Effect of popular culture on to form urban discourse

Kentsel/mekânsal söylemleri oluşturan çeşitli kaynaklar, sistemler, ilişkiler vardır. Kentsel söylemler, kentsel mekânı yapısal olarak üretenlerin metinlerinden olduğu kadar, popüler kültürün yazılı araçlarındaki temsillerinden sıklıkla beslenir ve toplumun hafızasında mayalanır. Çünkü söylemler, kişinin düşüncesini ifade etmek için kullandığı dil kodlarıdır. Bu yargının, özellikle mimarlığın kamusal alan tarafından tanımlandığı, gündelik yaşamımıza girerek meslekten olmayanlarca da konuşulduğu 1980'li yıllar ve sonrası için doğru olduğu söylenebilir. Bu çalışma Popüler kültür ve kentsel söylem arasındaki ilişkiyi irdelemeyi, bu arakesitin daha iyi değerlendirilmesiyle oluşacak kazanımlara kestirim yapmayı hedeflemektedir. Günümüz kuramcılarının pek çoğu, çeşitli sosyal, kültürel ve ekonomik değişimlerin, mimarlık söyleminin oluşumunu etkileyeceğini, mimarlık söyleminin kendi özerk bilgi alanı içinde kalamayacağını dile getirmektedir. Mimarlık araştırmalarının konuları ve yöntemleri, farklı disiplinlerle olan etkileşimden etkilenip çeşitlenirken, popüler kültür alanı hâlâ derinlikli ele alışa kavuşamamıştır. Bu alanda eleştirel okumalar yapmak isteyenlerin önemli bir kesimi, daha başından "kitlelerin afyonu" olması ön kabulüyle çalışma alanı ile aralarına negatif bir mesafe koymaktadırlar. Bugün popüler kültür çalışmalarının, incelediği alan tarafından dikkate alınmadığı yönündeki eleştirinin büyük ölçüde geçerliliğini kaybettiği söylenebilir. Yüksek kültür ile kitle kültürü arasındaki ayrım ortadan tamamen kalkmamış olsa da aralarındaki sınır özellikle seksenler sonrasında muğlâklaşmıştır. Birbirinden keskin sınırlarla ayrılmayan bu iki alanın neresinde durduğu tam olarak kavranamayan pek çok materyal, ürün, popüler yazılı medya, kültür hayatımızı, yargılarımızı, düşüncelerimizi, söylemlerimizi şekillendirmektedir. Anahtar Kelimeler: Popüler kültür, kentsel söylem, seksenler-İstanbul, küreselleşme, metropolleşme, nostalji. The subject of the paper was to discuss the urban discourse of Istanbul by forming / developing a track through the representation of presented, proposed and / or produced urban projects in Istanbul eighties through the medium of popular textual media which accessed the community out of the architectural profession. There are several resources, systems and relations constituting the urban / spatial discourse. Urban discourses are nourished not only from the texts produced by the constructors of the urban space, but also from the representations of the print media of the popular culture and they got fermented in the memory of the society. Because discourses are the language codes that are used to represent the thought of the individual. This statement, judgement could be regarded as an appropriate for the 1980s and later in which architecture was particularly defined by the public space, and by entering our daily life was being discussed by the laities. Language is one of the most important factors to constitute/ form urban image in the mind of society. Urban codes exist with using language in life domains (the physical milieu, the buildings, the maps, the media'etc.), which produce their characteristic texts. Using of the language-speaking and understanding it is the definition ability of human beings, woven into all human activity. It is our judgments and response, believing, relations, values, and situations. As a reflection of our culture, it is reproduction of the spaces. Language is a neglected subject in discussion of the architecture, which is conventionally regarded as a visual rather than the verbal activity. Architects also benefit from the verbal activities and texts to share with their ideas. But it couldn't say that these texts have more aid to constitute / form of urban image. Architecture has its own linguistic register. These texts are meaningful for the professionals, which use architectural terminology. On the other hand, except for architectural speech, any kind of texts about physical environment (the milieu, the buildings, the spaces') plays an important role to strengthen its presence. Discourse can be described as a communicational process. The literal, verbal, visual, or symbolic language becomes meaningful in context, which is open to cultural interaction. Discourse includes comprehensive subjects such as 'language', 'communication', 'society', 'interaction', and 'culture'. In this case, it does not enable definite and easy description. The most important feature of discourse is the constitution of complex relationships of the text, context and social circumstances, which are producing processes. Because of whether the text, or context or social circumstances have renewable and reconstructable qualities for each other, discourse never presents unique and invariable meanings. Discourse is a dynamic and renovative fact consequently conjunctions amongst all elements. In this case discourse has the quality worth researching by different disciplines. Elements are time-line in verbal expression while they are synchronic in visual. A discourse analysis seems an important possibility for the architecture to understand it, to redeem from multi-layered intensity of the visual synchronization and to describe with the 'linear decomposition' in time-line relation of the verbal expression. In this case, the cinema and the literature as an important form of expression of social reminiscence, the political texts-exposed perfection of power to establish the urban image-, supply and demand of the 'new', brochures, advertisements, posters, can be used to understand the reproduced urban reality and urban culture. This study about the relationship between popular culture and urban discourse proposed to forecast to the achievements constituted by advanced determination of the relevant intersection ended with the comment about the relation between social memory, to remember / to forget and to write. Most of the present theorists uttered that several social, cultural, and economical changes affected the formation of the architectural discourse, and the architectural discourse could not stand within the individual autonomous information area. While the subjects and the methods of architectural research have been affected from the different disciplines, popular culture area have not discussed deeply yet. Most of the researchers who wanted to make critical readings, kept a negative place against the study area even at head of the beginning with the pre-acceptance of being opium of the crowd. In this study, three discourses (globalization, metropolitan, nostalgia) were illustrated by popular print media within the intersection of popular culture and urban discourse. Keywords: Popular culture, urban discourse, eighties-Istanbul, globalization, metropolization, nostalgia