| Tez Künye | Durumu | ||
| Çağdaş Türk resminde tarih yorumu / Yazar:SEYFİ BAŞKAN Danışman: PROF. DR. SELÇUK MÜLAYİM Yer Bilgisi: Selçuk Üniversitesi / Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü / Arkeoloji ve Sanat Tarihi Ana Bilim Dalı Konu:Güzel Sanatlar = Fine Arts ; Sanat Tarihi = Art History Dizin:Tarih = History ; Türk resim sanatı = Turkish painting art | Onaylandı Doktora Türkçe 1997 580 s. | ||
| 352 Summary Within the context of the Turkish people’s odyssey of pictorial art, from its inception to the present day, or in other words the dialectic homogenism of “Turkish Culture,” the attempt to distinguish “traditional” vs. “modern” compartments, or “painting” vs. “the miniature,” will, as emerges from our study to this point, vary according to one’s approach to the subject. That is, different conclusions will be yielded by considering the miniature and painting as, on the one hand, distinct technical processes in the same national tradition of art, or, on the other hand, as distinct stylistic processes one of which succeeded the other. Starting in North Central Asia and expanding with each additional ring as it spread westward, the circle of Turkish Culture reached the Middle East where it adopted Islamic ecumenism to take on a spiritually unifying character. By taking the steppe’s rich, colorful world of forms and giving it shape in pictures, whether for murals or books, the Uighurs activated all the cultural resources which made possible the Seljuk miniatures that would come to dominate the entire Middle and Near East during the 13 th century. The center of the cultural circle which in that century slid into Anatolia took roughly two centuries of development to prepare stylistically for the Anatolian pictorial art – i.e. the miniature – which in the 15th and 16th centuries would reach its zenith. During those two centuries of development a pictorial language was born from the union of both Asian and Middle Eastern contributions with an Anatolian element. Chapter Two traces this traditional representational art chronologically, starting with the earliest known examples, which may be viewed primarily as historical material, up until the late 18th century when it ceased to be practiced. There is also an attempt to determine the effect on Turkish art of the rather short-lived earliest experience at the first fork in the road which would separate the Turkish miniature from painting, outlining the cultural milieu of the 15th century and indicating the contributions and influences of Western artists. At the point defined by the separation of painting and the miniature, there is a richness at least in terms of technique, content and subject matter, constituting a tie353 between these two traditions; and among the important factors making possible an awareness of this fact were, as indicated in Chapter 3.1, the European Orientalist painters. Actually the Ottoman adventure of these European artists goes back farther than the 18th century, when ‘oriental’ interests emerged, for they started visiting and sojourning in the Ottoman lands as early as the 15th century, sometimes even taking up posts in the palace where they contributed to the artistic output. The path was opened by certain renowned Italian artists of the 15th century, and in the 16th century was also beaten by painters from Central and Northern Europe. However, unlike the ^-century artists who came during the reign of Fatih (Mehmet II) and painted in Istanbul, perhaps even training students, those who, not counting a handful of which we may or may not be aware (such as the Hungarian Nakkaş Pervane), those who came to the Ottoman lands for a variety of reasons, executed engravings of the land and its people, and then departed as they had come, can scarcely have made any direct contribution to Ottoman art. And it is unthinkable that they had any technical or artistic impact on Ottoman pictorial art. Only hundreds of years later did the first true paintings, and the first true painters, emerge on the scene, the span between 1850 and 1900 being especially significant in the development of this genre, for during these years the studios of army-career painters, mainly in Beyoğlu, began to appear alongside those of the non-Muslim and Orientalist artists. During the same years, Guillement gave lessons and held exhibitions at his private academy in Beyoğlu, while in 1872 and 1875 Şeker Ahmet Pasha held his first collective exhibitons, and in 1880-82 the Elifba (ABC) Club, some members of which were Ottoman Artists belonging to minorities, gave exhibitions which were welcomed positively by the public. Then in 1883 the Senayi-i Nefise Mektebi (School of Fine Arts) was opened. Meanwhile the dawn of an era came as Ferik Tevfik, Ferik Ibrahim Pasha and others became the first artists to be sent abroad for studies. During the same period such important Orientalists as Zonaro and Moretti continued to be active. Most interesting of all, as this academic development took place in Turkish painting, young artists with a primitive style, some of whom would perhaps continue their careers at Harbiye (the Military Academy) and Mülkiye (the School of Political Science), were at work in the Darüşşafaka Lycee producing the first examples of archaism ever to be seen354 in Turkish painting. These years also loom large in the career of Osman Hamdi Bey, who came from Baghdad to Istanbul in 1871 and must have contributed to some exhibitions with paintings he did during this time. The early period consists of works by, first the Orientalists, and then their native students, and the Darüşşüfaka and military-career artists who followed in their footsteps. These in turn were followed by artists known as the 1914 generation, whose work comprises the first phase of Turkish painting in the Western sense. Studying in various European cities as a result of an examination they passed in 1910, these artists returned to their homeland with the outbreak of World War I, and became the representatives in the Ottoman Empire of Impressionism, which at the time was seen as the crest of a new wave. Developing individual styles despite the influence of the French Impressionists, the artists of the 1914 generation had in common a heartfelt love of nature, as they attempted to capture pure colors of sunlight cleansed of its dark shades, along with the effects light has on color. However, from the standpoint of our subject a separate importance in the art portfolios attaches to another type of painting they did up until the end of World War I, canvasses which depicted the bravery and heroism of the Turkish people and which the artists themselves would later characterize, perhaps with a touch of irony, as “epic.” These epic canvasses, which they would come to view as not especially artistic, are the most deliberate, conscious examples ever of “history reflected in pictorial art,” which embodies the artist’s view of and perspective on history and historical events and is precisely the subject whose chronology has been outlined in the present study. It is also true that while such “official” paintings were being executed by such artists as Hikmet Onat, Ibrahim Çallı, Ali Cemal and Diyarbakırlı Tahsin, independent work revealing the same level of consciousness was being done by Hasan Rıza, Osman Hamdi Bey and others. The reflection, in art, of history in its multifold dimensions – in other words, an artistic sensitivity towards history – continued after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and the proclamation of the Republic, as Turkish painting persisted in the form of a dialectical process. The early 1930s – a decade which would witness important movements in art – saw a program of cultural and artistic activities sponsored by the single-party organization and by the Halkevleri (People’s Lodges) which had the status of semi-official organs of the state. First artists were sent to remote parts of the355 country in a program designed to further Kemalist reforms and the principles upon which the Republic was founded, and exhibitions were held having the same goal. Then came the “Exhibtions of Reform Art” (1933-37), bringing together a considerable repertory of works which, public feeling about World War I and the Balkan War having previously been given a forum, dealt with attitudes toward the War of Independence and Kemalist Reforms. Featuring such concerns as Republicanism, Nationalism, Populism and Reformism, these paintings are evidence of how greatly artists were affected by the political and socio-cultural currents of the day, and perhaps of how the aims of propaganda consciously planned by the single-party organization were adopted by the artistic milieu. Following the death of Atatürk, Turkey sealed itself off from the outside world during the Second World War, as the 1940s witnessed further visits by artists to remoter parts of the country in what was called “A Return From School to the Homeland.” Some artists who made these trips were content merely to become acquainted with the people of Anatolia and to depict small-town life, but others went further, producing canvasses that treated of Anatolia’s culture, folklore and heritage. Never in the entire history of the Republic did the state concern itself with art, nor put it to use, as much as during this period of roughly a decade, when all cultural activities were not only given importance and guided, but even programmed by the state itself, which went so far as to determine their content. During the 1940s the traditional arts were all but completely ignored while the propaganda function of art was exploited to the full, as two generations of artists produced work simultaneously, the one espousing an impressionistic and the other a cubist style. In the wake of such groups as the Independents and Group D, the 1950s saw a process begin in which group movements were no longer of importance. Since that time many groups of artists have seen the light of day, but none have been able to launch a new era, introduce novel approaches, or develop concepts of any impact. And although abstract painting found many exponents up until the late 1970s, it never threatened the existence of figurative art. Meanwhile the ensuing years have seen Turkish painting abandon its monody to embrace many trends at once, whether universal vs. national, universal vs. local, social vs. individualist, or abstract vs. figurative, giving it a356 multifarious, pluralistic character. There are, however, two powerful strands within this pluralistic phenomenon, deriving their strength from genre knowledge and cultural underpinnings and comprehending all tendencies. These are “nationality” and “humanism,” the former acquiring with the Republic both a new meaning and a new conceptual glossary, and the latter increasingly oriented toward the individual. Although during periods marked by political ferment they have at times come into conflict, both have remained extant and active in a process that extends to the present day. | |||