Türk mimarlık tarihi yazımında 'Ulusal'/'Milli' Olanın Eklektisizm ve Modernizm Ekseninde Ayrış[-tırıl-]ması Üzerine

Abstract

This article aims to present discussions concerning discourses on the two nationalist movements qualified as ‘the first and the second national movements’ in 20th century Turkish architectural historiography. It claims to analyze on one hand debates resulting from the idea that contrary to the denomimations of the above mentioned styles, the two architectural movements did not have a common ideological background and on the other hand the dilemma and confusion caused later, seeing resultantly the need to reevaluate or reclassify concepts such as selection/acquittal or dissociation. The architect’s qualification as ‘national’ or other of his/her own architectural produce and the similitudes or differences between references in Turkish architectural discourse concerning the representation of architectural production at large are other matters that need attention alike, for it is advanced in the paper that contradictions are not caused because of the terminology that is referred to as ‘national’ but by what is used instead. Among these qualifications ideas elaborated recently by historians for the ‘national’ and the ‘modern’ holds a keyposition. It is thus believed that the word ‘modern’ and its content rehabilitates the two styles altogether.