Ambiguities of Transparency and Privacy in Seyfi Arkan's Houses for ...

The reality of the city depended as much on these new buildings asMustafa Kemal’s life. This was like a newspaper that nobody knew whereit was published, that you never even saw once, but one that everyone elseread and recounted to you as a chorus (11).

This depiction of Ankara by the contemporary novelist and thinker AhmetHamdi Tanpýnar (1901-1962) reveals the symbolic significance of Atatürk’sand his circle’s life for the implementation of the revolutionary changes inthe new Turkish Republic. Tanpýnar’s metaphor of the new President’s lifeas an invisible newspaper whose contents were nevertheless perfectlyknown to the city’s population visualizes a particular tendency that heldtrue for the Regime’s approach to the making of a new residential culture.The Kemalist elites recognized in the practice of architecture and townplanning an effective mechanism for making a modern country. Forinstance, during the late 1920s and early 1930s, several German-speakingarchitects and city planners were invited to Turkey, such as Carl Lörcher,Hermann Jansen, Robert Oerley, Clemens Holzmeister and Ernst Egli, toprepare the master plans of major cities and to design state-sponsoredinstitutions. With the schools, hospitals, houses and governmentalbuildings of these architects, the Kemalist state sought to display theachievements of the Revolution, while subsequently disseminatingsymbols of modern and Western living to the nation by using a new set ofarchitectural tropes.

One of these influential German professionals, the architect and cityplanner Hermann Jansen reserved the southern hills of Ankara for theupper-class single-family villas in his master plan for the city. Manyhouses for the new Republican elite were also placed on the hills ofÇankaya. I would like to argue in this article that these houses werepromoted as emblems of modernization and Westernization, showcasedto disseminate a new vision of living to the whole nation, and to exhibit tothe rest of the world how the Turkish bureaucrats stripped off their

RReecceeiivveedd:: 03.09.2005

KKeeyywwoorrddss:: Transparency, privacy,nationalist spectacle, domesticity, genderroles, veiling/unveiling, translation, cross-cultural relations, ideology and architecture.

11.. “Þehrin [Ankara] aktüalitesi biraz da buyeni binalarla Mustafa Kemal’in hayatýydý.Bu nerde basýldýðý bilinmeyen, hatta hiçelinize geçmeyen, fakat sizden baþkaherkesin okuduðu ve her aðzýn berabercesize naklettiði bir gazeteye benziyordu.”Tanpýnar (1945, 1992, 7). The earlier versionwas originally published in Ülkü(September 1942,10-15). The quoted passagewas added afterwards. All translations fromGerman and Turkish belong to the author,unless otherwise indicated.

METU JFA 2005/2(22: 2)

AAMMBBIIGGUUIITTIIEESS OOFF TTRRAANNSSPPAARREENNCCYY AANNDD PPRRIIVVAACCYY IINNSSEEYYFFÝÝ AARRKKAANN’’SS HHOOUUSSEESS FFOORR TTHHEE NNEEWW TTUURRKKIISSHH RREEPPUUBBLLIICC EEssrraa AAKKCCAANN

“Oriental” habits. Beatriz Colomina (1998) argued that the most influentialhouses of the twentieth century have been produced and used also fordisplay, either in the professional exhibitions, or popular departmentstores, museums and fairs, or propaganda and advertisement. “Themodern house has been deeply affected by the fact that it is bothconstructed in the media and infiltrated by the media. Always onexhibition, it has become thoroughly exhibitionist (Colomina, 1998, 164).”In the case of Turkey, some highly specific houses for the official eliteconfirm this account, albeit with a specific twist. In addition to theirfunctional use as the living spaces of their owners, these houses can beseen as part of nationalist spectacles, namely the publicity andpropaganda techniques of the new Turkish regime. They can beinterpreted in terms of a staged modernity. I call them staged, not becausethe women and men in these houses were acting or because their modernhouses were like a decor in a theater. This is in no way to claim that thesehouses were not “authentic,” just because they provided a transformeddomestic environment compared to the traditional ones. On the contrary,they were as genuine as any other house, as long as they embodied theaspirations and future ideals of their residents. I call these houses staged,rather because the Kemalist project of modernization in Turkey startedwith the initiatives of a pioneering group who were on a stage. The livesof this official elite were meant to construct the ego-ideals of a nation,their houses were to establish the new standards of taste.

This article concentrates on three of these houses, two of them in Ankara,one in Ýstanbul, all designed by the Turkish architect Seyfi Arkan (1903-1966) who had just returned from Germany after working with HansPoelzig. In a city where the German-speaking architects designed literallyall of the state-sponsored institutional buildings of the Revolution, theTurkish architect Seyfi Arkan (1903-1966) stands out as an exceptionalexample–an architect whose career still awaits scholarly interest. Arkanhad a close personal relation with Atatürk, who not only gave thearchitect his family name (previously Seyfi Nasih), but also suggested afirst name for his daughter in a hand-written letter that survived theunfortunate destruction of the architect’s archives after his death (FFiigguurree11,, 22). The relation between the president and the architect was reinforcedduring the construction of these three emblematic villas designed for theregime (22).

Unlike an historiographical approach that treats architecture only as atransparent and direct mirror image of the economic infrastructure or thepolitical organizations of its context, my intention here is to show thehistorically and geographically constituted, and even at times incidentalrelations between ideology and architecture that gets redefined for eachspecific example. I will not therefore claim that architectural form in theKemalist Republic was exclusively a fixed reflection of the Kemalistideology, even if it was highly shaped by it, where the state officialsallegedly demanded specific architectural expressions. On the contrary, byfocusing on Seyfi Arkan’s buildings for the officials of the new TurkishRepublic, I intend to show how the specific architectural expression of acertain ideology is considerably the result of the decisions of the architect,who nevertheless shares and is guided by the political ideals of theideology he aspires to represent. The fact that Arkan’s formal approachcannot be neatly categorized with the same terms that define the formalpreferences of many of his contemporaries such as Holzmeister andJansen, to cite two names to be referred to below, will confirm this point.

ESRA AKCAN26

22.. It is hard to determine the precise reasonswhy Arkan was chosen among otherTurkish architects to undertake suchrepresentative tasks for Atatürk. Yet, it ispossible that Atatürk wanted to reservesome important commissions for a youngTurkish architect educated in Germany,while placing the rest of the institutionalbuildings for the new State in the hands ofGerman architects. In one of the few articleswritten about the architect, Uður Tanyelisuggested that Arkan could have attractedthe interest of the official elite with thememorial he designed for the Kubilayincident. Tanyeli (1992, 88-95).

METU JFA 2005/2

EEdduuccaattiioonn ooff aann AArrcchhiitteecctt:: HHaannss PPooeellzziigg -- SSeeyyffii AArrkkaann ((BBeerrlliinn,, 11993300--11993333))

Arkan designed these houses just after he returned from almost a three-year period of education in Germany where he studied with Hans Poelzig.Before departing for Germany with a state fellowship, Arkan hadgraduated from the Academy of Fine Arts in Ýstanbul in 1928 (33). At thetime, a pedagogical approach that was inspired by Beaux-Arts waspromoted at the Academy by the teachers such as Vedat [Tek] and GuilioMongeri whose Ottoman Revivalist buildings soon fell out of fashionduring the selection process of Mustafa Kemal’s Presidential Mansion,designed by Clemens Holzmeister. In Germany, Arkan experienced adifferent kind of pedagogical approach, as well as a first-hand exposure tothe development of the new building style. Two letters ofrecommendation from Hans Poelzig and one from Erich Zimmerman (44)

33.. Arkan’s fellowship award was mentionedin the newspaper Vakýf, 8 October 1929.

44.. Hans Poelzig, Letter of Recommendationfor Seyfi Nassih (Arkan), 9 March 1931,Hans Poelzig, Letter of Recommendation forSeyfi Nassih (Arkan), 14 January 1933,Erich Zimmerman, Letter ofRecommendation for Seyfi Nassih (Arkan)9 March 1931 (Arkan Papers, NationalPalaces Archive).

TRANSPARENCY AND PRIVACY IN SEYFÝ ARKAN 27METU JFA 2005/2

FFiigguurree 11.. Seyfi Arkan and Atatürkexamining the Florya site (Arkan secondfrom right; Arkan Papers, National PalacesArchive).

FFiigguurree 22.. Atatürk’s handwritten letter fornaming Arkan’s daughter (Melih ÞallýPrivate Collection).

FFiigguurree 33.. Poelzig’s Letter ofRecommendation for Arkan (Arkan Papers,National Palaces Archive).

confirm that Arkan (still under the name Nasih at the time) worked“intensely” with Poelzig both at Charlottenburg Technical University(Technische Hochschule) and at the Prussian Academy of Arts(Preussische Akademie der Künste) in Berlin from the beginning of 1930until 1933 (55). He presented in the exhibition Poelzig und seine Schüler(Poelzig and his Students), and worked in the architect’s private office (66;;FFiigguurree 33).

I will show in this article that Arkan, as a graduate student in Poelzig’sstudio, initially worked in Germany on the preliminary designs of thehouses that he later submitted to the Turkish State. However, thenationalist context in Turkey that guided the final designs neverthelessgave totally novel meanings and functions to these houses. Thesebuildings stand as informative studies in illustrating the translation of arepresentational style from one context to another, as well as the impact ofarchitecture schools in building cross-cultural connections (77). Poelzig hadbeen teaching the master class in the Prussian Academy of Arts since 1922,following the resignation of Bruno Paul; and he was appointed at theTechnical University in 1924. Since the two schools were next to eachother, it was convenient for the students to work closely with Poelzig ineither of his classes (Posener, 1992, 179). During his stay in Germany,Arkan followed both Poelzig’s classes at the Technical University and hismaster class at the Academy. Berlin-Charlottenburg Technical Universitywas the locus of important debates at the time. Heinrich Tessenow andHans Poelzig were the two influential teachers in the school, whosepedagogical methods (and eventually politics) were often contrasted bytheir contemporaries (88) and students (99). In his memoirs, Tessenow’sassistant and Hitler’s future chief architect, Albert Speer (1970, 14),mentioned how the University eventually became the meeting ground ofNational Socialists: most Nazi sympathizers took classes from Tessenow,except for a group of “communists” who gravitated towards Poelzig’sclasses. However, Speer’s memories should not be taken as a conclusivestatement about Tessenow and Poelzig’s political stances themselves.Instead, the difference between the two men should be regarded as amatter of pedagogical approach, without drawing any definitive politicalconclusions:

There are two types of teacher that may be classified as ideal…Oneexpresses his own thinking and experience in a doctrine whose truth he isso convinced of that he feels it his duty to pass it on to the nextgeneration…Such a master was, in the twenties, Heinrich Tessenow. Theother teacher is one whose experience has convinced him that many wayscan lead to a goal, to several goals…His purpose is to enable every pupil topursue his own particular course. Such a master, then, was Hans Poelzig(Posener, 1977, 20).

The opposition between Tessenow and Poelzig also resonated in Turkey:In addition to Arkan’s relation with Poelzig, Hermann Jansen wasteaching with Tessenow at the School. As the city planner of Ankara whoalso gave influential decisions about the new buildings, Jansen promotedsimilar values with Tessenow. These could especially be detected in hisproposed housing types and formal preferences, such as the originalarchitectural projects of the Bahçelievler Co-operative Housing (whichwere changed during construction). Due to my limited space in this articleand for the sake of a focused argument on Arkan, I cannot reflect on theintricate pedagogical and political details of the Poelzig-Tessenow debatein Germany, and how these resonated in Jansen’s decisions, both of which

55.. In their letters of recommendation,Zimmerman talks about the fact that Arkantook the master class of Poelzig in thePrussian Academy of Arts; and Poelzigmentions Arkan’s work in the TechnicalUniversity.

66.. In his supportive letter ofrecommendation, Poelzig mentioned thatArkan went on study-trips in Germany,Holland, Belgium and France, analyzingcurrent architectural developments. Poelzigalso noted that Arkan worked on Turkishhouses, sport buildings, theater, mosquesand urban design projects during his stay inGermany. What Poelzig found “especiallyvaluable” in Arkan was the fact that hisdesigns fulfilled the requirements of “themodern Turkish conditions in both technicaland formal aspects.” Arkan had “a verycompetent national artistic character,”Poelzig said. ”Besonders wertvoll erscheintmir sein Studium dadurch, dass seineEntwürfe den modernen türkischenVerhältnissen in technischer und formalerWeise entsprechen und Herr Seyfi so seinenationale künstlerische Eigenart bewährthat.” Hans Poelzig, Letter of Recommendation forSeyfi Nassih (Arkan), 14 January 1933, SeyfiArkan Files, Milli Saraylar Archive, Ýstanbul.

77.. Arkan continued to speak appreciativelyabout his relation with Poelzig after hereturned to Turkey in 1933. AlthoughArkan’s own designs cannot be claimed toliterally follow those of Poelzig’s, his friendsand family confirm that the architect oftenmentioned his debt to his teacher. Thearchitect’s stepson Melih Þallý also statedthat Arkan was very interested in Germanliterature, and that he mainly had Germanand French books in his library.Melih Þallý, Interview with author, 24November 2002, Ýstanbul.

88.. In an article in 1931, T. Friedrichexplained the difference betweenTessenow’s and Poelzig’s classes in relationto the University Reform in Germany.Although the writer found both methodsincomplete, he clarified the distinctionbetween the two seminars in relation to thefreedom of expression allowed to thestudents of each. Poelzig let his studentschoose the project they would work for theterm, whereas Tessenow assigned them allwith the same particular problem.According to the article, the first methodoffered the students plenty of freedom,whereas the second “deprived” them fromthis autonomy. The writer also asserted thatstudents with “inner energy and distinct selfconfidence” chose Poelzig, while the lessself-confident students chose Tessenow,since they could find support and assistanceto their concerns. Although the students inTessenow’s classes produced moderatework, the writer was appreciative of thispedagogical method at the expense of theloss of “seeming individuality,” because, heclaimed, the students learned architecturalprinciples through multiple repetition andcrystallization, out of the moderate exercisethat they could apply to similar other designprojects. Friedrich (1931, 453-455).

99.. Helmuth Heinrich, a student in Poelzig’sclass, claimed that the young students whowere familiar with Mies van der Rohe or the

ESRA AKCAN28 METU JFA 2005/2

I have explained elsewhere (Akcan, 2005). What needs to be stated for thesake of this paper is rather Arkan’s relation with Poelzig and thesubsequent different formal approach (though not necessarily theideological) he promoted in Turkey in comparison to some of his Germancolleagues, including Jansen.

Tessenow never immigrated to Turkey himself, even though he seriouslyconsidered an invitation after the Second World War, which he had toturn down due to his deteriorating health (1100). Nevertheless, the Turkisharchitects of the young generation at the time were familiar with his ideas(1111). Tessenow’s classes attacked metropolitan living conditions in therental barracks, emphasizing instead small houses with a garden and thedetails of modest furnishing. Tessenow stressed the simplicity of peasantlife and the importance of reclaiming the modern inhabitant’s relationwith nature. He thus hoped to replace the “ills” of the metropolis with thevirtues of the small towns and peasant houses to be rejuvenated by themodern architect (Tessenow, 1953, 1982).

… today we seem to lack the ability to see what we love the most, … wehave a dangerous surplus of destructive characters or we always have greattrouble finding and holding on to things that have, at least to some extent,calmness and clarity (1122). …let it be as silent as possible, very “incidental,”very timid (1133).

Repetition, regularity, modesty, everyday experience, mediation betweenextremes and collective unity were considered great virtues in Tessenow’sclasses; yet it was individual creativity and extraordinary expression thatwere emphasized in Poelzig’s. Julius Posener, the well-known Germanhistorian and salaried contributor to the influential French journalL’Architecture d’Aujourd’hui, was a student of Poelzig at the BerlinTechnical University between 1926-1929, namely a few years beforeArkan. Herein, Posener describes Poelzig:

If one went into Poelzig’s studio in the Technische Hochschule inCharlottenburg [Berlin] on a Thursday or Friday, one could see a group ofstudents huddled in a semicircle around a column of blue cigar smoke andfrom there one could hear someone speaking: clearly, decisively,didactically, with spirit and wit. Poelzig was holding a crit. ... [T]here wasno ‘Poelzig school’. He tried to guide every student to his ‘self,’ even ifPoelzig was not in tune with his ‘self’. And he wanted us to approach eachnew work as if we had never designed anything before. He was anopponent of routine, of things that have been learned once and for all(Tessenow, 1916, 44-45). Poelzig was not an academic teacher; he was the‘the Master’, and his students in Berlin used this term affectionately (1144).

Poelzig und seine Schüler, the influential exhibition of Poelzig’s studentwork in the Akademie der Künste, stressed the individual anddifferentiated character of each student. In his introductory text to theexhibition catalogue, Poelzig underlined his “non-formalist” approach,stating, “it would only be a self-delusion to apply formalist canons to themental, technical and economic problems of the time (1155).” The PoelzigSchool, if there was to be one, was not a matter of form, but a “mentalityof building” (Baugesinnung), the architect concluded. The exhibition, inwhich Arkan also participated, was portrayed in Wasmuths magazine in1931, which quoted the respected critic Walter Behrendt’s appreciativedescription of Poelzig as a “stimulating and entertaining teacher (1166).”The article stressed that Poelzig did not seek the creation of a styleattached to his personality, or to educate his students as his literalfollowers. Poelzig was praised for teaching “creative power”

developments of modernism enrolled inPoelzig’s seminar, whereas the “older andconservative students” in Tessenow’s.“While Poelzig saw the promotion of thestudents’ individual talent as the goal oftheir education, Tessenow made an effort topromote the highest possible average…”Another student, this time from Tessenow’sclass, Gerhard Heuß, recalled that Tessenowgot angry and sent two Chinese students toPoelzig’s class “for doing an orgy with steel,concrete and glass.”In a long and informative letter to PaulSchmitthenner in 1933 about the politicaland aesthetic splits amongst thearchitectural milieu of Berlin as well as inthe Technical University, Heinrich Tessenowmentioned his problems with the “Poelzigcircle,” confirming these students’observations.Heinrich Tessenow, Letter to PaulSchmithenner, 31 January 1933. NachlassTessenow, IV.1.1, Briefwechsel,Kunstbibliothek, Berlin; Memories ofHelmuth Heinrich (April 1980). NachlassTessenow, III.1.2.3. Kunstbibliothek, Berlin;Memories of Gerhard Heuß. NachlassTessenow, III.1.2.4. Kunstbibliothek, Berlin.

1100.. Two newspaper items in 1946 confirmTessenow’s invitation to Turkey as a masterstudio teacher at the Academy of Fine Artsin Ýstanbul: Die Welt, Hamburg, 28November 1946; Badische Zeitung, Freiburgi. Brsg, 10 December 1946.Tessenow discussed his invitation to Turkeyin a couple of letters with Erich Böckler andPaul Schmitthenner, who advised him not toaccept the offer. Tessenow had to spend thelast years of the Second World War in asmall village with serious financialdifficulties and in deep despair. The positionin Turkey would have solved many of hisproblems, yet his friends and colleagueswho were concerned about his health triedto find him another post in Germany. In aletter to General Friedrich in 1947, Tessenowmentioned that he finally decided to stay inGermany fearing that he might not be ableto return if he left, which could have beenthe case since the architect died three yearslater. In the letter in January, Schmitthennermentioned that he was also invited toTurkey and looked forward to reunitingwith Tessenow and Paul Bonatz in Turkey.In the letter written in April however,Schmitthenner asserted that the recentGerman existence in Turkey was alreadysufficient for all times and that he preferredto stay in Germany. He advised Tessenow todo the same. Erich Böckler, Briefwechsel aus später Zeit,Vol. 10 (Hamburg: Matin-Carl-Adolf-BöcklerStifung, 1938). See esp. Heinrich Tessenow,Letter to Böckler, 17 March 1947; Sattler,Manuscript entitled “Vermerk. ProfHeinrich Tessenow,” 24 April 1947; PaulSchmitthenner, Letters to HeinrichTessenow, 31 January 1947; 11 April 1947;Heinrich Tessenow, Letter to Schmitthenner,21 December 1947, Nachlass Tessenow,IV.1.1, Briefwechsel, Kunstbibliothek, Berlin;Heinrich Tessenow, Letter to GeneralFriedrich, 1947, Nachlass Tessenow,Sonderheft III.2.1.19, Kunstbibliothek,Berlin.

1111.. A letter of recommendation sent byMartin Wagner to Tessenow from Ýstanbul


(Schöpferkraft) to his students, rather than the rules of his own school(Hegemann, 1931, 100-103). Although the architect was against teaching asingle style of expression, his studio work nevertheless had an identitythat could explicitly be differentiated from what was perceived as therepetitious and collective, aesthetically conservative and traditionalistapproach of the Heimatstil. His promoters defended Poelzig’s approach ascreative, free and individual, because it was different from traditionalstyles, not because it lacked an identifiable style. Poelzig’s approach wasin close dialogue with the Bauhaus, and moreover, his master’s classes inBreslau were the first pedagogical steps toward what would come to beknown as the revolutionary Bauhaus workshops (Akcan, 2005; Frank,1983; Schirren, 1989).

Seyfi Arkan’s close contact with the “progressive” German architecturaldevelopments and debates for three years made him a crucial agent oftranslation in-between Turkey and Germany. Throughout the 1930s,Arkan became one of the most outstanding Turkish architects fulfilling amodernist agenda, in the aesthetic-formal sense. He was one of the firstarchitects to translate European modernist features into the Turkish scene.To the extent that modern architecture is considered the representation ofthe new and advanced technologies, it is legitimate to state that Arkanpromoted a European-inspired modern architecture more enthusiastically

in 1937, asking him to accept Leman Tomsu,one of the first graduate woman architect ofTurkey, to his office in Germany reveals thatTessenow’s ideas were received in Turkey.Martin Wagner, Letter to HeinrichTessenow. 9 June 1937. Nachlass Tessenow,IV. 2.3., Kunstbibliothek, Berlin.

1122.. “… es fehlt uns heute daran, das zusehen, was wir besonders lieben, … wirhaben einen gefährlichen Überschuß amZersetzenden, oder wir haben immer wiederdie größte Mühe, das zu finden undferzuhalten, was nur einigermaßen dasRuhende oder Geklärte habe.”Tessenow (1916, 14).

1133.. “… sei es möglichst suntil, sehr‘nebenbei’ und schüchtern.” Tessenow(1916, 44).

1144.. Tessenow (1916, 179).Posener also recallsthat Poelzig believed an architect couldnever have enough education, therefore anarchitecture student needed to be inspired.In the Beaux-Arts tradition, he held shortcompetitions and encouraged a student tofollow the project if the result was good, orto go on to the next competition if it wasn’t.

1155.. Poelzig und seine Schule, AusstellungVeranstaltet von der Preuissische Akademie


FFiigguurree 44.. Seyfi Arkan, A Small House at theSea, Student Project in Germany, 1930-33(Arkitekt (1933) 4, 111, 112).

FFiigguurree 55.. Seyfi Arkan, Waterfront House,Student Project in Germany, 1930-33 (Mimar (1934) 1; 6).

than many of the German and Austrian architects working in Turkeyduring the late 1920s and early 1930s. Apart from formal expressions ofmodernism, such as horizontal windows, white walls and flat roofs,Arkan also explored the organization of the open plan, the dissolution ofboundaries between the outside and the inside, as well as the functionaliststandards of collective housing and minimal dwelling types. His teacherPoelzig was also invited for a position to Turkey in 1936 upon therecommendation of Martin Wagner, yet died just before he could make it,opening the post for Bruno Taut (1177). After coming back to Turkey, Arkanbegan delivering urban design lectures at the Academy and found himselfin a growing controversy with Sedad Eldem. The mid 1930s weredefinitely the brightest years of Arkan’s career, which brought himrecognition in numerous competitions for institutional buildings (1188). Asfar as the residences for the state officials are concerned, Poelzig’sarchitectural approach that sought for the individual expression of anartist “genius” was a perfect match for the clients’ desires to representthemselves with exceptional houses. The single-family houses Arkandesigned as a student of Poelzig in Germany influenced the upcomingyears in his career (1199;; FFiigguurree 44,, 55). The large terraces, extending eaves andwinter gardens in the student projects remained as essential elements inthe houses that would be built for the Republican elite in Ankara; theclose relationship between the water and the house in student projectswould reemerge in the design for the summer residence in Florya inÝstanbul. The following sections look closer to this architecturalhybridization of Germany and Turkey in constructing the residentialsymbols for the new Republic.

AA HHoouussee ffoorr OOffffiicciiaall FFeessttiivviittiieess aanndd AA HHoouussee ffoorr FFeemmiinniinniittyy ((AAnnkkaarraa,, 11993333--11993366))

Seyfi Arkan’s first important commission in Turkey was the ForeignMinister’s Residence in Ankara (1933-1934, FFiigguurree 66). This house soonbecame a residential icon of the new Republic and its photographsfrequently appeared in propaganda journals such as La Turquie Kemaliste(2200). Just like Atatürk’s own residence at Çankaya designed by ClemensHolzmeister, the Foreign Minister’s Residence was not only a privatedomestic space for a statesman, but also a place for official festivities anda stage for the international appearance of Turkey’s new look. It wasmeant to reveal to the foreign diplomats the modernizing and

der Künste zu Berlin, Exhibition on March1931 (1931) Ernst Wasmuth Verlag, Berlin; 3.

1166.. Arkan’s name was listed in p.13 of theCatalogue. Poelzig und seine Schule... (1931,13). List of Students who participated in theexhibition:William Anders, Andreas Barany, WolfgangBangert, Walter Bangert, Asta Berling, MazBerling, Hans Brandt, Maz Cetto, EgonEiermann, Karl-Joseph Erbs, AlbrechtFriebe, Werner Friese, Moritz Hadda, FelixHinssen, Gunther Hafemann, RudiHamburger, Fritz Jaenecke, Adolf Kegebein,Theo Kellner, Hans Köhler, Walter Kraupe,Emil Lange, Heinrich Lauterbach, CurtLiebknecht, Friedrich Mews, Carl Otto,Richard Paulick, Richard Prietzel, WalterRothschild, Max Säume, Sakamoto, SeyfiNassih Himmetzade, Camilla Sommer,Heinrich Schapiro, Max Ernst Schneiders,Ernst Scholz, Rudolf Schwarz, Carl HeinzSchwennicke, Rambald Steinbüchel, ZdenkoStrizic, Friedrich Tamms, Heinrich Tischler,Ludolf Veltheim, Konrad Wachsmann,W.W. Zschimmer, Hermann Zweigenthal.

1177.. Poelzig won the first prize in ÝstanbulOpera House Competition, which waspartly the motivation behind his invitation.He also designed two other unbuilt projectsfor Turkey. One of them was the German-Turkish House of Friendship Competition in1916, the other (with two versions) wasdesigned for the House of Diplomats inAnkara, in 1935. In 1939, Poelzig’s friend and biographerTheodor Heuss wrote about the “tragic end”of the architect after he was invited toÝstanbul. ”His friends observed this tragicplay of wanting to go [to Turkey] and notbeing able to go with deep spiritualperturbance and understood its symbolicsignificance. What a misguided stroke offate, that this man of exceptional talent, atalent that in its instincts and responsibilitywas so completely linked with the Germanpeople and Germany, should be expelled onan adventure into intellectual and culturalexile! A sense of responsibility and desire tobe creative called this untiring sprit to hisnew life. But was this to be the last twist offate in the life of a great man–to go andteach the Turks something about goodarchitecture? ... He took his departure veryseriously and died.” Theodor Heuss, 1939, 79. Translated in:Posener (1992, 255). For more information and discussion onPoelzig’s unbuilt projects in Turkey see:Nicolai (1988, 130-133).

1188.. In 1935, Arkan entered the ÝstanbulOpera House Competition in which histeacher Poelzig received the first prize.Arkan won the first prize in three othermajor competitions during this period:Competitions for Sümerbank, MunicipalityBank and Ýstanbul Port Passenger Hall.Although the commission for theSümerbank was eventually passed to theGerman architect Martin Elsaesser, Arkandid have a chance to build his competitionproject for the Municipality Bank. Arkan’sprojects just after his arrival from Germanystand out as distinct projects of the time in


FFiigguurree 66.. Seyfi Arkan, Residence for theForeign Minister, Ankara, 1933-1934(Arkitekt (1935) 11-12; 311).

Westernizing aspirations of the new Republic, and to erase the “Orientalappearance” usually attributed to the Ottoman Empire. It blurred thedistinctions between the private and the public by turning a domesticspace into a carefully constructed stage for the public eye.

Arkan was given full responsibility in designing the building, choosing allthe furniture and guiding the garden design. The final design issignificantly similar to the “Waterfront House” that the architect designedin Germany, while he was still a student of Poelzig. In addition to thegeneral massing and façade treatment, both designs have strikingly largeterraces and wide extending eaves. Arkan differentiated the spaces ofliving from the spaces of protocol in the Foreign Minister’s Residence(FFiigguurree 77). Providing separate entrances for each, he placed the familyspaces on the second floor, while laying out the halls for officialgatherings on the entrance floor (FFiigguurree 88,, 99). This floor was composed ofa private office, a large dining hall that could easily fit twelve to fourteenpeople around a table, an open and a closed smoking room (named asfumuar, rather than sigara odasý or nargile odasý), a dancing room, and awinter garden. Arkan’s conception of the plan differed from Holzmeister’sPresidential Mansion in one important aspect: Instead of using reinforcedconcrete as just another construction material, Arkan’s house explored theuse of the free plan as an expression of the new structural techniques

Turkey. The influence of some of Poelzig’sbuildings such as the Festival Theater forSalzburg is legible in a project Arkanpublished in Arkitekt under the title “MovieHouse.” Arkan’s other institutional projectsfrom the period such as the MunicialityBank, Competition for Ýstanbul PortPassenger Hall, Ankara National Assembly,The Technician’s School, or AkhisarTütüncüler Bank, explore similar themes ofmodern monumentality, which was theconcern of only a few German architects atthe time. Poelzig was one of them, with hisbuildings that dramatically captured amonumental expressionism. “Ýstanbul tiyatro ve konservatuarina aituluslararasi proje müsabakasý,” (1935)Arkitekt (1) 1-33. Arkan’s project p. 27;“Sümerbank Proje Müsabakasý,” (1935)Arkitekt (2) 68-85; “Ýstanbul Limaný YolcuSalonu Proje Müsabakasý,” (1937) Arkitekt(2) 41-56; “Belediyeler Bankasý ProjeMüsabakasý – Ankara,” (1935) Arkitekt, (10)287-295; “Meslek Okulu Projesi,” (1936)Arkitekt, (2) 43-44; “Akhisar TütüncülerBankasý” (1935) Arkitekt (4) 112-113.

1199.. These projects were published inArkitekt just after Arkan returned toTurkey. The German titles on the drawings


FFiigguurree 77.. Seyfi Arkan, Residence for theForeign Minister, Plans (Arkitekt (1935)11-12; 312, 316).

made possible by reinforced concrete. The entrance floor was composed ofspaces without fixed and solid walls in between; the living, dining,dancing and smoking rooms flow into each other as parts of a singlevolume, rather than as rooms with contained and defined boundaries.

It is possible to observe in Arkan’s houses some of the principalmechanisms through which the Kemalist cultural program aspired todisseminate symbols of modernization and Westernization to the nation.For instance, the emphasis on the dancing room in the Foreign Minister’sResidence was not incidental. Republican balls where women and mendanced intimately with Western clothes to Western music were one of theprimary signs of modernization according to Atatürk (FFiigguurree 1100). Theserepublican balls initiated in the Ankara Palas Hotel were famous stages toillustrate the shining achievements of the revolutionized population inincorporating Western style dresses and entertainment habits into theirlives. In one of these balls, after being irritated to hear that the womenhesitated to dance with the Turkish officers, Mustafa Kemal is recalled tohave said loudly: “I am ordering you. Spread out in the room! March!March! Dance! (Lord Kinross, 1966, 637).” The balls soon became a topic ofsatire for the writer Yakup Kadri Karaosmanoðlu, who in his novelAnkara depicted the period.

In those times [when the republican balls were first organized], nobodyknew how to sit or stand, how to walk or dance, how to guide their eyes,hands or heads. One could see groups of unmoving women at the edges ofthe walls, straight standing men like manquins at the thresholds of thedoors, and inexperienced shy young men who constantly tossed and drankwithout saying a word at the bar (2211).

Karaosmanoðlu also described groups of peasants right outside theballroom, watching the Westernized and modernized men and womenmake their brief appearances at the entrance steps of the vestibule in theirmuch-awaited fashionable party dresses from Paris (2222). Meanwhile, thenew modern and elite families of Ankara going to the ball comment onthe peasants:

Little by little, they will also learn and get used to it. The requirements ofthis new life will become reasonable, clear and uncomplicated for them aswell (2233).

Karaosmanoðlu, though a committed follower of Atatürk, criticized theKemalist officials for loosing the spirit of the Independence War anddeteriorating into another sort of aristocracy (2244). Nevertheless, thisfictional anecdote of a republican ball captures a more fundamentalfeature of the Kemalist cultural program than the gradual transformation

indicate that they were designed inGermany, most likely in Poelzig’s studio.Seyfettin Nasih, (1933) “Deniz Kenarýnda birMalikane,” Arkitekt, (4) 111-113; SeyfettinNasih (1934) “Ev Projesi,” Arkitekt (1) 6-8.

2200.. La Turquie Kemaliste, n: 3 (October1934); 2; La Turquie Kemaliste, n: 31 (June1939); La Turquie Kemaliste, n: 42 (April1941) Pages not indicated.

2211.. “O zaman, herkes, daha nasýl oturupkalkacaðýný, nasýl gezineceðini, nasýl dansedeceðini, gözlerini, ellerini, baþýný nasýlidare edeceðini hiç bilmezdi. Duvarkenarýnda küme küme hareketsiz hanýmlara,kapý eþiklerinde manken gibi dimdik duranbeylere ve büfe baþlarýnda, hiçkonuþmaksýzýn, mütemadiyen içip takýþtýrantoy ve mahçup gençlere rastgelinirdi.”Karaosmanoðlu (1972, 78).

2222.. “- What’s in here? What’re they doin? -… There is a ball, a ball! … - Why are theywandering around at this time of the night?Are they looking for a place to stay, like me?… Whose is this big mansion? - …. Oh, God.This is a hotel, hotel. In your terms, it is an ala Franca han.” “’Burada ne var ki? Neidirler?’ … ‘Balo var, balo’ … ‘Bu geceninyarýsýnda hep dolaþýr dururlar. Onlar dabenim gibi garip mi, nedir? Yatacak yer miararlar? ... Bu koca konak kimin?’ .... ‘Tövbeyarabbi, tövbe yarabbi. Burasý otel, otel be.Hani, senin anlýyacaðýn alafranga han’”(Karaosmanoðlu, 1972, 89).


FFiigguurree 88.. Seyfi Arkan, Residence for theForeign Minister, Dancing Hall (Arkitekt(1935) 11-12; 314).

FFiigguurree 99.. Seyfi Arkan, Residence for theForeign Minister, Main Hall (Arkitekt (1935)11-12; 315).

FFiigguurree 1100.. Atatürk Dancing (Mango, 1999,Fig. 30).

of its followers into a new elite. It rather confirms that despite itscampaigns to be a movement of the masses, the Kemalist Revolution wascarried out by a relatively small group of people, who implementedTurkey’s program of modernization and Westernization through top-down political measures (2255).

The second house that Arkan designed for the state was for Atatürk’ssister (1935-1936) (FFiigguurree 1111). Just as in the Foreign Minister’s Residence,the architect was given full authority in this building’s design and interiorfurnishing. In his will, Atatürk specified that his sister Makbule Atadancould keep the house until her death, and afterwards the residencebecame the Mansion for Prime Minister and Guests (Misafir ve BaþvekilKöþkü). Makbule Atadan was fairly close to his brother, living with himand their mother in Dolmabahçe Palace when he visited Ýstanbul. WhenMustafa Kemal tried to implement a multi-party system of democracy,and asked his friends to found a new political party to compete againsthis own, Makbule Atadan was one of the first to be made a member ofthis rival but staged party (2266).

Arkan’s student project “A Small House at the Sea” designed in Germanywith Poelzig anticipates several features of this house. The colonnadeconnecting the main body of the house with the guest’s pavilion, thetreatment of the service court, and the placement of the house on aplatform raised above a high retaining wall are elements that appear alsoin the student project. Arkan published three versions of MakbuleAtadan’s Residence in the professional journal Arkitekt (2277). The first

2233.. “….Yavaþ yavaþ onlar da öðrenecek,onlar da alýþacak. Bu yeni hayatýn icaplarýonlarca da anlaþýlýr, açýk ve basit þeylerhaline gelir” (Karaosmanoðlu, 1972, 89).

2244.. The writer’s ideas, including the journalhe edited (Kadro), was found unsafe for theParty and the Party soon sent him abroad asa diplomat despite his reluctance.Karaosmanoðlu (1955).

2255.. The government’s modernizationprogram is suspect for assuming the publicas “objects of a project” rather than ”subjectsof their history.” The dancing hall in theForeign Minister’s Residence was yetanother architectural trope that representedand simultaneously constructed the new lifeof this “project.” For a collection of essaysfocusing on these criticisms in English, seeBozdoðan and Kasaba (1997). Theexpression “objects of a project” wasproposed by Reþat Kasaba (1997, 24). Formore discussion on the relation betweenarchitecture and top-down modernization,also see: Bozdoðan (2001).

2266.. For more information on the relationbetween Atatürk and his sister, seebiographies on Atatürk, such as: Mango(1999); Aydemir (1966).

2277.. Arkan, Seyfi (1935) “Villa Projesi,”Arkitekt, (4) 114-115; Arkan, Seyfi (1935)“Villa Projesi,” Arkitekt, (6) 167-169; Arkan,Seyfi (1936) “Çankaya’da bir Villa,”Arkitekt, (7) 179-186.


FFiigguurree 1111.. Seyfi Arkan, Residence forMakbule Atadan, Ankara, 1935-1936(Arkitekt (1936) 7; 179).

FFiigguurree 1122.. Seyfi Arkan, Residence forMakbule Atadan, First Version, 1935(Arkitekt (1935) 4; 114).

FFiigguurree 1133.. Seyfi Arkan, Residence forMakbule Atadan, Second Version, 1935(Arkitekt (1935) 6; 168).

version was considerably different, (FFiigguurree 1122), although the entrancecolonnade and service court in the final version already existed here. Thesecond (FFiigguurree 1133) and third (FFiigguurree 1144,, 1155) versions were almost thesame, except for the fact that the third and the built version had smallerdimensions. The colonnade that remained in all three versions provided amonumental expression, while the glass pavilion that appeared in allthree projects was never built (FFiigguurree 1166). Like the previous two houses,Makbule Atadan’s Residence equally provided spaces for the socialgatherings of the bureaucratic elite. In this case however, the subject ofdisplay was the living environment of a “civilized” Turkish woman.

The seemingly liberating and yet equally paternalistic attitude of theKemalist cultural program towards women is given an architecturalexpression in this house. Women rights were one of the main paths toWestern civilization in the eyes of the Kemalist reformists. Theconstitution granted the Turkish women the right to vote and be electedas early as 1934, which was even earlier than many of their Europeancontemporaries. The pages of propaganda journals were filled with


FFiigguurree 1144.. Seyfi Arkan, Residence forMakbule Atadan, Built Version, Plan(Arkitekt (1936) 7; 180).

FFiigguurree 1155.. Seyfi Arkan, Residence forMakbule Atadan, Built Version, Sections(Arkitekt (1935) 6; 167).

photographs portraying the new Turkish women in their unveiledWestern clothes, attending schools, working as scientists and artists inlaboratories and studios, doing sports à la West (FFiigguurree 1177). However, formany Kemalist reformists, the women’s role was as ambiguous as theplace of the masses. Domesticity is an integral part of this discussion,especially with regard to women connected to the official elite (2288). Forexample, Mihri Pektaþ, the woman deputy of the early Republican period,described women’s role as follows:

As I look back into the past as one peeping from a sun-lit garden into thedim and silent halls of a deserted house peopled by the pale ghosts of thoseresigned women, I realize with a sudden wonder how completely and

2288.. For more discussion on the relationbetween architecture and women in theKemalist agenda see: Bozdoðan (2001);Baydar (2002).


FFiigguurree 1166.. Seyfi Arkan, Residence forMakbule Atadan, Exterior Perspective(Arkitekt (1936) 7; 186).

FFiigguurree 1177.. Portrayal of the New Women(Series in La Turquie Kemaliste).

forever gone that past is. ... How did the change begin? ... Wonderful thingswere going to happen and women were to have their share in the buildingup of a new, ideal world. ... And in all those movements there were menbehind us: suggesting, directing, encouraging; men had realized that ifTurkey had to survive, it had to change quickly, and that could not be donewhile women lived their old lives apart. This may be surprising to mywestern readers, where women had to fight and get her own [rights] ....[The Ottoman women], cut away completely from the rest of the world,without education, ... would be absolutely useless as a help-mate in thewesternization of her country. She had to be pushed out of her shelteringwalls, be healthy and strong first of all in her own body and soul if she hadto help to create and mother a new order of life around her. ... Man hasbeen wise in taking women into his confidence and sharing with her thecarrying out of his scheme. ... No, she has not been a poor investment at all(Pektaþ, 1939, 10-14; my emphasis).

The author unapologetically explained: Winning women, “pushing herout of the dim house where pale ghosts resided” would mean winning thenation, modernity and the West. Women were the best “investment.”Makbule Atadan’s villa must also have been regarded as an “investment”to exhibit the new Turkish women to the rest of the world and to thenation. This is evident in the circulation of the house’s pictures in the localas well as foreign magazines (2299). Take, for instance, the English article inThe Architect and Building News about the house:

Both interiors and exterior show how far Turkey has progressed inproviding a setting for femininity. It is amazing to see the rooms of thishouse and realize that they are in the same country, which accepted theseraglio in the Sultan’s Palace at Constantinople as the right type ofaccommodation for ladies of the elite. In the seraglio the intimates lookedinwards and even upwards (the Sultans know the safety factor of toplighting), but here the mistress of the house looks outwards and far afield.Openness, and a sense of breath govern here. … (Robertson, 1938, 362-64;my emphasis).

“A setting for femininity” displaying to the world how Turkey hasstripped off her Oriental habits; a house where the Islamic women werenot enclosed behind the walls and screens of a traditional house or theHarem of an Ottoman Palace, but where they could look “outwards andfar afield”–this was the task that Arkan faced. The aesthetics of modernarchitecture with its large glazed surfaces, light, air and free plan fittedperfectly this desire to “open” the new women to the outside.Transparency, an important component of the Modern Movement, wastransported from Europe to Turkey, with a slight transformation ofmeaning. The dissolution of boundaries between exterior and interior thatwere made possible by new materials and technologies not only meant acloser relation of the house with nature, but also signified the “progress ofTurkey in providing a setting for femininity.” The “unveiled” transparenthouse became a trope for the unveiled Islamic women. Glass, once again,was used to represent “progress.”

However, a closer look at the treatment of transparent surfaces in both theForeign Minister’s and Makbule Atadan’s Residence reveals contradictorymeanings. Take, for example, the repetitive use of numerous wintergardens in both houses. Rather than conventional forms of residentialoutdoor spaces in traditional “Turkish houses,” such as courtyards oroutdoor sofas, Arkan’s winter gardens served as the main semi-openspace mediating between the interior and the exterior. There are twowinter gardens in the Foreign Minister’s, and one built, one unbuilt winter

2299.. Arkan often made it clear that this housewas designed for a woman in thepublications about the project.


garden as well as a passage-way with double glazing in the project ofAtadan’s residence. Apart from the winter garden on the entrance floor ofthe Foreign Minister’s Residence, all other spaces are enclosed with largeglazed surfaces. Suitably, Makbule Atadan’s house is also named as the“glass villa” (camlý köþk). Why would Arkan emphasize fully glazedwinter gardens all around the houses? A winter garden would allow aclose relation with the outside even in the cold winters of Ankara. In thehot summer days, the wide extending eaves would protect the wintergarden of the Foreign Minister’s Residence. Arkan himself mentioned hisclimatic concerns, and explained that he was inspired by the “wideextending eaves of the old houses in Ankara (3300)”. Yet his choices couldhardly have been guided only by such regionalist concerns, nor couldthey have been motivated by the traditionalist symbolism that heregarded unfit to the contemporary Republican aspirations. What wouldbe more appropriate for a house meant for display than the large glazedsurfaces of winter gardens? Use of glass and transparency was an effectiveway of ensuring that these houses were associated with the modernisttaste of European architects. Arkan had already explored the formalpotentials of large glazing in the houses he designed in Berlin in Poelzig’sstudio. The winter garden on the entrance floor of the Foreign Minister’sResidence resembled the one in the Tugendhat house designed by Miesvan der Rohe, with its narrow and long dimensions in plan, placed as a

3300.. Arkan, Seyfi (1935) “Hariciye Köþkü,”Arkitekt (11-12) 311.

3311.. Yet, a significant difference suggests aparticular spin. The winter garden inArkan’s residence was a semi-closed one,with vertical concrete panels that looked likemodernized versions of window screens intraditional vernacular houses. In otherwords, the winter garden for socialgatherings of the bureaucrats was screened,in sharp contrast to the totally transparentglass walls of the winter garden on thesecond floor reserved for private use. Thisgesture inverted the usual connotations ofthe public and the private. The architectmasked what was expected to betransparent, while he made the privatehouse of an official elite penetrable. Also seeBergdoll and Riley (2001).


FFiigguurree 1188.. Seyfi Arkan, Residence for theForeign Minister, Winter garden on theentrance floor (La Turquie Kemaliste(October 1934) 27).

FFiigguurree 1199.. Seyfi Arkan, Residence forMakbule Atadan, Site and view from thehouse (Arkitekt (1936) 7; 180).

buffer zone in between the garden and the inside (3311;; FFiigguurree 1188). Thesetransparent surfaces served effectively as the residential symbols of theRepublic, also because they helped create the image of a stage, a house forexhibition, which put the national elite on a carefully calculated display.

Needless to say, physical transparency in a building does not alwaysguarantee its contribution to social transparency. Both houses werelocated on top of a hill in Ankara, overlooking the whole city (FFiigguurree 1199).While the dwellers could see an encompassing view of the city belowfrom their large windows, the citizens of the city below could only see thehouses of national power as a vague silhouette. The transparencyattributed to the houses in the circulating journals and newspapers hardlyfunctioned on the scale of the actual experience of the street. This one-waytransparency allowed the gaze to travel from the dweller in the inside tothe city, while hindering the same experience in the other direction. It wasrather the photographs, the mediated circulations of the buildings thatdisplayed the houses as transparent, rather than the actual experience ofthe houses themselves in the city. The houses were meant to be un-privateas if this would live up to the utopia of a transparent society. And yet,they were transparent only in their idealized mediated images.

In addition to the use of glass on the exterior, the interiors of these houses,of Makbule Atadan’s house in particular, created further ambiguitiesbetween transparency and obscurity, displaying and hiding, being seenand being screened. This can be seen as a duality between the spaces ofspectacle and spaces of privacy within the house itself, and as a means todistinguish between the exhibition value and use value in this house(FFiigguurree 2200). While this distinction was definitely pertinent in many palacesand houses of statesmen, my intention in looking at this distinction is tosee its relation to the gender roles in this specific house. By making thisimplicit differentiation, Arkan maintained a very traditionalist andpatriarchic organization in determining the place of the women in thehouse.

What is striking in Atadan’s Residence is the stark separation of the largeentertaining halls from the service spaces and daily living spaces. Thespaces for social gatherings were extraordinarily large for a house of a


FFiigguurree 2200.. Seyfi Arkan, Residence forMakbule Atadan, Spaces of Spectacle andSpaces of Privacy (Diagram: E. Akcan).

single woman. There was a large and spacious main hall with a diningtable and sofas (FFiigguurree 2211), a music room separated from the main hallwith movable glass partitions (FFiigguurree 2222), a winter garden (FFiigguurree 2233), amore intimate sitting corner raised by a few steps and with a lower ceiling(FFiigguurree 2244). These spaces of spectacle with their high ceilings, galleriesand large glazed surfaces were the main points of attraction in the house.Just as in the Foreign Minister’s Residence, the potentials of reinforcedconcrete and glass in creating an open plan with fluid interior boundarieswere also explored here. A large service area with rooms for four maidssupported these social gathering spaces.

However, the spaces of privacy were noticeably hidden from the spaces ofspectacle. These were the spaces where the daily life of the house tookplace, namely the private rooms of Makbule Atadan and her guests, andthe large section reserved for servants. A separate wing was provided forMakbule Atadan that contained her bedroom and daily living room,which was indicated in the plan as the “sewing room” (dikiþ odasý). Inaddition to this separate wing, (and perhaps even more indicative aboutthe gender roles suggested through space,) there was a closed living roomreserved specifically for women next to the main hall, which wasseparated from the main hall with translucent boundaries, but had easyaccess to the guest rooms. Ironically, this was named as a “Women’sRoom” in a house already owned by a woman (FFiigguurree 2255). I would like tounderline the use value of these spaces as opposed to the exhibition valueof the spaces of spectacle (3322). It was the spaces for everyday use thatmade the use of exhibition spaces possible. In plan, they surround themain halls literally like a backstage in a theater. These private spaces arealways accessed indirectly. The door that leads to the service corridorproviding access to the sleeping and daily living rooms of MakbuleAtadan is hidden in the corner of the intimate sitting corner near the mainhall (FFiigguurree 2266). In fact, it is much more practical to enter the private

3322.. Here I am not claiming that the mainhall and the music room in the house werenot used, or that a social gathering is not aparticular form of use. Rather I amproposing this distinction to understand thedifference between several parts of thehouse.


FFiigguurree 2211.. Seyfi Arkan, Residence forMakbule Atadan, Main hall (Arkitekt (1936)7; 183).

FFiigguurree 2222.. Seyfi Arkan, Residence forMakbule Atadan, Music Room (Arkitekt(1936) 7; 185).

FFiigguurree 2233.. Seyfi Arkan, Residence forMakbule Atadan, Winter Garden (Arkitekt(1936) 7; 183).

FFiigguurree 2244.. Seyfi Arkan, Residence forMakbule Atadan, Intimate sitting corner inthe main hall (Arkitekt (1936) 7; 184).

FFiigguurree 2266.. Seyfi Arkan, Residence forMakbule Atadan, Intimate sitting corner(Arkitekt (1936) 7; 182).

FFiigguurree 2255.. Seyfi Arkan, Residence forMakbule Atadan, Women’s common room(Arkitekt (1936) 7; 185).

sections from the secondary entrance located at the back of the house,rather than the main entrance. The guest room section is directlyconnected to private spaces of the house and the service wing. It is as ifthere were two worlds that simultaneously took place in the house: thespaces of privacy that were used continuously and the spaces of spectaclethat were exhibited occasionally.

These distinctions were also gendered. The women’s realm, includingboth the private spaces of Makbule Atadan and the women’s commonliving room, was separated from the spaces of spectacle with glass screensand silk curtains. A glass partition divided the women’s room from themain halls (FFiigguurree 2277). Similarly, an aquarium was placed betweenAtadan’s private rooms and the music room in the main hall (FFiigguurree 2288).Despite its modernist appearance, this use of semi-transparent glass in theinterior actually maintained a very traditional organizational principle indefining women’s place in the society. On the one hand, the women’ssphere was implied and yet hidden; its existence was assured and yetmade unreachable to the users of the main hall. On the other hand, it wasactually the women behind the glass walls and silk curtains, who couldpeep in the parties that took place in the main hall, not the other wayaround. In either case, however, the glass partitions with silk curtainsfunctioned exactly like the semi-transparent window screens in traditionalvernacular houses, which acted as the partitions that both separatedwomen from the street and allowed them to watch the public spacewithout being seen (FFiigguurree 2299). By dividing the women’s realm from themain social gathering spaces, Arkan repeated a very common spatial toolto define and control women’s place in society. She was permitted to be avoyeur of the public life, which was usually considered as men’s sphere,and in the case of this house she was most possibly occasionally part ofthis life; and yet her real place was implied to be behind the semi-transparent screens (3333).

Glass, whose use on the exterior signified the unveiled Islamic women,served to veil the women again with its elaboration in the interior. Whilethe transparent exterior stood as a legible symbol of the Ottomanwomen’s “liberation from her dim house where pale ghosts resided,” thetreatment of translucent interior surfaces discretely maintained the sametraditional hierarchies between genders.

AA HHoouussee ffoorr LLeeiissuurree ((ÝÝssttaannbbuull,, 11993355))

These spaces of spectacle, especially of the Foreign Minister’s Residence,circulated as photographs in the media with tidy furniture placed orderlyin the rooms as if nobody had ever used them. The images portrayed anidealized space, rather than the actual life in these interiors: neat, errorlessand ideal spaces, rather than the complex, heterogeneous and disorderedones. It is as if the life in these idealized spaces was consciously leftundefined, so that the curiosity of the audience would be perpetuated, notunlike the preservation of any other myth. The exhibition value of thesehouses had to be handled as if it was not something of our world. Thephotographs of the houses did not portray real life in the house: there wasno need to see the habitants’ everyday use that made these spaces messy,dirty and worn out, that made them “human,” so to speak. It was as ifidealized, non-human bodies used these spaces; not the fallible ordinaryhumans. These houses were accessible to the eyes of the population onlythrough their mediated photographs; they were meant to create the ego-

3333.. Whether these spaces functioned exactlyin this way would be the subject of anotherpaper. Users always have the power tosubvert the particular uses intended by thearchitect or suggested by the space.Therefore, my intention here is not to claimhow the house was actually used once theusers settled in, but rather to disclose whatis suggested with the space througharchitectural design.


FFiigguurree 2277.. Seyfi Arkan, Residence forMakbule Atadan, Living room with glasswalls separating women’s realm (Arkitekt(1936) 7; 183).

FFiigguurree 2288.. Seyfi Arkan, Residence forMakbule Atadan, Aquarium separatingmusic room and private bedroom section(Arkitekt (1936) 7; 185).

FFiigguurree 2299.. Window Screens in traditionalvernacular houses (Eldem, Türk Evi).

ideals for their local audiences. Their photographs were meant to claimthat these spaces belonged to their ideal, godly heroes, to whom theyshould spend their lives living up to.

It was in the third house that Arkan designed for Atatürk where the“gods” came down to the world of the masses. Florya was one of thefavorite resort places of Atatürk whenever he visited Ýstanbul. Deciding tohave a summer-house for himself and a public beach in Florya, Atatürkinvited architects to participate in a limited competition in 1935. Arkanwas one of them, Martin Wagner who had just arrived from Germany wasanother. Wagner proposed to turn Florya into a garden city resemblingthe ones in Germany on the peripheries of big cities. He proposed ahousing estate with freestanding houses in gardens and located Ataturk’sHouse along the beach (FFiigguurree 3300). In contrast, Arkan placed Atatürk’shouse literally on the sea connecting it to the shore with a bridge (FFiigguurree


FFiigguurree 3300.. Martin Wagner, Proposal forFlorya (Akademie der Künste (AdK),Nachlaß Martin Wagner, 28-12 F9).

FFiigguurree 3311.. Seyfi Arkan, Atatürk’s House atFlorya, Bird’s eye view, 1935 (Cumhuriyet’inDevraldýðý Ýstanbul’dan Bugüne, 245).

3311). The shore was reserved for the service spaces of a public beach.Unlike Wagner, Arkan understood the recreational dimension that thepresident wanted in this part of the city. This was a house where Atatürkwould spend his free time, while socializing with the citizens on vacation.Newspaper articles indicate that Atatürk had chosen Arkan because heunderstood his lifestyle and provided the right relationship between hisown house and the public beach (Kandemir, 1952). Atatürk remainedactive in the realization of the project, visiting the construction site at leastthree times in one and a half months to give directions (3344;; FFiigguurree 3322,, 3333).

Having heard from Atatürk’s doctor that the climate and water in Floryawould be a positive impact on the president’s deteriorating health, Arkanworked intensely and finished the working drawings and buildingconstruction in only forty-three days. In Arkan’s mind, his project was atestimony that the Republican revolution was a people’s revolution. Forhim, this was a house that proved the president’s close contact with themasses; this was where the nation and the leader came together in theirrecreational time. Florya resort was a symbol to declare that the Ottomanaristocracy, and by extension the hierarchy between the ruler and theruled, was over. Now the president could have his vacation a few feet infront of the masses, he could swim and row with them, wave his hand atthem from the terrace of his ship-like building. Remembering it seventeenyears later, Arkan recorded:

[Atatürk] always told how happy and glad he became living together withthe masses. He laid on the bed in his house at Florya, this exceptional pieceof nature, and thought about the health and enjoyment of the nation evenwhen he was using a few square meters of the sea. …. With theconstruction of his house in Florya, the whole region of Trakya wasdeveloped (3355).

Indeed, whenever Atatürk spent time in Florya, the newspapers of thenext day circulated several photographs of him mixing and mingling withthe young and cheerful men and women in their swimsuits (FFiigguurree 3344).The captions typically declared: “the most democratic president of theworld who cruises in a rowboat amongst the masses in Florya (3366).” Thesephotographs emphasized the athletic aspect of the president. Unlike animage that portrayed him drinking, which he did extensively according toall his biographers, these photographs were to confirm to the audiencetheir president’s healthy body, doing sports, enjoying the sea and the sunjust as his fellow citizens. At this point, it might be important to note therelation between modernization and the streamlining of human bodies.Maximizing human bodily performance was one of the main goals ofmodern organizational systems. The metaphor of machine and industryradically transformed the conception of body and bodily energy at theturn of the century. The human motor, “harmonizing the movements ofthe body with those of the industrial machine, (Rabinbach (1990, 2)”

3344.. Atatürk visited the construction site onJune 28th, 1935, July 6th, 1935, August 11th,1935. The construction was over on August14th, 1935. (Banoðlu, 1974).

3355.. “[Atatürk] Halkýn arasýnda yaþamakla,mes’ut ve bahtiyar olduðunu her zamansöylerdi. Florya gibi tabiatýn bu müstesnayerinde bulunan köþkündeki yataðýndayatar ve altýndaki bir kaç metrekarelikdenizden faydalanýrken bile milletininsaðlýðýný, neþesini düþünürdü.... Florya’nýnimarý ile bütün Trakya kalkýndý.” Kandemir(1952, 36).

3366.. August 4th, 1936, September 24th, 1937.Banoðlu (1974, 201, 336).


FFiigguurree 3322.. Seyfi Arkan, Atatürk’s House atFlorya, 1935 (Photos: E. Akcan).

FFiigguurree 3333.. Atatürk in the Florya House(Photo: Florya Museum).

FFiigguurree 3344.. Atatürk with the masses in Florya(Banoðlu, 1974, 322, 184).

became a trope not only for Taylorism, but also for scientific discourses(one can think of eugenics here) or for literal and visual representations ofmodernity (Armstrong, 1998; Rabinbach, 1990). The human bodies were tobe as healthy, efficient, reliable and utilizable as a machine in theindustrial world. Just as many authoritarian states during this period,Kemalism utilized sport’s spectacles in occasions such as the Youth’s Day,in order to emphasize the importance of healthy, sportive and young-looking bodies for the modern nation. These nationalist spectacles where amass of bodies formed a totalized and unified performance, just like thejoints and bolts of a machine, were perfect examples of the machineanalogy used in conceptualizing modern human bodies (FFiigguurree 3355).

Arkan’s “cubic house” with its white washed walls, which were purifiedof any excess of ornament or burden of history, created a perfect milieufor these healthy shaped bodies to congregate. Placing the house on thesea like a ship and providing terraces that looked like ship deckcontributed to this vision (FFiigguurree 3366). The metaphor of a ship was alreadywidely noted as a basic inspiration for modern architectural form, mostfamously manifested in Le Corbusier’s Vers une Architecture, whichdeclared that the style of the times already existed in industrial objectsand machines, including ships (FFiigguurree 3377).

However, the analogy of a machine alone does not explain the contextcompletely. The Florya house, and the bodies in and around it were meantto represent health and cleanliness of modernization, but they also had tocomply with the image of leisure. The ship worked as an appropriatemetaphor for the architect in signifying leisure as well. As a writer froman English journal noted, putting an “international style” box in themiddle of the sea was like a fantasy that young creative architects “oftentoy with on the drawing board, but seldom realize (Robertson, 1938, 362-64).” Atatürk’s house of leisure certainly attracted attention with itsextraordinary character, floating on water. Arkan’s extravagant avant-garde house was delirious, successfully fulfilling the two importantrequirements: it simultaneously symbolized modern leisure and machineaesthetics, in its most dramatic fashions.

What is still left unspoken, however, is the strong affiliation of a house inthe middle of the sea with the traditional Ottoman waterbaths (FFiigguurree 3388).Ýstanbul’s waterbaths floated on the waters of the Bosphorus during theOttoman times, but were slowly disappearing with the decline of theEmpire. These waterbaths, structures built along the shore for swimming,were usually assembled in the beginning of the season and taken downfor the winter. The contemporary anti-Ottoman ideology prevented anyopen reference to these wooden waterbaths as sources of inspiration.Nevertheless, the close contact with water in Ýstanbul had traditionallyproduced unique building types in the city, and continued to inspire thearchitects of the Republican times in producing equally unique works. TheFloating House, which Ahsen Yapanar designed in 1934 sailing on thewater was yet another example (FFiigguurree 3399).

Atatürk’s recreational house at Florya soon became an icon ofmodernization in Turkey. Whenever the president visited Ýstanbul, hespent lots of his time in the house hosting not only important diplomatsand politicians, but also many academicians who discussed with him thenew theories of Turkish history and “pure” language (Güneþ Dil Teorisi).To give a few examples, the British King Edward the 7th visited Floryaand the newspapers proudly reported how “impressed” the king was by


FFiigguurree 3355.. Mass sports spectacles organizedin Youth’s Day in Turkey (Series in LaTurquie Kemaliste).

FFiigguurree 3366.. Atatürk’s Photograph with hisadopted daughter Ülkü on the deck of theHouse at Florya (Lord Kinross, 1966, 60).

the idea of such a recreational house. The decision to offer Celal Bayar thepost of prime minister was taken in this house. Professor Pitard, aprominent figure working on the theories of Turkish history in line withAtatürk’s ideas, also stayed in this house (Banoðlu, 1974).

Having lost the competition, Martin Wagner severely criticized Arkan’sbuilding in a letter to Walter Gropius for putting a “mishmash of LeCorbusier and Mies” in the middle of the sea, and copying “functionalhouses” (Funktionshaus) from Europe while failing to understand thefunctional logic behind their creation (4455). Wagner himself failed to noticethe connections of Arkan’s design to the traditional Ýstanbul waterbaths.Architectural historian Bernd Nicolai (1998, 127-128) has suggested thatthis building actually motivated Martin Wagner and his Germancolleagues after him to start formulating a more regionalized andculturally specific form of modernism for Turkey. In other words, Arkan’svillas for the state testified to the victory of “cubic architecture” in Turkey.But the moment of official recognition also meant the rise of opposition inTurkey. “Cubic architecture” was now contested by the very same peoplethat promoted it in Germany.

These houses exemplify how much the meaning of a certain architecturalform may become transformed during the process of translation from onecontext to another. A formal expression that usually stood againstnationalism in the German context could well be used to symbolizenationalism in the Turkish one. A formal expression that symbolized theindustrial culture and socialist expectations of modernism, such aseconomy, efficiency and functionalism, gained other connotations inTurkey, reflecting the intentions of a nationalist elite. The formalexpression with which Arkan familiarized himself in Germany whileworking with Poelzig, an expression usually perceived to be in contrast toTessenow’s approach, was inversed and used in Turkey for reasons thatwas more akin to the Heimatstil circle. There is no need to categoricallydenounce this process, in the way Wagner did, since architectural form isalways partly the result of a representative aspiration. Rather, thisexample reaffirms that a certain architectural form and ideology are neveressentially coupled with each other, but almost always redefined within aspecific condition. The exact meanings of forms are seldom transportedfrom one context to another. This relatively free semantics of architecturalform actually makes translation relevant to explain the flow of images andstyles across geographical space. It is the flexibility of meaning, thepossibility of a form to attain different meanings in new places that makescross-cultural translations so pertinent to the practice of architecture.

A house for Turkey’s foreign minister, a house representing the newTurkish femininity and another one portraying a setting for modernleisure. In the local and foreign media, all three residences for the Turkishbureaucrats were praised as evidence of the Kemalist State’s“unadulterated will to create in the sprit of the day (Robertson, 1938,362).” These houses are usually appreciated for bringing Europeanmodernist aesthetics to Turkey. With their smooth surfaces stripped ofany ornament or historical reference, flat roofs and large glazed surfaces,these houses were consciously designed to stand as radically new andgroundbreaking objects in their environments, not as continuations of aregional style of building. They were also meant to represent the newTurkey’s openness to foreign influences. These houses were intentionallyestranging, but they were also not imitations of their European

3377.. Martin Wagner, Letter to WalterGropius, 20 August 1935.Quoted in Nicolai (1998, 127).


FFiigguurree 3388.. Ýstanbul Waterbaths of theOttoman Period.

FFiigguurree 3399.. Ahsen Yapanar, Floating House,1934 (Mimar (1934)).

FFiigguurree 3377.. Page from Le Corbusier’sTowards a New Architecture.

counterparts. Arkan transformed the European-inspired styles ofexpression by combining them with local features, whether this was thewide extending eaves in the Foreign Minister’s Residence; or a moreimplicit space-making principle that maintained the traditional valuesconcerning women’s place in the house as in Atadan’s Residence; orfinally, the legacy of a local architectural type such as the Ottomanwaterbaths, which were slowly becoming obsolete as in the Florya House.The external form of these houses spoke the language of modernism, andyet their complexly layered floor-plan organizations, interiors, andplacement in the city also embodied propagandistic tools of a top-downmodernization and nationalization process, as well as some of theparadoxical facets of this period. They did not just represent Europeanarchitecture in Turkey or just mirror their own national political context,but they constructed the appropriate architectural organizations thatwould realize the specific mix of the Westernizing and nationalizingideals sought by the Kemalist government.

BBIIBBLLIIOOGGRRAAPPHHYY

AArrcchhiivveess aanndd PPeerrssoonnaall CCoolllleeccttiioonnss

Ankara Belediyesi Arþivi (Municipality Archives), Ankara.

Seyfi Arkan Papers, Melih Þallý’s Personal Collection, Ýstanbul. (not opento public)

Seyfi Arkan Papers, Milli Saraylar Arþivi, Ýstanbul.

Nachlaß Heinrich Tessenow, Kunstbibliothek, Berlin.

Bernd Nicolai Personal Collection, Trier. (not open to public)

Akademie der Künste, Berlin.

PPeerriiooddiiccaallss

Arkitekt; Mimar (till 1935); La Turquie KemalisteBBooookkss aanndd AArrttiicclleess

50 Yýlda Ýmar ve Yerleþme (1973) Ýmar ve Ýskan Bakanlýðý, Ankara.

AKCAN, E. (2005) Modernity in Translation: Early Twentieth CenturyGerman-Turkish Exchanges in Land Settlement and ResidentialCulture, Ph.D. Dissertation (publ. UMI), Columbia University,New York.

ALSAÇ, Ü. (1976) Türkiye Mimarlýk Düþüncesinin CumhuriyetDönemindeki Evrimi, KTÜ Baský Atelyesi, Trabzon.

ARMSTRONG, T. (1998) Modernism, Technology and the Body,Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

ASLANOÐLU, Ý. (1980) Erken Cumhuriyet Dönemi Mimarlýðý, ODTÜYayýnlarý, Ankara.

AYDEMÝR, Þ. S. (1966) Tek Adam, Remzi Kitabevi, Ýstanbul.

BANOÐLU, N. A. (1974). Atatürk’ün Ýstanbul’daki Hayatý, ÝtimatMatbaasý, Ýstanbul.

BATUR, A. (1984) Cumhuriyet Döneminde Türk Mimarlýðý, CumhuriyetDönemi Türkiye Ansiklopedisi, Ýletiþim Yayýnlarý, Ýstanbul.


BAYDAR, G. (2002) Tenuous Boundaries: Women, Domesticity andNationhood in 1930s Turkey, The Journal of Architecture (7: 3)229-244, 245-247.

BERGDOLL, B. and RILEY, T. (2001) Mies in Berlin, Museum of ModernArt, New York.

Bilanço 1923-1998 (1999) Tarih Vakfý, Ýstanbul.

BOZDOÐAN, S. and KASABA, R., eds. (1997) Rethinking Modernity andNational Identity in Turkey, University of Washington Press,Seattle, London.

BOZDOÐAN, S. (2001) Modernism and Nation Building, TurkishArchitecture Culture in the Early Republic, University ofWashington Press, Seattle, London.

BÖCKLER, E. (1938) Briefwechsel aus später Zeit, v: 10, Matin-Carl-Adolf-Böckler Stifung, Hamburg.

COLOMINA, B. (1998) The Exhibitionist House, At the End of theCentury, One Hundred Years of Architecture, ed. R. Ferguson(1998) Harry N. Abrams Pub., New York.

FRANK, H. (1983) Ein Bauhaus vor dem Bauhaus, Bauwelt (74) 1640-1658.

FRIEDRICH, T. (1931) Die Meisterklassen an der Technischen Hochschulein Charlottenburg im Rahmen der Hochschulreform, Die Baugilde(6) 453-455.

HEGEMANN, W (1931) Poelzig-Schüler, Wasmuths Monatshefter fürBaukunst (15) 100-103.

HEUSS, T. (1939) Hans Poelzig: Das Lebensbild eines DeutschenBaumeisters. Bauten und Entwürfe, Publ. Not indicated, Berlin

HOLOD, R and EVIN A., eds. (1984) Modern Turkish Architecture,University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.

KANDEMÝR, (1952) Florya Deniz Köþkü, Ayda Bir (1952); 35-37.

KARAOSMANOÐLU, Y. K. (1934, 1972) Ankara, 4th ed., Remzi Kitabevi,Ýstanbul.

KARAOSMANOÐLU, Y.K. (1955) Zoraki Diplomat, Ýnkýlap Kitabevi,Ýstanbul.

LORD KINROSS (1966) Mustafa Kemal, Bir Milletin Yeniden Doðuþu,trans. N. Yeðinobalý, A. Tezel, Sander Yayýnevi, Ýstanbul.

MANGO, A. (1999) Atatürk, John Murray, London.

Mimarlýðýmýz. 1923-1950 (1973) Mimarlýk (2) 19-62.

NICOLAI, B. (1998) Moderne und Exil. Deutschsprachige Architekten inder Türkei 1925-1955, Verlag für Bauwesen, Berlin.

Poelzig und seine Schule, Ausstellung Veranstaltet von der PreuissischeAkademie der Künste zu Berlin, Exhibition on March 1931 (1931)Ernst Wasmuth Verlag, Berlin.

POSENER, J (1977) Hans Poelzig and Heinrich Tessenow at theTechnische Hochschule, Berlin-Charlottenburg, Lotus (16) 20.

POSENER, J. (1992) Hans Poelzig. Reflections on His Life and Work, TheMIT Press, Cambridge, London.


PEKTAÞ, M. (1940) Turkish Women, La Turquie Kemaliste (32-40) 10-14.

RABINBACH, A. (1990) Human Motor; Energy, Fatigue, and the Originsof Modernity, University of California Press, Berkeley.

ROBERTSON, H. (1938) Two Villas for Kemal Atatürk and His Sister, TheArchitect and Building News (133) 362-64.

SCHIRREN, M. (1989) Eine Bauhütte für Berlin. Hans Poelzig und seinMeisteratelier an der Preußischen Akademie der Künste, HansPoelzig (1989) ed. M. Schirren, ed., Ernst & Sohn, Berlin.

SEY, Y. (1998) 75 Yýlda Deðiþen Kent ve Mimarlýk, Tarih Vakfý, Ýstanbul.

SÖZEN, M. ve TAPAN, M. (1973) 50 Yýlýn Türk Mimarisi, Türkiye ÝþBankasý Yayýnlarý, Ýstanbul.

SÖZEN, M. Cumhuriyet Dönemi Türk Mimarlýðý, Türkiye Ýþ BankasýYayýnlarý, Ankara.

SPEER, A. (1970) Inside the Third Reich, trans. R. and C. Winston, TheMacMillan Company, New York.

TANPINAR, A.H. (1992, 1945) Beþ Þehir, MEB Yayýnlarý, Ýstanbul.

TANYELÝ, U. (1992) Seyfi Arkan, Bir Direnme Öyküsü, ArredamentoDekorasyon, (3) 88-95.

TESSENOW, H. (1916, 1953) Hausbau und Dergleichen, Woldemar Klein,Baden.

TESSENOW, H. (1982) Gedenken eines Baumeisters, ed. Otto Kindt,Friedr.Vieweg and Sohn, Braunschweig/Wiesbaden.

SSAAYYDDAAMMLLIIKK VVEE MMAAHHRREEMMÝÝYYEETT KKOONNUUSSUUNNDDAA BBEELLÝÝRRSSÝÝZZLLÝÝKKLLEERR::SSEEYYFFÝÝ AARRKKAANN’’IINN YYEENNÝÝ TTÜÜRRKK CCUUMMHHUURRÝÝYYEETTÝÝ ÝÝÇÇÝÝNN TTAASSAARRLLAADDIIÐÐII KKOONNUUTTLLAARR

Bu makalede yeni kurulan Kemalist devletin bürokratlarý için Seyfi Arkantarafýndan tasarlanmýþ üç konut üzerinden saydamlýk ve mahremiyet,propaganda ve gösteri kavramlarýnýn modern mimarlýk pratiði ile iliþkileriincelenmektedir. Modernleþme ve Batýlýlaþmanýn amblemleri olaraktasarlanan bu konutlar, iþlevlerinin ötesinde yeni ulus-devletin gösteriaraçlarý haline gelmiþ, hem yurtiçinde yeni bir yaþam tarzý için talepuyandýrmak, yeni zevk standartlarý oluþturmak, hem de yurtdýþýnda Türkbürokratlarýn ‘Doðulu huylarýndan’ sýyrýldýklarýný kanýtlanmak içinkullanýlmýþlardýr. Makalede ilk önce Arkan’ýn Almanya’da HansPoelzig’in öðrencisi olarak aldýðý eðitimin bu üç konutun mimarisini nasýldoðrudan etkilediði tartýþýlmakta; bu konutlarýn ilk tasarýmlarýnýn bizzatAlmanya’da yapýldýðý, ancak Türkiye’deki milliyetçi baðlamýn bu mimarianlatýmlara yepyeni anlamlar verdiði gösterilmektedir. Almanya’daendüstri devrimi, ekonomi, verimlilik, iþlevsellik, sosyalizm gibi idealleritemsil eden biçimsel bir anlatým, Türkiye’de yeni milliyetçi elitin kendinitanýmlama ve gösterme ortamý olarak kullanýlmýþtýr. Daha sonra sýrasýylaHariciye Köþkü, Makbule Atadan Evi ve Florya Köþkü’nün yakýn birmimari okumasý yapýlarak, her konutta saydamlýk ve mahremiyetarasýndaki karmaþýk iliþki incelenmektedir. Örneðin, Hariciye Köþkü ve


AAllýýnnddýý:: 03.09.2005

AAnnaahhttaarr ssöözzccüükklleerr:: Saydamlýk; mahremiyet;ulusalcý temaþa; ev ve yuvaya iliþkin, evsel;cinsiyet rolleri; örtünme / baþ açma; çeviri;kültürlerarasý / kültürleraþýrý iliþki; ideolojive mimarlýk.

Makbule Atadan Villasý’nda dýþ cephelerdeki yoðun cam kullanýmý vetekrarlanan kýþ bahçeleri, mimarlýkta saydamlýk temasýna verilen önemigöstermektedir; ancak her iki villanýn da þehirdeki konumu ve þehirlilerlearalarýna koyduklarý mesafe düþünüldüðünde bu fiziksel þeffaflýðýn sosyalolarak desteklendiðini iddia etmek zordur. Dýþ cepheye ek olarak, camyüzeylerin evlerin içindeki kullanýmý da þeffaflýk ve gizlilik, göstermek vesaklamak, görmek ve görünmek arasýndaki çizgide gidip gelmektedir. Bukonutlarýn planlarý gösteri mekanlarý ve mahrem mekanlar olarak,iþlevleri segileme deðeri ve kullanma deðeri olarak ikiye ayrýlmýþtýr sanki.Özellikle Makbule Atadan Evi’nin þeffaf dýþ cephesi, medya tarafýndanOsmanlý kadýnýný karanlýk odalardan ve pencere kafeslerindenözgürleþtiren bir yaklaþým olarak yorumlanmýþ ve takdir görmüþtür.Ancak, ayný cam yüzeylerin evin içindeki kullanýmýna dikkat edildiðinde,cinsiyetler arasý geleneksel hiyerarþileri, erkek-egemen mekankullanýmlarýný desteklemekten öteye gitmediði görülebilir. Konutuncephesinde camýn kullaným biçimi Türk kadýnýnýn Ýslamýn koþulutürbandan kurtarýlmasýný simgelerken, konutun içinde saydam ve yarý-saydam yüzeylerin kullaným biçimi mecazi olarak ayný kadýnýnörtünmesini, geri planda kalmasýný desteklemektedir. Üçüncü olarak,Atatürk’ün halkla kaynaþacaðý, beraber spor yapýp, tatilin keyfiniçýkaracaðý yer olarak tasarlanan Florya Konutu ise, makina estetiði,modern beden, gemi, ya da Osmanlý deniz hamamlarýna gönderme yapan,diðer bir deyiþle çok çeþitli okumalarý davet eden zenginliði ile dikkatçekmektedir. Sonuç olarak sýrasýyla yeni Kemalist devletin dýþ iliþkilereverdiði öneme, kadýna biçtiði yeni rollere, ve Atatürk ile halk arasýndakurulmaya çalýþýlan iliþkiye ýþýk tutan bu üç konut, sadece Avrupamimarlýðýný Türkiye’ye taþýmakla, ya da kendi ulusal politik ortamýnýtemsil etmekle açýklanamaz: Kemalist devletin batýlýlaþmacý ve ulusalcýideallerinin belli bir karýþýmýný tanýmlayan mimari anlatýmý bizzat kendiinþa eder.


Ambiguities of Transparency and Privacy in Seyfi Arkan's Houses for ...

Documents

Transcript of Ambiguities of Transparency and Privacy in Seyfi Arkan's Houses for ...