Şengel, Deniz
Loading...
Profile URL
Name Variants
Şengel, D
Sengel, Deniz
Şengel, D.
Sengel, D.
Sengel, D
Sengel, Deniz
Şengel, D.
Sengel, D.
Sengel, D
Job Title
Email Address
Main Affiliation
02.02. Department of Architecture
Status
Former Staff
Website
ORCID ID
Scopus Author ID
Turkish CoHE Profile ID
Google Scholar ID
WoS Researcher ID
Sustainable Development Goals
1NO POVERTY
2
Research Products
2ZERO HUNGER
2
Research Products
3GOOD HEALTH AND WELL-BEING
0
Research Products
4QUALITY EDUCATION
3
Research Products
5GENDER EQUALITY
2
Research Products
6CLEAN WATER AND SANITATION
1
Research Products
7AFFORDABLE AND CLEAN ENERGY
2
Research Products
8DECENT WORK AND ECONOMIC GROWTH
3
Research Products
9INDUSTRY, INNOVATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
3
Research Products
10REDUCED INEQUALITIES
2
Research Products
11SUSTAINABLE CITIES AND COMMUNITIES
3
Research Products
12RESPONSIBLE CONSUMPTION AND PRODUCTION
2
Research Products
13CLIMATE ACTION
1
Research Products
14LIFE BELOW WATER
1
Research Products
15LIFE ON LAND
2
Research Products
16PEACE, JUSTICE AND STRONG INSTITUTIONS
2
Research Products
17PARTNERSHIPS FOR THE GOALS
0
Research Products
Documents
2
Citations
4
h-index
2
This researcher does not have a WoS ID.
Scholarly Output
7
Articles
4
Views / Downloads
8943/7000
Supervised MSc Theses
3
Supervised PhD Theses
0
WoS Citation Count
5
Scopus Citation Count
4
Patents
0
Projects
0
WoS Citations per Publication
0.71
Scopus Citations per Publication
0.57
Open Access Source
7
Supervised Theses
3
| Journal | Count |
|---|---|
| ODTÜ Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi | 2 |
| METU Journal of the Faculty of Architecture | 1 |
| Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi | 1 |
Current Page: 1 / 1
Scopus Quartile Distribution
Competency Cloud
7 results
Scholarly Output Search Results
Now showing 1 - 7 of 7
Article Citation - WoS: 5Piranesi Between Classical and Sublime(Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi, 2007) Ek, Fatma İpek; Şengel, DenizOn sekizinci yüzyılda, estetik biliminin olduğu kadar mimarlık tarihinin de doğuşu bağlamında ivme kazanan tartışmalar, mimarlık disiplinini doğal olarak etkilemişti. Estetik tartışmaların temeli mimarilerin tarihsel köken tartışmalarına bağlanıyor ve ‘güzel’ ile ‘yüce’ olmak üzere iki etki üzerine odaklanıyordu: ‘Güzel’i temsil ettiği düşünülen Yunan tarzı, ‘yüce’yle özdeşleştirilen Roma ve Mısır tarzlarının karşısına yerleştirilmekteydi. Giovanni Battista Piranesi (1720-1778) gibi mimar ve düşünürlerin görsel ve yazınsal çalışmalarında söz konusu estetik ve tarihsel savlar takip edilebiliyordu. Piranesi, Roma mimarlık ve uygarlığının kökenini ‘güzel’ Yunan’a dayandıran Winckelmann gibi çağdaşlarının aksine, Roma mimarî estetiğinin ‘yüce’ unsurlar barındırdığını, dolayısıyla Mısır medeniyetinden türediğini savunuyordu. Tüm çizimlerinde antik Roma’nın ‘yüce’ mimarisini resmeden Piranesi, böylece estetik tartışmaların ‘yüce’ cephesinde yerini alıyordu.On sekizinci yüzyılın iki önemli filozofu Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) ile Edmund Burke (1729-1797) estetiğin bileşenleri ‘güzel’ ve ‘yüce’ üzerine çalışmalarıyla tartışmaları hızlandırmıştı. Bu iki kavram on sekizinci yüzyıl felsefe ve tasarım kuramlarını aynı ölçüde etkilemekle birlikte, makale temel olarak Kant ile Burke’ün ‘yüce’ tanımları üzerinden Piranesi’nin görsel ve metinsel çalışmalarının karşılaştırmalı okumasını yapmaktadır. Kant ve Burke’ün ‘yüce’ açıklamalarında küçük ayrılıklar görülmekle birlikte ikisi de temelde aynı şeyi söylemişlerdir. Özellikle Kant’ın Güzellik ve Yücelik Duygusu Üzerine Gözlemler (1764) ve Burke’ün Yücelik ve Güzellik Fikirlerimizin Kaynağı Hakkında Felsefî bir Araştırma (1757) başlıklı çalışmalarındaki ifadeler Piranesi’nin çizimlerinde takip edilebilmektedir. Piranesi, Kant’ın ve Burke’ün anlattığı ‘yüce’yi mimarî çizim diliyle aktarmıştı. Piranesi, on sekizinci yüzyıla egemen olan ‘yüce’ etkiyi Venedikli bir mimarın gözüyle yeniden yorumluyordu.Master Thesis Residential Satisfaction in High-Rise Buildings(Izmir Institute of Technology, 2005) Aydoğan, Ahu; Şengel, Deniz; Şengel, DenizThe purpose of this thesis was to investigate the residential satisfaction in highrise buildings. It presents the study of factors influencing residential satisfaction in highrise buildings of a sample of subjects in a chosen residential area in Mavişehir, Izmir.The context is provided by focusing on the determinants which affect residential satisfaction such as housing system, safety and security, privacy, social interaction and relationships (neighborhood), and physical qualities of building material. The methodological argument of the thesis is that, contrary to conventional conceptions, resident satisfaction cannot be measured on the basis of subjects. response to their flat, but must take into consideration the apartment building and environment. The research methodology centers around the administering of a survey questionnaire to 262 subjects randomly selected from 58 high-rise apartment buildings in Mavişehir. The number included 98 males and 164 females. The age range of the sample group was between 16 and 85. Questions included items concerning the flat, the building, and the environment. The findings indicated general satisfaction. Scientific research, however, ought not remain at this level of conclusion and concentrate more on the negative data, which indicate the design problems architects and planners ought to focus on for production of spaces and built environment for human satisfaction. Keywords: Residential Satisfaction, High-rise, Design, Skyscraper, Mavişehir.Article Citation - Scopus: 2Kırılan Temsiliyet : Libeskind'de Bellek,tarih ve Mimarlık(Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi, 2009) Maden, Feray; Şengel, DenizMimarisini ‘yokluk,’ ‘yitirilmişlik’ ve ‘bellek’ kavramları üzerinden çizgiler, çarpıtılmış açılar, kesişen geometriler ve boşluklar etrafında kurgulayan Daniel Libeskind, çok disiplinli mimarisi ve radikal yaklaşımları ile kuşkusuz mimarlık kuram ve pratiğini etkileyen ustaların başında gelmektedir (1). Bellek ve tarihin ‘izleri’ üzerinde şekillenen projeleri ve çoğunlukla da müze yapıları ile karşımıza çıkan Libeskind, Rönesanstan bu yana süregelen mimarlıkta temsiliyet sorunsalı, mimarî temsil ve temsilin mimarlığı gibi tartışmalara, sergilediği aykırı mimari ile yeni bir yön kazandırmaktadır. Makalenin hedefi, Libeskind’in proje ve çizimleri üzerinden, mimarın tarihi yorumlaması çerçevesinde temsiliyet sorununu irdelemektir. Bu irdeleme, mimarlık ile tarih arasında kurulan ilişki bakımından birbirinden farklılaşan modern ve postmodern dönemler arasında kendisine yeni bir konum bulan Libeskind’in tarih anlayışını bir kez daha gözden geçirerek yorumlamayı amaçlamaktadır. Yazı ayrıca Libeskind mimarisinin, mimarlığın geleneksel temsillerinden farklılaşarak disiplinler arası bir yaklaşımla diğer alanlarla kurduğu ilişkiyi sorgulamayı da hedeflemektedir.Master Thesis The Archaeological Sublime: History and Architecture in Piranesi's Drawings(Izmir Institute of Technology, 2006) Ek, Fatma İpek; Şengel, DenizIn the architectural, historical, and archaeological context of the eighteenth century, Italian architect Giovanni Battista Piranesi (1720-1778) played an important role. He posited crucial theses in the debates on the 'origins of architecture' and 'aesthetics'. He is numbered foremost among the founders of modern archaeology. But Piranesi was misinterpreted both in his day and posthumously. The vectors of approach yielding misinterpretation of Piranesi derived from two phenomena: one is the early nineteenth-century Romanticist reception of Piranesi.s character and work. The second is the mode of codification of architectural history. The former interpretation derived from Piranesi.s position on aesthetics, the latter from his argument concerning origins. Both of these served the identification of Piranesi as .unclassifiable.. He has thus been excluded from the 'story' of the progress of western architectural history.Piranesi, however, conceived of these two debates as one interrelated topic.Concerning origins, he developed a history of architecture not based on the East/West division, and supported this by the argument that Roman architecture depended on Etruscans which was rooted in Egypt. Secondly, he distinguished Roman from Grecian architecture identified with 'ingenious beauty'.Thus Piranesi placed Romans in another aesthetical category which the eighteenth century called 'the sublime'.Piranesi's perception caused him to be described as madman or idiosyncratic. However, most of these evaluations lack a stable historical base. Therefore, restoring Piranesi, his arguments, executed works and drawings to architectural history appear as a necessity.Article Citation - Scopus: 2Mısır, Etrüsk, Roma: Piranesi ve Bir On Sekizinci Yüzyıl Tartışması(Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi, 2008) Ek, Fatma İpek; Şengel, DenizOne crucial debate that resonated in eighteenth-century Europe concerned the origins of European architecture whose effects continue to inform present-day notions of the same. Numerous important eighteenth-century works were produced in the context of emergence of the discipline of architectural history. In this architectural, historical, and archaeological framework, Venetian architect and scholar Giovanni Battista Piranesi (1720- 1778) played an important role by his visual and literary works as well as original approach to history. Piranesi developed a history of architecture that was not based on the East/West division and the separation of continents. In opposition to writers like Winckelmann who rooted the origin of Roman architecture in the Greek, he claimed that Roman architecture derived from the Etruscan which found its roots in Egypt. Discussion of roots depended on the eighteenth century on aesthetical theory interpreting Grecian architecture as ‘beautiful’ and Roman -thus Egyptian- as ‘sublime’. It was in this lively intellectual environment that Piranesi searched the origins of Roman -and thus the whole Europeanarchitecture. His works were, however, misinterpreted as being Orientalist by contemporary scholars following Said.Master Thesis Between Deconstructivist Architecture and Hyper-Historicism: Daniel Libeskind and Turkish Architects(Izmir Institute of Technology, 2008) Maden, Feray; Şengel, DenizHaving its origins in the discipline of philosophy and the work of Jacques Derrida and emerging from the architectural concerns of the late twentieth century, deconstructivism has profoundly affected architectural theory and practice. In contrast with extant analyses of deconstructivist architecture in formalistic and stylistic terms, this thesis undertakes in Part I in three chapters a survey of the pre-history of deconstruction starting with the early twentieth-century avant-garde movements, and modernism and postmodernism, demonstrating debt and difference, and describes in detail the paths by which deconstructive philosophy was assimilated into architecture, including an extensive reading of Derridean concepts and their implementation in architectural discourse.In two chapters, Part II undertakes demonstration of how and why Libeskind.s architectural design derives from a deconstructivist position and proves his difference from architects like Eisenman, Hadid, Tschumi, Koolhaas, Himmelb(l)au, and Gehry who have been classified as deconstructivist. The thesis identifies Libeskind as the paradigmatic deconstructivist architect by criteria obtained through close reading of Three Lessons, Micromegas, Chamberworks, and the Jewish Museum Berlin. He is shown to differ from his contemporaries by a design approach that attaches fundamental importance to .memory. and .history. as well as a systematically developed alternative to conventional architectural drawing.Part III, in two chapters, offers an overview of Turkish architectural history in the twentieth century in order to identify some contemporary Turkish architects as test cases for descriptive classification as deconstructivist and undertakes analysis of five architects with reference to criteria established in the Libeskindean context.Article Modern ve Skolastik: Ruskin'in İncelenmemiş Bir Önsözü(Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi, 2006) Şengel, DenizIn the brief Preface to the second edition of The Seven Lamps of Architecture published in 1855, John Ruskin identified four kinds of admiration viewers might feel regarding an architectural work: Sentimental Admiration, Proud Admiration, Workmanly Admiration, Artistical or Rational Admiration. Unexplored by Ruskin critics, the Preface poses significant interpretive problems: neither the Preface nor the elaboration of the fourfold typology contained in it bears reference to the content of The Seven Lamps which had first appeared in 1849. The key lies in the Preface's explicit and implicit references to The Stones of Venice which Ruskin had published in 1853 and to the latter work's all-important middle chapter entitled "The Nature of Gothic." Read in conjunction with "The Nature of Gothic," the 1855 Preface emerges as a belated gloss to The Stones, witnessed above all in the coalescence of the complementary notions of production and reading of the Gothic in both articles. "The Nature of Gothic" further offers the clue to the source of the fourfold typology and to Ruskin's employment of the term admiration by identifying the reading of architectural works with textual reading, viz. the reading of Gothic cathedrals with the reading of epic poetry. The representation of Gothic cathedrals and the reference to Dante offer certain proof that Ruskin found the prototype of the fourfold typology and admiration in the Scholastic elaboration on the four levels of Biblical exegesis and on admiratio as, again, a mode of reading the Bible and viewing religious painting. In fact, Ruskin's treatment of the fourfold typology and admiration follows as it were in verbatim fashion the description of Dante's adaptation of the Biblical modes to the reading of his Divine Comedy in the "Epistle to Can Grande" as well as Dante's sources in Aristotle, Aquinas, and Bonaventure. Ruskin's radical reduction, found much puzzling by critics today, of the value of architecture to the value of the painting and sculpture contained in an edifice underscores the medieval conception of admiratio that had particularly flourished in the era of Gothic architecture. Not only will these findings compel us further to revise our notion of Ruskin's stance toward the Evangelical Protestantism of his day as well as add to the demonstration of the author's commitment to Gothic architecture, but they equally call for re-investigating Ruskin as a major force in the assimilation of architecture into the then-burgeoning discipline of art history.