Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

Kültürel Tasarım Mirasınının Zanaat Nesneleriyle Geleceğe Aktarılması

Year 2018, Volume: 27 Issue: 2, 409 - 423, 31.10.2018
https://doi.org/10.29135/std.450637

Abstract

Bir ustadan öğrenilen beceri (teknik) nesiller boyunca taşınırken aynı zamanda ortaya çıkan nesneler de kültürel mirasın zamanı yansıtan bir unsuru olarak tarihte yer alırlar. Teknolojinin uygulamalarında olduğu gibi, beceri de doğuştan gelen bir fenomen değildir ve insan tarafından sonradan ortaya çıkarılan bir olgudur. Tasarlanmış nesneler, kültürel mirasın somut kayıtlarını geleceğe taşıyarak ve içinde bulundukları dönemin uygarlık izlerini yansıtarak tarihe damgalarını vurmaktadırlar. Farklı sosyo-kültürel boyutlarda üretilen sanat ve tasarım nesnelerinin araştırılması, günümüzdeki birçok tartışmanın aydınlatılmasında kritik bir yer tutmaktadır. Bu makale, Osmanlı yemeklerinde önemli bir yer tutan Çeşm-i Bülbül camının öyküsünü anlatarak, bu kavramlar üzerinde tasarım, zanaatkarlık ve kültürel etkilerin anlamını ve sürecini araştırmaktadır. Tasarım nesnesini bir örnek olarak ele almakta ve Heidegger’in ‘Teknolojiye Dair Sorgulama’ ve Borgmann’ın “Odak Nesneler ve Uygulamaları” başlıklı makaleleriyle, tasarımın anlamını ve “anlamlı bir nesne olma” dönüşüm sürecini sorgulamaktadır.

References

  • Aav M., Brännback E., Viljanen E. (2006) Timo Sarpaneva Collection. Helsinki: Designmuseo.
  • Bayramoğlu F., (1976). Turkish Glass Art and Beykoz-ware. Istanbul: İstanbul Matbaası.
  • Bengisu M., Bengisu F.E., (Winter 2013). Beykoz Glassware and the Elements that Shaped It in the Nineteenth Century. DesignIssues. 29 number 1, pp.79-91
  • Borgmann A., (1984). Technology and the character of contemporary life: a philosophical inquiry. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Doğan E. T., (2012). Reinterpreting the Craftsmanship Today: Is It New Craftsmanship?.Journal of Labor Relations. 3 number 1, pp.67-85
  • Dorrestjin S., Verbeek P.P. (2013). Technology, Wellbeing, and Freedom: The Legacy of Utopian Design. International Journal of Design. 7 number 3, pp.45-56
  • Glass is Tomorrow. (n.d.) Retrieved March 16, 2015, http://www.glassistomorrow.eu/
  • Flusser V. (1999). The Shape of Things: A Philosophy of Design. London: Reaktion Books.
  • Heidegger, M. (1977). The Question Concerning Technology. New York: Harper and Row Publishers, Inc.
  • Heidegger, M. (1977). The Origin of the Work of Art. PDF pp.138-183
  • Heikkerö T., (2005). The Good life in a technological world: Focal things and Practices in the West and in Japan. Society. 27, pp.251-259
  • Idhe, D. (1979). Embodiment Relations. In Technics and Praxis (pp. 6-11). Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company.
  • İngin A. K., (2011). Made in Şişhane. 1st ed. İstanbul: Kingdom of Netherlands and Çelikdizayn.
  • Nimkulrat N., (2012). Hands on Intellect: Integrating Craft Practice Into Design Research.International Journal of Design. 6 no 3., pp.1-14
  • Küçükerman Ö., (1985). The Art of Glass and Traditional Glassware. 1st ed. Ankara: Türkiye İş Bankası Cultural Publications.
  • Sakaoğlu N., Akbayar N., (2000). 'Cam İşleri'. Osmanlı'da Zanaatten Sanata Volume 2. Istanbul: Körfezbank. pp.56-71.
  • Sennett, R. (2008). The Craftsman. New Haven: Yale University Press.
  • Wang J., (Spring 2013). The Importance of Aristotle to Design Thinking. Design Issues. 29 number 2, p.15
  • What is Intangible Cultural Heritage? (n.d.). Retrieved December 1, 2014, from http://www.unesco.org/culture/ich/index.php?pg=00002.

Passing Down Cultural Design Heritage Through Craft Objects of Memoir

Year 2018, Volume: 27 Issue: 2, 409 - 423, 31.10.2018
https://doi.org/10.29135/std.450637

Abstract

Passing a skill (technē) learned from a master is carried across generations; therefore, a crafted object would also be considered a transitive element of a cultural heritance. Like the praxis of technology, skill is not an innate phenomenon but instead something artificial, made by humans. Crafted objects leave their marks in history by transferring tangible records of cultural heritage to the future, carrying traces of civilization of the period in which they exist. Investigating objects, which are produced in these terms as art and design objects within the diverse socio-cultural dimension, would take a critical place in clarifying many contemporary fundamental views. This article explores the meaning and the process of design, artisanship and cultural influences on these concepts through reciting the story of Çeşm-i Bülbül glass, which has been a significant object at the Ottoman banquets. Using this design object as an example, the article questions the meaning of design and the transformation process of ‘becoming a meaningful object’ through references from Heidegger’s ‘The Question Concerning Technology’ and Borgmann’s article ‘Focal Things and Practices’.

References

  • Aav M., Brännback E., Viljanen E. (2006) Timo Sarpaneva Collection. Helsinki: Designmuseo.
  • Bayramoğlu F., (1976). Turkish Glass Art and Beykoz-ware. Istanbul: İstanbul Matbaası.
  • Bengisu M., Bengisu F.E., (Winter 2013). Beykoz Glassware and the Elements that Shaped It in the Nineteenth Century. DesignIssues. 29 number 1, pp.79-91
  • Borgmann A., (1984). Technology and the character of contemporary life: a philosophical inquiry. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Doğan E. T., (2012). Reinterpreting the Craftsmanship Today: Is It New Craftsmanship?.Journal of Labor Relations. 3 number 1, pp.67-85
  • Dorrestjin S., Verbeek P.P. (2013). Technology, Wellbeing, and Freedom: The Legacy of Utopian Design. International Journal of Design. 7 number 3, pp.45-56
  • Glass is Tomorrow. (n.d.) Retrieved March 16, 2015, http://www.glassistomorrow.eu/
  • Flusser V. (1999). The Shape of Things: A Philosophy of Design. London: Reaktion Books.
  • Heidegger, M. (1977). The Question Concerning Technology. New York: Harper and Row Publishers, Inc.
  • Heidegger, M. (1977). The Origin of the Work of Art. PDF pp.138-183
  • Heikkerö T., (2005). The Good life in a technological world: Focal things and Practices in the West and in Japan. Society. 27, pp.251-259
  • Idhe, D. (1979). Embodiment Relations. In Technics and Praxis (pp. 6-11). Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company.
  • İngin A. K., (2011). Made in Şişhane. 1st ed. İstanbul: Kingdom of Netherlands and Çelikdizayn.
  • Nimkulrat N., (2012). Hands on Intellect: Integrating Craft Practice Into Design Research.International Journal of Design. 6 no 3., pp.1-14
  • Küçükerman Ö., (1985). The Art of Glass and Traditional Glassware. 1st ed. Ankara: Türkiye İş Bankası Cultural Publications.
  • Sakaoğlu N., Akbayar N., (2000). 'Cam İşleri'. Osmanlı'da Zanaatten Sanata Volume 2. Istanbul: Körfezbank. pp.56-71.
  • Sennett, R. (2008). The Craftsman. New Haven: Yale University Press.
  • Wang J., (Spring 2013). The Importance of Aristotle to Design Thinking. Design Issues. 29 number 2, p.15
  • What is Intangible Cultural Heritage? (n.d.). Retrieved December 1, 2014, from http://www.unesco.org/culture/ich/index.php?pg=00002.
There are 19 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language English
Journal Section RESEARCH
Authors

Rezzan Hasoglu This is me 0000-0001-7323-7234

Selçuk Artut 0000-0001-7323-7234

Publication Date October 31, 2018
Published in Issue Year 2018 Volume: 27 Issue: 2

Cite

APA Hasoglu, R., & Artut, S. (2018). Passing Down Cultural Design Heritage Through Craft Objects of Memoir. Sanat Tarihi Dergisi, 27(2), 409-423. https://doi.org/10.29135/std.450637