Ömür Karslı

In this article the possibilities of expanding the boundaries of the knowledge and tradition of art philosophy in Turkey through the works of names outside the discipline of philosophy are investigated. For this purpose the production of architectural historian Doğan Kuban is discussed. Kuban’s works are evaluated from a philosophical perspective and it is tried to justify that they should be included in the philosophy of art literature. It has been accepted by the researchers that aesthetics/philosophy of art in Turkey started with the effect of westernization after the Tanzimat. The main problems of the few studies that follow the development of aesthetics are that they examine aesthetics, which developed mainly through literary figures and philosophers who had less space than them, until the establishment of the Republic, only through the works of professional philosophers since the Republic, and they exclude the idea of tradition by not establishing a connection between the local thinkers they have examined and ending their development line with İsmail Tunalı. Common problems in research create the impression that the acceptance of aesthetics or philosophy of art as an activity that only the philosopher can do is accepted as a prejudice. However, philosophy of art is not a field specific to philosophers and limiting the development and accumulation of philosophy of art in Turkey to the work of philosophers narrows the scope of discussion. When a philosophical approach to the subject is sought other than philosophers, the opportunity to meet important names in different disciplines and to read them with a new eye increases. When approached from this perspective, Doğan Kuban’s (1926-2021) works deserve to be questioned in terms of art philosophy. It is noteworthy that Kuban’s production which started in the 1950s and lasted for about 70 years presents a wide field of data and interpretation and that he often attempts theory by reminding the absence of criticism and philosophy in our culture. There are also thinkers who refer to Kuban’s interest in philosophy, aesthetics and philosophy of art. However, Kuban’s relevance to philosophy and aesthetics/art philosophy has not been studied extensively. In the article firstly answers will be sought to the questions of what philosophy and philosophy of art are, and then Kuban’s philosophy of art will be revealed according to the criteria to be determined here. Kuban’s philosophy of art will be examined in three stages. His own theoretical approach will be analyzed by reviewing his objections to the tradition of philosophy of art. In the next step, his views on the philosophy of architecture and the philosophy of Turkish art, which he pursued throughout his production as a quest, will be examined. Finally the problems in Kuban’s philosophy of art will be pointed out and its possibilities will be emphasized. Philosophy is the ability to redefine the concepts starting from the most basic/original problems in any field where one doubts the answers, to determine the principles of the field, to answer the sub-questions with principles in line with consistency and validity, and to construct his own explanation model for the structure of the field by associating these answers. In order to make philosophy of art and philosophy of architecture it is necessary to answer the basic questions of the relevant field, to reach conceptual and principled goals, and to present a model of explanation of the structure of the field within a certain method. In the context of the criteria of art philosophy determined here, Kuban’s thoughts can be questioned in terms of philosophy of art. The philosophy of art, the philosophy of architecture and the philosophy of Turkish art, which became evident by the bringing together of different pieces in Kuban’s works, is a continuous and mutually determined effort. The thinker who criticizes the thinking styles and provisions of Western aesthetics, has created his own concept map with redefinitions and conceptualizations. Kuban redefined the concepts in the field of study, based on these he constructed his understanding of art, the philosophy of architecture and tried to create a model of explanation of Turkish art in which he revealed its history, evolution and basic features. Criticizing the views of C. E. Arseven, J. Strzygowski, E. Diez and O. Aslanapa, Kuban tried to define Turkish art in his own way and tried to explain the basic principles of Turkish art through monumental and civil architecture. Even though this model of explanation has deficiencies it offers new research opportunities to history of art and philosophy researchers with the questions it asks, the concepts it highlights and its unresolved aspects. With his philosophical awareness, criticisms of the philosophy of art, the philosophy of architecture and the attempt to construct the theory of Turkish art, Kuban should be included in the subject area of the philosophy of art studies in Turkey. Evaluation of Kuban’s thoughts by including them in the accumulation of art philosophy in our history of thought will both broaden and diversify the horizon of the field of art philosophy and will enable the philosophy of art to be considered in the context of new relationships between individuals and disciplines by following the traces of thinkers from such different fields.

Bu makalenin amacı yerellik kavramının anlamını ve içeriğini tartışmaktır. Yerellik, ulus- laşmanın getirdiği bir refleks ve ulusal bilincin bütünleyici ruhu olarak arayış halinde sıklıkla anılmasına karşın, felsefe açısından değerlendirilmekten uzak kalmıştır. Bu sebep- ten ötürü yerellik kavramı, benzeri kavramlarla aynılaştırılarak ideolojik bir içeriğe bü- ründürülmekte, anlamı giderek belirsizleşmektedir. Söz konusu sorunun üstesinden gel- mek, yerelliğin neliğini ortaya çıkarabilmek için, yerelliğe felsefi bir bilinçle yaklaşılarak, kavramın içeriğinin, kavram haritasının ve ilkelerinin belirginleştirilmesi gerekmektedir. Bu amaçla çalışmamızda ilkin yerellik arayışının modernleşmeyle birlikte sömürgecilik ve Batılılaşma karşısında ulusçuluk, postmodernizm ve çoklu modernite görüşleri içeri- sinde nasıl tesis edilmeye çalışıldığı ve yetersizlikleri panoramik olarak sunulmuş, ardın- dan kavramın ne olmadığı üzerinde durulmuştur. Yerlicilik ve yerlilikten ayrı olarak ele alınması gerektiğine işaret edilen yerelliğin, insan, mekân ve tarihle ilişkisi irdelenerek, yerelleşmeye dikkat çekilmiştir. Araştırma sonucunda yerelliğin üç temel ilkesi olduğu tespit edilmiştir: Yerellik bir insan-mekân sorunudur; salt bir yerellik bulunmamaktadır ve yerellik görecelidir; saf bir yerellik yerine yerellik, sentez ve yerelleşme süreci olarak anlaşılmalıdır. Söz konusu ilkelerden hareketle ve yerellik kavramının içeriğinin sorunla- rına karşı, yerellik yerine kültürel(lik) kavramının kullanılması önerilmiştir. The purpose of this article is to discuss the meaning and content of the concept of locality. Although locality is often referred to as a reflex of nationalization it has remained far from being evaluated in terms of philosophy. For this reason the concept of locality is equated with similar concepts and wrapped in an ideological content and its meaning becomes increasingly uncertain. In order to overcome the aforementioned problem and to reveal the nature of locality, and to clarify the content, concept map and principles of the concept it is necessary to approach locality with a philosophical consciousness. Firstly how the search for locality is tried to be established within the views of nationalism, postmoder- nism and multiple modernity against colonialism and Westernization with modernization and its inadequacies are presented panoramically, then it is emphasized what the concept is not. Localization, which is pointed out to be considered separately from localism and indigenousness, has been examined in terms of its relationship with people, space and history and attention has been drawn to localization. As a result of the research it has been determined that locality has three basic principles: Locality is a human-space problem; there is no mere locality and locality is relative; rather than a pure locality, locality should be understood as a process of synthesis and localization. Based on these principles and against the problems of the content of the concept of locality it is suggested to use the concept of cultural instead of locality.