Tez No	İndirme	Tez Künye	Durumu
364308	Bu tezin, veri tabanı üzerinden yayınlanma izni bulunmamaktadır. Yayınlanma izni olmayan tezlerin basılı kopyalarına Üniversite kütüphaneniz aracılığıyla (TÜBESS üzerinden) erişebilirsiniz.	M. Vedat Tek, architect an episode in Turkish architecture / Yazar:H. LALE ULUÇ Danışman: PROF. DR. APTULLAH KURAN Yer Bilgisi: Boğaziçi Üniversitesi / Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü / Sanat Tarihi Ana Bilim Dalı Konu:Sanat Tarihi = Art History Dizin:	Onaylandı Yüksek Lisans İngilizce 1987 309 s.
This thesis examines Mimar M~Vedat Tek, as his name has become synonymous with an architectural movement (First National Architectural Movement) in Turkey. He lived at a very critical time in Turkish History, wit~essing the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and the formation of the new Turkish Republic. The architectural movement was a politically supported one and took place just before the Modern Architectural era in Turkey. It therefore gained popu1ari ty starting from 1908 onwards, with the aid of the Second Constitutional Government and was abandoned in 1930, in accordance with the altered policies of the New Republican Government. In order to be able to understand the architect's formation, the architectural environment of the 'pre-Vedat' era (1830' s-1900), and wi thin this context, the transformation of Ottoman architecture is reviewed. The architectural movement he had helped formulate is also examined from the ideological and archi tectura1 points of view. The main issue raised in the assessment of both the architect and the movement is the effects and consequences of Western influences on both.As an architect, his importance derives from the fact that he was the first Turkish architect who applied the indigenous styles in the Ottoman capital. He also has a referential importance as being the first formally educated Turkish architect. However as an architectural thinker, his importance is minimal. As he has no written statements about his architecture, it is extremely difficult to talk about his architectural philosophy. What he did have, was an architectural methodology, a stylistic inclination and an architectural vocabulary. Similarly, the movement did not have an architectural philosophy either. What it did, was to adopt the ongoing political ideology and redefine itself to accomodate that. It actually did not even have a starting point. It was the last stage in an already existing epoch and was the natural outcome of three world-wide 'ism's: Architectural eclecticism, Nationalism and Historicism. It also had a system and an architectural vocabulary, creating a unity in style, Architectural language and composition, which was employed by all the architects for the duration of the period and for all the building types. In this context, an examination of Vedat Tek's work displays its interrelationship with the total output of the era. His educational background had provided him with the adequate knowledge of the technology of his times and he was simply applying the basic principles he had learned at the Ecole des Beaux-Arts. However, his extreme facadism, making use of eclectic collages and Ottoman elements as superficial pastiche, make it hard to classify him as a creator. On the other hand, the positive response that was given to his buildings, was because they evoked a sense of belonging. In the socio-c ul tural context, this was qui te a cred i tab Ie .achievement for hi~ and he could very well be considered as having succeded in at least taking the very first step in reinstating the identity of Turkish architecture, totally lost in the 19th century.