The Ottoman Architecture and The Effect of the Turkish and Persian Cultures on it - Essay Example

__________ _______ Roll __________ The Ottoman Architecture and The Effect of the Turkish and Persian Cultures on it Withthe government building and Central Square as its center, the town spread out along the coastline. To the west, where the small nucleus of a late Ottoman town had been laid out around the turn of the century, the grid of streets was more compact, but the roads were still rectilinear rather than winding and irregular. Most of the shops, workshops, and warehouses of the town were located here, as well as most of its coffeehouses, hotels and dormitories, and restaurants. To the east, two wide avenues ran parallel to one another, interspersed with vegetable gardens and citrus groves. (Meeker, 2002) There was a time when the residences of officials, the military posts, the primary and secondary schools and education centres, and the public health and social services agencies were all located here. Fig 1 Turkish nation's cultural and historical links to its Ottoman past is not new, however the absence of a native Turkish (and Ottoman) historical school of thought opened the way for the easy penetration of Persian ideas and interpretations concerning even the most basic aspects of Ottoman and Turkish history, society and culture. As a result, wholesale acceptance of Persia and Iranian ideas began in the late Ottoman state and accelerated in the Republic. (Goffman, 2002) Nevertheless, scholars long regarded the Ottoman civilization and its predecessor as derived solely from Islam either in Arabic or Persian garb, even though the Ottoman Islam always possessed distinctive regional and ethno-cultural characteristics. Islam was the Turks' most durable link to their Central Asian origins and to the Arab-Persian world, but the unique Turk-European characteristics of the form of Islam that developed in Rumeli and Anatolia were from the very start the real "national" feature of the Ottoman state. (Kerpat, 2002) The Ottoman era along with the Seljuk period began forming an original and interrelated era of historical, cultural, artistic and political civilization. The Ottoman was embedded with all the features that a civilization upholds, all the distinct intellectual, philosophical, ethical, artistic and political characteristics, specific organisation modes and its own material culture (architecture, food, dress, etc.) with particular tastes, values and outlooks. No doubt the Ottomans did not acquire sufficient consciousness of their distinct civilizational characteristics, which are required to analyse and write about. Might be they were not aware of their valuable rituals and intellectuals or these characteristics were not important for them. Some writers have written down like this that they were so much indulged in their religious values that they ignored such characteristics. The truth behind this perception is skeptical but that does not mean that they lacked such characteristics of a civilization. Their main inspiration was to follow the art and architecture of Turkey and Persia, as they were used to it. Fig 2 The question to be debated is why the Ottomans did not seem to be aware of their own artistic, literary, and architectural achievements, many of which surpassed their Arabic, Persian and Byzantine models. According to the 'Orhun' inscriptions, the early Turks had shown some interest in their ethnic identity and "national" solidarity and in writings such as the Divan- Lgat-it-Trk of Mahmud Kasgari, which described the Turks as a distinct linguistic and cultural entity, so the standard answer is that the Ottomans immersed themselves so much in Islam as to forget their ethnic identity. (Goffman, 2002) But this explanation cannot be accepted at face value. Rather, the Ottoman government purposefully ignored the Turkish features of society and stated and emphasized their Islamic characteristics in the second half of the fifteenth century in order to consolidate the Balkan conquests and integrate the newly converted Bosnians, Albanians et al. into the Ottoman Islamic society. The early Ottoman state, which was a Turkish state as far as its ethnic structure was concerned, underwent a fundamental transformation after the conquest of the Balkans. The essence of this transformation, which occurred in the 15th century, consisted of adjusting the governing institutions, and the cultural organisation of the society as a whole, to the social and economic realities of the Balkan lands. In this process, the dynasty and the state institutions acquired a new shape and essence, which were radically different from those in the early Ottoman frontier state of the 14th century. It is well known that until the beginning of the 16th century, territorially, the bulk of the Ottoman state lay in the Balkans. (Meeker, 2002) Until the 16th century Anatolia was a strong base of economic power as well as a vital link to the Arab and Persian sources of learning and historical experience, which supplied with the Ottoman leaders with the required institutional models they were in search of. It was due to the ease of these institutional models, they follow and involve the Persians in enhancing their art and architecture. The series of dramatic events that led Ottoman Empire influence from Turkish architecture and way of life which are usually considered the distant echoes of Stanislas's memories of the Ottoman Empire, but also their architecture attest to Stanislas's debts to Turkish culture. (Avcioglu, 2003) It demonstrates that there are strong parallels between these designs and Ottoman palatial architecture, especially that of Topkap1 Palace, whose symbolic richness fulfills a specific function in the context of a deposed king. This alternative form of identification with power, that is, the promotion of a radically 'other' visual language befitting the vexing realities of a king without a kingdom, strictly distinguishes Turks from other rulers. The aesthetic links between the Tschifflik and Luneville also emerged in the course of this interpretation. The shift from the courtyard structure (a characteristic of Topkap1 Palace) of the Tschifflik to a collection of kiosks at Luneville is considered within the context of the shift in Stanislas's political conditions as well as in Ottoman palatial architecture in Istanbul during the same period. (Avcioglu, 2003) For centuries after its initial construction in the fifteenth century, Topkap1 Palace in Istanbul remained the object of considerable admiration due to uniqueness it upheld in its art and architecture. European travelers traveled from far and wide to describe its architecture, gardens, and ceremonies. These descriptions would have conveyed the material substance and administrative essence of Topkap1, with its fertile flora, its individual stately rooms, and its rich ornamentation, all magnifying the authoritative power of the Ottoman sultan. Another contemporary traveler, the English poet Aaron Hill, praised the richness of the cupolas' decoration in 'gold and azure' and the enchanted 'Golden Globes' that hung from the ceiling, adding that even the 'most accomplished Grandeur of the stateliest Palaces of Europe cannot equalise' the magnificence of the sultan's ornamented chambers. (Avcioglu, 2003) The specific location of the Kiosque at Luneville also suggests some dialogue with the Pearl Kiosk. Rather than made a freestanding structure, like many kiosks inside the palace walls, the Pearl Kiosk was built on top of the city walls of Istanbul. (Selaniki, 1864-65) Placed on the boundary between the city and the palace, the Pearl Kiosk was conceived as a propaganda project both initiating the end of the sultan's total palace seclusion (which had been practiced since the time of Mehmud II) and setting cultural standards for the city at large by, as it were, spilling out of the palace into the city. Gulru Necipoglu has persuasively argued that these architectural changes were indicative of political changes and influences from Arabian and Persian countries. According to Necipoglu, "The Ottoman empire now became a territorially defined entity that had to express its identity through its own distinctive architectural style." (Avcioglu, 2003) Admittedly, this does not mean that Stanislas was conscious of this conspiracy between politics and architecture encoded within the design of the Pearl Kiosk. But it should be noted here that politics, or rather the struggle for power, not only is central to cultural practice in general, it also dictates aesthetic preferences. Therefore, it is justifiable to assume that it dictated Stanislas's choice in favour of Turkish architecture. The Kiosque, built adjacent to the existing Hotel de Craon, reveals a detailed knowledge of certain architectural features specific to the Pearl Kiosk and should be regarded as a clear indication of Stanislas's presence and authority in the city of Luneville at large. This frontier location between the city and the court may also be read as Stanislas's effort to expand beyond the borders of his gardens, which he eventually did by buying up property bordering his estate. All of these similarities, not only connected the Kiosque stylistically with Turkish architecture but also indicate a precision of thought that may be interpreted as motivated and politically meaningful. (Avcioglu, 2003) The Kiosque was the first of many pavilions conceived by Stanislas in his princely estate. Each was constructed in a slightly different style; each corresponded to a Turkish prototype. The 'Turkishness' of the Trefle exceeds in many respects that of the Kiosque. However, it should be remarked that this conflation between China and Turkey is not at all an aberration or simply an Enlightenment trend; it occurs repeatedly in travelers' accounts of Turkish architecture. For example, when describing the pavilions at Topkap1, Tournefort asserted, "By the Turkish pavilions a man may easily perceive he is moving from Italy, and approaching towards Persia, nay China itself." (Avcioglu, 2003) Contemporary Ottoman illustrated chronicles also attest to the resemblance of several kiosks that existed in Istanbul and Edirne to Chinese pagodas. The famous poet and philosopher Voltaire, who often stayed at Stanislas's court, also contemplated the stylistic fluidity between the two cultures and described the Kiosque as half-Turkish, half-Chinese. To the modern mind, this influence may be difficult to comprehend, but the discourses of eighteenth-century observers, in which a pagoda shape is unproblematically associated with the Turks, reflected a different conception of style altogether. (Avcioglu, 2003) The reign of Ahmed III is commonly dubbed the Tulip Period in Ottoman historiography to indicate primarily a growing influence of the West on Ottoman administration, technology, and culture in general. Establishment of an Ottoman-language printing press, activities of artists like Levni, and European painters such as Conrad Sparre and Jean-Baptiste Vanmoor, all of whom made several portraits of the sultan from life and the unprecedented initiative of Mehmud Efendi, the first Ottoman ambassador in France, to bring back views and plans of Versailles are all considered the signs of Westernization already under way in the eighteenth century. This is the main reason as to why within this aspect one can see and feel a particular impact of the French culture on Ottoman architecture during this influential period of Turks and Persians. Changes in society and culture are encouraged and motivated towards indirect results. For instance, far from remaining as a fixed, never changing 'signifier' of Ottoman imperial architecture, Kasr-1 Cenan came to embody the aesthetic manifestation of the dynamic interactions between Europe and the Ottoman Empire. Nearly a century later in 1806, Mahmud II ordered the rebuilding of the kiosk, which had been badly damaged by vandalism and neglect. It was redesigned not as a cross-shaped but as a three-lobed plan covered with a wavy ornamental roof, in the manner of Stanislas's Trefle at Luneville, and was nostalgically called the Tent Kiosk. Perhaps this time it was meant to recall not Topkap1 but the even earlier Ottoman encampment tradition, which in effect gave birth to the architectural style of Topkap1 itself. (Avcioglu, 2003) Work Cited Avcioglu Nebahat, 2003. "A Palace of One's Own: Stanislas I's Kiosks and the Idea of Self- Representation" in "The Art Bulletin". Volume: 85. Issue: 4. COPYRIGHT 2003 College Art Association. Goffman Daniel, 2002. "The Ottoman Empire and Early Modern Europe": Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, England. Karpat H. Kamal, 2002. "Studies on Ottoman Social and Political History: Selected Articles and Essays": Brill. Place of Publication: Boston. Meeker E. Michael, 2001. "A Nation of Empire: The Ottoman Legacy of Turkish Modernity": University of California Press: Berkeley, CA. Mustafa Selaniki, 1864-65. "Tarih-i Selaniki" (Istanbul), quoted in Eldem, 145; and Necipoglu, 227. Fig 1, The Ottoman Empire and Early Modern Europe , 2002. Cambridge University Press Fig 2, A Nation of Empire: The Ottoman Legacy of Turkish Modernity, 2001. University of California Press. Read More