Publication: 2. Dünya Savaşı sonrasında resim ve müzik alanındaki protest hareket
Abstract
Bu tez çalışması, “marjinal”in güncel tanımlarından yola çıkarak, bir kavramsallaştırma yapar. Tabi ki bir “toplum” tanımı ve kavramsallaştırması onu izler. Toplum bir iktidarlar sahasıdır ve dinamiktir. Dolayısıyla, bu “yarı kimlikler sahası”nda, teorik olarak “mutlak” bir marjinal (durağan bir toplum ve sürekli bir marjinallik) belirlemek olanaksız gözükür. Söz edilen bu dinamik toplum sahası ve iktidar ilişkileri toplamı, “sistem” olarak tanımlandığında, “sistemin meşrulaştırdığı estetik kriterlerin dışında bir estetik var mı?” sorusu sorulur. Böylece “marjinal”, “muhalif”, “sorunsal”, “anarşist” gibi kavramların farklılığı da ortaya çıkar. Bu “meşru kriterler”i belirleyen nedir? Dönüp bakılan yer, “on sekizinci yüz yıl”; “aydınlanma”, “Kant” ve “özerklik” fikridir. Özerkliğin, evrimi boyunca bir “burjuva kamusal alanı” yaratarak, estetik meşru kriterlerin oluşumuna sağladığı zemin saptanır. Ancak diğer bir bulgu da, özerkliğin, bu kriterlerin dışına taşabilme umut ve ihtimalini de taşıyor olması gerçeğidir. Bu anlamda, aydınlanmanın araçsal aklına karşı gelişen “romantizm” ve özerkleşen sanat kurumuna ve burjuva değerlerine karşı ortaya çıkan “avangard” hareketler (dada ve sürrealizm) ve “sitüasyonist enternasyonal”, kriter dışı gelişen estetiğin örnekleri olarak sunulur. Yıkım-yapım ikilemi, “dekonstrüktif” bir okumayla incelenir. Yıkım, ancak bir “düş” olarak hayata sızabilir. Marjinal estetiğin kullanılabilir bir hali olarak, güncel sanattan bazı örnekler; yaygın üretim, sergileme, algılama ve pazarlama kriterlerine karşı gelişen; batı merkezli bir modern sanatın konformist yapısının altını oyan küratör-sanatçı ve projelerden seçilmiştir. Ayrıca, müzik alanından ve mimariden seçilen; arada kalmış, dışlanmış ve muhalif yapılarıyla marjinale temas eden örnekler sunulur. Diğer bir grup örnek ise günlük hayattan seçilmiştir ve marjinal kavramıyla belki de en yoğun şekilde özdeşleşen örnekler bunlardır denilebilir. Sonuç olarak bu çalışma, “mutlak-tamamlanmış bir kimlik” olarak bir marjinal gösteremez ancak “yarı-kimlikler sahası” olarak tanımlanabilecek bir marjinali “kısmen” sunar.
The purpose of this thesis is to conceptualize the “marginal” setting forth with the current descriptions of the term. Naturally, a description and conceptualization of “society” follows. Society is a field of various powers and is dynamic. Therefore, it is virtually impossible to determine an “absolute” marginal (a stable society and constant marginality) theoretically in this “field of semi-identities”. When this dynamic social field aforementioned and the sum of the power relations are defined as a “system”, we would ask: “is there aesthetics other than the aesthetic criteria legitimized by the system?” Thus, the differences between concepts of “marginal”, “dissent”, “problematic” and “anarchist” are revealed. What is the determines of these “legitimate criteria”? Here, we look back to the “eighteenth century”; “the enlightenment”, “Kant” and the idea of “autonomy.” It is stated that autonomy provides the grounds for the establishment of the legitimate aesthetic criteria by creating a “bourgeois public sphere” in the course of its evolution. On the other hand, however, autonomy also holds the hope and possibility of going beyond these criteria. In this sense, “romanticism” which was developed against the instrumental rationality of the enlightenment and “avant-garde” movements that emerged against the bourgeois values and institution of art that was gaining autonomy (dada and surrealism) as well as “situationist international” are presented as the examples of the aesthetics developed outside these criteria. The dichotomy of destruction-construction is examined through a “deconstructive” reading. Destruction might only penetrate to life as a “dream”. As an applied state of the marginal aesthetics, some examples of contemporary art are chosen from curator-artists and projects that were developed against the common production, exhibition, and perception and marketing criteria, undermining the conformist structure of eurocentric contemporary art. Moreover, examples are chosen from music and architecture, that come into contact with marginality by virtue of their straddled, outcast and dissenting nature. Another group of examples are taken from daily life, and it is possible to assert that these are cases which can most closely be identified with the concept of “marginal.” In conclusion, this study can not present “the marginal” as an “absolute-integral identity”; it can only “partially” presents “a marginal” concept that can be defined as a “field of semi-identities”.
The purpose of this thesis is to conceptualize the “marginal” setting forth with the current descriptions of the term. Naturally, a description and conceptualization of “society” follows. Society is a field of various powers and is dynamic. Therefore, it is virtually impossible to determine an “absolute” marginal (a stable society and constant marginality) theoretically in this “field of semi-identities”. When this dynamic social field aforementioned and the sum of the power relations are defined as a “system”, we would ask: “is there aesthetics other than the aesthetic criteria legitimized by the system?” Thus, the differences between concepts of “marginal”, “dissent”, “problematic” and “anarchist” are revealed. What is the determines of these “legitimate criteria”? Here, we look back to the “eighteenth century”; “the enlightenment”, “Kant” and the idea of “autonomy.” It is stated that autonomy provides the grounds for the establishment of the legitimate aesthetic criteria by creating a “bourgeois public sphere” in the course of its evolution. On the other hand, however, autonomy also holds the hope and possibility of going beyond these criteria. In this sense, “romanticism” which was developed against the instrumental rationality of the enlightenment and “avant-garde” movements that emerged against the bourgeois values and institution of art that was gaining autonomy (dada and surrealism) as well as “situationist international” are presented as the examples of the aesthetics developed outside these criteria. The dichotomy of destruction-construction is examined through a “deconstructive” reading. Destruction might only penetrate to life as a “dream”. As an applied state of the marginal aesthetics, some examples of contemporary art are chosen from curator-artists and projects that were developed against the common production, exhibition, and perception and marketing criteria, undermining the conformist structure of eurocentric contemporary art. Moreover, examples are chosen from music and architecture, that come into contact with marginality by virtue of their straddled, outcast and dissenting nature. Another group of examples are taken from daily life, and it is possible to assert that these are cases which can most closely be identified with the concept of “marginal.” In conclusion, this study can not present “the marginal” as an “absolute-integral identity”; it can only “partially” presents “a marginal” concept that can be defined as a “field of semi-identities”.