Oeuvre vs. Abstract Space: Appropriation of Gezi Park in Istanbul

What is it about?

A B S T R A C T The Gezi Park incidents of summer 2013 in Istanbul have marked a turning point in the political life and democracy in Turkey. The peaceful environmentalist protestations in central Gezi Park have turned into a countrywide upheaval against the neo-liberal and conservative policies of the government, pouring millions of people into streets in different cities. It was a time that Turkey witnessed the formation of a new type of public sphere that encompasses a variety of counter publics, and its spatial incarnation –the Gezi Commune-, reclaimed, created, shaped and inhabited by the free will of people. This was the instant creation of oeuvre through appropriation of the urban space, and a spatial manifestation of reclaiming the right to the city. This article is a reflection on possibility of creation of oeuvre in contemporary society, and a new way of architectural thinking and practice that can pave the way for it.

Featured Image

Why is it important?

Oeuvre vs. Abstract Space: Appropriation of Gezi Park in Istanbul Dr.SenemZeybekoglu Sadri * Department of Architecture,Girne American University, Turkey E mail: senemsadri@gau.edu.tr A B S T R A C T The Gezi Park incidents of summer 2013 in Istanbul have marked a turning point in the political life and democracy in Turkey. The peaceful environmentalist protestations in central Gezi Park have turned into a countrywide upheaval against the neo-liberal and conservative policies of the government, pouring millions of people into streets in different cities. It was a time that Turkey witnessed the formation of a new type of public sphere that encompasses a variety of counter publics, and its spatial incarnation –the Gezi Commune-, reclaimed, created, shaped and inhabited by the free will of people. This was the instant creation of oeuvre through appropriation of the urban space, and a spatial manifestation of reclaiming the right to the city. This article is a reflection on possibility of creation of oeuvre in contemporary society, and a new way of architectural thinking and practice that can pave the way for it. CONTEMPORARY URBAN AFFAIRS (2017) 1(2), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.25034/ijcua.2017.3643 www.ijcua.com Copyright © 2017 Contemporary Urban Affairs. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction There is a strong relationship between city spaces, the way they are produced and social relations taking place in those spaces. Spaces are adapted by people through their diverse economic, political, social and cultural activities. All personal or common lived spaces make place for these dwelling practices of people (Sadri &Zeybekoğlu Sadri, 2012). The way that spaces are formed determines how we access to those spaces, how we use them and how we exist in them. Under the domination of state, capital, and institutional knowledge, spaces are produced as commodities (Sadri &Zeybekoğlu Sadri, 2012). Accordingly they reflect the order of a ruling power, and they start to cause exclusions of certain groups of people and their diverse dwelling practices, which do not fit into the norms defined by the ruling power. Henri Lefebvre distinguishes between space as “oeuvre” and space as “product”. Space as oeuvre occurs as a result of collective creation, praxis. The French word oeuvre refers to lifetime “works” created by an artist. Since space as oeuvre is an outcome of collective creation of different generations during a long period of time, it is the accumulation of all works done by inhabitants of a city during its city’s history. Thus, space as oeuvre embodies peace and co-existence. However space as product is produced by forces of production such as nature, labour, division of labour, and instruments of labour. Nature is commodified, labour is exploited, division of labour is organized and instruments of labour such as knowledge and technology are estranged and controlled by power. Furthermore designed and produced spaces have been invaded and organized by the state, capital and institutional knowledge, particularly architecture and planning. While space as oeuvre is formed in accordance with the needs of different generations, through a collective of lives over a lot of people during a long period of time; space as product is designed and constructed within the domination of ruling power and as an outcome of collaboration between the state, capital and institutional knowledge (Lefebvre, 1991). Lefebvre defines designed and produced spaces as abstract things and commodities. He associates the abstract space with social hierarchical order, social norms and social factions. Abstract space creates social hierarchical order through limiting the access to and use of space. Abstract space also dictates social norms through homogenizing the potential uses of space by limiting those uses to particular functions inside defined architectural forms and accordingly restricting the everyday life of people. And finally, abstract space renders social factions as the systematic method for controlling daily life and its practices through fragmenting the collective and cooperative practices of people (Lefebvre, 1968; Purcell, 2003; Lefebvre, 1991; Gottdiener, 1993). Against hierarchical order, social norms and social fragmentation, intrinsic to the abstract space, Lefebvre celebrates the idea of «right to the city» to protect diverse dwelling practices of people and promote oppressed groups. The right to the city is the right of inhabitants of the city to dwelling, existing and co-existing within the space during the process of formation and use of space. Consequently Lefebvre divides the right to the city into two interdependent rights: the right to oeuvre and the right to appropriation. While the former is more related to the praxis of creation of space, the latter is more concentrated on free life and co-existence in space (Lefebvre, 1968). During Gezi protestations, Taksim Square and Gezi Park in Istanbul were appropriated by Istanbulites, and the park was transformed into a communal space through a collective praxis of protestors. With several dwelling practices that it housed, such as protection from police attacks, political discussions, artistic production, health services, eating and cleaning, the commune was the instant creation of oeuvre, which was made according to its inhabitants’ visions and desires. It was representing the free will of people co-existing inside the commune, against social hierarchical order, social norms and social factions dictated by abstract space of ruling power and capital. This article aims at unfolding the spatial history of Gezi Resistance as a right to the city movement, through evaluation of spaces of resistance that emerged and disappeared throughout the days of protestations and reflecting on a new way of thinking with practice that can pave the way for a new architecture of resistance. 2. Production of abstract space in Istanbul Starting from the mid-1970s, world cities have been changing under the impacts of neo-liberal economic developments, which have been manifested in new spatial organization of production, developments in communication and transportation technologies, and the declining control of nation states over economic activities (Van Kempen & Marcuse, 1997; Sassen, 1998; Giddens, 1999).

Perspectives