Architectural mimicry, spaces of modernity: the Island Casino, Izmir, Turkey
2011; Taylor & Francis; Volume: 16; Issue: 2 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1080/13602365.2011.570059
ISSN1466-4410
Autores Tópico(s)Asian Culture and Media Studies
ResumoAbstract This article looks through the lense of an entertainment building in Izmir, Turkey, within the larger framework of modernity and identity in order to scrutinise ways in which cross-cultural influences are mediated. The programme of the building is conceptualised as a social structure and its aesthetics as a cultural form, which work to connect localities to the processes of modernisation and westernisation in the Turkish context of the 1950s' era. The analysis exposes how the edifice operates as a spatial structure that influences cultural norms and Western behaviour through practices of entertainment and architectural design, simultaneously serving as a medium through which people could perform and express their modernity. Notes C. Türkmenoğlu (the current owner-manager and the son of the founder of the casino): interviews by the Author, Izmir, 7th November and 12th December, 2008. See also Ö. Hazar, ‘Bebelerin Kahvaltı Yeri ve Ülsere İyi Gelen Su’ [‘Breakfast place for babies and the water that heals ulcers’], Yeni Asır (28th August, 1984), p.13. In the Turkish context, the convoluted notions of modernisation and westernisation, embodying ideas of progress and development, generally implied Europe before the Second World War: the United States came to be considered as being the predominant index of these notions after the War. There were also other well-regarded casinos that featured emerging Turkish singers who became very famous in the early years of the Republic. For example, Ismet Casino hosted such famous names as Safiye Ayla, Hafız Burhan, Müzeyyen Senar and Münir Nurettin Selçuk (oral histories taken 2005–2009). See also L. Dağtaş, İzmir Gazinoları 1800'lerden 1970'lere [‘Izmir casinos from the 1800s to1970s’] (Izmir, Izmir Büyükşehir Belediyesi Kültür Yayını, 2004). See H. Z. Uşaklıgil, İzmir Hikayeleri [‘İzmir stories’] (İstanbul, Cumhuriyet Matbaası, 1950); N. Moralı, Mutarekede İzmir: Önceleri ve Sonraları [‘Izmir during the armistice: before and after’] (Istanbul, Tekin, 1976); R. Beyru, 19. Yüzyılda İzmir'de Yaşam [‘Life in Izmir in the 19th century’] (İstanbul, Literatür, 2000); L. Dağtaş, op. cit., pp. 1–23; W. Sperco, Yüzyılın Başında İstanbul [‘İstanbul at the turn of the century’] (İstanbul, İstanbul Kütüphanesi, 1989); R. E. Koçu, İstanbul Ansiklopedisi [Istanbul encyclopaedia] (İstanbul, Tan, 1958). Izmir had a considerable non-Muslim population, mainly composed of Levantines, Jews, Greeks and Armenians. Although the demographics of the city changed after the War of Independence in 1922, like Istanbul, it has maintained a more cosmopolitan population than other Turkish cities. See E. Batur, ed., Üç İzmir [‘Three Izmir’] (İstanbul, Yapı Kredi Yayınları, 1992). O. R. Gökçe, ‘İzmir Fuarında Bir Gece’ [‘A night at the Izmir Fair’], Republican Newspaper (31st August, 1938). S. Bozdoğan, Modernism and Nation Building: Turkish Architectural Culture in the Early Republic (Seattle, University of Washington Press, 2001), pp. 75–79. For the significant role of parks and planning in secularisation, see also U. Tanyeli, ‘Çağdaş İzmir'in Mimarlık Serüveni’ [‘Contemporary Izmir's architectural adventure’], in Üç İzmir, op. cit., p. 335; Z. Uludağ, ‘Cumhuriyet Döneminde Rekrasyon ve Gençlik Parkı Örneği’ [‘Recreation in the republican period and the case of the youth park’], in, Y.Sey, ed., 75 Yılda Değişen Kent ve Mimarlık [‘75 years of city and architecture’] (Istanbul, Tarih Vakfı Yayınları, 1998), pp. 65–74; I. Akpınar, ‘Istanbul'u (Yeniden) İnşa Etmek: 1937 Henri Prost Planı’ [‘To (Re)build Istanbul: 1937 Henri Prost Plan’], in, E. A. Ergut and B. Imamoglu, eds, Cumhuriyet'in Mekanları/Zamanları/Insanları (Ankara, Dipnot Yayınları, 2010), pp. 107–124; F. C. Bilsel, ‘Espaces Libres: Parks, Promenades, Public Squares…’, in, F. C. Bilsel and Pierre Pinon, eds, From the Imperial Capital to the Republican Modern City: Henri Prost's Planning of Istanbul (1936–1951) (Istanbul, Istanbul Araştırmaları Enstitüsü, 2010), pp. 349–380. Following the lead of the first Economy Exhibition in 1923, the Fair was initiated in 1927 as the 9 Eylül Panayırı (9th September Fair). It moved to Kültürpark in 1936. In order to clean and reconstruct the area destroyed by fire and to make Izmir a modern as well as economic centre, Rene and Raymond Danger were asked to prepare a plan for the city (in collaboration with the famous French urbanist Henri Prost) in 1924. Due to financial constraints, however, their plan could only be implemented in the 1930s with the initiatives of the mayor Dr. Behçet Uz. At this time the municipality believed a new plan was necessary, and, in 1938, Le Corbusier was contacted. See U. Tanyeli, op. cit., pp. 327–338; Ü. B. Seymen, ‘Tek Parti Dönemi Belediyeciliğinde Behçet Uz Örneği’ [‘The Behçet Uz example in the municipal works of the one-party era’], in Üç İzmir, op. cit., pp. 297–321; F. C. Bilsel, ‘Ideology and Urbanism during the Early Republican Period: Two Master Plans for Izmir and Scenarios of Modernization’, METU JFA, vol. 16, nos 1–2 (1996), pp. 13–30. The design for the park was inspired by a park in Moscow. See the accounts of Suad Yurdkoru in E. Feyzioğlu, Büyük Bir Halk Okulu İzmir Fuarı [‘A big public school: Izmir Fair’] (Izmir, IZFAŞ Kültür Yayını, 2006), p. 29–31. See also U. Sönmezdağ, Atatürk Ormanı ve Kurtuluş Zafer Abidesi—İzmir Tarihinde Sergi, Panayır, Fuarlar ve Kültürpark [‘Atatürk forest and independence monument—exhibition, fairs and Kültürpark in Izmir's history’] (İzmir, Atatürk Ormanı Kurma ve Koruma Derneği Yayını, no. 6, 1978), pp. 53–56. Among these are the State Monopolies Pavilion (1936), designed by Emin Necip Uzman; the Sümerbank Pavilion (1936), by Seyfettin Arkan; the Culture Pavilion (1938–1939) by Bruno Taut; the İş Bankası Pavilion (1939) by Mazhar Resmor (interior designer); the Exhibition Hall (1939) and the 9th September Gate (1939), both by Ferruh Örel. The latter—also known as the İnönü Gate—had a casino with a terrace on the upper level: see ‘1939 İzmir Beynelmilel Fuarı’ [‘1939 Izmir International Fair’], Arkitekt, vol. 9, nos 9–10 (1939), pp. 198–211 and Yeni Asır (August issues, 1936–1939). Jansen won the international planning competition for his master plan of Ankara in 1927: S. Bozdogan, op. cit., pp. 70, 75. S. Bozdoğan, Modernism and Nation Building, op. cit., p. 76. See also ‘Ankara Gençlik Parkı’ [‘Ankara Youth Park’], Nafia Işleri Mecmuası, vol. 2, no. 3 (1935), pp. 35–37. In the aftermath of the war, as communist parties became powerful in some European countries, the United States considered the political influence of the Soviet Union to be a major threat to a peaceful world and to the security of the country. In this political context, President Truman presented the Truman Doctrine before a joint session of Congress in 1947, proposing to extend military and economic aid to Greece and Turkey, which the US considered to be under Communist threat. Consequently, the Secretary of State, George C. Marshall, outlined what came to be known as the Marshall Plan at a speech given in Harvard University. The plan was intended to revive Europe and to generate a western economic system around US practices. For the text of the Truman Doctrine, see The Avalon Project at Yale Law School, ‘President Harry S. Truman's Address Before a Joint Session of Congress, March 12, 1947’, Yale Law School, http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/trudoc.htm. For the text of the Plan itself, see ‘The Marshall Plan’ (1947), Congressional Record, 30 June 1947, http://usa.usembassy.de/etexts/democrac/57.htm. A. J. Wharton, Building the Cold War: Hilton International Hotels and Modern Architecture (Chicago, IL, University of Chicago, 2001), p. 7; D. C. Engerman, N. Gilman, M. H. Haefele and M. E. Latham, eds, Staging Growth: Modernization Development, and the Global Cold War (Amherst and Boston, University of Massachusetts Press, 2003). For an analysis of America's influence on British architecture and urbanism, see M. Fraser and J. Kerr, Architecture and the ‘Special Relationship': The American Influence on Post-War British Architecture (London and New York, Routledge, 2007). For an analysis of American influence in France, see K. Ross, Fast Cars, Clean Bodies: Decolonization and the Reordering of French Culture (Cambridge, Mass., The MIT Press, 1995). Yeni Asır, 1948–1960; Hayat, 1956–1965; Resimli Hayat, 1952–1955. Hayat (1956–1978) and its forerunner Resimli Hayat (1952–1955) were leading magazines. Yeni Asır is a valuable source for exploring Izmir life, urban developments and municipal works. Menderes' urban renewal projects and demolitions of older sections in Istanbul have been compared to the modernism of Robert Moses and his interventions in New York City as described by Marshall Berman. See S. Bozdoğan, ‘The Predicament of Modernism in Turkish Architectural Culture: An Overview’, in, S. Bozdoğan and R. Kasaba, eds, Rethinking Modernity and National Identity (Seattle and London, University of Washington Press, 1997), pp. 133–56; I. Y. Akpinar, ‘The Making of a Modern Pay-I Taht in Istanbul: Menderes’ Executions after Prost's Plan’, in, F. C. Bilsel and Pierre Pinon, eds, From the Imperial Capital to the Republican Modern City, op. cit., pp. 167–199. S. Shaw, History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey (Cambridge, New York, Cambridge University Press, 1976–1977), pp. 405, 408. For an overview of Turkish politics during the 1950s see L. L. Roos and N. P. Roos, Managers of Modernization: Organizations and Elites in Turkey (1950–1969) (Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press, 1971); F. Ahmad, The Making of Modern Turkey (London, Routledge, 2000); H. Bağcı, Türk Dış Politikasında 1950'li Yıllar [‘The 1950s in Turkish foreign politics’] (Ankara, METU Press, 2001); M. Albayrak, Türk Siyasi Tarihinde Demokrat Parti (1946–1960) [‘The Democrat Party in Turkish political history’] (Ankara, Phoenix, 2004). E. Feyzioğlu, op. cit., p. 91. Undoubtedly, international fairs and exhibitions were important events to showcase bipolar worldviews during the Cold War era. A good example of this is the Kitchen Debates (1959) between the then American vice-president, Richard Nixon, and the then Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev during the American National Exhibition in Moscow. See E. T. May, Homeward Bound: American Families in the Cold War Era (New York, Basic Books, 1988), p. 16; B. Colomina, ‘The Private Side of Public Memory’, The Journal of Architecture, vol. 4, no. 4 (1999), pp. 351–352. For a discussion of the Kitchen Debates in a Turkish context see M. Ö. Gürel, ‘Defining and Living Out the Interior: The “Modern” Apartment and the “Urban” Housewife in Turkey during the 1950s and 1960s’, Gender, Place & Culture, vol. 16, no. 6 (2009), pp. 703–722. A. Ömürgönülşen, interview by the Author, Izmir, 10th December, 2008. TC Maliye Vekaleti Kira Kontratosu, Hususi Şartlar, [Republic of Turkey Internal Revenue Office rental contract, special conditions], 24th October, 1958 (courtesy of C. Türkmenoğlu). J. Butler, Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity (New York, London, Routledge, 1990); J. Butler, Bodies that Matter: On the Discursive Limits of ‘Sex’ (New York, London, Routledge, 1993). A. Gupta and J. Ferguson, ‘Culture, Power, Place: Ethnography at the End of an Era’, in, A. Gupta and J. Ferguson, eds, Culture, Power, Place: Explorations in Critical Anthropology (Durham, N.C., Duke University Press, 1997), pp. 1–51. O. Niemeyer, ‘Form and Function in Architecture’, in, J. Ockman and E. Eigen, eds, Architecture Culture 1943–1968: A Documentary Anthology (New York, Rizzoli, 1996), p. 309. This project was a part of the Pampulha Complex, commissioned by Juscelino Kubitschek. At the time, Kubitschek was the Mayor of Belo Horizonte. Later, he became the President of Brazil (1956–1961) and had the capital, Brasilia, built. His building programme included a casino, a restaurant/dance hall (Casa do Baile), a yacht club, a church and an hotel (unbuilt) around an artificial lake. See D. K. Underwood, Oscar Niemeyer and the Architecture of Brazil (New York, Rizzoli, 1994); L. B. Castriola, ‘The Curves of Time: Pampulha, 65 Years of Age’, in, D. Van Den Heuvel, M. Mesman, W. Quist and B. Lemmens, eds, The Challenge of Change: Dealing with the Legacy of the Modern Movement (Amsterdam, IOS Press, 2008), pp. 207–212. See also V. Fraser, Building the New World: Modern Architecture in Latin America (London, Verso, 2000) and J. M. Dixon, ‘Due Recognition: Goodhue in Hawaii, Niemeyer at Pampulha’, Harvard Design Magazine, vol. 2 (1997), pp. 54–59. V. Fraser, ‘Cannibalizing Le Corbusier: The MES Gardens of Roberto Burle Marx’, The Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, vol. 59, no. 2 (2000), pp. 180–193. O. Niemeyer, ‘Form and Function in Architecture’, op. cit., p. 309. T. L. Schumacher, ‘“The Outside is the Result of an Inside” Some Sources of One of Modernism's Most Persistent Doctrines’, Journal of Architectural Education, vol. 56, no. 1 (2002), pp. 23–33. D. K. Underwood, op. cit., p. 61 and V. Fraser, Building the New World, op. cit., p. 186. A. Forty, ‘Cement and Multiculturalism’, in, F. Hernandez, M. Millington and I. Borden, eds, Transculturation: Cities, Spaces and Architectures in Latin America (Amsterdam, Editions Rodopi B.V., 1998), pp. 144–154. O. Niemeyer, Curves of Time: The Memoirs of Oscar Niemeyer (London, Phaidon Press, 2000), p. 62. For this prevalence, see Arkitekt, 1948–1965. For a pivotal text see M. Tapan, ‘International Style: Liberalism in Architecture’, in, R. Holod and A. Evin, eds, Modern Turkish Architecture (Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press, 1984), pp. 105–18. The building was a version of Lever House (1950–1952), a canonic example of (post-Second World War) International Style modernism disseminating from the United States. A reinforced concrete load-bearing system was used as an adjustment to local conditions. Funded by the Republic of Turkey's Pension Fund, the hotel's construction represents both Turkey's aspiration to become a ‘little America’ and the United States' political ambitions to Americanise the country. Eldem (1908–1988) is the only Turkish architect after Mimar Sinan (1489–1588) included in architectural history survey textbooks often used to teach architecture courses. See W. J. R. Curtis, Modern Architecture Since 1900 (Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice-Hall, 1996). Türkmenoğlu, interview by the Author. S. I. Vivanco, ‘Tropes of the Tropics: The Baroque in Modern Brazilian Architecture, 1940–1950’, in, F. Hernandez, M. Millington and I. Borden, eds, Transculturation, op. cit., p. 194. Among the staff, Aşkan collaborated with Harbi Hotan in a number of important projects including municipal wedding halls, pavilions for the Fair and an opera building (not built). See Arkitekt (1949, 1955). See also M. Ö. Gürel, ‘İzmir'de Moderni Nesnelleştirmek: Bir Dönem, Üç Mekân ve Rıza Aşkan’ [‘Materialization of the modern in Izmir: one era, three places and Rıza Aşkan’], Mimarlık, no. 354 (2010), pp. 62–68. From Rıza Aşkan's personal archives, courtesy of his daughter, Gülen Aşkan Derman. See also ‘Meşhur Amerikan Mimarı Richard Neutra'nın İstanbul'u Ziyareti’ [‘The famous American architect Richard Neutra's Istanbul visit’], Arkitekt, no. 279 (1955), p. 44. See Yeni Asır, 2, 4, 6–9, 12, 13 (October, 1948). The foundation of this project had been laid in 1939, when Dr Uz was the mayor. See ‘Le Corbusier'in Türkiye Mektuplaşmalarından Bir Seçki’ [‘A selection from Le Corbusier's correspondence with Turkey’], trs., Orçun Türkay, Sanat Dünyamız, nos 86–87 (2003), p. 141–149. G. A. Derman, interview by the Author, Çeşme, 5th August, 2009. S. I. Vivanco, op. cit., p. 197. For a discussion on the Baroque style attributed to Niemeyer, see H. Segawa, ‘Oscar Niemeyer: A Misbehaved Pupil of Rationalism’, The Journal of Architecture, vol. 2, no. 4 (1997), pp. 291–312. G. A. Derman, interview by the Author, op. cit. I have argued elsewhere that Aşkan's summerhouse, which he built in the beginning of the 1960s, is a good example of this approach: M. Ö. Gürel, ‘Asphalt Roads, Summerhouses, and Mid-20th Century Architecture in Izmir, Turkey’, Modernization of the Eastern Mediterranean session, 1st International Meeting, European Architectural History Network (EAHN), Guimarães, Portugal, 17–20th June, 2010. The architect's summerhouse arguably represents a number of villas and summerhouses built for the upper-middle and upper classes by Turkish architects in the 1950s and 1960s. Beyond the scope of this article, this body of work deserves further study for it exemplifies the plurality of modernism—its different interpretations and regionalisation—in Turkey. This pluralism is also addressed by E. Kaçel, ‘This is not an American House: Practices and Criticisms of Common Sense Modernism in 1950s Turkey’, talk given at the METU's Faculty of Architecture, 14th December, 2009. For this point see also A. Öymen, Değişim Yılları [‘Years of change’] (DK Doğan Kitap, 2006). Although beyond the scope of this paper, it is important to note that the populist politics of the Democrat Party government and the mechanisation of agriculture through foreign aid resulted in migration from rural areas to cities, rapid and unplanned urbanisation and the rise of the gecekondu (‘squatter housing’) phenomenon that marks Turkish cities. In-depth interviews with architects were held during 2005–2006 as a part of a larger study that I carried out for my dissertation: see M. Ö. Gürel, ‘Domestic Space, Modernity, and Identity: The Apartment in Mid-20th Century Turkey’, PhD dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (2007). For my development of this argument, see S. Hall, ‘New Cultures for Old’, in, D. Massey and Pat Jess, eds, A Place in the World?: Places, Cultures and Globalization (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1992), pp. 176–183. See also D. Upton, ‘Form and User: Style, Mode, Fashion, and the Artifact’, in, G. L. Pocius, ed., Living in a Material World: Canadian and American Approaches to Material Culture (St. John's, Nfld., Institute of Social and Economic Research, Memorial University of Newfoundland, 1991), pp. 156–169. M. Ö. Gürel, ‘Consumption of Modern Furniture as a Strategy of Distinction in Turkey’, Journal of Design History, vol. 22, no.1 (2009), pp. 47–67. H. K. Bhabha, ‘Of Mimicry and Man: The Ambivalence of Colonial Discourse’, in The Location of Culture (London, New York, Routledge, 1994), pp. 85–92. Ibid., p. 86. Directorate of Izmir International Fair and Tourism, Izmir, Turkey to H. Türkmenoğlu, 24th March, 1980 and 16th February, 1983; Saymanlık 15/20-356 and Fen Bürosu 68, respectively (courtesy of C. Türkmenoğlu). K. Melchionne, ‘Living in Glass Houses: Domesticity, Interior Decoration, and Environmental Aesthetics’, The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, vol. 56, no. 2 (2008), pp. 191–200. Reyner Banham was one of the first to criticise Modern architecture in this respect. According to Banham, Modernist masters such as Le Corbusier and Mies van der Rohe applied technology in a symbolic and formalistic way. They followed the academic tradition in their search for the ultimate perfection. R. Banham, Theory and Design in the First Machine Age (New York, Praeger, 1960). For this idea in the context of modern Brazilian architecture, see A. Forty, op. cit., p. 147. See note 47 above.
Referência(s)