From Memory of Place to Memory Places - A Contemporary Discussion on Remembering and Forgetting
Keywords:
Collective Memory, Memory Places, Remembering, Forgetting, ConservationAbstract
The subject and content of conservation extended since Venice Charter; so the set of values assigned to cultural heritage also changed. The set of values, previously assigned based on only historical and physical characteristics, are now appreciated to be socially constructed, knotted and experienced. According to contemporary value understanding, places become the subject of conservation studies not only being historically and artistically prised and authentic, but also due to symbolic and social values assigned. Especially those places on which common values are assigned by the society become integral part of urban memory in time. As collective memory find place itself on urban space and space collects and piles up memory in time, soon after the place of memory turns into a memory place. Memory places include socially constructed, experienced and knotted relations and transfer these relations to future generations.
Memory places that arouse common feelings and bring back common memories of social group are mostly being considered as common heritage and thus become the subject of conservation studies. Especially these studies stand out during the intention or act of removing such memory places – when the memory place is subjected to forgetting acts. Soon after memory places become the struggle places through which the society act together and develop strategies to safeguard its own collective memory – to be used for remembering. Within this context, it is argued that memory place turns into a double-acting place based on by whom it is managed: Subject of conservation by the society to be a means for remembering or act of scraping by the political power to be a tool for forgetting.
The main argument of the study is that urban space collects memories in time and it turns into a memory place – which should be the subject of conservation studies as they include attributed values by the society. The study argues the difficulty of protecting memory places without systematic conservation understanding. Therefore it tries to compose a relation between memory, place and conservation studies – by questioning how memory of place turns into memory places in time from the perspective of value assignment discussions. Hence, the study will first understand the formation and importance of memory places and then discuss reasons why and how memory places should be a subject of conservation studies – based on remembering and forgetting practices through well-known examples as World Trade Centre, Gezi Parkı or less-known local places as Ziyaret in Samadağ or Narlıkuyu in Mersin.
Metrics
References
-Ahunbay, Z. 1999. Tarihi Çevre Koruma ve Restorasyon. Yapı Endüstri Merkezi Yayınları.
-Asilsikender, B. 2006. Kayseri Eski Kent Merkezi'nde Cumhuriyet'in İlanından Günümüze Mekan ve Kimlik Deneyimi. Erciyes Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi, 22(1-2), pp. 203-212.
-Assmann, J. 2015. Kültürel Bellek. Ayrıntı Yayınları, İstanbul.
-Bayhan, B. 2013. Hafıza Mekânları, Arkitera, http://www.arkitera.com/haber/18781/hafiza-mekanlari (date of connection: 02.04.2016)
-Bergson, H. 2007. Madde ve Bellek. Dost, Ankara.
-Çalak, I. E. 2012. Kentsel ve Kolektif Belleğin Sürekliliği Bağlamında Kamusal Mekanlar: ULAP Platz Örneği, Almanya. Tasarım + Kuram, vol. 13, pp. 34-47.
-Çetken, P. 2013. Kentin Hafızasında Bir Travma: Sulukule Yıkımı. Upublished Master’s Thesis, İstanbul Technical University, İstanbul.
-Dovey, K. 1999. Framing Places: Mediating Power in Built Form. Routledge, New York.
-Graham, B. 2002. Heritage as Knowledge: Capital or Culture. Urban Studies, vol. 39, No. 5- 6, pp. 1003-1017.
-Güçlü, A. B., Uzun, E., Uzun, S. and Yolsal, Ü. H. 2002. Felsefe Sözlüğü. Bilim ve Sanat, Ankara.
-Gürler, E. E. and Özer, B. 2013. The Effects of Public Memorials on Social Memory and - Urban Identity. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, v. 82, pp. 858 – 863.
-Halbwachs, M. 1992. On Collective Memory. The University of Chicago Press.
-Hartmuth, M. 2010. History, Identity and Urban Space: Towards an Agenda for Urban - Research. Reading the City: Urban Space and Memory in Skopje, pp. 12-22, Univerlagtuberlin, Berlin.
-ICOMOS. 1964. Venice Charter. https://www.icomos.org/charters/venice_e.pdf (date of connection: 02.04.2017)
-İlhan, M. E. 2015. Gelenek ve Hatırlama: Belleğin Kültürel Olarak Yeniden İnşası Üzerine Bir Tartışma. Turkish Studies, vol. 10/8, pp. 1395-1408.
-Jiven, G. and Larkham, P. J. 2003. Sense of Place, Authenticity and Character: A Commentary. Journal of Urban Design, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 67–81.
-Madanipour, A. 2010. Introduction. Whose Public Space: International Case Studies in Urban Design and Development. Routledge, London, pp. 1-14.
-Nora, P. 2006. Hafıza Mekânları. Dost Kitapevi, Ankara.
-Norberg-Schultz, C. 1979. Genius Loci towards a Phenomenology of Architecture. Rizzoli. Oxford Living Dictionaries - English. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com (date of connection: 02.04.2017)
-Pösteki, N. 2012. Sinema Salonlarının Dönüşümünde Bellek ve Mekân İlişkisi. http://akademikpersonel.kocaeli.edu.tr/nposteki/bildiri/nposteki31.05.201300.54.44bildiri.pd f (date of connection: 02.04.2016)
Rossi, A. 1999. The Architecture of the City. The MIT Press, Cambridge.
Şahin, V. 2013. Kültürel Bellek Mekânı Olarak Türküler. Kültürümüzde Türküler Sempozyumu Bildirileri, pp. 103-112, Sivas.
-Uzer, E. 2009. Kültürel Miras ve Unutmak / Hatırlama Üzerine Notlar. Kamusal Mekânda Bellek – Yuvarlak Masa Söyleşileri 1. İmkanmekan, pp. 8-9, http://tr.imkanmekan.org/files/bellek_kitapcik.pdf (date of connection: 02.04.2016
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Yasemin Sarıkaya Levent
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.