures. However, there is a need to rethink the relation between architecture and scientific thought. Because there are some architectural explanations, which support the relation between architecture and philosophy by rejecting the relation between architecture and scientific thought in the end of the XX. th century. Because of the developments in relativitiy, quantum and chaos theories in the XX. th century, there are some critics, which accept its process as a revolution. Whether or not there is a revolution in scientific thought, it depends, how its method is defined. If its method is accepted as rationalist, which may be originated in Descartes' thought in modern period, it is developed just by the means of reason. According to this view, knowledge is certain and unchangeable. If its method is accepted as rational, which may be originated in Kant's thought in modern period, it is developed by the means of reason and experiment; and knowledge is accepted as changeable according to the results of these experiments. Although there are some approachs (such as Thomas Kuhn's), which criticise objectivity of scientific thought and accept its process as a revolution, there are also some approachs (such as Karl Popper's), which accept it as an objective and evolutionary process. It may be said that modern science is characterised by deterministic and mechanistic views. According to Laplace's deterministic view, if it is possible to know the position and momentum of all particles in the universe at any time, their position and momentum can be calculated at any other time, past or future. In this approach, causality, position and momentum of material objects are accepted as a basic reality of the phenomenal world. According to Descartes' mechanistic view, mind and body are accepted to the mechanisms, which work independently from each other. In Descartes' thought, it is accepted that thinking is the mental activity and the body is the concrete object. The most important result of this duality is to exclude the pyscological effects from the material world. One of the most important notions of Descartes is the“independent existence”. According to this notion, there are two different properties of the existence: Essential attributes (mind) and changeable qualities (body). The two properties need to exist only themselves. It may be said that the reason of this Descartes' reductionist view (such as human beings can be xnexplained by working rules of machines) is related with deterministic view, which accepts that all causes generates same effects in the universe. Albert Einstein's relativity theories, which introduce the new concept of space, time and matter are accepted the beginning of the postmodern period in science and the first step away from deterministic and mechanistic views. This approach contradicts the notion of separate, elementary and mechanical understanding of the universe. Although there are some differences between the relativity theories and the mechanistic view, they retain some essential features of mechanism, such as notion of causality. The quantum physics is accepted as another step away from modern science. One of the important physicists Werner Heisenberg explained that position and momentum are complementary entities. According to his“uncertainty theory”, it is impossible to determine the moment and position of an electron at once as opposed to Laplacian deterministic understanding. However, there are some explanations (such as Reichenbach's) that the reason of this uncertainty is the result of observing experiments among different systems. Although causality is not enough to explain all events in a system such as in deterministic view, it doesn't mean to leave it entirely. It may be said that this undestanding is parallel to Popper's evolutionary view on scientific thought. Another explanation of Heisenberg as opposed to deterministic view is“dependent observer”. According to this notion, human conciousness and behaviour are not independent from the observed events and experiments, and observer becomes a part of the observed events and human conciousness is a part of the measurement of experiment. This notion means that there is relation between mind (subject) and body (object) as opposed to Descartes' independent existence. It may be regarded as one of the most important differences between modern and postmodern thoughts. Another development in science is the chaos theory. According to the explanation of Edward Lorenz, one of the reseracher of this theory, chance and uncertainty have an important role in a system, but there is an order in disordered structure. He emphasizes that a tiny effect may be caused a big one in an ordered system. It means that there is a reason (such as the tiny effect) beyond the chaotic event which is accepted as a chance. According to the explanation in this theory, the process of a system can be determined by initial condition, but it is impossible to determine it later because of the“sensitive dependence on initial condition”. It is also called as“butterfly effect”, which means that a butterfly in New York may be caused a chaos in Japan. According to the explanations (such as David Ruelle's) in the chaos theory, the universe is determinist in macro level because of able to determine the relation between cause and effect. However, it is impossible to determine it in micro level because of impossibility to observe it. The developments in science effect architectural thought. This relation may be established between causality and mechanistic view in modern science and functionality and using technologic developments in modern architecture. Under this effect, reason and order are important assumptions of the architectural designs. For xmexample, rationalist philosopher R6ne Descartes mentiones in his work“Discourse on Method”that the work created by a single craftsman is more perfect and better planed than that created by various craftsmen and disorder of the old cities. If there is anything attractive about buildings and quarters of an ancient city, it is the result of chance, and the beauty of a city designed by a single craftsman during the single extended moment is the result of the application of reason. If there is reason in a work, there should be order; but if there is chance in a work, it should be disorder. This duality between logic and arbitrariness is also accepted by modern architecture. Because arbitrariness is öne of the evils of modern ideology; just as logic, rule and order drive forces and they are accepted as universal truth. The relation may be also established between causality in modern thought and fünctionality in modem architecture. Functionality in modern architecture may be originated in two modern philosophers view. To understand these origins, there is a need to indicate differences between causality in Descartes1 rationalist view and Kant's rational view. For Descartes, it is possible to explain ali events in the universe by cause and effect. For example, the laws of physics and human beings can be explained by the same notion of cause and effect. This understanding may be regarded as related with the famous slogan of fünctionalism in modern period“form follows function”, which may be originated in Descartes1 rationalist thought and causality notion. According to this view, form ahvays follows function without considering the variables between human-environment-building relation, such as causality in Descartes1 determinist understanding. Unlike fünctionalist view, fimctional view in modem architecture, which suggests more flexible solutions for the relation between form and function, may be originated in rational Enlightenment thought in the XVin.th century. For Kant, causality cannot be determined ali events in the universe just by itself, because there is also effect of free subject in order to determine it. As a conclusion, the reason of critics for functionality in modern architecture is related with the rationalist and deterministic views in modern scientific thought as opposed to rational approach in this period. The other relation betvveen modern architecture and modern thought is mechanistic view and independent existence notion of Descartes. To use the opportunities of technology in architectural design is an effect of trust in machines, which is accepted working functionally and orderly in mechanistic view. For example, Le Corbusier's slogan“a house is a machine living in it”may be regarded as an effect of this understanding. Separate, elementary understanding of mechanistic view is related with independent existence. However, their effects in modern architecture are criticised because of split between object and subject, and dominating subject by object. But if it is studied the applications in modern architecture, it is noticed that there are many examples as opposed to this assumption. If there is a problem in using technologic opportinuties and objective knowledge in architecture, it depends, how they are interpreted and used by subject. Because objective knowledge can only explaine the events and concepts, but interpretation of this knowledge is related with subject, which have the power of choosing the alternative in different knowledge and deciding the way of the using technology.in the postmodern period, which we live in, it may be though that there is relation betvveen the explanations of postmodern science and“Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture”, which is the start point of postmodern architecture. Öne of the aims of Venturi's book is to break the rigidity in the relation between form and function in modern architecture, and to show people the relativity and uncertainty in architecture. He tried to explain that it is possible to interpret variously a building in modern architecture and it may have contradictory and inconsistent elements as opposed to modern ideology. Öne of the most important idea claimed by Venturi is“simultaneously contradiction”in modern architecture because of using different scales, different fünctions in complex architectural designs. Notion of contradictory became an important notion in philosophy by means of Hegelian dialectic logic. According to this logic, most things in the world developed by accepting synthesis which contains thesis and antithesis. According to Kari Popper, contradiction in a theory threat rational criticism and intellectual progress in knowledge. For him, Hegelian dialectic is an attack law of contradiction of traditional logic and a law, which assert that two contradictory statements can never be true together. If it is studied the development of physics, there are many contradict theories. However, they are not accepted at the same time, such as Laplacian deterministic view and Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. According to Popper“s statement, Hegel is a cause of negative effect in progress of objective scientifîc thought. The other development in architecture is Deconstructive Architecture, which is characterised by ”complexity and contradiction“. it manifested itself firstly by an exhibition which was organized in M.O.M.A. in the 1988 and contained the projects, designed by Daniel Libeskind, Frank Gehry, Peter Eisenman, Bernard Tschumi, Zaha Hadid, Rem Koolhaas and Coop Himmelblau. Although ali projects were defîned as deconstructivist, their origins are duTerent. For example Eisenman and Tschumi's architectural theories and designs developed most compherensively Derrida's deconstructive thought; Koolhaas and Hadid's architectural approachs are related with Russian Constructivist. If the relation between Deconstructive architects and Russian Constructivist is studied, Rem Koolhaas and Zaha Hadid lean towards late Constructivism, such as Leonidov; and Tschumi towards Chernikov. If two movements compared, öne of the most important differences betvveen them is that design methods of Russian constructivists is rational (such as Ginzburg's) and some concepts used by them are related with its objective scientific meaning, such as probability. However, it may be said that most of concepts used in deconstructive architectural designs by Eisenman and Tschumi are related with philosophical meaning rather than objective scientific meaning. Deconstructive architecture is characterised by deconstruction concept of French philosopher Jacques Derrida. He distinguished the term deconstruction, deconstructionism and deconstructivism and accepted using deconstruction. For him, it is related with critics of conventional understanding of space, building and institutions. According to his statement, deconstructive thought began with a critiqueof logocentricism, linguisticism, linguistic models, confinements within language. it was not primarily concerned with discourse, with the text, but in the trivial, traditional sense but with institutions that is with the solid, real building of social constructs in which discourse, text, teaching, culture, literatüre, are produced, normalized and controlled. He emphasized that he criticise philosophy by means of architecture, because it should not be distinguished betvveen thinking and building. it is possible to see same critical attitude in Eisenman's architectural statements. For him, Nietzcshe, Freud, Heidegger and Derrida have contributed to the dramatic transformation of thought and the conceptualisation of man in the universe. However, very little impact of this transformation has found its way in contemporary architecture. Ali of the speculative arts and artistic disiplines have in öne way ör another come to terms with the dissolution of foundation. Thus, architecture faces a difficult task: to dislocate that which to locate. This is a paradox of architecture. For architecture to enter a post-Hegelian condition, it must move away from the rigidity and value structure of the dialectical oppositions. If architecture traditionally locates, then to betvveen means to be betvveen some place and no place. The effects of deconstructive thought may be saw in Eisenman and Tschumi's architectural approachs. The öne of the most important concepts of these two architects1 discourse is ”in-between“. According to their explanation, there are many oppositions and hierarchies in architecture, such as order and disorder, structure and chaos, form and function. it is suggested that there is no dominance in architecture and ali oppositions should be turned ”in-between“. As a parallel to this statement, for them, there is nothing follow anything, such as form follows function. This attitude may be regarded as opposed to mechanistic view, which suggests the duality betvveen object and subject; and deterministic view, which suggests the relation betvveen cause and effect. it may be said that the concept of ”in-between“ is related with Derridean concept of ”differance“. According to Derrida's statement, ”differance“ is drived from ”difference“ and ”differant“ in French, which are opposed to each other. The reason for using the notion of ”differance" is to criticise the duality betvveen binary oppositions, which is impossible to reduction them each other. As a parallel to this approach, Derridean deconstruction locates certain crucial oppositions ör binary structures of meaning and value that constitue the discourse of vvestern metaphysics. These include the distinctions between form and content, nature and culture, thought and perception, essence and accident, mind and body, theory and practice, speech and vvriting. in Derrida's thought, there are no dialectical oppositions, there are just unity of oppositions, such as no dialectical relation betvveen reason and unreason, there is only öne reason, vvhich consists of both of them. Derrida demonstrated his thought on architecture in his LÛ aphorisms. For him, the aphorism determines by vvord play. According to his explanation, even if it speaks of architecture, it doesn't belong to it. For Derrida, speaking of aphorism, öne takes a positions vvithin the analogy betvveen rhetoric and architecture. Architecture is an unreadable and future projects, a school stili unknovvn, a style to be defîned, an unhabitable space, the invention of new paradigm. Architecture vvithout projects isengaged in more thoughtful, more inventive. The project is and is not the essence of architecture. Perhaps it will have been the history of architecture. But if his explanations are studied, it is problematic for architectural thought. He said that when he used project term, he referred to the French meaning, and he didn't know whether or not it is the same meaning in English. He said that philosophy has a rigirous specifity which has to be respected, and it is a very hard discipline with its own requirements, its own autonomy, so that it cannot be simply mixed philosophy with literature, with painting, with architecture. It may be concluded from his statements that this relation between architecture and deconstructive thought is analogic and there is no translation between different language and discipline. According to some explanations (such as Catherine Cooke), there is a parallel relation between Einstein's General Theory, complete disintegration of classical atomic physics produced by Max Planck, Niels Bohr and their generation and Derridean concept of deconstruction. There is a direct parallel with deconstructive programme, whether in architecture or elsewhere, of locating inherent dilemmas within the conventional institutions of a building. There are some effects of changes in concepts of space, time, matter and cause and effect in physics on deconstructive thought. According to this explanation, it may be thought that developments in science and philosophy are not independent from each other. However, it may be said that theoretical understanding Eisenman and Tschumi reject objective scientific thought. According to them, architectural projects attack against cause and effect relationships. Their aims is to displace the traditional opposition between programme and architecture, and to extend questioning of architectural conventions through operations of superimposition, permutation and general displacement of the system, as Derrida written. However, Koolhaas' architectural approach is different from Eisenman and Tschumi. For him, architectural design must be carefull for cultural and contextual differences, such as in his project in Fukuoka. If his architectural designs are studied, it may be concluded that Koolhaas' architectural understanding is more related with modern movement than Eisenman and Tschumi's understanding. One of the differences between them is to indicate the concepts used in scientific thought, such as Butterfly Effect in chaos theory. According to his explanation in his book S, M, L, XL, chaos means that tiny differences in input could quickly become overhelming the differences in output as a parallel to scientific explanation. It may be concluded that the developments in deconstructive architecture which is related with Derridean deconstruction in the second half the XX. century reject deterministic and mechanistic view in modem period. If these explanations are regarded as one of the main points of deconstructive architecture, it may be pointed out that its development is critical for given premium to philosophy by rejection the explanations of objective scientific thought. However Koolhaas' architectural understanding gives some clues for standing against complexity and contradiction in architecture. Although philosophy is an important discipline for architectural thought, there is a need objective scientific thought to control the structure of architectural discipline and its language in interdisciplinary works; and architecture should be related with technological and social implications of objective scientific thought for its progressive process in XXI. st. century. XVII
Benzer Tezler
- Decision making for multi-purpose tall building project in urban centers
Başlık çevirisi yok
M.MURAT MAYOR
Yüksek Lisans
İngilizce
1990
Şehircilik ve Bölge Planlamaİstanbul Teknik ÜniversitesiPROF.DR. ALTAN ÖKE
- Mimarlıkta bir yordam olarak 'tekrar': 1950-2000 yılları arası türkiye mimarlığı
'repetition' as a way in architecture: Turkish architecture between 1950-2000
ESMA EROĞLU
- Mimarlık eleştirisi üzerine geliştirilen metot yaklaşımının 1985 sonrası İstanbul binalarında uygulanması
Başlık çevirisi yok
YASEMİN GÜRSOY
- Atıl köy okullarının yeniden işlevlendirilmesi: Çanakkale örneği
Refunctioning of idle village schools: Çanakkale case
SELİN AKTÜRK
