Kırılan Temsiliyet : Libeskind'de Bellek,tarih ve Mimarlık

Abstract

Mimarisini ‘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.

Attributing primary importance to “memory” and “history,” Libeskind’s architecture is often generated along lines, voids, intersecting geometries and skewed angles to express the feelings of loss, absence, and memory and is described as the reinterpretation of human history, rather than exclusively of architectural history. Libeskind establishes his projects on certain traces, signs, references and symbols he gathers from the environment and integrates the building in the city itself and in the history of the city. In this respect, it is not possible to consider the building independently of its environment. However, these traces and references endow the building with symbolic meanings and therefore compel most commentators to regard the building as representational architecture. While his drawings during the 1970s were not considered as signs of a representational architecture, after his buildings started to be constructed, Libeskind’s architecture started to be criticized as being symbolic and representational. In order to determine whether or not Libeskind’s drawings and buildings are representational, the article focuses on explicating firstly his understanding of history, as he explicitly neither leaves history aside like the moderns nor undertakes the eclectic use of history as is the case in the postmoderns. This demonstration equally requires a discussion of modern and postmodern architectures in order to establish Libeskind’s critique of the two. Similarly, the paper demonstrates the function of the architect’s unconventional mode of architectural drawing and the uses he makes of other disciplines ranging from music to mathematics and poetry, in order to embed this demonstration in Libeskind’s critique of the tradition of representational architectural drawing. Libeskind is not after protecting traditional architecture; on the contrary, he is after preserving the history of architecture and most importantly, the historical memory. His approach in order to preserve historical memory is not subject to the forces of either the economic market or the daily formations.