The Works of Mimar Sinan: Their Influence on Le Corbusier during his Voyage d'Orient

THE WORKS OF MIMAR SINAN: THEIR INFLUENCE ON LE CORBUSIER DURING HIS VOYAGE D’ORIENT Robert Morgan

DECLARATION The work submitted in this dissertation is the result of my own investigation, except where otherwise stated. It has not already been accepted for any degree and is also not being concurrently submitted for any other degree.

Robert Morgan 1003261

15th May 2015

A dissertation submitted to the Scott Sutherland School of Architecture and Built Environment, Robert Gordon University in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Architecture. by: Robert Morgan Supervised by: Prof. Gรถkay Deveci Word Count: 11,569 Turnitin: 8% 2

CONTENTS 01 Introduction 02 RESEARCH METHODS OF 03 HISTORY THE OTTOMAN

06

09

12

EMPIRE

08 LEANDCORBUSIER THE ORIENT SCHWOB 09 VILLA LA CHAUX-

JAOUL 10 MAISONS NEUILLY-SUR-SEINE

04

15

FRANCE 1951

05

THE RISE OF SINAN AS AN ARCHITECTURAL GENIUS

17

& 11 FINDINGS CONCLUSION

12 BIBLIOGRAPHY

07

53

58

62

22

13 ILLUSTRATIONS

MOSQUE IN ISTANBUL

SELIMIYE CAMI; SINAN’S HIGHEST ACHIEVMENT OF OTTOMAN ARCHITECTURE

46

DE-FONDS SWITZERLAND 1916

THE AGE OF SINAN

SÜLEYMANIYE 06 THE COMPLEX AND

38

32

14 GLOSSARY

66

69

3

INTRODUCTION

01

Within the historical literature of architecture, from the manifestation of the Renaissance in Italy to the global architects of today, a theme that has always held popular is creative agency. Though its perceptions have understandably transformed to some extent, the idea that down to an individualistic freedom there is an ability to adjust the conventional through the introduction of something new has been a common attribute throughout time. Philosophers of the early Enlightenment, John Locke and Immanuel Kant proposed that “the individual is a free agent capable of manipulating social norms and contracts rationally to achieve freedom and progress” (EMIRBAYER, 1998). This is where the contemporary configuration of creative agency derives from.

The European Renaissance was manifesting during the early 14th century through Italy where an evolution in architectural language was being witnessed. Contributions from Italian architects, with the likes of Brunelleschi, were creating beautifully monumental structures through Rome, Florence and Mantua (EMIRBAYER, 1998). While this architectural change was happening in Italy, ready to set the course for European architecture for centuries to come, there was an equally meaningful period of architecture for the Ottoman State in the south east. Drastic developments were being made that manifested into some of the most incredible spectacles of architecture.

The architects of the Italian Renaissance were conceiving their designs in a response to the demands of the Christian Faith and to the “architectural theory of humanist scholars” (MATTHEWS, 2015). Meanwhile, the Chief Ottoman Architect to the Sultans from 1538 to 1588, Mimar Sinan contributed to a substantial change in the Mosque for the service of Islam. Sinan led the way for the design of these religious structures, more so than any other architect (MATTHEWS, 2015). Though both the architectural traditions either side of Istanbul, the Italians and Ottomans, were influenced by the architecture of the Roman Empire, the individual action and creative agency of the western and eastern architects interpreted the Roman and Byzantine legacy in entirely separate ways. This produced an outcome where the building they erected differed in terms of structure, space, symbolism and ornament (MATTHEWS, 2015).

As the title suggests, this paper will explore how the Chief Ottoman Architect and Civil Engineer for the Sultans Suleiman, Selim II and Murad III became a large figure in the Classical era of Ottoman rule, helping to steer it to its apogee towards the end of 16th century. I then wish to compile a body of exploration into how his work, the style, the forms and aesthetics of the architecture that inspired the work of Le Corbusier during his ‘Voyage d’Orient’, the Journey to the East.

“Few figures in history have been as influential on the present as the architect Sinan. This is evident in his reception in contemporary Turkey.

Every year, Sinan is commemorated in different parts of Turkey through ceremonies, conferences, exhibitions, competitions and seminars.”

(MORKOC, S.2009) 6

Previous Image Fig. 1 Suleymaniye Mosque (2014)

01 A study into his most famous works, indulging into the plan and section of these buildings, understanding how they work as a public space for masses of people could give a greater appreciation as to what made Sinan such an icon in the eyes of Le Corbusier. I have chosen to look into this not purely because of an interest in the work of Sinan but also out of a desire to develop my studio based work in terms of understanding proportion and scale within larger public buildings, something that resonates in his architecture.

“The Golden Age (1501-1703) saw the penetration of the Turkish armies in Europe to the interior of Germany and in Asia to the interior of Persia, the capture of Baghdad and the whole of Arabia and Syria, the occupation of all of North Africa, and the final determination of the boundaries of the Empire. The Mediterranean had now become a Turkish lake. In this period Turkish architecture attained its final and definitive form; this is the classical age of Ottoman art. During this era Koca Sinan, the great genius of the world of architecture, and his followers filled every quarter of the empire with the products of their art.” (UNSAL, B. 1970, p.6) KEYWORDS Mimar Sinan • Ottoman Empire • Ottoman Art • Ottoman Architecture • Istanbul • Edirne • Le Corbusier • Voyage d’Orient

7

02

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY The most substantial method in which I will carry out my research is an extensive reviewing of literature. This will be for me to understand Sinan’s architectural intents in his works and the influence he gave to other architects of that era. I will eventually focus on his most sublime architecture and this will consist of reviewing a number of sources such as books, journals and resources from the internet that give a deep insight into their design.

Alongside this knowledge that will be gained from the literature review I will gather from my own personal experience of his architecture. Having travelled through Turkey during last summer I was able to get a personal opinion on Sinan’s work, taking photographs, creating sketches and writing my thoughts on the architecture. Comparing and contrasting the differing viewpoints will be important to create a strong argument which to work on, informing a deeper understanding as to why Sinan is considered by some to be one of the greats.

Gaining a wealth of understanding on this subject through carrying out two case studies is something I will be doing to deliver a strong argument for the architecture of Sinan and Istanbul. I will be taking two of Sinan’s most highly regarded pieces of architecture, the Süleymaniye Cami in Istanbul and the Selimiye Cami in Edirne. The Süleymaniye Cami is regarded as being the apogee of Sinan’s creations whereas the Selimiye Cami, Sinan himself considered this to be his masterpiece. I will also carry out an extensive study into what makes Sinan’s architecture one that is warrant of the labels ‘genius’ or ‘divine’. Using the resource of historical analysis, architectural understandings and a personal experience of Istanbul itself, therefore having my own judgment on the architecture of Istanbul and

by Sinan, I hope to establish a strong comprehensive discussion as to why Sinan was so successful during his long spanning career.

Sinan’s success as an architect and designer meant he became an influence on many of his successors and this is evident in their architecture also. Though, with this paper I would like to explore the idea of him being an influence on a more recent architect.

Following on from this I will study the journey Le Corbusier took through Turkey during his Voyage d’Orient. I will hope to understand why Le Corbusier found this such an enchanting place, taking excerpts from his personal diary and sketchbook from the excursion. I would like to examine if and why he found it such an inspiration and then look at examples of his work that may have traits of the work of Sinan or of Islamic architecture within them. The two case studies of Le Corbusier’s work will be one when he had recently finished his excursion, the Villa Schwob (1916) in Switzerland and the other being one of his later works, the Maisons Jaoul (1955) in France.

I have chosen these two as there is an obvious time gap between them; this will not give bias to a certain point in Le Corbusier’s design sensibilities.

Image Opposite Fig. 2 Statue of Mimar Sinan (2010)

This qualitative form of research will give an array of interpretative techniques which I hope will seek to describe, decode, translate and otherwise come to terms with the meaning of certain aspects in the subjects mentioned previously. The value of data generated in this way 9

02 is its richness which is often observed by the researcher. Above all it is to summarise my findings very succinctly and communicate them effectively to the reader. Although I recognise that the benefit of ‘being there’ has to be set against the possibility of a bias in my writing or being too subjective.

The nature of this study gives a number of limitations to the study itself.

Though there is a sizeable amount of literature on both Mimar Sinan and Le Corbusier one limitation is that they are now deceased. This limits me on being able to hold interviews with them, getting a more personal response to any questions that I will ask during my research. Although I’ve experienced some of the works of Sinan, I have been unable to personally experience the Le Corbusier houses that I will be carrying out case studies on. This is a minor limitation as there is a wealth of information on both projects though there is something more affluent about the perspicacity of physical experience.

Though the main body of my research will be on Sinan, his work and the influence his work had on the work of Le Corbusier it is vitally important to gather a strong understanding of the overarching topic, the architecture and historical context leading up to this point and the events following.

With such a long reign over Turkey, spanning almost a millennium, it allowed the Ottomans to develop such a rich and diverse body of cultural history.

Images Opposite Fig. 3 Istanbul silhouettes. n.d. Watercolor on paper (2015) 10

HISTORY OF THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE

03

Near the end of the 13th century there was a growing threat from the armies of Genghis Khan in the east forcing settlements to move west. This lead Ertuğrul; father of Osman I, founder of the Ottoman Empire which was then known as the Osmanli, to move from Merv, Turkmenistan, to the lands of Anatolia.

He and 400 horsemen then aided the Seljuk of Rum against the Byzantines.

After the demise of the Turkish Seljuk Sultanate of Rum in the 14th century, the Ghazi emirates were created when Anatolia was divided into a patchwork of independent, mostly Turkish states (KURAN, A. 1968).

Towards the end of the 14th century, after the death of Osman I Ottoman rule began to reach to the edges of the Mediterranean and to the Balkans. In 1324, the Ottoman state had a new capital in Bursa after it was captures by Orhan, Osman’s son. This was the beginning of what would become the Ottoman growth across the Mediterranean countries in Europe, Africa and Asia.

The Ottoman Empire then had a reorganisation of the state and military and, under the rule of Mehmed II, going on to conquer Constantinople in 1453 making it the new capital. In exchange of accepting Ottoman authority, Mehmed allowed the Orthodox Church to maintain its independent state and land. Though, Ottoman rule became the preference over Venetian rule when bad relations between the states of Eastern Europe and the Orthodox population caused them to change their mind.

Now under the rule of Sultan Selim I the Ottomans were beginning to establish a strong eastern and southern frontier, stretching to Egypt creating a strong naval manifestation throughout the Red Sea. Competition became evident between the Portuguese Empire and the Ottomans themselves as a result of this expansion, a competition to become the dominant power in the Mediterranean region (IÌNALCÄK, H.1973).

During Süleyman’s reign expanded his territories twofold, reaching from Iran to Austria, personally leading a dozen military campaigns throughout his time.

He was regarded as a brilliant statesman, an acclaimed legislator and he was known to be a compassionate patron of the arts. His state occupied the crucial link between three continents and controlled western Asia, Eastern Europe, and northern Africa, while dominating the surrounding seas (ATIL, 1987). This led to Istanbul becoming one of the world’s wealthiest cities; characters such as diplomats, merchants and artists were magnetized to its riches. An extraordinary burst of artistic energy took place during the reign of Sultan Süleyman I, “a remarkable half-century when the political and economic power of the Ottoman Empire reached its pinnacle” (ATIL, 1987).

“Süleyman, known to Turks as Kanuni (Lawgiver) in honour of his numerous legislative acts, and as “The Magnificent” in Europe, in deference to his military conquests and the wealth of his court, was also a magnanimous patron. He himself was trained as a goldsmith, following the tradition of the Ottoman house that every sultan have a practical trade, and he wrote poetry under the pseudonym Muhibbi (Lover or Affectionate Friend), composing odes in Persian and Turkish.” (ATIL, 1987) 12

Image Opposite Fig. 4 Battle of Lepanto in 1571 (late 16th century)

04

THE AGE OF SINAN The details of Sinan’s birth are uncertain. We know that he was born between 1489 and 1490 but suggestions of his origin are varied. Although Armenian is most accepted there are also ideas of him being of Albanian, Serbian, Anatolian Greek and even Austrian descent (GOODWIN, 1987).

In his teenage years Sinan was brought to Istanbul through the practice of devşirme. This was a practice that was imposed on the non-Muslim population of the empire (LEWIS, 1981).

Military service was where most of the young people collected through the devşirme end up, thus enlarging the number of Janissaries (new soldiers). It was either this or they were put to physical work or assigned to help assist the masters. Though, as in the case of Sinan, there were a small number of the devşirme that were sent to the schools. These were the young people with outstanding abilities (acemi oğlan which translates to alien boy).

Sinan gained valuable skills and talent through working with father, a stonemason and carpenter. Thanks to these skills and his age, being around 21, Sinan entered a school operating in the Palace of Pasha Pargali Ibrahim, now the modern-day Turkish and Islamic Arts Museum, where he studied carpentry. Presumably, he took up Islam and was given the name Sinan at that time (GOODWIN, 1987). His first works; boats and bridges, show that initially he worked in the army as an engineer (SAOUD, 2007).

As a military engineer, he served in the Balkans for many years. These years spent in the army brought a change to his career; his war-related buildings attracted the attention of Sultan Suleiman (KUBAN, 2007). The Drava Bridge in Osijek (1526); the ferry built on the water of Lake Van belonging to the operations area of the Persian campaign (1535); the success of a Danube Bridge (1537) and a bridge over River Prut (1538), as well as the support of Pasha Lüfti Grand Vizier (1539-1541), helped him to become the chief architectural authority of the Empire in 1539 (GOODWIN, 1987). His architectural career, which can be considered breath taking both in terms of the number and the quality of the completed buildings, started at this time, at nearly fifty years of his age.

Working up to the age of 95, Sinan worked for nearly fifty years as the Chief Architect of the Ottomans, helping to surmount the architectural style of Ottoman culture that we see today. This is the period called the ‘Golden Age’ of the Ottomans, under the reign of Sultan Süleyman who, as previously mentioned had a prolific relationship with the arts. During this time Sinan left a series of memoirs, allowing us to understand his design ideals;

Image Opposite Fig. 5 Mimar Sinan Buyukcekmece Sultan Suleyman Bridge, Built in 1567 (2015)

“His representations in these memoirs are quite distinct from what has been proposed about his buildings and his persona by modern historiography; there are no textual clues as to his building or designing techniques such as are found in Renaissance treatises on architecture. Sinan’s memoirs exhibit poetical traits more than being technical and theoretical reflections on architecture.” (MORKOC, S. 2009) 15

04 The classical era of Ottoman architecture was headlined by the works of Mimar Sinan, becoming synonymous with it (BOZDOÄŸN, S. 2007). In Sinan’s autobiography, the Tezkiretu ’l-Ebniye, it states that he designed over 450 pieces of architecture during the five decades he held Chief Imperial Architect of the Ottomans. He is most recognised for his imperial mosques, sitting on the hills of Istanbul and Edirne, capped with the extraordinary domes. Sinan took an influence from the Romano-Byzantine architectural heritage of the Eastern Mediterranean world and this is obvious in his work.

According to Necipoglu (2007) interpretations of Sinan’s work attempted by both Orientalist and national models “utterly fail to historicize his work”.

The national paradigm has been enthusiastically appropriated by the modern Turkish nation-state and has transmuted Sinan into a symbol of the new born Turkish nation’s artistic creativity (NECIPOGLU, 2007).

This national identity that is given to Sinan has been reinforced many times by writers of the arts and architecture. Most notably the German modern architect Cornelius Gurlitt described Sinan as the “Turkish Renaissance”, while being an “exponent of modernist values of rational and architectonic form” (GURLITT, 1907).

16

05

AN ARCHITECTURAL GENIUS

THE RISE OF SINAN AS AN ARCHITECTURAL GENIUS

Sinan was first hailed as the creator of a unique Ottoman style, worthy of universal status, in the Fundamental Principles of Ottoman Architecture (NECIPOGLU, 2007). This was a monograph in Turkish, French, and German (Fig. 7 and 8) prepared by a diverse committee of Ottoman bureaucrats, artists, and architects in 1873. This publication was indirectly responding to Orientalist discourses that once denied artistic creativity to the Turkish people. Singling out the stylistic constants of Ottoman architecture, they defined architectural style as a historically evolving imperial tradition (NECIPOGLU, 2007).

“For a long time it has been said that the Ottomans (Osmanlis) do not have an architecture particular to their nation; being tribes with tents, they remained strangers to the art of construction, and their public edifices are the works of foreigners, Arab and Persian architects initially, and Greek architects afterwards. No other type of edifice provides better proof of this fact than their religious monuments.”

(TEXIER AND PULLAN, 1865) Observing that all later mosques in the Ottoman Empire imitated Hagia Sophia after its conversion into a Muslim sanctuary, Texier describes two sixteenth century examples (works of Sinan) constructed in this manner in Üsküdar: “These monuments were built in a period when Turkish architecture abandoned the Arab school, of which it had been an original reflection, only to throw itself into a bastard architecture that is neither Muslim nor Christian.” (TEXIER AND PULLAN, 1865) The earliest monograph on Turkish art was Türkische Kunst (1917) by Heinrich Glück, a pioneer in the field of Turkish art, launched by the studies of his teacher, mentor, and collaborator Josef Strzygowski, the director of the Institut für Kunstgeshichte at the University of Vienna (NECIPOGLU, 2007).

It was based on an inaugural lecture that he delivered in Istanbul for the founding of the short-lived Hungarian Institute. He highlights the agency of patrons and national artists like Sinan “who stamped each new artistic synthesis with the unchanging imprint of the Turkish spirit” (NECIPOGLU, 2007). The role of Sinan as the creator of a new conception of centralized domed space is also articulated in Glück’s Die Kunst der Osmanen (1922) which stresses the ‘national internationalism’ of Ottoman architecture and architectural decoration, along with the cosmopolitanism of Istanbul’s court culture. According to Glück, Sinan’s national school of architecture, with its distinctive mode of decoration epitomized in floral tile revetments, has an international dimension, for it fuses “Eastern and Western traditions more than any other school of Islamic architecture” (GLUECK AND DIEZ 1925).

The characteristics of the high Ottoman style, which echo Western classical norms of beauty, are embodied in the Süleymaniye and Selimiye mosques.

These are exemplars of Sinan’s incomparable ‘genius’ (NECIPOGLU, 2007).

The monographic descriptions of these mosques emphasize two additional 17

05 fundamental principles of Ottoman architecture; scenic siting and the perfect unity of the whole (LAUNAY et al., 1873). The Selimiye, which represents the culmination of Sinan’s style, is judged superior not only to the Süleymaniye but also to all other Islamic monuments. With its “great sobriety and the exquisite purity of its ornamentation,” it is a monument in which “the whole and the details are conceived in a particularly majestic, noble, and severe style” that nevertheless “does not exclude richness and above all grace” (LAUNAY et al., 1873). This “masterpiece par excellence of the illustrious master Sinan, the author of so many masterpieces,” is therefore “rightly considered the marvel of Ottoman architecture: a marvel of appropriate proportions, of severity and majesty of style, of gracious simplicity and purity of ornamentation.” (LAUNAY et al., 1873)

Image Opposite Fig. 6 and 7 Front and back cover of Fundamental Principles of Ottoman Architecture (Istanbul, 1873) 18

THE SÜLEYMANIYE CAMI

THE SÜLEYMANIYE MOSQUE AND KÜLLIYE IN ISTANBUL

06

Built upon the hill, overlooking the Bay of Golden Horn with its one side facing the coastline, the Süleymaniye Cami took 6 years to construct (15501556). This Friday mosque was one that looked to symbolize the authority of Sultan S Süleyman I, that was its political intention. The wish of Sultan Süleyman I was for the plan of Hagia Sophia to be used as a precedent for the mosque’s structure and form (NECIPOĞL, 1985). The main worship space is almost square in plan, around 58.5 × 57.5 meters, surrounded by four columns holding the main dome (TAKIKAWA, 2010). Sinan stated the following about this mosque: “To the engineers of the age and overseers of auspicious monuments it is manifest and apparent that although [formerly] buildings constructed in the style of Hagia Sophia did not possess elegance, this servant perfected the noble Friday mosque of Şehzade Sultan Mehmed—may God illumine his tomb—which was the model for the noble building complex [and mosque] of His Majesty Sultan Süleyman Khan—may he rest in peace. Subsequently, in this lofty edifice [i.e., the Süleymaniye complex] various beautiful works of art were created, each of which took form with elegance.” (CRANE AND AKIN, 2006) Sinan states here that Şehzade Cami (1543 - 48, Istanbul), an earlier mosque built in the memory of Süleyman’s son Sehzade Mehmed was a sophisticated form of Hagia Sophia. Süleymaniye Cami became, not a closer copy but a more refined idea of the Hagia Sophia. This statement also clarifies that Hagia Sophia influenced both the Şehzade Cami and Süleymaniye Cami. Though there are obvious similarities between both the religious buildings, Sinan built the Süleymaniye Cami to compete rather than imitate the Hagia Sophia (TAKIKAWA, 2010).

In the Süleymaniye Cami, it is evident that Sinan implemented the idea of a large central dome with two half domes on either side which is very similar to the design of Hagia Sophia. This meant that, Süleymaniye and Hagia Sophia became structurally similar. This structural similarity allowed for both buildings to achieve the massively overwhelming elliptical inner space. Though similarities run through the structure in both the Hagia Sophia and Süleymaniye Cami there are significant differences which exist, these derive from their religious backgrounds. In Süleymaniye Cami, he overcame the structural defect in Hagia Sophia and found a solution to create an original expression for a great Ottoman mosque (TAKIKAWA, 2010).

According to Christian Norberg-Schulz (1971), “Europe’s Christian churches separate space into segments creating a directional movement from the entrance to the apse.” Though Hagia Sophia, like Süleymaniye Cami, has a massive inner space there is still a sense of directionality within the building. Its two half domes, tympanums and colonnades all contribute to this longitudinal direction.

Within the space of a mosque the only emphasis on directionality that is 22

Previous Image Fig. 8 Silouhette of Selimiye Mosque at dawn (2014) Image Opposite Fig. 9 Interior of the Suleymaniye Mosque, Nave (ca. 1888)

06 shown is the direction of Mecca, to which Muslims pray. On this, David Gebhard (1963) points out; “One’s attention is drawn to the mihrab and the minber only when the building is being used for prayer, and then it is not the building itself which suggests a directional movement, but the individual involved in the religious ceremony.”

The characteristic of massiveness is a necessity in the space of a mosque; it helps create the visual sensation of concentration and gathering. The main arches that support the dome in the Süleymaniye allow for the heaviness of it be “transferred smoothly to the four columns and into the ground” (YERASIMOS, 2005). This, in turn lightens the tympanums’ role of a supporting system “allowing them to contribute to the outward expansion” (TAKIKAWA, 2010).

“When the main supporting columns are free standing, an ambulatory space can be expected, but the idea of an ambulatory space expressed in plan and elevation apparently did not find a sympathetic response either from Sinan himself or from other Turkish architects. Their ground floors constituted a functional and visual whole. That is why screening the centre form the aisles, as was done in Hagia Sophia for example, never appears in Sinan’s building; it is not even found in the Süleymaniye. His idea of central space was not the theoretical one represented by geometrically centralized plans such as one finds in Roman ambulatory buildings or Christian cruciform structures. Even in mausolea where an ambulatory would have been appropriate, he did not provide one. The ground floors were unarticulated and homogeneous.” (KUBAN, 1985) A strong characteristic that runs through Ottoman Mosques is the effect of connecting the inner and outer spaces, expanding the interior outwards.

We can clearly see that the aim of Sinan’s architecture is to create a space that seamlessly expands in all directions. On this, Yerasimos (2005) points out that “in Ottoman architecture, the unified interior space symbolized the community of the faithful and was therefore designed to be as open as possible.” Light plays an important role within the space of a mosque, the openings allow for the light to contribute to the visual openness of the internal space (KUBAN, 1985). In Hagia Sophia, the light entering from the windows running alongside the nave is blocked because a row of columns screening the nave space and aisle. This means the light is barely able to exercise its influence on the space. With the combination of this and the wall of the apse with its stained glass which also creates a similar effect, an atmosphere is created that feels isolated from the outer world.

Image Opposite Fig. 10 Image of Mosque Entrance (2014)

By contrast, in Süleymaniye Cami, light is unobstructed, allowing the light to poor in through the consistently placed openings; “in the upper part of the drum, half domes, tympanums, exedras and on the lower level walls” (TAKIKAWA, 2010). This allows for the interior to become illuminated evenly, enhancing the unity of the space; 25

06 “A transparency appears in the mosque’s whole space, and when we enter the inner space, we feel the centrifugal, outward expansion, which may be called an expanding effect. Yet, this effect of centrifugal expansion is not the only effect created by the inner space. Contradictory as it may sound, the space also creates a centripetal, attracting effect that leads the attention toward the top.” (TAKIKAWA, 2010) We can see this idea of ‘outward expansion’ that Takikawa mentions here where the main dome’s arches are gently pointed. They smoothly transfer the perpendicular lines of the four columns from the bottom to upper areas. Furthermore most of its openings are designed in a vertical manner and arranged on the wall to form vertical lines moving from the lower part to the top. Kuban (1987) tells us, regarding the light in Sinan’s mosques, that he “increased the density of light in mosque interiors to reveal all the boundaries, and make the viewer comprehend all the articulations of the interior space.” Though Charles Martin (1930) argues that this hinders the religious spirit, necessary for a place of worship, in the Ottoman mosques, Kuban (1985) points out that “a mosque is not intended for mystical experience.”

The investigation into decoration within Ottoman architecture, as Necipoğlu (2006) points out, has been somewhat neglected in the studies.

The structural originality of Sinan’s architectural manifestations are what most Turkish scholars have focused on in order to emphasise that Islamic architecture has progressed and developed through history. However the decorations are an integral element that contributes to the spatiality of the architecture of mosques, especially in Süleymaniye Cami. The essential characteristics of the configuration of the mosque’s spatiality can be approached more appropriately if we take into consideration the decorations parallel to that of the analysis of structure.

One example of decoration within the Süleymaniye Cami is the Muqarnas which feature on a number of areas of the inner space. Obscuring the form of the structure by creating a “delicate flickering of light and shade” (TAKIKAWA, 2010), they enhance the massiveness of the space that they encompass. In addition to the Muqarnas, features such as the circular windows harmonise with the inscriptions which are seen on the main dome, half domes and the exedras. Here we see once again with the decorations harmonising with the structural elements, they create “coexisting centrifugal and centripetal visual effects within the worship space” (TAKIKAWA, 2010). Upon entering the mosque, this visual effect draws the eye upwards, enhancing the sense of centripetal attraction.

However, while the eye is being attracted upwards there is also a part of their attention that is being pulled towards the outer spaces. With the permeability of the solid elements there is the familiarity the radial, centrifugal movement.

With all of its grandeur in structure and decoration, the Süleymaniye Mosque sits within one of the largest of the Ottoman building complexes, 26

Image Opposite Left Fig. 11 Interior of Suleymaiye Mosque (2014) Image Opposite Right Fig. 12 Interior of Suleymaiye Mosque (2014)

06 or Kulliye. It is the centre piece to what is a “rationally planned socioreligious complex” (NECIPOĞLU, 1985). The various social, religious and educational functions are tightly organized around the mosque itself.

These mosques were built to provide services, mainly social, religious and educational ones (NECIPOĞLU, 1985). Once Constantinople fell to the Ottomans in 1453, the more elaborate imperial complexes were built and were preferred by the public to the previously used Zawiya mosques, a scaled down variety of the Kulliye.

The dependencies that stand separate from the Süleymaniye in a geometrically organized fashion consist of the two mausolea; one being the tomb of the Sultan and the other his wife, Haseki Hürrem Sultan. These were built in a walled enclosure at the centre with the mosque. The outer courtyard keeps these separate from the remaining buildings of the complex. The smaller buildings surrounding the site include four general madrasas, which flank either side of the main square. There are also two specialized madrasas – one for the study of medicine, the other for the study of hadith. The smallest building of the complex is the children school where they are taught the Koran. There is also a hospital, a hostel, a public kitchen, a hamam or public bath, a caravanserai and a row of small shops.

Necipoğlu (1985) tells us that the madrasas in the Süleymaniye complex “represent the growing role of the Ulema”. Because of these Ulema, the Sunni principles were to legitimise Suleyman’s rule over the orthodox state.

Taking up a paradisal theme, much like the interior of the Qibla wall in the Süleymaniye, are the mausolea of Süleyman and his wife. The decoration of each take references from the garden of paradise, with motifs of blossoming trees and flowers. When entering the mausoleum of Süleyman you understand that this is a precious space, “the ceiling decorated with palmette motifs and ceramic stars” (NECIPOGLU, 1985). These are accented with rock crystals and precious stones at the centre of the dome.

The dependencies of the Süleymaniye complex are easily classified; standard schemes and functionality in their building types is what they represent. The Süleymaniye is distinguishable from other mosques of the same; this is because of the way the traditional architectural motifs are used in a creative composition. What else gave it its originality was the ‘monumentalisation’ of architectural forms; through terracing its geometric plan skilfully adapts to the sloping terrain of Istanbul’s third hill.

“Its monumental scale, its priceless multi-coloured building stone, its numerous minarets, they all contribute to the symbolic effect. Its imperial site on Istanbul’s third hill is particularly significant. From that place it dominates the city.” (NECIPOĞLU, 1985) The outer precinct is surrounded by three walls, all pierced with windows while the fourth, looking to the east, “was left open to avoid blocking the view” (NECIPOĞLU, 1985). This overlooks the Golden Horn and giving panoramic views of the Old Palace and the Topkapi Palace; past that are scenes of Üsküdar and over to Anatolia. From the outer courtyard of the 28

Image Opposite Fig. 13 Plan and Section of the Suleymaniye Mosque (2013)

06 Süleymaniye complex its dominative state over the beautiful panoramic landscape becomes obvious and, as in the words of Evliya Çelebi, the mosque’s congregation “can watch the world” (NECIPOĞLU, 1985).

Not only was the Süleymaniye complex an architectural triumph, the integration of the complex into the social fabric of the Ottoman state should be considered also and it deserves attention. Over the eight years that it took for the Süleymaniye complex to be constructed an army of workers made it a realisation. The power and integrity of the Ottoman state is portrayed by the complicated organisation of transporting the huge amount of building material. The strictly imposed opening date of the Süleymaniye meant that workers laboured day and night for two months before hand (NECIPOĞLU, 1985).

Although the Süleymaniye Mosque was Sinan’s direct answer to the challenges and demands of Sultan Suleiman, it became a piece of architecture that Sinan found the underpinning of great Ottoman mosques.

Even with all of its grandeur and architectural ambition, Sinan created a more original Ottoman architecture embodied in Selimiye Cami at Edirne.

Image Opposite Fig. 14 The view from Süleymaniye Mosque, Istanbul (2012) 31

THE SELIMIYE CAMI

07

SINAN’S HIGHEST ACHIEVEMENT OF OTTOMAN ARCHITECTURE Selimiye Cami, built at Edirne from 1567 to 1574, was one of Mimar Sinan’s final projects, being in his eighties when engaged with it. The worship space of the Friday mosque, which is around 40 x 45 meters, is covered by the main dome sitting at 45 meters above ground creating a cubed central space. More often than not, the spatial quality of architecture is influence by the plan, therefore one would expect for different plans to create a different spatial outcome. However, though the plan for the Süleymaniye Cami and Selimiye Cami are different, the visual effects in both internal spaces have a common theme.

The Süleymaniye Mosque, as we know, has four columns, whereas in Selimiye Cami, eight columna are erected. These all support the main dome; “they are united with walls and the boundary between the columns and the walls is ambiguous” (TAKIKAWA, 2010). In the Selimiye an emphasis is put on the “unity of the inner space” through the columns being combined with the walls, all keeping a uniform verticality. The columns, eight in total create an octagonal shape within the square floor plan. According to Takikawa (2010) this “creates the effect of an uninterrupted upward transition”.

The movement flows from the square on the ground floor, through the octagonal upper level and reaching the round domed roof, hence the emphasized unity of the inner space. There is a slow movement from the ridged square ground floor through to the circular domed roof, both linked by the octagonal columns.

Contributing to this aesthetic effect is the smooth form of the structure itself and in turn enhancing how massive the internal space is. Much like the Süleymaniye Cami, the eyes are guided upwards to the central dome by the use of pointed arches between each pier. The openings on the drum and the tympanums are taller in Selimiye than Süleymaniye (TAKIKAWA, 2010). These have a close relationship to the structural integrity of the architecture with the tympanums acting as an important structural element.

To further attract the eye vertically the numerous windows are shaped with this purpose in mind, much like the columns and pointed arches. The orientation towards the centre of the main dome is strengthened through all of the architectural and structural techniques implemented by Sinan.

Incidentally, as in Süleymaniye Cami, these pointed arch forms produce not only the attention toward the centre but also produce this centrifugal expansion discussed earlier. The eight arches surrounding the central space create this visual effect of expanding the domed space outwards, this is obvious from the plan (Fig.15a). This centripetal and centrifugal impression that is present in the Selimiye Cami is contributed unequivocally by a series of decorative structures, much like the Süleymaniye.

These decorations used in Selimiye Cami enhance the visual affect more so than in the Süleymaniye. They accentuate the expanding and gathering effect within the space. The muqarnas in Selimiye also helps achieve the impression of smooth surfaces of the space. Muqarnas are used more widely in the Selimiye Cami, “more so compared with Süleymaniye Cami or any of Sinan’s other sultanic mosques” according to Takikawa (2010). The 32

Image Opposite Right Fig. 15 The view from Süleymaniye Mosque, Istanbul (2012) Image Opposite Left Top Fig. 15a Selimiye Mosque Plan, Edirne (2005) Image Opposite Left Bottom Fig. 15b Selimiye Mosque Section, Edirne (2012)

07 muqarnas are used liberally as decoration in spaces such as the Qibla wall.

The obscuring of borders between the columns and arches by using the decoration of the muqarnas promotes this recurring theme of an upward movement that we see throughout the architecture.

As with every one of Sinan’s buildings, the openings in the Selimiye are significantly important, allowing natural light to enter the internal spaces.

There are as many as 380 openings in the Selimiye, more so than the number in Süleymaniye (TAKIKAWA, 2010). From eye level on the ground floor to the base part of the dome, the openings are evenly distributed creating an inner space that is lit in a homogeneous and even fashion. This experience of the internal space spreading to the external is created because of the transparency made possible by the openings being distributed in an even manner.

In many mosques the blanks of the pendentives are often filled with round inscriptions, this is evident in the Süleymaniye Cami. Though in the Selimiye there is a rare use of the inscriptions as it gives a strong contrast to highlight the ornamental writing. Sinan was aware that if these were used on each pendentive, the eyes would be distracted, caught by their decoration and do not move smoothly from the lower levels to the upper and central part of the main dome. In contrast to many of his other mosques, Sinan has decided to leave these pendentives clean by not using the inscriptions; this yields a smooth upward movement for the eye. Referring to Selimiye, Sinan declares, “art attains in it complete realization” (CRANE AND AKIN, 2006) “It was a symbol of the great Ottoman mosque architecture. The structure and decoration combine to create the strong Ottoman idiomatic effect, that is, the centripetal and centrifugal, expanding and gathering effect. This effect is attained primarily because the structure and decoration are combined to achieve a common and consistent goal: they enhance each other.” (TAKIKAWA, 2010) Sinan did not use a set of traditional standards that had been previously established while designing his mosques, even on the most modest of parts such as the openings and columns.

“He did not have a taste for the modular use of column orders.

Having rejected this kind of convenient regularizing element, he had to develop a dynamic arrangement for the façades and achieve plasticity, not by the shape of the individual elements, but by the totality of the building volume.” (KUBAN, 1985) Image Opposite Top Left Fig. 16 Selimiye Mosque Muqarnas, Edirne (2014) Image Opposite Top Right Fig. 17 Selimiye Mosque Arches, Edirne (2012) Image Opposite Bottom Fig. 18 Selimiye Mosque, Edirne (1986)

With each mosque, Sinan seems to have comprehended the importance of the whole design and the integrity of the detail. Each element is devised with a harmonious effect, knowing how important this is to the spatiality specific to the mosque. A visual event within his mosques is created through the relationship between the structural and decorative elements, changing to satisfy the aim of each individual mosque he created.

35

LE CORBUSIER AND THE ORIENT

08

Sinan’s work itself was not only admired by architects of the same era or one with a strong interest in the Ottoman style. Le Corbusier, one of the greatest modern architects to have lived took great influence not only from the vernacular housing through his ‘Journey to the East’ but also from the great architectural phenomena’s of Istanbul.

“Stamboul is a closely knit agglomeration; every mortal’s dwelling is of wood, every dwelling of Allah is of stone… it hangs against the side of this great hill like a suspended carpet of violet wool blended with tints of emeralds; the mosques on the crests are its prestigious fasteners. Here are the only two types of architecture: the big flattened roofs covered with worn tiles and the bulbs of the mosques with minarets shooting up.” (LE CORBUSIER, 1988) Throughout Le Corbusier’s lengthy career there forms a continuing thread of fascination with Islamic architecture and urbanism. His travel notes and sketches that were recorded the first “powerful manifestation of this lifelong interest” (CELIK, 1992) in the Orient.

In Le Corbusier’s theoretical work and practice it is evident that the journey he undertook to the East played a seminal role (ZAKNIC, 1989). From as early as 1915 there are references of the urban forms and architecture of Istanbul and other parts of the Islamic world in his writings. These include publications such as L’Art decorative d’aujourd’hui (1925), La Ville Radieuse (1933), Quand les cathedrales etaient blanches (1937), and Le Modulor (1949) (ZAKNIC, DE FRANCLIEU and CORBUSIER, 1982).

A number of his early villas, such as the Villa Jeanneret-Perret (1912), Villa Favre-Jacot (1912), and Villa Schwob (1916), one which I will be looking more thoroughly into later on in my research, are said to be inspired by this ‘eastern’ architecture. “In terms of their interior organization around a central hall, their simple spaces, massing, and blank street facades” (CELIK, 1992) they resemble to an extent the houses seen around Istanbul.

The Mediterranean vernacular with an Islamic touch surfaces sporadically in his built work - for example, in the Weekend House (1935), the Roq and Rob project (1949), and the Maison Jaoul (1956).

In the later period of his career we see a sporadic movement towards a Mediterranean and Islamic fusion, this is evident in his works such as the Weekend House (1935), the Roq and Rob project (1949), and the Maison Jaoul (1956) (CELIK, 1992).

The overriding themes in Le Corbusier’s observations of other cultures, not surprisingly, are architecture and urban forms within the cities context.

These observations didn’t stand alone; they were accompanied by an investigation into the social aspects of the cultures, in particular, religious and sexual ones - two of the three realms historian Norman Daniel (1966) defines as having characterized Islam for centuries in European discourse.

Previous Image Fig. 19 Istanbul at night (2014)

Literature, travel accounts and paintings were where Le Corbusier

Image Opposite Fig. 20 House in Istabul (2014)

38

08 undoubtedly first encountered the so called ‘Orient’. Certain popular authors, among them Thophile Gautier and his book, Voyage Pittoresque en Algirie, appear in his writings. Furthermore, the illustrations in travel books like this one must have shaped Le Corbusier’s expectations. In a rerun of innumerable travel accounts, Le Corbusier first viewed Istanbul from a boat in May 1911.

“Thus we did approach by sea, like in old times, to watch all these things unfold.” (LE CORBUSIER, 1988) This was a strategy carefully planned by Corbusier, in order to be welcomed by an image already formed in his mind by everything he had read. Nineteenth Century travel books on the Ottoman capital followed a set pattern, the opening pages describing the striking impressions of the city from the sea, divided into three settlements by water, with Istanbul on one side of the Golden Horn, Galata on the other, and Uskiidar yet farther away on the Asian banks of the Bosphorus; they talked at length about the harmony of colours, the skyline defined by domes and minarets, and the reflections of the built and natural forms on the water. To Le Corbusier, then, this was a familiar moment, much rehearsed in his imagination (LE CORBUSIER, 1988). He knew what he wanted to see; “I want Stamboul to sit upon her Golden Horn all white, as raw as chalk, and I want light to screech on the surfaces of domes which swell the heap of milky cubes, and minarets should thrust upward, and the sky must be blue.... Under the bright light, I want a city all white, but the green cypresses must be there to punctuate it. All the blue of the sea shall reflect the blue of the sky.” (LE CORBUSIER, 1988)

Image Opposite Fig. 21 Le Corbusier Sketch of Istanbul from a boat (1988)

On that particular day, however, it rained, the sea turned grey, the Golden Horn looked muddy, mosques dirty, and houses flimsy. When he landed on the shore, Corbusier was disappointed even further by the cosmopolitan atmosphere of the streets, writing that it was “swarming with a crowd of Greeks, Germans, and French, all that suspect blend of the Leventine” (LE CORBUSIER, 1988). Yet the burden of Orientalist tradition compelled him to partake in the collective passion expressed by other Europeans before him; “I had to work at it,” he admitted, “and most of all I wanted to love this place” (LE CORBUSIER, 1988). As witnessed by his numerous sketches (Fig21.) Le Corbusier often relived the experience of viewing Istanbul from across the sea on the commuter ferries that connected the shores of the city, thus finding something of the mental image he had constructed back in Europe. In-deed, Corb surpassed the formulas of Orientalist descriptions by reading the urban form analytically; he studied the careful placement of monuments in respect to topography that resulted in what Le Corbusier (1988) described as “summits formed by really enormous mosques” as well as their relationship to each other in the calculated composition of the skyline.

In Istanbul Le Corbusier’s eye and pen had wandered from the monuments, to the side streets defined by blank garden walls, to the konaks; large 41

08 mansions that he considered architectural masterpieces, to the simple houses.

The city of Istanbul had an aesthetic appeal for Le Corbusier, created by the powerful relationship that existed between the geography of its surroundings and the architectural forms, turning it into a unique piece of poetry. Le Corbusier (1988) tells us that the poetry in Istanbul resided in the “unforgettable spectacle” of the urban form. The glow of the evening sunlight coming from behind gave the city a monolithic appearance (LE CORBUSIER, 1988).

For Le Corbusier “good urbanism meant formal unity” (CELIK, 1992) even in the earlier period of his career. This formal unity was achieved in Istanbul by the modular design system that, following an “elementary geometry” (LE CORBUSIER, 1988), underlay the composition of the great mosque complexes such as the Suleymaniye; the cubic masses capped with the large domes acted as modules, being “centred, measured and proportioned in relation to the sanctuary they belong to” (Le Corbusier, 1988). The integrity of the urban form is, in the eyes of Le Corbusier, dependent therefore on the cubic elements thus making Istanbul a masterpiece of urbanism if we take the statement Le Corbusier (1981) made that “great architecture is cubic”.

Le Corbusier, in his book ‘Towards a New Architecture’ explains the development of the plan in Islamic architecture as follows; “The plan proceeds from within to without; the exterior is the result of an interior. The elements of architecture are light and shade, walls and space.” (LE CORBUSIER, 1989) Le Corbusier, once he introduced this hypothesis, claims he should show that the exterior is always an interior. To defend and somewhat prove this ideology he uses the Green Mosque in Bursa, built from 1415 - 1422. His very interesting impressions are described by Le Corbusier further on in the same book (1989). He explains the exterior as a result of an interior by comparing it to a ‘soap bubble’; a bubble being a “perfect and harmonious” object if the “breath has been evenly distributed and regulated from the inside” (LE CORBUSIER, 1989).

So you may appreciate the dimensions with which the space intends to impress the occupier, you enter the Green Mosque by a doorway no more than the height of a human; a change of scale is forced onto you by the small atrium. When entering you feel the noble size of the mosque with your eyes taking its measure from the dimensions of the street. You stand then in this space, encompassed by white marble, filled with light. Looking onwards you see this second space, a space of similar dimensions, raised upon several steps (the idea of repetition in a minor key) but this one is barely half lit. On each side of the central space there are smaller spaces, subdued to shadow, contrasting with the brightness of the space in which you’re standing (KORTAN, 1991).

42

Image Opposite Fig. 22 Aerial View of Istanbul (Undated)

08 “There you have motive and intention. The cluster of ideas, this is the means that has been used. In consequence, at Bursa as at Hagia Sophia, as at Suleiman Mosque of Stamboul, the exterior results from the interior.” (LE CORBUSIER, 1989) As in the example discussed of the Green Mosque, dealing with the architecture of the ‘inner space’ problem and managing to express this in a manner that is beautiful, while meeting the practical and psychological needs becomes a key task for Le Corbusier in his own architecture.

Image Opposite Fig. 23 Section of Green Mosque, Bursa (1988) 44

THE VILLA SCHWOB

LA CHAUX-DE-FONDS - SWITZERLAND - 1916

09

After arriving back to his Swiss home town of La Chaux-de-Fonds and before he became Le Corbusier, Charles Eduard Jeanneret pursued a brief and not very professional career as a local architect (DAVIES, 2006).

During this short period he designed six houses in the town, one of them being a house for his parents. Though none of them show many hints of the Modernist that would grow from Corbusier, the Villa Schwob (or the more apt Villa Turque) which was the last in the series of six is somewhat different and more original than its rather conventional predecessors (DAVIES, 2006). Villa Schwob was also the only one of the six that Le Corbusier was happy to call his own.

Having grown rich from the business of watchmaking, the local Schwob family were cultured. They had seen the house of Le Corbusier’s parents and wanted something similar for themselves (DAVIES, 2006). Corbusier was fresh from his travels around Europe, the Voyage d’Orient being one of them and he was looking to make a ‘fresh start’ with this important opportunity that had been given to him. He strained for originality in almost every detail and Colin Davies (2006) believes that “the effort is obvious, resulting in a clumsy complexity”. Though it is one of Le Corbusier’s lesser known houses, the Villa Schwob was important to Le Corbusier’s career, “giving him a chance to experiment with ideas such as the Dom-Ino System, the free plan, and mathematical order, which he refined in his later buildings” (ARCHINO, 2013).

When the Villa Schwob was constructed in 1916 Le Corbusier had been making decisive steps towards Modernism in the two years prior. One of these steps was with the housing system design called the Domino, or ‘Dom-ino’. The name derives from the Latin word ‘domus’ meaing house, and ‘ino’ evoking innovation. The Villa Schwob has reminiscent features of the sketches that Le Corbusier had made of this system (DAVIES, 2006) but the drawing of the bare structure became the icon, the depiction of this Modernist style (Fig.26). The skeleton of the Domino House comprises of three rectangular floor slabs, the ground floor slab being supported and raised by six blocks. The subsequent slabs are then supported by six slender columns. The three separate slabs are connected by a set of reinforced stairs on the one end, this allows for circulation through the structure. The columns or ‘pilotis’ as he later termed them (DAVIES, 2006) are set back from the outer edges of the slabs. This gave a certain freedom for the architect with how to treat the non-load bearing, infill panel walls. The Villa Schwob, although providing hints of these characteristics, is notably uneasy in its form, being an unresolved mix of old and new approaches. Its large size and the inclusion of rooms such as a games room and servants quarters; rooms that would be deemed unnecessary and excessive, clearly shows that the Villa Schwob was never built for reproduction. Le Corbusier used the ‘Dom-ino’ system for an experiment of space and form, rather than it being an affordability project (ARCHINO, 2013).

From the exterior there is a reference of form to the mosque complexes in Istanbul. This is seen where the floors are distinguished by the layering of each one. As you can see from the North Elevation (Fig.27) the ground floor 46

Image Opposite Top Right Fig. 24 La Villa Turque, construite à La Chaux-deFonds entre 1916 et 1917, signée Le Corbusier. (2011) Image Opposite Top Left Fig. 25 Le Corbusier.Villa Schwob, de Le Corbusier vista desde afuera (Undated)

09 sits low and slender with the first floor sitting on top of this. The first floor raises out of the walls of the ground floor much like the mosques rising from the one story high outer buildings; the madrasas, hospitals and caravanserais.

The second floor then feels like the cap of the house, the dome on the mosque. Though it is obviously a lot more pared down than the decorative and elaborate mosques, Le Corbusier may well have tried to take this form of the mosque complexes and implemented it on a much smaller scale to the Villa Schwob.

The core of the composition is a two story box, square on plan and if the height of the basement is included, almost cubic in volume. The double height salon is lit by a large window that is punctured from the south elevation. This becomes the main spatial event in the house. This may be a reference to the geometric nature of a mosque’s main hall, these generally being cube in form with an idea of light reaching down from above. Much like the Suleymaniye or Selimiye main halls, the core of the Villa Schwob has this sense of ‘upwardness’. The columns help with the verticality of the space, placed on each corner of the hall, with the definition of them running right through to the ceiling two stories above.

These reinforced concrete columns have some relationship with the columns at the Suleymaniye, giving control and proportion to the space as a whole.

This central area is intersected symmetrically by two rounded forms or apses on either side, projecting too far to be mere bay windows. The apses on either side of the house contain the dining room in one and the other a games room on the ground floor. On the first floor the apses both contain the two main bedrooms. These are reminiscent of the structures that surround the main hall of a mosque. As mentioned before, Le Corbusier may be trying to deal with the architecture of the ‘inner space’, much like the Green Mosque, Bursa. These spaces are in an obvious hierarchal battle with the main space. These peripheral rooms surrounding the main hall are important for Le Corbusier, their versatility helps with the overall aesthetic for the home; “There is a clear logical separation between the functional zones such as the public ground floor and private rooms above.” (JENCKS, 1973) Baker (1984) claims that Le Corbusier designed the Villa Schwob with the “theme of curves against orthogonals” in mind and “a basic contrast of cubic against cylindrical forms” is what we see. The contrasting geometric shapes make the Villa Schwob are reminiscent of the spaces surrounding the main hall of the mosque. Using the curvilinear shapes against the orthogonal help the rooms appear more balanced, which Le Corbusier thought created order and transcendence within the space.

On the first floor the salon can either be viewed from the balcony access to the north end or by little grilled spyholes that are set into an otherwise blank oriel. These oriels are suggestive of the oriels that project from the 48

Image Opposite Top Left Fig. 26 Domino Model Drawing (Undated) Image Opposite Top Right Fig. 27 Geometry Sketch of Villa Schwob (2015) Image Opposite Middle Fig. 28 and 29 Villa Schwob Gorund and First Floor Plan (2006) Image Opposite Bottom Fig. 30 Villa Schwob North Elevation (2006)

09 street faces of Turkish homes, with the small amount of glazing allowing minimal views into the building, or in the case of the Villa Schwob, into the private areas of the house. Though it has a relationship with the domestic architecture of Istanbul, these oriels have an opposite action that is trying to be achieved by the interiors of Sinan’s mosques. The mosques are clear of any visual disruption from the floor to the ceiling, whereas the oriels are a disruption and make the eye wonder.

Function seems to have been assigned to spaces rather arbitrarily, creating a plan that resembles an ad hoc internal adaption of the rigidly symmetrical form that is to be seen externally. The kitchen has been unable to fit, forcing it to be hidden behind the garden wall to the right of the main entrance.

Mentioned before, the Villa has the name locally of Villa Turque. This may be the reason why people look for Turkish connotations or origins with the villa, though there may be another reason for this name. Allen Brooks (1997) believes this name may come from a term used in French slang, ‘turque’, which carries the meaning strange, weird or unconventional. This is maybe what the inhabitants of Le Chaux-de-Fonds had in their mind.

The Villa Schwob is not one of Le Corbusier’s most recognisable buildings but was an important intermission in his career. At the point of its design Le Corbusier was exploring a number of theories such as the Purist aims of order and the mathematical precision in architecture, both taking influence from the forms in Islamic architecture. The Villa Schwob marked the beginning of some of Le Corbusier’s ideals in architecture. These include the idea of free space and the roof garden. Though his design became somewhat more minimal and reduced, the Villa Schwob became a foundation for the design of his buildings that followed.

Image Opposite Left Fig. 31 IVilla Schwob Interior, Le Corbusier (2012) Image Opposite Right Fig. 32 Oriel attached to the side of Turkich House (2014) 51

10

MAISONS JAOUL

NEUILLY-SUR-SEINE - FRANCE - 1951 Questions were asked when critics of architecture first saw the Maisons Jaoul. How could the pioneer of the machine age, Le Corbusier, a man thought to be the prophet of Purism have designed something so primitive?

Where were the pilotis, the roof gardens, the ribbon windows? Where had these brick walls, tiled vaults and turf-covered roofs come from?

It all seemed like a betrayal of Modernism (DAVIES, 2006). Le Corbusier had begun to experiment with this change in design sensibility with the Weekend House, built before the war in 1935. The project, according to Hans Girsberger (1960) had to be “as little visible as possible”, a principle that had been imposed form the beginning. The low vaulted concrete roofs sitting softly on the exposed stone masonry walls began this pattern of using natural materials; masonry, timber and brick as we see in the Roq and Rob Housing Project (1949) and then in the Maisons Jaoul respectively.

An article by the British architect James Stirling in the Architectural Review, September 1955, described it as “disturbing to find little reference to the rational principles which are the basis of the Modern Movement” (STIRLING, 1955). Although, only a year later Stirling himself was designing blocks of flats in Surrey which characterised as this new, more primitive brick and concrete style that we see at the Maisons Jaoul. This bafflement with the style of the houses was never really justified. Ever since the completion of the Villa Savoye in 1931 Le Corbusier had been moving towards this direction of design. The Petite Maison de Weekend, built in 1937, for example had vaulted roofs which were covered in turf. It may be true that Corbusier seemed to have regarded Maisons Jaoul as the definitive statement of this new ‘post-war’ style. Caroline Benton (2009) feels that the Maisons Jaoul are where Le Corbusier’s search for a “direct, expressive, and tactile quality of building” lie.

Image Opposite Top Left Fig. 33 Interior de la Weekend house, Le Corbusier, París (1935) Image Opposite Top Right Fig. 34 Jaoul Houses / Architecte: Le Corbusier (Undated) Image Opposite Middle Fig. 35 Maisons Jaoul Floor Plans (2006) Image Opposite Bottom Fig. 36 Maisons Jaoul Section (2006)

The work processes that Corbusier went through to develop the design for these houses was extensive. Moving through countless versions and more than 500 drawings were made, all for a medium sized pair of suburban houses. Though they were separated in the final scheme, a lot of time was spent trying to link the houses together. Standing at the front of the site, House A was built for husband and wife Andre and Suzanne Jaoul.

Situated behind House A is House B, this was built for their son Michael and his family. The ground floor level is raised up half a story; this is because the site originally sloped down to the street. Underneath is a shared garage, accessible from both houses.

A team of highly qualified labour men became a key ingredient to the poetic beauty of what was to be created throughout the Maisons Jaoul (Benton, 2009). One of the other aspects of the Maisons Jaoul that helped create these poetic notions through the house was a “fully glazed wall fitted with an assembly of proportional wooden panels, fittings and strips of ventilation openings” (Benton, 2009). The interior as a result of these windows is an environment that holds its warmth, more so like any other of Le Corbusier’s domestic projects.

In plan the houses are both rectangles which are divided longitudinally into 53

10 a wide and narrow bay; this gives three possible room widths. It is a system that is found in both houses, though applied slightly differently in each one.

We see in section again, much like the Villa Schwob, perhaps deriving from the forms of the Sinan mosques, a three tiered structure (excluding the underground garage). The third level on both houses becomes a centre piece, becoming a more reduced idea of the domed roofs of the mosques. Although there is a formal geometry to the exterior, the interior becomes something more interesting where terracotta tiles are formed into shallow barrel vaults reaching from one side to the other. This gives an extra dimension to the interior space, where Le Corbusier is experimenting with the soft curvilinear shapes set against the harder surfaces of the walls and floor. We see this “theme of curves against orthogonals” again that Baker (1984) talks of. Though, unlike in the mosques of Sinan where the domed roofs create sense of openness and ‘upwardness’, the vault seems to create more of an enclosure, almost cave-like. This is clearly an influence from his Mediterranean travels. Primitive in its appearance the structural system of the concrete arches is actually a rather sophisticated adaption of the Catalan Vault, a traditional construction technique found throughout the Mediterranean.

One of Le Corbusier’s ‘Five Points Towards a New Architecture’ is the introduction of horizontal windows, with the use of the horizontal window providing the possibility of maximum illumination. This is somewhat abandoned in the Maisons Jaoul, where we see the brick facades broken up by vertical windows and small square windows. This has an accentuation to the exterior walls of the outer buildings in a complex such as the Suleimanyie, where the facades are almost blank other than the small, rhythmic windows punched out of the stone. Though Le Corbusier has ignored the idea of an even distribution of light across the floor, rather there is punctuation of light at intervals, creating this sense of enclosure once again.

There is an attitude of Brutalism in the work that Le Corbusier has created with the Maisons Jaoul; the curved roofs with their deliberately mortarsmeared brickwork give a rough feel to the architecture. Though, as with all of Le Corbusier’s architecture, they are subtle and ambiguous. The spaces on the inside flow seamlessly into one another. The natural materials; brickwork, terracotta, timber, board-marked concrete and the occasional painted wall, they glow under the multi-directional daylight. This primitive yet poetic architecture brought something new to the movement of post war modernism.

Image Opposite Fig. 37 Maison Jaoul, Paris (2006) 54

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

11

This paper set out to investigate the role that Mimar Sinan played during his long standing career as Chief Architect to the Ottoman Empire during the apogee of the Classical period in Ottoman architecture (1437 – 1703).

I wanted the paper to discuss why he is little known in Western architecture but yet is considered an architectural ‘genius’ by some writers. From this I aimed to examine the possibility of Sinan’s architecture influencing the Modernist architect, Le Corbusier and his design rational. I wanted to find if the architecture of Le Corbusier didn’t just belong to the modernism response but spoke the dialect of an architecture that is seen in the Orient.

In this final chapter I will review the findings I have made and discuss the importance of what I have discovered. I will also conclude by discussing what directions future research on this subject could take.

To have an idea if Le Corbusier did take any influence from the work of Mimar Sinan, I had to make an investigation into what were the key components in Sinan’s architecture. I decided to take the two most prominent pieces of architecture that Sinan had created, the Suleymaniye and Selimiye Mosques, the favourite of the public and the favourite of Sinan himself respectively. Through the analysis of these two buildings I found that the characteristics that set Sinan’s work apart and make him warrant of being labelled ‘genius’ was his ability to use light more effectively and the beautiful forms created in his architecture. Both of these, along with the rest of the aspect in his work, create the “perfect unity of the whole” (LAUNAY et al., 1873). The Selimiye is described by Launay et al. (1873) as a marvel of appropriate proportions, of severity and majesty of style, of gracious simplicity and purity of ornamentation. It could be argued that these are the aspects that influenced Le Corbusier as he wondered through the spaces, recording through sketches what the atmosphere was like, how the enclosures become something other than a series of walls but allows you to experience the inside while being aware of the outside.

Though there seems to be an attitude of scale, geometry and light that is reminiscent of the architecture of Sinan or of Istanbul, Le Corbusier was a pioneer in his own right. His influences shone through in his architecture in some respects, especially in the Villa Schwob that were discussed but they were merely helping him shape his own ideas. The development of the Dom-ino style house, the tenets of Purism and his mathematical precision in architecture were arguably helped by the ideals behind the architecture of Sinan and Istanbul. The idea of the columns becoming removed from the outer edges gave the architect an expressional freedom in the façade. We see this same idea in the interior of the grand mosques, the columns supporting the incredible domed roofs fall within the boundaries of the building. With the archetypes of the ‘Dom-ino’ House beginning to take shape in Le Corbusier’s houses, in 1927 he devised the idea of the ‘Five Points Towards a New Architecture’ mentioned briefly. This is an architecture manifesto noted by Le Corbusier (TSOW, 2013) that dictated his technique in the design of many of his houses, most notably the Villa Savoye. These principles could all tie back to the geometric form of the mosque, the structural qualities and the lighting. The centrifugal and centripetal visual effects that are created by the harmonising of the light with the structural elements are something that Le Corbusier is looking for with the horizontal glazing and the free design of the floor plan offered by the ‘pilotis’.

58

Previous Image Fig. 38 Maison Jaoul (2014) Image Opposite Left Fig. 39 Mosque Entrance, Istanbul (2014) Image Opposite Right Fig. 40 Mosque cleaning space (2014)

59

Image Opposite Fig. 41 Sultan Ahmed Mosque, Istanbul (2014) 60

11 There is substantial evidence that Le Corbusier had clearly taken influence from the architecture of Istanbul, whether it be from the small timber housing or the monumental architecture of its mosques, many of which Sinan had designed. His travels through Turkey were a profound moment for Le Corbusier; his experiences through the Orient educated him more so with his architectural sensibilities than many of his other excursion. Bülent Tanju (1999) suggests that it is not the journeys through Greece and the Mediterranean but Istanbul is where Le Corbusier’s unique outlook is born.

Le Corbusier sees an ensemble in Istanbul, with its mix of open spaces, vernacular housing and the prestigious mosques. These three elements; the naturally flowing public realm binds the “settled old city with the sacred realm of the stone mosques” (OLCAYTO, 2013). The centre of this composition is the mosque, where Le Corbusier ‘expresses the fundamental principles of his architectural discourse for the first time’ (OLCAYTO, 2013).

This is evident where he writes in his diary; “The principles of elementary geometry disciplines the masses: the square, the cube and the sphere. And the plan is a right-angled whole with a single axis.” (LE CORBUSIER, 1988) After Istanbul, Le Corbusier later visited Algeria, where he drew influence from the sculptural mass of the Sidi Ibrahim Mosque near El Ateuf in the Algerian countryside and later recording the most memorable moment of his Islamic influence with the Notre Dame de Ronchamp (1955-55).

As I mentioned in my methods research, there was always going to be a limitation in my research where I was unable to experience the buildings of Le Corbusier at first hand. Although this is true, I found that the amount of writing Le Corbusier himself has made on his work and sources other than his own gave me a strong idea of how his buildings worked in plan and section, and with the spaces created by his architecture. To build on the research that I have made in this paper on Le Corbusier’s work, I would like to investigate into what other cultures, architectures and architects influenced Corbusier in his earlier years of working. A separate research that would also interest me is the impact that Mimar Sinan had on the city of Istanbul, whether it was purely an architectural significance or, with the introduction of the Külliye, did it become a social and cultural impact? If this was the case, how did it impact the city?

To conclude, this paper set out to generate an understanding on how the ‘Orient’ influenced Le Corbusier in the beginnings of his professional career as well as bringing exposure to the ‘genius’ of Mimar Sinan. Sinan was not only the greatest Ottoman architect; he created architectural spectacles of the classical world. This is comparable to Le Corbusier where he, in the era of Modernism, became one of the most highly regarded architects. This paper suggests that Mimar Sinan played a central role in the development of European Modernism through shaping the theories of Le Corbusier, beginning to manifest in Istanbul. They both pushed the boundaries of the archi-type of their period; Sinan able to push the boundaries of elaboration because of the riches of Sultan Suleyman, Le Corbusier able to push the boundaries of form and structure due to the advancements of ‘post-war’ technology.

61

BIBLIOGRAPHY Akgündüz, A. and Öztürk, S. (2011). Ottoman history. Rotterdam: IUR Press.

Archino, S. (2013). Villa Schwob. [online] Utopia/Dystopia. Available at: https://utopiadystopiawwi.wordpress.com/purism/le-corbusier/villaschwob/ [Accessed 30 Apr. 2015].

Atil, E. (1987). The Golden Age of Ottoman Art. Saudi Aramco World, Volume 38(4).

Baker, Geoffrey H. Le Corbusier: An Analysis of Form. New York, New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1984.

Benton, C. (2009). Back to Basics. Journal of Architectural Education, 63(1), pp.31-40 Benton, Tim. The Villas of Le Corbusier and Pierre Jeanneret 1920-1930.

Basel: Boston, Berlin, Birkhäuser, 2007.

BozdoÄŸn, S. (2007). READING OTTOMAN ARCHITECTURE THROUGH MODERNIST LENSES: NATIONALIST HISTORIOGRAPHY AND THE NEW ARCHITECTURE IN THE EARLY REPUBLIC. Muqarnas Online, 24(1), pp.199-221.

Brooks, H. (1997). Le Corbusier’s formative years. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Celik, Z. (1992). Le Corbusier, Orientalism, Colonialism. Assemblage, (17), p.58.

Charles, M. (1930). Hagia Sophia and the Great Imperial Mosques. The Art Bulletin, 12(4), p.320 Ching, Jarzombek and Prakash, A Global History of Architecture, (New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2007), XI. Crane, H. and Akin, E. (2006). Sinan’s autobiographies. Leiden [etc.]: Brill.

Daniel, N. (1966). Islam, Europe and Empire. Edinburgh: Edinburgh U.P. Davies, C. (2006). Key houses of the twentieth century. New York: W.W. Norton.

Elsie, R. (2011). Historical dictionary of Kosovo. Lanham, Md.: Scarecrow Press.

Erdoğan, S. (2009). The Nakkashane. Postgraduate. Department of History at Boğaziçi.

Gebhard, D. (1963). The Problem of Space in the Ottoman Mosque. The Art Bulletin, 45(3), p.271.

62

12

12 Goodwin, G. (1987). A history of Ottoman architecture. New York: Thames & Hudson.

GLUECK, H. and DIEZ, E. (1925). Die Kunst des Islam. Von H. Glück und Ernst Diez. Pl. XXXIX. Berlin.

Gurlitt, C. (1907). Die Baukunst Konstantinopels. Herausgegeben von Cornelius Gurlitt. Berlin: Ernst Wasmuth, 1907.

Hamadeh, S. (2004). Ottoman Expressions of Early Modernity and the “Inevitable” Question of Westernization. Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, 63(1), pp.32-51.

Harrison, C. and Wood, P. (2003). Art in theory, 1900-2000. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub. IÌnalcÄk, H. (1973). The Ottoman Empire. New York: Praeger Publishers.

Jencks, Charles. Le Corbusier and the Tragic View of Architecture.

Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1973.

Karpat, K. (1974). The Ottoman state and its place in world history. Leiden: Brill.

Kortan, E. (1991). Turkish architecture and urbanism through the eyes of Le Corbusier =. Ankara: Middle East Technical University.

Kuban, D., Mill, A. and Emden, C. (2010). Ottoman architecture. Woodbridge: Antique Collectors’ Club.

Kuban, D. (1985). Muslim religious architecture. Leiden: Brill.

Kuran, A. (1968). The mosque in early Ottoman architecture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Le Corbusier, (1988). Le Corbusier, le passé à réaction poétique. [Paris]: Caisse nationale des monuments historiques et des sites/Ministère de la culture et de la communication.

Le Corbusier, (1989). Towards a new architecture. London: Butterworth Architecture.

Le Corbusier, and Franclieu, F. (1981). Le Corbusier sketchbooks. New York: Architectural History Foundation.

Le Corbusier, Gresleri, G., Munson, M. and Shore, M. (1988). Voyage d’Orient. Milano: Electa.

Le Corbusier, Willy Boesiger, and Hans Girsberger. Le Corbusier, 1910-60..

New York: George Wittenborn, Inc., 1960. Print.

63

12 Lewis, B. (1963). Istanbul and the civilization of the Ottoman Empire. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

Lukkien, R. (2011). SINAN - A DIVINE ARCHITECT. [online] Vimeo. Available at: http://vimeo.com/27941880 [Accessed 30 Nov. 2014].

MARCUS, George H. Le Corbusier: inside the machine for living. New York: The Monacelli Press Inc., 2000.

Matthews, H. (2015). Mimar Sinan 16th. [online] Mimoza.marmara.edu.tr.

Available at: http://mimoza.marmara.edu.tr/~avni/H62SANAT/mimarsinan. hayati.htm [Accessed 13 Mar. 2015].

MOOS, Stanislaus Von. Le Corbusier: Elements of a Synthesis. Rotterdam: 010 Publishers, 2009.

Morkoc, S. (2009). An Architect to Challenge Them All. Fabrications, 19(1), pp.6-25.

Mustafa Emirbayer, Ann Mische, “What is Agency”, American Journal of Sociology AJS, 103, 4 (1998), 964-965.

Necipoğlu, G. “The Süleymaniye Complex in Istanbul: An Interpretation” Muqarnas, vol. 3, Brill, (1985), pp.92-117 Necipoğlu, G. (2005). The age of Sinan. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Necipoğlu, G. (2007). CREATION OF A NATIONAL GENIUS: SINAN AND THE HISTORIOGRAPHY OF CLASSICAL OTTOMAN ARCHITECTURE. Muqarnas Online, 24(1) Norberg-Schulz, C. (1971). Existence, space & architecture. New York: Praeger.

Olcayto, R. (2013). It’s time to question the classic Corb backstory. [online] Architectsjournal.co.uk. Available at: http://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/ comment/its-time-to-question-the-classic-corb-backstory/8644080.article [Accessed 7 May 2015].

Passanti, Francesco. ‘The Vernacular, Modernism, And Le Corbusier’.

Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 56.4 (1997): 438-451. Web. Rabb, P. (2014). We are all servants here! Mimar Sinan architect of the Ottoman Empire. Per. Pol. Arch., 44(1), pp.17-37.

Takikawa, M. (2010). Structure and Decoration in Süleymaniye Mosque and Selimiye Mosque. 1st ed. [ebook] Seijo. Available at: http://journal.seijo. ac.jp/gslit/student/art/pdf/art-017-06.pdf [Accessed 13 Feb. 2015].

Texier, C. and Pullan, R. (1865). The principal ruins of Asia Minor. London: Day. 64

12 The Faster Times, (2014). Young Le Corbusier in Istanbul - The Faster Times. [online] Available at: http://www.thefastertimes.com/ historicaltravel/2010/07/01/young-le-corbusier-in-istanbul/ [Accessed 30 Nov. 2014].

Tsow, D. (2013). David Tsow: Skyscraper was ahead of its time - Opinion - NZ Herald News. [online] The New Zealand Herald. Available at: http://www. nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10862664 [Accessed 4 May 2015].

UÌnsal, B. (1959). Turkish Islamic architecture in Seljuk and Ottoman times 1701-1923. London: A. Tiranti.

Vogt-GoÌknil, U. (1966). Living architecture: Ottoman. New York: Grosset & Dunlap.

Watenpaugh, H. (2007). AN UNEASY HISTORIOGRAPHY: THE LEGACY OF OTTOMAN ARCHITECTURE IN THE FORMER ARAB PROVINCES. Muqarnas Online, 24(1), pp.27-43.

Yerasimos, S. (2005). Constantinople. Köln: Könemann.

Zaknic, I. (1989). Voyage d’Orient: Carnets, La Chaux-de-Fonds et Jeanneret avant Le Corbusier, Le Corbusier, le passé à réaction poétique, Le Corbusier Secret, Les Mains de Le Corbusier, Le Corbusier à Cap-Martin, Le Corbusier. Journal of Architectural Education, 42(3), pp.49-59.

Zaknic, I., de Franclieu, F. and Corbusier, L. (1982). Le Corbusier Sketchbooks.

Vol. 1. 1914-1948. JAE, 35(3), p.32.

65

ILLUSTRATIONS Figure 1. Suleymaniye Mosque. (2014). [image] Available at: http://images5. alphacoders.com/546/546992.jpg [Accessed 5 May 2015].

Figure 2. Pina, N. (2010). Statue of Mimar Sinan, the great Turkish architect of the 16th century in front of his work, Selimiye Camii (Selimiye Mosque) in Edirne, Turkey.. [image] Available at: http://static.panoramio.com/photos/ original/43202532.jpg [Accessed 4 May 2015].

Figure 3. Fondation Le Corbusier, (2013). Istanbul silhouettes. n.d.

Watercolor on paper. [image] Available at: http://arttattler.com/Images/ NorthAmerica/NewYork/MoMA/Le%20Corbusier/12-2.24.jpg [Accessed 5 May 2015].

Figure 4. Battle of Lepanto in 1571. (n.d.). [image] Available at: http:// upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e0/Battle_of_ Lepanto_1571.jpg/800px-Battle_of_Lepanto_1571.jpg [Accessed 30 Apr. 2015].

Figure 5. Bilgin, ö. (2015). Mimar Sinan Buyukcekmece Sultan Suleyman Bridge, Built in 1567. [image] Available at: https://drscdn.500px.org/ photo/99772891/m%3D2048/a5da849b90d4463d2d8dd27fe16ce9ec [Accessed 30 Apr. 2015].

Figure 8. Silouhette of Selimiye Mosque at dawn. (2014). [image] Available at: https://www.audioease.com/IR/selimiye/Selimiye-Mosque-large.jpg [Accessed 4 May 2015].

Figure 9. Sébah, J. (1888). Interior of the Suleymaniye Mosque, Nave. [image] Available at: http://lunaprod.library.cornell.edu/images/ADW/ Size4//Disc1017/10174003 [Accessed 5 May 2015].

Figure 10. Own Image (2014) Figure 11. Own Image (2014) Figure 12. Own Image (2014) Figure 13. YAZAR, T. (2013). Plan and Section of the Suleymaniye Mosque. [image] Available at: http://www.designcoding.net/decoder/wpcontent/uploads/2013/02/2013_02_25-plate37.jpg [Accessed 5 May 2015].

Figure 14. Stroppa, G. (2012). The view from Süleymaniye Mosque, Istanbul. [image] Available at: http://static.panoramio.com/photos/ large/79548352.jpg [Accessed 5 May 2015].

Figure 15. Dere, G. (2012). Selimiye Cami (Mosque) Interior - Edirne. [image] Available at: https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7253/7537321846_e3c6019f69_b. jpg [Accessed 5 May 2015].

66

13

13 Figure 15a. http://archnet.org/, (2005). Floor plan of Selimiye Mosque. [image] Available at: http://archnet.org/system/media_contents/ contents/49278/original/IMG14055.jpg?1398698577 [Accessed 8 May 2015].

Figure 15b. GreatBuildings.com, (2012). Selimiye Mosque Section, Edirne. [image] Available at: http://data.greatbuildings.com/gbc/drawings/The_ Selimiye_Section.jpg [Accessed 8 May 2015].

Figue 16. Own Image (2014) Figure 17. Barry, M. (2012). Selimiye Mosque Arches, Edirne. [image] Available at: https://turkishtiles.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/p10202691.jpg [Accessed 5 May 2015].

Figure 18. Slayt, D. (1986). Selimiye Camii, Edirne. [image] Available at: http://img.eba.gov.tr/0d9/b83/b46/bca/9e5 [Accessed 5 May 2015].

Figure 19. Own Image (2014) Figure 20. Own Image (2014) Figure 21. Le Corbusier, Gresleri, G., Munson, M. and Shore, M. (1988).

Voyage d’Orient. Milano: Electa pp. 41 Figure 22. Aerial View of Istanbul. (n.d.). [image] Available at: http://img384. imageshack.us/img384/6372/YARIMADA.jpg [Accessed 6 May 2015].

Figure 23. Le Corbusier, Gresleri, G., Munson, M. and Shore, M. (1988).

Voyage d’Orient. Milano: Electa pp. 29 Figure 24. Amey, C. (2011). La Villa Turque, construite à La Chaux-deFonds entre 1916 et 1917, signée Le Corbusier. [image] Available at: http:// upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3d/La_Chaux-de-Fonds,_ villa_turque,_Le_Corbusier.jpg [Accessed 6 May 2015].

Figure 25. Martin, A. (n.d.). Le Corbusier.Villa Schwob, de Le Corbusier vista desde afuera. [image] Available at: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/wRojbUPVAk0/T32exM87uxI/AAAAAAAAAVY/Lf--6kMI_Zk/s1600/P4050007.

JPG [Accessed 6 May 2015].

Figure 26. Domino Model Drawing. (n.d.). [image] Available at: https:// classconnection.s3.amazonaws.com/238/flashcards/1219238/jpg/ lecture_10-21335889653170.jpg [Accessed 6 May 2015].

Figure 27. Geometry Sketch of Villa Schwob (2015) Own Image Figure 28, 29, 30. Davies, C. (2006). Key houses of the twentieth century.

New York: W.W. Norton.

67

13 Figure 31. Emden, C. (2012). Villa Schwob - Le Corbusier. [image] Available at: https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg. com/736x/7b/6d/30/7b6d3076ce3f924c044fb608499e934d.jpg [Accessed 6 May 2015].

Figure 32. Own Image (2014) Figure 33. Interior de la Weekend house, Le Corbusier, ParĂ­s. (1935). [image] Available at: http://www.etsav.upc.edu/personals/tih03/anteriors/ tardor03/t03s02/grupo04_archivos/H6dos.jpg [Accessed 6 May 2015].

Figure 34. Best, H. (n.d.). Jaoul Houses / Architecte: Le Corbusier. [image] Available at: https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/ originals/15/21/74/15217428de09662a41bae2638345f2ed.jpg [Accessed 6 May 2015].

Figure 35 and 36. Davies, C. (2006). Key houses of the twentieth century.

New York: W.W. Norton.

Figure 37. Maison Jaoul, Paris 08/23/06. (2006). [image] Available at: https:// www.flickr.com/photos/sunggnus/364970687 [Accessed 6 May 2015].

Figure 38. Marte, A. (2014). Maisons Jaoul. [image] Available at: https:// farm4.staticflickr.com/3734/12390040875_2ebb1ffcdb_o.jpg [Accessed 6 May 2015].

Figure 39. Mosque Entrance, Istanbul (2014) Own Image Figure 40. Mosque Cleaning Space (2014) Own Image Figure 41. Sultan Ahmed Mosque, Istanbul (2014) Own Image

68

14

GLOSSARY DEVSIRME - a practice where the objective of selecting and training the ablest children for the military or civil service of the Empire EXEDRAS - a semicircular recess or plinth, often crowned by a semi-dome, which is sometimes set into a building’s facade HADITH - the collections of the reports of the teachings, deeds and sayings of the Islamic prophet Muhammad JANISSARY - an elite infantry unit that formed the Ottoman Sultan’s household troops and bodyguards MIHRAB - a pulpit in the mosque where the imam (prayer leader) stands to deliver sermons MINBER - a semicircular niche in the wall of a mosque that indicates the Qibla MUQARNA - Arabic word for stalactite vault. It is an originally Islamic type of wall or ceiling decoration, which is used to make a smooth transition from the rectangular basis of the building to the vaulted ceiling PENDENTIVE - a constructive device permitting the placing of a circular dome over a square room or an elliptical dome over a rectangular room QUIBLA - the direction that should be faced when a Muslim prays during salat. It is fixed as the direction of the Kaaba in Mecca TYMPANUM - the semi-circular or triangular decorative wall surface over an entrance, bounded by a lintel and arch ULEMA - the religious elite of scholars at the top of the sectarian hierarchy

69

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to take this opportunity to express my gratitude to my family, friends and tutors for their support, their continuous encouragement through this project and listening to my thoughts on my topic.

70