For this semester, we have visited Tuz Gölü and then Göreme sites for our new project. In Tuz Gölü we have produced a lot of maps by analyzing certain qualities and according to our experiences. On the other hand, in Göreme we were expected to produce some sketches and diagrams again according to our experiences and this time we focused on the architectural elements and their usage. The reason of this work is that we were expected to graft certain features of Göreme onto Tuz Gölü.
According to my analysis from Tuz Gölü, I have realized that the visitors were tended to go through the Josephin which is the line that sky and the ground intersects. So that, people were tended reach that vast area. The other thing that I have realized is that in the evenings, people were directed towards to sun set. So, I took these two features as references for my design. I have tried to produce two main spaces that carries different vista conditions. To connect them, I created a bridge-like path. This bridge-like path was connecting the spaces that has two totally different vistas. And the sides of this path were not transparent because I wanted to create a dramatic transition between those two different vistas. It was only open from the top that again creates a different vista which is the sky. People who visits here were directed by the effects of these two references and they were tended to reach the vista. I tried to produce different kinds of openings and spaces while considering the experiences of humans. The sizes of these two main spaces were different than each other. The sizes were changing due to the vista conditions and human scale was affecting it.
As far as I have understood from the critiques of the jury members, the liked the scenario of my design. However, it was not working well how it should have been. They found some parts that were designed well. For instance, there were main two axes in my design that represents the Josephine and sun set directions. Because, the two axis were not working in a contrast way. They were not differentiated from each other. However, they should have been working in a contrast manner to differentiate the functions of those two main spaces. It was not that obvious that they were placed there for different functions. I think that it is caused by shape and angles of those shapes too. They were not representing the directions obviously. I could produce more obvious edges and angles. The other thing is that I could improve the definitions of the spaces. Because they commented that my designed was finished in that level so it was limiting me to improve it and add something more in it. I think they appreciated how I have used the extreme conditions of the spaces and the vistas. They have added that every decision should carry a reason behind of it such as proportions, shapes, scales and etc. Controlling the spaces in terms of the scenario and spatial conditions that I have created is significant and could be worked on that more.
For my drawings they commented that it would be way more better and help me more to put human figures in my drawings to understand the scale of my design.
After the critiques of the jury members, I have realized that some parts of my design should be worked again. I have decided to change the shape and the form of my two main spaces. I hope this time I can apply my strategy into my design. Because while I was working I had some struggles while I was applying my ideas in a three dimensional design.
For this week of the course I had a chance to read a little part of a book called “Poetry, Language, Thought” written by Martin Heidegger. The name of the chapter is “Poetically Man Dwells”. Martin Heidegger (1889-1976) was a very prominent German philosopher of existential philosophy. It is obvious that he is influenced by his teacher Edmund Husserl and philosophy of phenomenology on his works. He made a huge contribution to philosophy with his new notions such as “apprehension, distress, curiosity, death, fear” and etc.
In the artcicle he is trying to give and add new meanings to a phrase from a poem of Friedrich Holderlin. He is concerning the relation between the notions of poetica and dwelling. He claims that dwelling is not just about buildings but also related with poetica too. He alleges that the relation between human and world is always in alteration, almost impossible to capture in a completeness. A poetic thinker never escapes from his environent to think but he locates himself in there. He thouches upon the word “measuring”. He alleges that measuring something limited between earth and the sky, however the poetica is something between heaven and earth.
After we produced our diagrams of architectural elements in Uçhisar and Zelve Open Air Museum site, we were expected to show them in 3D model according to a composition and relevant to our diagrams of analysis. However, the point that we had to focus on is that how architectural elements serve us different functions at the same time.
In my first trial, I tried t compose different types of openings. Some of them were for to serve us visual relation, however some of them allows us to access to the other spaces. Another thing that I tried to show is that the level of enclosure of the spaces.
When I reproduce my model, I tried to find a different ways of showing those opening to gain more information. This time I showed them by putting the planes one after the others. This condition helped me to create corridor at the same time. Also, I elevated some spaces. And that elevation was creating a wall for us as well. We can call it “wallish” too.
In the previous weekend, we went to a site trip with studio to make some analysis of the sites. We had a great time in two days even though we got tired so much. Initially, we visited the Tuz Gölü area and produced some maps according to different qualities. And after that, we visited Uçhisar area. But this time we focused on the architectural elements. Again we did some sketches of the analysis and those elements. For the last day, we have visited the Zelve Open Air Museum. In that site again we focused on the architectural elements. Here are some photos of site trip down below:
As I mentioned in the previous posts, we tried to experience of the different horizntal surfaces and the experiences of them on human bodies. And then on, we tried to produce some diagrams of different variations of the situtations by changing one variable and its reactions. This time we did some researches on topography and contour lines. As far as we understood from those researches and discussions that we had in the studio hours we revised our diagrams and tried to explore how different landscapes influence our experiences. Here are some of the diagrams that we have produced down below;
In this diagram, we tried to show how different locations influence our angle of view. For instance, when we look from the pit we can observe less vista and horizon than the looking from the hill.
For this one, we tried to show effects of different landscapes of receiving light. A dwelling that positioned on a mountainside can receive lights only half of the day. However, the dwelling located on a flatter area can receive light more than the other.
For the model, we tried to show these conditions by using the sticks. The density of the sticks show the observing vista as well as the receiving light. The more dense parts show the positions that can observe most vista and receive more lights in a day. And the sparse parts show the less receiving parts.