The essays aims to show if and how national identity finds its reflection in architecture. Turkey is the country handpicked for this particular scientific purpose inasmuch as it a solid example of a multicultural state acknowledged at political and legal levels. More importantly, it has a rich history of multiculturalism. Istanbul and Ankara are the primary examples of architectural tendencies. The essay carefully traces the evolution of western influence and the rationales behind the cultural dialogue in the days of the empire, which allows understanding the nature of possible national identity erosion in the modern Turkish architecture. The brief scrutiny of the period shows the length of the tendency of identity demolition in architecture. Transition to and the analysis of the Republican architectural processes allows presuming that no erosion could have taken place at the time, with Ataturk and his followers seeking to coin a new identity by departing from imperial era and architecture that personified it. The invitation of Western architects is a proof of Turks’ dedication to the development of a new identity mirrored in a Westernized construction style. The essay travels diachronically presenting the recently expressed view of prominent modern architect Mehpare Evrenol deprecating the dissolution of the national identity in modern commercialized architecture. Finally, the opinions on the Sancaklar Mosque of Emre Arolat seem to put everything in places by suggesting that modern architectural vision expressed in mosque designs and the prevalent preference of a traditional 16th century mosque architectural style may be a sign of the coexistence of national identities and their respective architectural styles reflecting them in varying measure.
Introduction
As with any cultural artifact, architecture carries a piece of its own unique national identity. Some cultures prefer isolationism while other do multiculturalism, the latter often being true of empires, globalized organisms where multiple cultures intermingle. The Ottoman Empire embraced the pluralism possibly as a means of keeping the motley political formation stable. In allowing the militarily incorporated nations to retain their culture in hopes of assimilating them, the empire virtually let them influence its own mainstream culture, including architecture. Furthermore, the approval of cultural influence fueled by the ambitious dream of coupling Rome and Constantinople and the 19th century liberalization towards the western knowledge stimulated by the need of western knowledge led the western architectural trends to enter the empire in greater number. These factors led to cultural erosion making the nation more susceptible to foreign architectural styles.
The 20th century reformation of the state marked the period of even deeper westernization in architecture in the context of the national mental departure from the imperial past that seemed to have had very negative connotations at the time although some argue that the process contributed to the coining of a new national and architectural identity. Modern Turkish architects like Mehpare Evrenol sound concerned with dissolution of the genuine identity in architecture due to its commercialization. Mosques and even houses in rural areas show the signs of the ultra-modern style and the forsaken earlier identity. However, there are said to the prevailing majority of architects favoring the 16th century architectural mold while designing mosques. Even the authorities commission the demolition of new skyscrapers intercepting the view of the historical buildings reflecting the old identity. The point is that Turkey may have changed its cultural identity in the modern republican era, and Westernized architecture seems to reflect it, modern architecture does not fully mirror the traditional identity that went unchanged, or the country has a dual Ottoman and Ataturk identity, with two styles reflecting them in varying measure.
The Modern Architecture Is the Continuation of the Imperial Blending of Styles and Inter-Cultural Dialogue
Taras (310) confirms that Turkey is a multicultural country, as matter stand now. Multiculturalism is far from being a mere phenomenon; rather, it is an officially recognized political and legal axiom (Taras 310). One of multi-culturalism objectives is to recognize diversity (Taylor n.pag.). The influence of western styles in architecture appears to be a logical process and outcome of diversity recognition; however, as is evident in its history, the country has been multicultural in different political incarnations. Modern Turkey has historical reasons for the nation to have become pluralist and adopted foreign customs and styles, including architectural ones. Ozkan (60) notes that multi-religiosity and multi-ethnicity were two structural features of the Turkish Empire, with the independent existence of cultural, religious, and ethnic distinctions allowed. Unlike the Safavid Persian Empire, the Ottoman Empire endeavored cultural diversity all the while making efforts to assimilate new cultural styles (Upshur, Terry, Holoka, Cassar, and Goff 458). Put otherwise, despite the slowly glowing cultural melting pot of the empire aimed at building a monolithic nation in the long-term, the Turkish sultanate left enough room for the manifestation of the cultural identities of the imperial subjects from the incorporated Balkans and other territories. Empires, the earlier mechanisms of globalization due to the multinational dialogue at different levels, accommodated multiple nationalities that tend to relocate bringing the elements of their cultural identity manifested through architecture. It means that contrary to the calculated gradual assimilation of the vanquished nations, the Turkish cultural identity was subject to the foreign influence.
Fast forward to the 19th century, when the empire was almost on borrowed time, it was in urgent need of the Western knowledge. Toprak (32) states that the acceptance of Western institutional forms and technology was vital to the salvation of the Turkish Empire in the 19th century. Thus, under the duress of internal factors, the country grew more liberal and tolerant to the west, which could have opened the door to the western culture, architecture included. However, this exchange may be said to have increased in the 19th century in the changing geopolitical world since it was existent in preceding centuries. Essa and Ali (237) also talk about the cross-cultural sharing through the appointment of western artists to European embassies in Istanbul and the employment of Ottoman scholars and diplomats in Europe. Furthermore, it was to connect Constantinople with Rome that sultans allowed the mixture of the national and western architectural schools, with world dominance in ambitious mind (Essa and Ali 237). Anyway, western powers like Venice are likely to have been glad to be able to erode the national identity of the threatening empire.
Naturally, the Turkish imperial residence complexion could be seen changed possibly as an attempt to marry the two civilizations at least ideologically for the time being or due to the liberalization of the cultural exchange in the country in need of the Western knowledge. Shaw (20) suggests that Dolmabahce Palace, the residence of the sultans in the 19th-20th centuries, discarded the pavilion-style architecture characteristic of the Topkapi Palace, the preceding residence of the High Porte leaders. In its stead, the architects brought Western-style monumental architecture adorned with exquisite stuccowork, which was a signature attribute neo-Baroque Ottoman architecture (Shwa 20). Unsurprising, the modern presence of Western trends makes itself seen in the Turkish architecture. Far from being suppressed, the western style was popularized the institution of the sultanate. Thus, what one can observe and admit is the gradual erosion of the national architectural cultural identity of Turkey at least during the era of the sultanate. What the presence and tolerance of western cultures like Venetian in Turkey did was develop the national taste for Western styles. However, there is also no forgetting the process of globalization at a later date. Gur, Erol, and Erbay (n.pag.) opine that globalization has a great influence on architecture, especially in the non-Western world.
The Republican Era Modern Trends
Isenstadt and Rizvi (15) note that the advocates of the new architectural style in Turkey partly discarding historical forms arrived from Europe. The functionalist focus of a developing modern movement induced by quick urbanization and industrialization was what they brought. They also imported European classicism and the values of monumentality and symmetry. It was unlike them to romanticize local cultural legacy. Hermann Jansen, a German planner, received invitation to design and fulfill the master plan for Ankara, the new capital. Next arrived Ernst Egli, a Swiss expert taking over the Academy of Fine Arts. He brought a new Western architectural vision different from that of the Turkish icon Mimar Sinan whom he, according to Bailey, Bozdoğan, and Necipoğlu (173), described as having grown up in Turkish environment and confined his career to the Islamic and Turkish-Ottoman world. According to Isenstadt and Rizvi (15), Egli’s designs were self-consciously aloof and abstract from the local context personifying a type of architectural self-determination, which is a form produced from construction methods and function that reflected the ideal of Atatürk with regard to a nation free from the Ottoman malfeasance.
Mustafa Kemal Atatürk was a heroic military-leader-turned-president of the Turkish Republic responsible for country westernization (McGinley 280). Bitter, the nation was in dire need of repackaging, as Germany was around the time. People desired the country changed wanting a leader to come, and come he did. Ataturk arrival on the political scene was followed by changes in different spheres, architecture included. The 20th century architecture seems to show the departure from the imperial past and the vernacular and culturally specific architecture that was inalienably linked thereto. According to Vale (118), in the years after the Atatürk’ tenure, architects came to connect the old Hittite past and the objectives of the contemporary Turkish national identity, which they did in an urban design form on the Atatürk Boulevard. There stands a small Hittite bronze sculpture turned into a huge monument glorifying the pre-Islamic past. The founders of the capital city tried to separate it from the Ottoman past (Vale 119). While the monument is not related to architecture, it reinforces the evidence of the Turkish desire to change its identity in the Republican era demonstrated primarily though construction. They seemed content with any identity but Ottoman.
Isenstadt and Rizvi (15) go on to note that Turkish architects integrated the mentioned official nationalist aesthetic into the new architecture in the time to come. This new architecture became known for propensity towards grids and cubic forms that translated perfectly the single-mindedness and clarity of the new government (Isenstadt and Rizvi 15). The 20th century is a prime time for the transformation of the Turkish architectural style that went from being imperial and pompous seeking to impress foreign ambassadors to becoming more ascetic and democratic, which is indicative of the rejection of the unique identity carrying style. Isenstadt and Rizvi (15) note that the architects trained in overseas schools brought the methods and motifs of Western Europe. Such inclination towards foreign architectural knowledge reminds of cultural internationalism. Teow (158) defines the concept as a positive cultural interaction among various countries. The future of cultural internationalism along with the entire human race was in the air in 1939 (Iriye 131). This notwithstanding, the esteemed status of émigré or foreign-trained architects like Constantinos Doxiades continued after WW2 uninterrupted. They put on display their concern for technological solutions reliant on universal physical facts, such as the strength of building materials, with no focus made on cultural allusions, which made émigrés architecture specialists with restricted historical appeal (Isenstadt and Rizvi 17).
However, architects did not have to be of European descent to import Western architecture to modern Turkey, as Sedad Eldem, a known Turkish architect, engaged in modernist designs via an idealized Turkish house, the concept he designed after reading about prairie houses in Illinois projected by Frank Lloyd Wright in German publications (Isenstadt and Rizvi 16-17). All signs point to identity forfeiture in the architecture; however, it depends on how to look at the matter. Heper and Sayari (312) claim Turkey to have a new national identity as a Westernizing modern and secular nation-state. This view corresponds to that of Vale (118) about the contemporary Turkish national identity immortalized in architecture. If so, there is no breach of national identity in the Turkish construction due to identity having changed, which may be considered a part of a historical transition applying to culture and architecture as its integral category. However, in what follows, it becomes obvious not all experts believe in the new identity.
The 21-st Century State of Architecture
Speaking of the latest trends, Gül (n.pag.) admits that the concepts of new contractors are certain to prove harmful to the definitive architectural style of the Turkish culture if left undeterred. The leading Turkish architect Mehpare Evrenol lest there be concepts that no more represent the national culture than they agree with the social lifestyle. Developers are putting pressure on architects in a desire to be original by reproducing popular western architectural trends with a view to gaining a bigger market share (Gül n.pag.). If that be the case, the modern architecture draws from Western styles eroding the national cultural identity for no purpose other than commercial. According to Gül (n.pag.), the architect is very critical of the Venetian and Tuscan themes in the housing projects since the capital city has a rich history of its own, from which to derive inspiration. There is a huge Ottoman and Turkish traditional architecture to add to the Byzantine style. The expert advocated the presence of traditional and historical architecture in the Bosporus zone, Üsküdar, and Beyoğlu. The inclusion of the abundant architectural legacy was recommended instead of the reproduction of similar modern projects.
The fear of the architect of possible identity dissolution is easy to understand by looking at some of the finest samples of the modern Turkish architecture. According to Terraced Landscaping (n.pag.), Sancaklar Mosque of Emre Arolat in proximity of Istanbul, in its suburb called Buyukçekmece, has a cave-like prayer hall and cast concrete walls. The mixture of reinforced concrete and light grey stone was in use. The complex has a plaza put together by shallow terraced steps. The unornamented, pared-back structure is described as set into a depression in the landscape. All that are visible around the complex perimeter are a tall un-domed minaret and the stone roof. Around the stonework have spouted the tufts of grass acting as a means of roof and steps integration into the landscape. The mosque marks a departure from the present architectural discourse, with focus made exclusively on the meaning of religious space.
Tanyeli (n.pag.) explains that the mosque is perceived as being an iconoclastic stance against present practices. However, the architect did not mean to contests the traditional establishment. Rather, did not do anything other than neglect the dominant language of modern mosques architecture and re-conceptualize it in a poetical fashion. It is that specific aspects of the style do stand out. For example, he created his mosque dome-less, which is an unheard-of characteristic of the Turkish Muslim mosque that must have a central dome. Arolat did not create minarets as is customary, which is imitating the architectural analogues from the 16th century with signature small balconies and conical spires. In terms of illumination, the idea in this design is for daylight to be filtered indirectly while, in the traditional design, the whole interior performs the admission of natural light. Arolat made space for male and female congregants adjacent, which is what differentiates his design from a conventional mosque praying space layout, in which women occupy space behind men while saying a prayer. In the new design, the planar prayer hall with zero changes in levels hives way to the hall with a raised level, with congregants needing to proceed inside by crossing large steps. Arolat’s mosque does not contain applied ornament unlike most other mosques whose interior does. In addition, it features no inflationist abundance of Islamic calligraphy (Tanyeli n.pag.). The religious area is not the only context of modern architecture application. A new identity or Western motifs are starting to replace the vernacular village style. Onurcan Cakir Uses Stone (n.pag.) describes Onurcan Cakir having employed concrete and rugged stone to build a soundproof house in a Turkish village of Barbaros that is 50 kilometers west of Izmir.
However, the new modern architectural style may not be this prevalent, which may question the absolute validity of a new national identity mirrored in construction projects. Tanyeli (n.pag.) claims that modern mosque designers tend to comply with the conventional tenets formulated by Mimar Sinan, the guru of the Ottoman architecture active in the 16th century when the empire was at its finest in terms of political and military power. The majority of new mosques are nothing but the naïve reproduction of his masterpieces, with only a handful of mosques exhibiting the historicist attraction of their precursors. The recent national, religious architecture suggests that its designers view themselves as the direct progeny of the sublime Ottomans. The mosque designers of today show their dedication via ambitious construction programs prioritizing quantity in lieu of quality. Thus, the contemporary Turkish Muslim identity has been revolving around the concept of being heirs to Suleiman the Magnificent. In fact, such political and religious belief resonates across the entire culture from popular novels to television. Therefore, it will come as no surprise that, according to Istanbul Skyscrapers (n.pag.), the government of Turkey has decreed that a number of new skyscrapers in the Onalti Dokuz development be brought down in the Zeytinburnu area so that historic views of the major buildings like Hagia Sofia may stay unhindered. Besides the identity considerations, the decision may also have bearing on the ultimatum issued by UNESCO that the organization would deprive the city of its World Heritage Site Status if the authorities were not to deal with the buildings (Istanbul Skyscrapers n.pag.).
Conclusions
As seen from the retrospective look, the country approved or welcomed multiculturalism in the imperial and republican contexts, which created a breeding ground cultivating the adoption of Western architectural styles and vision. One cannot help but notice the gradual, albeit confident erosion of the cultural traditions in the architecture along with similar causal trends dragging on for centuries, although the modern capitalist seems to be dictating its own rules of commercial survival adding new reasons for housing developers to be incorporating Western inclusions continuously that are financial gains. Westernization may be the visual evidence of the national disintegration and replacement. The national identity may be intact, and architecture only partially reflects it by adopting a great deal of western styles. The third point is that there may be a competition between the pro-ottoman and Ataturk era identities in architecture, the latter countenancing any reproduction of Western styles for a further departure from the imperial architectural mentality. Turkey may show the coexistence of two identities, with advocates of the imperial and Republican Ataturk eras split into two camps. The modern architecture is quite diverse being a blend of traditionalism and modern styles. If there are two national identities, the presence of contrasting architectural styles testifies to the erosion of none.
Works Cited
Bailey, Julia, Bozdoğan, Sibel, and Gülru Necipoğlu. History and Ideology: Architectural Heritage of the “Lands of Rum.” BRILL, 2007. Web. 11 Mar. 2016.
Essa, Ahmed, and Othman Ali. Studies in Islamic Civilization: The Muslim Contribution to the Renaissance. The International Institute of Islamic Thought. 2010. Web. 11 Mar. 2016.
Gül, Gamze. Turkish Developers Must Preserve Cultural Identity while Seeking New Concepts. Today’s Zaman. 21 April 2013. n.pag. Web. 11 Mar. 2016.
Gur, Sengul Oymen, Erol, Sengul Yalcınkaya, and Muteber Erbay. The Impact of Modernization on non-Western Architecture. LAP Lambert Academic Publishing, 2012. Web. 11 Mar. 2016.
Heper, Metin, and Sabri Sayari, eds. The Routledge Handbook of Modern Turkey. Routledge, 2013. Web. 11 Mar. 2016.
Iriye, Akira. The Cultural Foundations of the New Globalism. n.d. 131-176.
Isenstadt, Sandy, and Kishwar Rizvi. Modernism and the Middle East. Architecture and Politics in the Twentieth Century. University of Washington Press. 2008. Web. 11 Mar. 2016.
“Istanbul Skyscrapers to Be Demolished to Protect the City’s Skyline.” De Zeen Magazine. 22 August 2014. n.pag. 11 Mar. 2016.
McGinley, Ann C. Masculinities and the Law: A Multidimensional Approach. NYU Press, 2012. Web. 11 Mar. 2016.
“Onurcan Cakir Uses Stone and Concrete to Create Soundproof House in a Turkish Village.” De Zeen Magazine. 4 January 2016. n.pag. Web. 11 Mar. 2016.
Ozkan, Erhan Umit. Multiculturalism in Turkey. Creation of the Modern Nation State. Ritsumeikan University. n.d. 59-77. Web. 11 Mar. 2016.
Shaw, Wendy M.K. Ottoman Painting. Reflections of Western Art from the Ottoman Empire to the Turkish Republic. I.B. Tauris, 2011. Web. 11 Mar. 2016.
Tanyeli, Ugur. “Profession of Faith: Mosque in Sancaklar, Turkey by Emre Arolat Architects.” The Architectural Review. 31 July 2014. n.pag. Web. 11 Mar. 2016.
Taras, Raymond., ed. Challenging Multiculturalism: European Models of Diversity. Edinburgh University Press. 2013. Web. 11 Mar. 2016.
Taylor, Charles. Inter-culturalism or Multi-Culturalism? Montreal: McGill University. June 24, 2013. n.pag. Web. 11 Mar. 2016.
Teow, See Heng. Japan's Cultural Policy toward China, 1918-1931: A Comparative Perspective. The Harvard University Asia Center. 1999. Web. 11 Mar. 2016.
“Terraced Landscaping Surrounds Concrete and Stone Structure of Emre Arolat’s Sancaklar Mosque.” De Zeen Magazine. 6 April 2015. n.pag. Web. 11 Mar. 2016.
Toprak, B. Islam and Political Development in Turkey. Brill. 1981. Web. 11 Mar. 2016.
Upshur, Jiu-Hwa L., Terry, Janice J., Holoka, Jim, Cassar, George H., and Richard D. Goff. Cengage Advantage Books: World History. 5th ed. Cengage Learning. 2011. Web. 11 Mar. 2016.
Vale, Lawrence. Architecture, Power, and National Identity. 2nd ed. Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. Web. 11 Mar. 2016.
