Paul Bonatz'ın Türkiye yılları
Paul Bonatz's Turkey years
Yazar: NEVİN ASLI CAN BİLGE
Danışman: YRD. DOÇ. DR. LUCA ORLANDI
İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi / Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü / Mimarlık Ana Bilim Dalı / Mimarlık Tarihi Bilim Dalı
Derece: Doktora, 2017
Konu: Mimarlık = Architecture ; Tarih = History

Özet:
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.

Abstract:
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.