Mimarlık disiplininin sosyokültürel aktörleri olarak çağdaş mimarlık müzeleri: Almanya, İtalya ve Fransa örnekleri
Contemporary architectural museums as sociocultural actors of the discipline of architecture: The cases of Germany, Italy and France
Yazar: GAMZE OKUMUŞ SOLMAZ
Danışman: PROF. DR. UFUK DOĞRUSÖZ
Mimar Sinan Güzel Sanatlar Üniversitesi / Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü / Mimarlık Ana Bilim Dalı / Bina Bilgisi Bilim Dalı
Derece: Doktora, 2022
Konu: Mimarlık = Architecture ; Müzecilik = Museology
Dizin: Mimari mekan = Architectural space ; Modern mimari = Modern architecture ; Müzeler = Museums ; Sosyokültürel yapı = Socio-cultural structure

Özet:
Çağdaş mimarlık müzeleri İkinci Dünya Savaşı sonrasında yeni bir mimarlık kurumu olarak doğmuşlar, 20.yüzyılın sonlarına doğru ise hızla çoğalmışlardır. Kendilerini müzenin yanı sıra merkez veya enstitü olarak da adlandırabilen bu kurumlar, kurucu iradeleri, karar verici süreçleri ve yönetimsel biçimleri açısından çeşitli farklılıklar barındırıyor olsalar da, tözlerinde aynı amaçları taşımaktadırlar. Bu amaç benzerliğinin karşısında var olan araç ve süreç farklılığı, çağdaş mimarlık müzelerini incelemeye değer kılmaktadır. Bu kurumların sayılarında gerçekleşen "patlama" ve taşıdıkları amaç benzerlikleri ise tesadüfi değildir: Çağdaş mimarlık müzesi olgusu birkaç temel etmenin varlığına, gelişmesine ve oluşumuna bağlıdır. Bulunduğu ülkenin yönetim biçimi her ne olursa olsun, bir çağdaş mimarlık müzesinin ortaya çıkması için her şeyden önce bir toplumsal ve kültürel itki, bu itki doğrultusunda ise bir talebin var olması gerekir. Bu itkinin kökeni ise, mimarlığın sosyal olarak inşa edilmiş bir kültürel alan olmasında ve bu karakteristiğinin giderek önem kazanarak görünür hale gelmesinde yatmaktadır.

Dolayısıyla bir çağdaş mimarlık müzesinin kurulmasına giden izlek, mimarlık kültüründe etkili olan aktörler ile toplumun bu anlamda farkındalığa ulaşması, bununla birlikte kurumsal yetersizliklerin ve yeni bir kurum gerekliliğinin ortaya çıkmasından geçmektedir. Bu aşamada mimarlık kültürünün toplumsal görünürlüğünü arttıran meslek örgütleri, eğitim ve araştırma kurumları, mesleki ve genel basın yayın platformlarının etkisi kritik önem taşımaktadır. Bu aktörlerin etkilerinin arttığı noktada, çağdaş mimarlık müzeleri yeni bir kurumsal yapılanma olarak ortaya çıkmaktadırlar. Bu araştırma kapsamında ele alınan bu savlar, idari ve politik olarak birbirinden çok farklı geleneklerde olan ve son 50 yılda mimarlık müzelerinin kurulduğu gözlemlenen üç Batı Avrupa ülkesinde mimarlık kültürü çerçevesinde değerlendirilerek incelenecektir.

Çağdaş mimarlık müzelerinin çok katmanlı işlevselliğini, mimarlık disiplininin sosyokültürel aktörleri olmaları bağlamında ele alan bu tez çalışması, konuyu tarihsel arka planın kurduğu fonda Almanya, İtalya ve Fransa'daki mimarlık müzeleri, enstitüleri, arşivleri ve merkezleri üzerinden irdelemektedir. İkinci Dünya Savaşı öncesinde var olan baskın paradigma, mimarlığın çevresinde elitist bir atmosfer ile birlikte bir çeşit "kült" üretmiş, mimarlığın tek bir sosyokültürel çevre ile belirli tartışmalar, kuramlar ve yaklaşımlar ile sınırlı kalmasına sebep olmuştur. Savaş sonrası dönemde ise bu geleneksel paradigma özgürlükçü, dağınık, paylaşımcı, demokratik iletişim-etkileşim ağları aracılığıyla çözünmüştür. Çağdaş mimarlık müzeleri ise bu çözünmede merkezi bir rol üstlenmişlerdir. Nitekim mimarlık kültürü ile kurum karşılıklı, bağımlı bir ilişki içerisindedir. Kültürel ortamda gerçekleşen dönüşümler kurumları tetiklemekte, kurumlar ise mimarlık kültüründe çeşitli bağlamlarda katalizörler olarak çalışarak alanın dönüşümünde etkili olmaktadırlar. Kuramsal altyapısını mimarlık kültürünün genişleyen alanı, karmaşıklık ve morfogenetik döngü kuramları üzerine kuran bu çalışmada, kültür ile kurum arasındaki bu karmaşık ilişki adı geçen üç ülkenin kültür politikaları bağlamında incelenmektedir.

Mimarlık kültürünün dönüşüm, gelişme ve genişleme açısından yetersiz kaldığı durumlarda bu tür inisiyatifler ya hiç sonuç vermeyecek ya da salt idari bir tasarruf olarak kalacaktır. Bu çalışma, henüz bir çağdaş mimarlık müzesi bulunmayan Türkiye için bu tür kurumlar, eğitim kurumları, sivil toplum örgütleri ve devletin kültür politikaları arasındaki ilişkiselliklerin bir haritasını sunmakta; Türkiye'de müstakbel bir çağdaş mimarlık müzesinin kurulması için gerekli koşullar, motivasyonlar ve prosedürel süreçlerin ana hatlarını, yoğunlaştığı üç Avrupa ülkesindeki tarihsel, toplumsal ve kültürel bağlamlar üzerinden çizmekte; ve mimarlık kültürünün "genişlemiş alanı"nın dönüşüm sürecinde hangi yönlere doğru biçimlenmiş olduğunu tarihsel kanıtlara dayanarak ortaya koymaktadır.

Abstract:
While contemporary architecture museums were born as new architectural institutions after the Second World War, their number increased rapidly towards the end of the 20th century. These institutions, which can be called centers or institutes as well as museums, have the same aims in their essence, even though they have differences in terms of their decision-making processes and administrative styles. The difference in means and processes in the face of this similarity of purpose, makes contemporary architectural museums worth examining. The "explosion" in the number of these institutions and their similarities are not accidental: The phenomenon of the contemporary architectural museum depends on the existence, development, and formation of a few basic factors. Regardless of the administration style of the country in which it is located, for a contemporary architecture museum to emerge, there must be a social and cultural impulse and a demand in line with this impulse. The origin of this impulse lies in the fact that architecture is a socially constructed cultural field which became more and more visible during the postwar period.
Therefore, the establishment of a contemporary architectural museum happens through the actors who are influential in architectural culture and the society's awareness in this sense, along with the emergence of institutional inadequacies and the necessity of a new institution. At this stage, the impact of professional organizations, education and research institutions, professional and general media platforms that increase the social visibility of architectural culture is critical. At the point where the effects of these actors increase, contemporary architectural museums emerge as a new institutional structuring. These arguments discussed within the scope of this research will be evaluated within the framework of architectural culture in three Western European countries, which have very different traditions from each other in administrative and political terms, and where it has been observed that architectural museums have been established in the last 50 years.
This intellectual path leads the study to the relationship between institution and culture, and therefore to the culture of architecture. To know architecture is to know a special language which is written, spoken, and drawn. Thus, mastering the language; to write, draw, or otherwise represent architectural ideas, means mastering a set of historically and institutionally structured standarts about architecture. To become an architect by acquiring this institutional knowledge, means to be included in the architectural culture intellectually, practically, and socially. This architectural culture constitutes a sequence that we can attempt to break and expand with our own discourse, practice, and design production. Therefore, knowledge of architecture roughly includes knowing and understanding certain facts and how to act with these facts. This knowledge and understanding occurs when experiences are coded in terms of a context: This context may be formed in accordance with a physical, political, institutional, or cultural situation.
Therefore, the role of architectural culture in the discipline, goes far beyond the supportive relationship other disciplines establish with their own cultures: Architectural culture is the main factor that guides the field and discipline and is in a close, mutually dependent relationship with its institution. Until some time ago, the main institution responsible for the transmission of this culture was the academy, and the construction site was where this knowledge, along with practice, was applied and transferred through apprenticeship. However, after the Second World War, the field of architecture began to expand: The number of institutions (some of which were called museums and some centers) which played a key role in the production, development, transfer, determination and expansion of architectural culture, began to increase rapidly. Architectural culture, which is in constant change and includes historical breaks, began to be codified in these institutions, as well as the academy and the building site. Therefore, it became possible to read the development, transformations, fractures, saturation points and deficiencies of architectural culture through these institutions. This research aims to address this relationship by deciphering the constellation of relationships involving various actors, argues that architectural culture and knowledge as a socially constructed cultural space are produced in this new institutional framework, and reveals that these institutions triggered the transformations in this direction.
So, how, where, when, under what conditions, and with whose support did these institutions, which are of great importance for the architectural culture and therefore the entire field of architecture, emerge? Why did the Institut Français d'Architecture in Paris open in 1980 and the Deutsches Architekturmuseum in Frankfurt in 1984, while it took the MAXXI Architettura in Rome another 30 years to be established? Why isn't the contemporary architecture museum a part of the architectural scene in some countries (including Turkey) and even in some continents such as Africa? First of all, architectural culture is deeply connected to the web of political relations. Therefore, it is not a coincidence that the establishment of these institutions gained momentum in the 1960s: The major break in the concept of culture in these years resulted in social demands for access to culture and participation in cultural practices. With these demands, not only were the ways of how to convey the culture to wider masses examined, but also a much wider area began to be accepted as a part of cultural production. The awareness of various political, social, and academic actors on this issue has led to the support of these "new" cultural practices and products, and as a result, many new cultural institutions, including architectural museums, have been established. Therefore, the establishment and continuation of the activities of architectural museums is directly related, but not limited to, the awareness of these actors about architectural culture and the financial support they provide in this direction.
The democratization demands and sociocultural environment have also deeply affected the architectural culture. The dominant paradigm, which existed before the Second World War, produced a kind of "cult" in line with the elitist atmosphere around architecture, causing architecture to be limited to a single socio-cultural environment and certain discussions, theories, and approaches. In the post-war period, this traditional paradigm was dissolved through liberal, dispersed, sharing, democratic communication and interaction networks. The inclusion of new groups in the profession (such as women, ethnic minorities, people from working-class backgrounds, as well as those involved in research, theory, and education) from the 1960s and 70s led to the questioning of traditional approaches to architecture. Although the "apolitical", traditional knowledge of architecture still continues to answer the problematics it defines today, this approach does not allow to ask basic questions about the content of architecture (such as who it serves, or how much it succeeds). The traditional paradigm excludes the powerless and "the other" and does not include them in its knowledge and practice. For this reason, this approach has been insufficient to include policies such as social justice and diversity that come with cultural transformations, and this inadequacy has resulted in these issues being excluded from architecture. Indeed, the views of the other, of the different, threatens existing norms: Involving the user, the ordinary citizen, the public does not only take more time and energy, but also demands profound changes in existing practices. Contemporary architecture museums, on the other hand, have assumed a central role in this dissolution, because architectural culture and the institution are in a mutual, dependent relationship. Transformations in the cultural environment trigger institutions, and institutions are effective in the transformation of the field by working as catalysts in various contexts in architectural culture.
In cases where the architectural culture is insufficient in terms of transformation, development and expansion, such initiatives will either yield no results or will remain as a mere administrative act. This study presents a map of the interrelationships between such institutions, educational institutions, non-governmental organizations, and the state's cultural policies for countries, which do not yet have a contemporary architecture museum. It outlines the conditions, motivations, and procedural processes necessary for the establishment of a future museum of architecture, through the historical, social, and cultural contexts of the three European countries it has concentrated on. Based on historical evidence, it reveals how the "expanded field" of architectural culture was shaped in the transformation process. This thesis, which builds its theoretical background on the expanding field of architectural culture, complexity, and morphogenetic cycle theories, deals with the multi-layered functionality of contemporary architectural museums in the context of them being socio-cultural actors of the architectural discipline. It examines institutes, archives and centers in Germany, Italy and France, with their historical background. Although there are quite a variety of examples in this sense from Canada to Finland, the aim to find a general causality behind this whole process narrowed the study within the framework of these three countries. This causality, on the other hand, lies in the similarity of the existing social impulse and purpose, and in the political decisions made in this direction. Therefore, cultural policies have been critical in this process of contemporary architectural museums, and this importance has guided the focus of the research area. Thus, case selection was reduced to three countries with developed and differentiated political decision mechanisms, and it was revealed at what points the relations between the institution and culture in these three countries were similar and at which points they differed.