LOOKING
ARCHITECTURE PHILOSOPHICALLY
Translated by Tugce Aytes
Architecture as an
Objectified, Aggressive Object of Ideology
“In a place where
real environmental culture, that is, built environment and
architecture culture do not exist, no other culture placed on strong
basis can ever develop. When one paints, she reflects her
relationship with environment; when she sculptures, this both
reflects her relationship with environment, and creates an event that
will take place in environment. When you write a novel or a story,
you write the world around and human relationships. Today what we
call culture takes place unavoidably inside spaces. There can be no
development free of space. When matters belonging to the space have
no intelligence and conscience, others remain as totally idle,
disconnected, inconsistent attempts. They do not contain the
integrity of meaning and cannot have a common ground. This is one of
the main reasons of the misery of architecture in 20th
century.”1
Objective
The objective of my
paper is to analyze the philosophical grounds that today’s
architecture environment depends on via Turkey, which makes a
particular effort to integrate with day by day globalizing world, and
to offer new perspectives to the ones who want to know generally
Architecture, particularly Turkish Architecture and
economical-sociopolitical structure via architecture. But the main
reason is to share my study as the post graduate thesis which I could
hand over last year after 15 years.
Introduction
The space where the
object of architecture settles and the ideological attitude which
they create together cannot be reduced to function; it has dimensions
that go beyond the function and gains meaning through the integration
with its habitat. Architectural object integrates with the space at
the background and with life to get its identity, and it penetrates
human consciousness to be permanent. Power is the fundamental devise
which recreates the space and gives it a meaning in respect to being
the power of dominant ideology. As the ideology which went from
virtuality to actuality, power uses a lot of devices in the process
of reproducing and shaping urban living spaces and de facto
life and the subjects of life; architecture bears a different
existence in terms of being a devise in the silhouette that
relatively cannot be changed. The habitat of life is the fundamental
background which ideology keeps itself alive and recreates itself.
Life gains existence as the dialectical relationship between the
background and objects. The architectural object and recreated space
are the habitat of the ideology, the main structure which the
ideology via power objectifies and legitimizes itself as an
aesthetical object. Space has a visible identity in that it is a
habitat of the culture which the power realizes and objectifies with
various devices. As we come closer from 1980’s to now, this
visibility has reached to the extent of display, and today it has
reached to an extent beyond display.
Human beings and
communities objectify their life styles and the ways they conceive
life with various devices; for this reason, it can be claimed that
every attitude is ideological. Ideological attitude blends with
concepts of “power” and “identity”; in architectural
structure, aesthetical is added beside function and
solidity/durability; the existence of a mental world which
architectural structures that become three dimensional and transform
into a permanent being rest upon is obvious. The purpose of this
paper is to take some structures in today’s Turkish architecture as
fundamental and to look philosophically to the concepts of “power”,
“identity”, “aesthetics”, “functionality” etc which
objectify in structures that become ideological objects. In other
words, I will try to look philosophically to architecture where
mental world gains three dimensions and becomes concrete.
There is no matter,
fact or institution that philosophy does not lie at the bottom when
grubbed up. It is said that an analysis without philosophy is
condemned to remain artificial. An analysis that rests on an
understanding with philosophical profoundness is distinct from
similar attempts in terms of depth. Philosophy is the structure of
architecture, because the existence of an understanding that is a
ground for every human endeavor is the fact. When you take the
structure, what remains is not a building but a heap; there we can
only talk about a pile that came together but has no cement. If the
philosophical grounds of today’s Turkish architecture -if there is
still such an architecture; “Turkish Architecture” is a
problematic statement; though, this matter is problematic when we
describe not only Turkish architecture but also the architecture of
any other country- are exposed, I think in this way we will have the
opportunity to see the concepts that are the fundamentals for the
“world” we live in terms of ontology.
In the globalization
which can also be called the mobilization of knowledge, all actors
-whether individual or institutional- are constantly in motion. In
this process, knowledge moves with not only its content but also with
its form, and is taken from the place it is produced and goes more
than one place. Dialectics enriches and accelerates this process. An
architectural structure’s place can be understood neither from its
architect, nor from its material or its style. When a photograph of
an architectural structure is taken and when the sample is shown to
individuals/subjects who has either an international identity or has
not/could not have yet been abroad -now, nobody has to go abroad,
what a great paradox- the top 10 cities will probably be the ones
with a good PR and those which are important cities of the world in
terms of history, politics, culture and economics. What is
interesting is that the cities mentioned today are not mentioned on
the basis of photograph(s); they are mentioned because they are known
for other reasons. This can be a plaza, a campus, a hospital and
also, a hotel, a school, a dwelling, a metro station, a museum or an
art gallery.
Topography, silhouette,
climate, sociology, historical roots, local references, etc are
usually left out of parenthesis. This is a kind of fact of being
identical/being made identical that a fascistic totalitarian
understanding lies beneath and its dimensions should be argued with a
rooted perspective of action.
Lately, Iranian Cinema
arouses interest especially in the intellectual community, because
its language is different: the subjects it discusses, especially the
background behind the subject. However, most other cinemas have the
same subjects and backgrounds; they are either a follow-up or a
trailer of each other. Yet in the middle of last century, Adorno
stated with the concept of “culture industry” that every work of
“art” is a copy, a repetition of the other. According to Adorno,
the subject is reified. Today’s architectural structures are also
reified. Their originalities are not in question any more. What gains
favor is the one that is different; a pursuit of dissimilarity empty
inside. Human consciousness, which stays in the course of being the
same with each other in terms of spirit, morality and world view,
reacts as “I want mine to be different!” that seems to be a
childish, naive reaction to becoming mentally the same; however,
human kind feels desire to new realms of independence with its
constricted and compressed consciousness. There is a demand for
difference that is increasingly becoming a norm but where is this
difference? As long as it is different, there is no importance of
form, size, verticality, horizontality, material and so on.
Difference depends on an existence of a particular norm; without norm
a difference of something is beyond speech; then no architectural
product -no architectural product produced- is different and cannot
be different! Because they are not surprising. People of today have
forgotten the humanistic feeling of surprise; it is not in their
ontology anymore; for this reason, it is not found in epistemological
approaches towards today’s people, how soever deep archaeologies
are done. Modernity and post modernity are facts that transcend
modernism and postmodernism. I believe that we need to understand the
fact of architecture, which hems around our era, 24 hours we breathe
in, in other words our entire life, in the light of variables we
cannot see by naked eye and do not/cannot consider sufficiently.
Method
Architectural structure
will not be discussed by being separated from the culture it is in;
the physical, socio-cultural habitat it is in and philosophical
habitat, plans, silhouettes, offers it brings to the need,
specialties, references it gives or does not give as basis etc. with
the ontology which Hartmann conceptualized with Geistic layer.
Philosopicritics of structures will be done through the concepts
detected in the Geistic layer of the architectural structure.
Philosophicritics I conceptualized as a kind of architectural critics
lies on an interdisciplinary ground and one of its acknowledgements
is that architecture is not self-appointed but is one of the constant
actors of the habitat in broad sense.
Scope
The buildings that are
going to be read philosophically will be selected from different
kinds of buildings and will be made up of limited number of examples;
in my thesis, I had determined a sample I thought to reflect Turkey
generally and I tried to do philpsophicritics of 9 buildings. Here,
because of time pressure and “fund”, I will share four of them.
Ipekyol Tekstil (Textile), Mercedes Yedek Parça ve Pazarlama (Spare
Parts and Marketing), Forum Bornova AVM (Shopping Mall), Tekfen Tower
and Turkcell Ar-Ge Binası (R&D Building.)
Buildings
1.1.
Tag of the Building
Design
Team
Bünyamin
Derman
Emre Arolat
Eda Yazkurt
Emre Arolat
Eda Yazkurt
Assistant
Architecture(s)
Ertuğrul
Morçöl
Gülseren Gerede Tecim
Gülseren Gerede Tecim
Architecture
Office(s)
Employer
Date
of Project
2004
– 2005
Date
of Building
2005
– 2006
Field
of Lot
20.000
m2
Type
of Project
Type
of Building
Contractor
1.2.
Philosophical Criticism of the Building
With
the concepts of “togetherness”, “efficiency”,
“observation/being observed”, “maximum benefit from the field”,
“functionality” which stands out in this building, the building
will be criticized philosophically.
The
factory building which is started off the principle of transparence
has produced successful solutions which at first sight may be called
luxurious for a factory. The reason why the space has a singular
structure is, as the architect stated in the information he gave
about the building, that they are principally together for the same
purpose but they distinguish practically. In the building, the
purpose is to create space by intertwining production and
administration units. To support the working area of the workers with
natural lightly and to do this successfully brings along an
interesting. When compared to architectural solutions created by
capitalist production devices for the white collars to produce desk
jobs, for example, the condition of the workers of Sun Plaza in
Maslak, not the ones in the offices at -4 but on the floors cannot be
compared with the workers in line at Ipekyol Tekstil Fabrikasi.
The
production of the building with a combination of concrete, steel and
glass and the nearly concealment of concrete shows that Turkey is
inside today’s architectural world with this building; what is more
important is that it shows architecture is still in a search of
structure in a sense not different from a new millennium and has not
yet find it. The idea of “a little bit from this, a little bit from
that” still goes on also at the buildings that are deemed
successful or we deem successful.
The
building can be stated as a production of the culture industry
generally in a sense; it is a trial of architectural solution
confined to one of the present languages. It repeats the status quo
in relational sense: Here, the relationship between power and
knowledge is established very tightly. The factory building with its
front, its place of production and its dining hall refers that force
or power is also in the real economy as a kind of capital.
Space
is made functional and is brought to the actor position of production
process successfully. Work places and rest areas are built in
accessible sizes, minding comfort in terms of human measures. Beyond
realizing its purpose in teleological sense, it carries aesthetical
claims unexpected from a factory building.
Design
Team
Assistant
Architect(s)
Renan
Coşgun
Deniz Duru
Deniz Duru
Architecture
Office(s)
Employer
Date
of Project
1997
– 2000
Date
of Production
1998
– 2001
Field
of Lot
182.058
m2
Closed
Area
41.572
m2
Type
of Project
multipurpose,
administration, depot
2.2.
Philosophical Criticism of the Building
With
the concepts of identity that is expected to bear Geistic elements
objectified in structure, “local and international references”,
“togetherness of different functions”, “hierarchical solution”,
the structure will be criticized philosophically.
The
architectural building whose references are local and North European
arouses interest at first sight with facing that is made up of
bricks. In the statement of the architect, the attempt to establish a
relation between the identity of Mercedes and the identity of the
building through bricks causes us to rethink about “identity”.
Can a relationship between the identity of the building and the brand
inside or the identity of the company, or can “such” a
relationship be established? The identity of the company is in making
the buildings talk. In the past, it was holy books and kings which
were talked about, but now it is the brands. Our new gods are brands.
Nowadays, when the corporate identity is glorified and is put under
protection to an extent like prostration, architecture, too, is
becoming an ideological devise of the capital and is drawn out.
In
a hierarchical structure but a right hierarchical structure, thinking
functions of different masses is also a reference to the life getting
more and more complicated every day. In architectural sense, it has
tried to establish its relationship with the geography it is in
through some references in the interior space but this has not gone
beyond the kitsch. The building exposes itself more with its
exteriors, and it is beyond speech that the building which may be
thought to exist in relatively rich cities of the Netherlands and
Germany establishes a bond with the territory it is present in terms
of silhouette, form and building material.
The
building is constituted hierarchically, considering relationships of
produced spaces and the units it houses with each other and with
outside. The building which keeps human measures with its humble
glory that is almost monumental establishes its relationship with the
human kind carefully. In teleological terms, it realizes its purpose
and is also given a try to be aesthesized with local and
international references.
Design
Team
Çiğdem
Duman
Ertun Hızıroğlu
Ertun Hızıroğlu
Assistant
Architect(s)
İlkay
Kılınç
Süreyya Önver
İlhan Devrim
Sevil Özbayburtlu
Süreyya Önver
İlhan Devrim
Sevil Özbayburtlu
Architecture
Office(s)
Employer
Date
of Project
2005
– 2006
Date
of Building
2005
– 2006
Field
of Lot
200.000
m2
Closed
Area
70.000
m2
Type
of Project
Type
of Building
3.2.
Philosophical Criticism of the Building
With
the concepts of “artificiality”, “to gain permanence over
figurativeness”, “being culturally isolated”, “accessibility”,
“consumption as a form of happiness and/or single form of
happiness”, the building will be criticized philosophically.
The
air of Las Vegas in all shopping malls is present in Forum-Bornova,
though it is a very successful example. The shopping mall which is
claimed to be done inspired from Mediterranean towns is an artificial
“city”, a largish street of a city or a town. The building is
designed as a group of buildings and is built by integrating
buildings with different characters according to their functions,
creating a homogeneous texture and somehow referring to the
relatively homogeneous structure of the town but also to
heterogeneous structure of the Mediterranean. The tower in the
building, as in Koc University, can be explained by stating a kind of
figurativeness, monumentality, a need for being remembered with
something, etc. Unlike the similar ones, this little street does not
close its face to outside but, as a building relatively outside the
city, closes to the city the privileges it opened to exclusive
people. This liberalizes the fact of shopping and the socializing
around it for a particular class and accordingly deepens the sense of
this social and cultural isolation. A similar one was opened with the
name Istinye Park and also in this shopping mall as a utopia where
Turkey’s and the world’s most prestigious brands came together,
there is a nostalgic Bazaar. Those bazaars which can be found in
Kadikoy and many other neighborhoods are equalized by capitalism to
building a zoo in a wild forest and accepting visitors with tickets.
Shopping malls are today’s isolated agoras and a kind of utopia.
You go in there searched by the security and this is the message
given to the consumer that s/he is safe and now the possible ground
for consumption is created. Forum-Bornova is in itself accessible for
people of every age and is in humanistic measures. Perhaps the most
of its criticalness is its humanness. In Forum-Bornova, unlike other
shopping malls, there is not a harsh aggressiveness in the form of
monumentality, challenging, oppressing, leaving powerless and demand
for more consumption in order to free from powerlessness, but its
category is still shopping mall. Now, everything is ready for our
consumption. Creating the possible ground for consumption, shopping
malls are central places for a kind of therapy, of rehabilitation.
The one who comes to shopping malls is someone who can get his/her
share from the created benefit and can participate in the world, in
the life. And the condition for participation is to buy, not to look.
Credit cards have taken the place of psychological medicament, that
is, the green prescription; however, both of them have a lot of
things in common, to begin with, overdose. To buy more and more and
more, and in the end, an addiction which develops after a relative
duration. In other words, the vanity of the need for feeding the
metaphysical soul with a physical being.
4.1. Yapının
Künyesi8
Tekfen
Kulesi (Tekfen Tower)
Place: Levent, Istanbul, Turkey
Place: Levent, Istanbul, Turkey
Total
Area of Construction: 71.270 m2
Area Used: 33,000m²
Date of Construction: 24 September 2001
Area Used: 33,000m²
Date of Construction: 24 September 2001
Employer:
Tefken Holding
Architect: 'Swanke Hayden Connell' Architects
Technical Data
Height: 118 meters
Number of Floors: 28
Architect: 'Swanke Hayden Connell' Architects
Technical Data
Height: 118 meters
Number of Floors: 28
4.2.
Philosophical Criticism of the Building
The
building will be analyzed with the concepts of “anti-locality”,
“monumentality”, “richness”, “exclusiveness”, “nobility”
and “talking architecture”
Tekfen Tower Plaza
talks. It is an architecture that talks. It talks, but its “sound”
is no doubt different; what talks in this building is transatlantic;
it makes itself heard from New York; to make itself heard, it raises
its voice. Its relatively plain, minimalist state compared to plazas
in Maslak takes the function of raising its voice more and more. With
its elegancy, newness, richness, elements of color, material, roof
that represent nobility, etc, it lives the schizophrenia of belonging
here and not belonging here. The summer residence which is put above
the building like a hat and is aesthetized with its sun blinds that
create the impression to have been copied from somewhere and glued.
The building is just like an administrator of Turkish origin, who had
his/her secondary and high education in America, after probation and
a while of work experience, come to Turkey with a broken Turkish and
works at a branch office of a company. What are Turkish in the
administrator in question are the language, though broken, and the
name; what are peculiar to the place where Tekfen Tower breathes are
the area it occupies and its place in the city silhouette and a part
of its name. The building establishing no relationship with the
geography it is in, except the indirect references the hat above
obtains with sun blinds. But it establishes relationship with the
environment it is in. Buyukdere Street is Voyvoda (Bankalar) Street,
which was reconstructed in 1980’s. The dynamics of the buildings
rising at Voyvoda Street 100 years ago are the same dynamics rising
today at Buyukdere Street and Maslak.
In the second half of
20th century, with the focus to shift from Europe to
America, the power focus shifted to the USA. USA and others became
references not only politically, economically and culturally but also
architecturally. To buy the values USA produces is considered to
catch the era in a sense and to live with it simultaneously.
5.1.
Tag of Building10
Design
Team
Assistant
Architect(s)
Okan
Bayık
Romain Cadoux
Işık Sungu
Barış Yüksel
Türkan Yılmaz
Romain Cadoux
Işık Sungu
Barış Yüksel
Türkan Yılmaz
Architecture
Office(s)
Date
of Project
2007
- 2008
Date
of Construction
2007
- 2008
Field
of Lot
86.000
m2
Closed
Area
8.100
m2
Type
of Project
R&D
Building
Type
of Building
5.2.
Philosophical Criticism of the Building
With
the concepts of “new sanctuaries: R&D”, “new God:
knowledge, work home” 11,
“watching life”, “aquarium” that objectify in the building,
it will be criticized philosophically.
The
entrance of the building is like the isolation of a temple, as if
referring to the temples in pagan era. Taking you inside and getting
you lost, it looks like it is close to the outside (the life). Today
new temples are R&D and “knowledge” produced here are the
gods. R&D’s are one of the strongest coalitions that government
establishes with the capital, the intellectual and the public
(because they need work and they are told that new areas of work will
emerge with the novelties) and they have immunity. Eastern front has
no reference to the western front which is the entrance of the
building, in terms of style, structure or material. Eastern front is
actualized by using fundamentally a transparent design which takes
the maximum benefit from the brightness, the light. The harmony they
derived with the help glass and steel and new technologies in 2000’s
extended areas of usage and also created transparency. The front
structure and the facing which are always problematic in terms of
architecture can be solved by these “wonder duo” smoothly.
Transparency, if it is an office, puts the outside and the inside in
the same state. That the building is softly reduced from the front
and is pulled back, made it stronger, underlined its limits more and
in the name of breaking the rigidity and monotonousness of the front
surface, horizontal jetties are given backgrounds. The contact of the
building again with the ground on the eastern front is a kind of
reference to its transparency; the life watched from above, the land
which begins on the border of the first floor and made tangible with
the opening window is again an object of follow-up. It is an attempt
to establish a bond, but it cannot escape creating the metaphor of
aquarium. In the office, every kind of comfort for the employees is
regarded. Because there is a 24 hour shift. Here, efficiency is
grounded upon. Efficiency is reduced to the created benefit. The
human being is considered as a machine and taking the trendy human
description as basis, things a human being may need in life are
determined with a couple of wits like fitness, billiard, climbing
wall, etc. The white collar began to bring work to home in 1960’s
and the hours of work gradually increased; now, a radical “solution”
is found for this. After transforming the home into office,
transforming offices into buildings that contain private places is
also an alternative offered to work and working spaces. As long as
the main concern is efficiency and it is directly proportional to the
hours of work, the work and the home which one lives his/her private
life are going to integrate and privacy will be erased again. In
architectural sense, although this building which new understandings
dominate in structural, material and designed means creates a
difference in style; it is obvious that it does not even establish a
little bond with the geography it stands in.
Conclusion
When
you look at architectural buildings, you can see they are entirely
disconnected from where they are positioned and are reckless of that
place; it is possible to see this in every geography in the word,
especially in the second half of the twentieth century, at Dubai
Towers in Dubai which opened in January 2010, as well as the example
of Pompidou in Paris. Everything is considered in their own
individuality. The ultimate point of the individualistic world view
to separate capitalism into compartments and to keep it off from
being a danger isolates buildings, too. From makeshift postures of
buildings that are so alien to itself and its environment, a city can
rise, but it is open to question whether this is humane or not. This
fact is stated, in the book titled Dialectic of Enlightenment,
which Adorno and Horkheimer wrote together, just as “the magician
during the ceremony starts with isolating the place where the holy
powers should be present from the environment, every work of art
separates its environment from the real. It holds the magical
heritage tighter which has given up affecting the nature in a way
that separates art from the magical sympathy.”12
Every individual is holy now, s/he has individual immunity. And so
has the buildings. There are rights protected by law. Life is
designed in freedom and stands within it. Having considered the
dialectic between “the new” and “the constant”, the now and
here of it, the essence of the work which is put in parenthesis with
phenomenological method, here the architectural building, can be
exposed. In Hartmannian words, we can focus on the irreal sphere.
This is also reaching the philosophy in architecture.
In
this context, considering N. Hartmann’s New Ontology, when we look
at plazas, apartment blocks, mass produced separate houses of today’s
architecture, it introduces, if stated more sharply, buildings which
lack expression like human beings with carved eyes and without the
Geistic
layer-irreal layer, in other words, places without “roof”s. This
study particularly focuses on the irreal
territory in Hartmannian ontology and takes it as the basis. In
architecture, when one of the classical discourses of 20th
century architecture, “Form follows function”, is considered in
this way, the judgment seems to be challengeable, because form has a
meaning even beyond function. Human being creates form in Geistic
sense; form is objectified the subject who brings it into existence.
Urban identity appears when forms integrate. Urban spaces continue
their existences as produced, constituted, reproduced spaces. City is
the sum of forever living spaces. Neither the architectural structure
is formed with the integration of a couple of spaces nor cities form
with the organization of spaces. Just like the product of
architecture has a Geistic layer, cities do have a Geistic layer,
too; this is the urban texture; this is the sum of the properties
that separate Istanbul from Mardin, Kars from Mugla.13
Architectural work is
also an aesthetical object. That architecture has a meaning beyond
function makes it a “value” by itself; the process of production
and life of an architectural structure is an ethical fact, because it
shapes the human “ethos”, and this gives it an ideological
identity. Architectural language cannot escape being a part of the
daily language and the mental world as well as being dependent on the
“Zeitgeist”. Mental world objectifies inevitably in the mental
world. Regarded as European centered, it would not be far from the
fact to say that architecture which was under service of the Pope has
today transformed into the ideological device of the capital. It can
be claimed that structures which are built considering concepts like
size, difference, luxury, etc, whether horizontal or vertical, are a
kind of “orgasmic disorder”, an identity based orgasmic disorder.
Do not antidepressants and pleasure culture nurture from this
disorder?
Proposal
First of all, instead
of inhabitants, the administration of the city, especially the
processes of the actualization of project that will change the
silhouette and economical and social texture should be
democratisized. Areas to be opened new habitation should be a result
of a democratic process with the participation of all parties of the
subject in terms of natural disasters like earthquakes, floods, etc
and urban sociology economy, traffic, urban organization and urban
traditions, and be determined by the common sense. One of the
implicit purposes of my study is to provide participation of the
inhabitants to the processes related to urbanization and to
contribute the beginning of political sensitivity in order to form
its law.
V. Metin Bayrak
Philosopher
2
BAYRAK, M. Günümüz Türk Mimarisine Felsefeyle Bakmak,
Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Hacettepe Üniversitesi, 2010,
p. 134–141
3
BAYRAK, M. Günümüz Türk Mimarisine Felsefeyle Bakmak,
Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Hacettepe Üniversitesi, 2010,
p. 150–155
5
BAYRAK, M. Günümüz Türk Mimarisine Felsefeyle Bakmak,
Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Hacettepe Üniversitesi, 2010,
p. 163–167
7
BAYRAK, M. Günümüz Türk Mimarisine Felsefeyle Bakmak,
Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Hacettepe Üniversitesi, 2010,
p. 176–180
9
BAYRAK, M. Günümüz Türk Mimarisine Felsefeyle Bakmak,
Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Hacettepe Üniversitesi, 2010,
p. 181–186
11
Offices
which are derived from the concepts of work and home and where some
services that can be bought or found from houses, hotels or social
facilities in the name of legitimizing ever increasing hours of work
are offered.
12
ADORNO, T.W. – HORKHEİMER, M. (1995). Dialectic
of Enlightment. Trans. Gunselin Schmid
Noerr and Edmund Jephcott, Stanford University Press, 2007.
13
BAYRAK, M. Günümüz Türk Mimarisine Felsefeyle Bakmak,
Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Hacettepe Üniversitesi, 2010,
s. 191–193
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder