istanbulmetro . istanbul architecture design

Design Cities exhibit at the Istanbul Modern. I don’t like it. And if you read the discussion I have here with the curator Deyan Sudjic, you can tell why.

May 19th, 2008

Design Cities, Istanbul Modern
Poster, Design Cities, Tasarım Şehirler, İstanbul Modern

Design in Turkey does not seem to have a long or meaningful history. When it is mentioned most people are surprised that contemporary design from Turkey even existed at all. Didn’t Turkish designers just copy from the West? Wasn’t Turkish design just a second rate or third rate version of what was going in Milan, London etc? What of interest could possibly have been created in Turkey of the 1930s or 1950s, 1960s….?

Design in Turkey has for many years been part of a general importation of knowledge and culture from the West. The elites of the Turkish Republic and the Ottomans before them have for centuries imported knowledge and culture from the West in the belief that it was more advanced and hence more valuable. This sort of cultural imperialism worked well for both sides. The local elites were able to justify themselves as leaders pointing to their embrace of this “better” universal culture, agents of the West profited from the sale of ideas and products to Turkey. This scenario which started after the regime Mustafa Kemal Ataturk’s initial radical efforts to incubate local ways of doing things continues until today.

It is in this light that I would like to frame the below discussion I had with the curator of the Design Cities exhibition, Dejan Sudic of the Design Museum in London. I believe that this exhibition no matter the great value of the objects displayed here is ultimately another example of the long and still somehow active cultural imperialism that goes on in Turkey. In terms of design, I have no problems with the objects themselves. My issue is that as the first formal exhibition on design and design history by the leading gallery of modernism in the country, this exhibition is completely inappropriate. Whatever value these objects might have for young designers and the general museum going populace is outweighed by the fact that this exhibition does not advance anything but the tired canon of Western design history.

Let me be clear here in my description of this history. The history of design in the West is one that is tied closely to industrialization and excludes elements of the vernacular and everyday, what I would call anonymous design or design by non-designers. In a country like Turkey where most objects lack design pedigree, different social and designs traditions of local origin are more relevant to object making and design then one this closely tied to the canon of Western design history, industrialization and capitalism. For example, the recognition of the sensory dimensions of the environment seen in design from places like Brazil or Mexico or the efficacy of handicraft and materials in Scandinavia, these contexts show another history of design outside of industrialization and ultimately more relevant to this Turkish context then the cities shown in Design Cities.

In an era when there are serious ecological and cultural matters are pressing in from all sides, what good is this exhibit to Turkey and the Turkish audience? What cause or idea does it advance? These are questions that I fear have no answer beyond the curator’s own aesthetic judgements concerning these objects. With so much in our own history and design history still waiting to be explored and identified, exhibition’s like Design Cities seem to be more of the flashy regurgitation of Western models that ultimately is doing local design and our cultural contribution to universal culture no good.

Discussion by email between me, Gökhan Karakuş and Deyan Sudjic published in Galerist newspaper, May 2008. Some of my questions were answered, some not.

Questions for Deyan Sudjic regarding Design Cities exhibit, Istanbul Modern.

Gökhan Karakuş / Galerist
Istanbul April 10, 2008

Gökhan Karakuş. Where did the idea for doing this exhibition emerge? How did you get involved? You have a challenging job in London as head of the Design Museum, why did you feel it was important to do this exhibition?

Deyan Sudjic. I have been aware of Istanbul Modern since before I started work at the Design Museum. It has a beautiful space, and it is operating in an extraordinarily interesting context which makes the chance of curating an exhibition there particularly attractive. We discussed the idea of an architecture exhibition which did not materialize. But then design came up as a topic and it seemed to make a lot of sense in Turkey. Ataturk after all was very much aware of the power of design as an element in constructing a modern state. Think about his impact on every aspect of the way that Turkey looks: from its capital city, to the architecture of that capital, the country’s adoption of the Latin alphabet, even its dress. All of these are design decisions.
And Turkey today is making use of its industrial capacity to move up the value scale by beginning to use sophisticated design.

Gökhan Karakuş. The exhibition, Design Cities, uses cities as the vehicle to organize a certain history of design that could be labeled the Canonical History of Design in industrialized countries. Why did you decide to use cities in this way and not countries or movements?

Deyan Sudjic. I am as interested in the story of cities as I am in the history of design. And in fact as well as my role as the director of the design museum, I am the co chairman of the Urban Age project, a partnership between the London School of Economics and Deutsche Bank which has spent the last three years exploring the future of the city –
I think it is impossible in the contemporary world to define design in purely national terms: think about one of the exhibits in the London 2008 section, the Mini for example: Its supposedly a quintessentially British design, but it is owned by a German company, and the original engine was made in Brazil by an American company. And of course the original Mini was designed by Alec Issigonis – born in Turkey, of Greek origin, who settled in Britain. We show a work by Hussein Chalayan in the London section: he was educated in Britain, and works in London. We show several pieces by Zaha Hadid, born in Bagdad, educated in Beiruit, now a London resident. You would not call her a British architect, but you could plausibly describe her as a London architect. Cities after all have mostly been around a lot longer than nation states. Movements don’t always help understand the contradictory currents of design. London in 1851 was both rejecting the industrial revolution in the shape of William Morris, and embracing it in Christopher Dresser. Showing them side by side perhaps conveys that sense better

Gökhan Karakuş. Your exhibition is sort of the “greatest hits” of western design with a short stop in Japan for contrast. You have all the great names, great objects, great schools, what is the purpose of organizing this kind of exhibit for Istanbul? Why does the general Istanbul and Turkish audience need to know this history? As a popular and intellectual exercise what can be gained from this exhibition? Why are your pushing this particular history of design and its agenda at this time? In other words, why do you think it is relevant to manufacture this identity around design at this particular moment in Turkey when the concept of design and design values are still under debate, where the history of design in Turkey has yet to organized?

Deyan Sudjic. I think that I have touched on the answers to some of these questions in my earlier answers. I am not sure that I have an agenda, other than to say that I find many of these objects beautiful in their own right, and that understanding how some of them came into being, can provide pointers to understanding the world around us. I certainly think that what an exhibition with real object can do that nothing else can is to provide a physical tangible sense of the materiality of things. I have never seen all these objects together in one place before, and its not the same as making a list, or reading a book.

Gökhan Karakuş. What would you hope Istanbul’s design and architecture community would gain from this exhibition?

I hope that they will find enjoyable, provocative and engaging.

Gökhan Karakuş. What is the connection between this exhibitions program and its intended audience here in Istanbul?

Gökhan Karakuş. The history of design codified in this exhibition is one that is tied closely to industrialization and excludes elements of the vernacular and everyday, what I would call anonymous design or design by non-designers. In a country like Turkey where most objects lack design pedigree, don’t you think an exhibition open to different social and designs traditions would’ve been more relevant then one this closely tied to the canon of Western design history, industrialization and capitalism? For example, the recognition of the sensory dimensions of the environment seen in design from places like Brazil or Mexico or the efficacy of handicraft and materials in Scandinavia, would not these contexts be more valuable contributions to another history of design and ultimately more relevant to this context?

Deyan Sudjic. Which particular elements of Brazilian design are you talking about? It would I agree have been fascinating to look at the differences between Brazil and Turkey, and to wonder why Brazil has produced a Niemeyer, or a Campana, - or Mexico a Barragan, and Turkey has not, so far done so. It could easily have done so: During the 1940s, Turkey saw Bruno Taut, and Margarete Schutte Lihotsky as visitors, just as Brazil had Le Corbusier. And it is also true that both Brazil and Turkey are becoming increasingly important exporters by making use of contemporary design. But that would have been a different exhibition. One that would usefully be done one day soon.

If you look at what William Morris believed, I think that you will find that he was as implacably opposed to capitalism, and industrialisation as anybody. He was a revolutionary socialist, who believed passionately that machines were dehumanising. He was an ecologist before the word was even invented. And this exhibition opens with him. The work of Josef Hoffman and Koloman Moser were also based on workmanship and handcraft. So in fact was the Bauhaus, despite its rhetoric about the machine age.
If you look at the choices I have made in my cities, you will see that I have avoided , for example the work of Raymond Loewy, and Philippe Starck.
Design is of course a huge subject, and to make an exhibition like this work, some kind of framework is essential. The theme of craft vs industry, local vs universal is there , and I hope that you are able to see beyond what appear to be your preconceptions about the nature of this exhibition.
What your question seems to suggest is that this exhibition is some sort of imperialist propaganda effort, which I would vigorously deny. I am myself deeply concerned about the avalanche of stuff that is sweeping over the world, as we are all encouraged to consume more at every level. I certainly believe that design cannot be allowed to become simply a form of three dimensional marketing. But design is I believe fundamentally the product of industrialisation. And since all of us, wherever we live, are shaped by industrial production, its important to understand how it works.

Gökhan Karakuş. Today because of the ecological crises the notion of universal or standardized concepts of living promoted by industrialization and capitalism is starting to lose validity. Instead we are starting to see that there are certain efficiencies to be gained from an individual’s built environment in the history, culture, and climate of his or her immediate surroundings. Your exhibition seems to be promoting these universal/standardized concepts of modernity. In the first years of the 21st century, in seemingly a new era, what do you think is to be gained from the continued promotion of this agenda and history? In the light of the ecological crises don’t you think the canon needs to be adjusted to accept other ways of living and social practices not visible in your exhibitions works?

Deyan Sudjic. While rejecting your assertions that I am promoting ecological catastrophe, I am not unsympathetic to your suggestions. But it is a fact that in Istanbul, and Beijing, as much as Mexico City or Johannesburg, there are both shared assumptions, and very distinctively different things going on. The ipod, Manchester United, the Airbus, colour imaginations everywhere. I think also by structuring around the idea of cities I am also emphasising their differences.

Entry Filed under: design, international

Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed

M	T	W	T	F	S	S
« Jan
		1	2	3	4	5
6	7	8	9	10	11	12
13	14	15	16	17	18	19
20	21	22	23	24	25	26
27	28	29	30

Design Cities exhibit at the Istanbul Modern. I don’t like it. And if you read the discussion I have here with the curator Deyan Sudjic, you can tell why.

Leave a Comment

Calendar

Most Recent Posts