University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Oda Projesi's practices of mediation

(USC Thesis Other)

Oda Projesi's practices of mediation

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

ODA PROJESI’S PRACTICES OF MEDIATION
By BASAK COMERT

A thesis presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSKI SCHOOL OF FINE ARTS AND DESIGN
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree
MASTER OF ARTS
ART AND CURATORIAL PRACTICES IN THE PUBLIC SPHERE
August 2014

Table of Contents Page
I. Introduction 1
II. Turkey’s Social and Political Environment and Oda Projesi 7
III. Strategies for Encountering Cultural Multiplicities 16
IV. Raising Awareness about the Use of Space 21
V. Attempts at Mediation 31
VI. Conclusion 42

i

Abstract
Oda Projesi, an artist collective based in Istanbul, breaks down barriers of prejudice
among clashing cultures by investigating Istanbul’s public and private space custom.
Turkish territory has a long history of occupation, which has produced a myriad of
often-contrary ideas and ideologies of the East and the West, engendering the
syncretism of different cultures and identities. As Istanbul evolved into a global
metropolitan city, the dichotomic cultures of Westernized and Anatolian societies
developed (or were forced to develop) into segregated ghettos where eastern and
western cultures were able to maintain dissociation. Oda Projesi serves as a mediator
between these disparate communities by using art as a means to generate interrelations
and cultural exchange.

1

Introduction
Through mutual interests in Istanbul’s use and definition of public space, three artists,
Güneş Savaş, Özge Açıkkol, and Seçil Yersel formed the artist collective, Oda Projesi (Room
Project) in 2000. In the Beyoglu neighborhood of Galata—one of Istanbul’s oldest
neighborhoods—in Istanbul, Turkey, Oda Projesi leased an apartment and opened a fifteen-
square-meter room in the space to the general public. The objective of the room was to serve
as both an alternative to a traditional art gallery and a room functioning as a living space in
an apartment in a residential area in Istanbul.
1
The room was open to everyone who was
aware of its existence, namely the inhabitants of the Galata neighborhood, and Oda Projesi
invited artists to stage interactions and organize various activities within the space. A wide
range of events took place in the space; its contents were re-arranged by the artists and
participants staging the events according to their individuated needs. During its five-year run,
the room hosted conversations, art exhibitions, a dance party for children organized by an
artist, a slide show event for children, presentations by neighborhood residents and cooking
events, tea parties, birthday parties, a body percussion workshop, short film screenings, artists’
meetings, exhibitions curated by neighborhood residents, international artist’s projects, and a
reading day, among other events. The curator Maria Lind described Oda Projesi’s Galata
period: “Activities vary, but a common denominator is that they are not about showing or
exhibiting a work of art but about using art as a means for creating and recreating new
relations between people through diverse investigations and [the] shaping of both private and
public space.”
2

1
Oda Projesi interview by Basak Comert, Istanbul, January 11, 2014.
2
Maria Lind, “Actualization of Space: The Case of Oda Projesi”, (October, 2004) accessed March 10, 2013.
http://eipcp.net/transversal/1204/lind/en

2

By opening a private room to the public, the collective also initiated a process
dedicated to exploring the possible functions of what they considered to be a public room in a
private apartment in Istanbul. This process refers to a complex approach to public and
private space in Turkish culture. In Turkish culture, the distinctions between private and
public life are blurred; the boundaries of public and private spaces often merge or disappear.
Concepts of privacy are primarily concerned with maintaining intimacy and are defined by a
space’s lack of exposure to public outside spaces, besides referring to spaces’ status of
belonging.
In Ottoman/Turkish culture, privacy does not necessarily denote ownership. Notions
of privacy mostly concern the relationship between people and spaces. For example, one buys
a house, but unless a family consists of a husband, a wife and their children inhabiting in the
house, it would not be considered a private space. The constituent parts of these houses were
also distinguished in terms of their allowance to outside exposure as well as their
functionality. Ottomans have both public and private spaces in their private houses. In this
environment, the organization of life is determined not only by values of privacy, but also
values of communality. The binary distinctions between private and public spaces do not
apply to the way that Ottomans utilize space. Ottoman spaces are categorized by who is
allowed access into the space, as exemplified in the well-known concept of haremlik.
Haremlik is a space in a house that only blood relatives can access. Ottoman houses have
both classified rooms as well as spaces that open to the public. Thus, it is unfeasible to define
Anatolian houses in the binary context of private and public space. There exists a delicate
balance as well as a struggle between spaces where public interaction is allowed and spaces
where public interaction is not allowed.
The Turkish architectural historian Ugur Tanyeli explains this struggle as a reaction to
a society in which the boundaries of personal privacy are not respected, resulting in the
3

construction of secret spaces that oppose societal invasions of privacy.
3
Tanyeli refers to an
Ottoman document from 1637 in which the government instructed a group of Christians
living in a specific neighborhood to move out or to sell their houses to Muslims due to the
overpopulation of the Christian population in the neighborhood. Tanyeli states that the
Christians did not resort to changing their religion, and ultimately, none left the neighborhood,
however this incident exemplifies governmental breaching of the perimeters between private
property, private life, and the public.
Until the mid-19
th
century, Ottomans did not need to apply the distinctions of private
and public spaces to their lives, on account of their distinct system of conceptualizing
spaces.
4
The Ottoman evolution in a capitalist system, beginning from the mid-19
th
century,
necessitated that Ottomans adopt concepts of private and public space. It did not seem
possible to exist within a capitalist world without using capitalist terms. However,
internalizing these concepts proved to be impractical, as the language of capitalism did not
correlate with any existent spaces in Ottoman territory. The Ottoman Empire was a monarchy,
and consequently all land belonged to the Sultan. “Therefore, bringing these terms into being
in Turkish language means building their signified realities.”
5
Tanyeli considers this
borrowing a foreign concept without the consideration of specific Ottoman histories—such as
democracy—as an impasse related to the construction of private and public spaces in Turkey.
This conceptual conflict has been an issue in Turkey even in the 21
st
century, ninety years
after the formation of the democratic Turkish Republic.
The unresolved complications of the notions of private and public space remain
prevalent on the streets of Turkey. For instance, public sidewalks are unofficial spaces for

3
Ugur Tanyeli, “Kamusal Mekan-Ozel Mekan: Turkiye’de Bir Kavram Ciftinin Icadi”, in Genişleyen Dünyada
Sanat Kent ve Siyaset: 9. Uluslararası Đ stanbul Bienali’nden Metinler, ed. Deniz Unsal, (Đ stanbul: Istanbul
Kültür Sanat Vakfı, 2005) 199-209.
4
Ibid.
5
Ibid. 200.
4

shopkeepers to display their wares outside. Examples of the private use of public spaces by
citizens are innumerable in Istanbul, especially in considering squatter neighborhoods. In this
way, Istanbulians unconsciously participate in forming the way that the city of Istanbul
functions. There have always been interventions by the general public in the city. Although in
Istanbul people may use the public space near a highway as a personal vegetable garden,
interactions of this ilk in public space were always performed reluctantly.
The idea of public space in Istanbul, when first used by the Ottoman Empire—which
was a monarchic empire despite the rare instances of constitutionalism (an empire which
politically still resisted democracy)—denoted the Sultan. The word “public,” regarding
notions of public space, in dictionaries corresponded to the governmental, and since the
government was equivalent to the Sultan, the governmental was perceived by the general
public as a signifier of a place belonging to the Sultan. In fact, many years later, although the
monarchic regime was replaced by a democracy, this perception of the government as
equivalent to an absolute authority has not changed. As a result, the concept of public space
remained tethered to a single authority in people’s minds. People who use public space solely
for their own objectives, such as the extension of their land on to public land—land in which
every citizen has a right to use—believe that they are occupying either vacant space or
governmental space.
The other consequences of this attitude can be seen in the form of the general
population’s indifference towards the invasion of public spaces by the government. Since the
perception of public space among governmental authorities is similarly self-serving, the
government believed that they could do whatever they wanted with any space that was
deemed public. When municipalities build their own properties on public beaches or in public
parks, the general population may not be aware or even concerned with their right to utilize
public spaces communally as opposed to capitalistically, even if the general population may,
5

in everyday life, unconsciously regard the public spaces they inhabit as public. The recent
Gezi Parki Resistance demonstrated that the attitude towards public spaces has been changing
in Turkey. On June 1
st
2013, thousands of citizens from all economic and social classes
gathered at Gezi Park in Istanbul to oppose the government’s plans to demolish the public
park in order to build a shopping mall. However, for the first time in the history of the
Turkish Republic, people occupied the park and did not let the government misappropriate
Istanbul’s public space. Although many protesters gathered at Gezi Park to protest oppressive
Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan and his government, this incident also served as an indication
that after many years of using the word public in a way that did not actually refer to the
concept of being shared by all the people of a country, thousands of Istanbulians regarded the
concept of public space in the same way that people of democratic states do.
The unconscious and collective urban shaping of Istanbul played an essential role in
the formation of Oda Projesi. The group was inspired by the collective shaping of the city by
and for the general population, and their often unconscious designs, as previously
exemplified by the shopkeepers utilizing public space for private commerce and individuals
planting personal vegetable gardens in public areas. Oda Projesi’s projects in the Galata
neighborhood, taking place over a span of five years, mostly responded to this collective
urban shaping and endeavored to reveal and explore the capability of individuals as well as
the power of social relationships in creating environments. Ana Paula Cohen says that when
she discusses Oda Projesi’s works from the period between 2000 and 2005, “they [Oda
Projesi] make people conscious of the power each individual has to form the environment
where she/he will live—‘being the artists of their daily life,’ in Oda Projesi’s words—and
share that they can transform both private and public space.”
6
The Oda Projesi collective
openly declared, when discussion of the Gezi Parki Resistance arose, “That is it. This was the

6
Ana Paula Cohen, “Dispositive workshop- part 1: Oda Projesi”, Kunstverein Mūnchen, Drucksache,
(spring 2003), accessed June 10, 2013 in the archive SALT research.
6

thing that we had always been trying to realize in Galata. They (the public in the Gezi
Resistance) accomplished that throughout Istanbul.”
7

This master thesis examines Oda Projesi’s five year period in Galata between 2000-
2005, and seeks to consider new possibilities for both art spaces and for the use of space in
private apartments in Istanbul. This period is essential for two reasons: firstly, this period is
the only time that Oda Projesi had their own fixed space; and secondly, in this time period the
collective developed their methodology of a collective art practice. During these five years,
Oda Projesi functioned as a mediator between communities with different socio-cultural
backgrounds by enabling artistic situations and offering a public space that was open to all
who wished to engage with it. The projects explored in this thesis detailing Oda Projesi’s
practice during its Galata period focus chiefly on, Drawing on Paving Stones, Children
Paintings on Cloth Lines, About a Useless Space, and From Place to Space. From the
beginning of the Galata period, Oda Projesi instrumentalized art projects that established
contact with the inhabitants of the Galata neighborhood and that brought different people
together in order to facilitate interaction. “They [Oda Projesi] set up situations for various
types of exchange in which intimacy and personal contact are stressed.”
8
Creating a space
and situations for interaction between culturally westernized, affluent urban dwellers and the
neighborhood population of recent Anatolian immigrants, who were neither urbanized nor
Westernized, is largely considered to be a valued effort on behalf of Oda Projesi. Indeed,
very few public spaces in Istanbul were shared by all economic and cultural classes. As a
result of clashing Western and Anatolian cultural values, Istanbul has been a city not
unknown for discrimination for more than three decades, especially after it became a
metropolitan city populated by millions hailing from different parts of Turkey. Oda Projesi’s

7
Oda Projesi interview by Basak Comert, Istanbul, 1/11/2014
8
Maria Lind, “Actualization of Space: The Case of Oda Projesi”, (October, 2004) accessed March 10, 2013,
http://eipcp.net/transversal/1204/lind/en
7

presence as an alternative art space and artists’ collective, which built close relations with the
people in its immediate environment— the immigrant neighborhood of Galata, populated by
mixed-ethnic backgrounds: traditional, mostly Kurdish and Alewite, and recently-immigrated
Eastern Anatolian low-income minorities—enabled Anatolian minorities and Westernized
urban populations to meet. Oda Projesi created situations that provided an environment
promoting exchange and dialogue between the different communities inhabiting the
neighborhood—very often illiterate, low-income and traditional Anatolians and the
collective’s Westernized Turkish or European guests: artists, musicians or other professionals.
In a short period of time the space and the circumstances created by Oda Projesi became a
site for breaking down barriers of prejudice among these disparate cultures.

Turkey’s Social and Political Environment and Oda Projesi
The artists Özge Açıkkol, Seçil Yersel, and Güneş Savaş met in their mid-20’s when they
were students at the Marmara Fine Arts School in Istanbul. Secil Yersel, who already had a
BA degree in sociology, was then completing her MFA degree at Marmara Fine Arts where
Özge Açıkkol and Güneş Savaş were BFA candidates. Their common interest in Istanbul and
its public spaces brought the artists together. The artists also came from a similar cultural and
socio-economic group. All three were born into urban middle class families and raised in
Istanbul, where they still lived with their parents at the time when they met. The artists had
spent their childhood years in the optimistic environment of Istanbul in the seventies, where
an “undifferentiated (uniform) middle class did possess social reflexes as sharing, gathering,
visiting neighbors and relatives.”
9
That was before the 1980’s military coup and “its policies

9
Erden Kosova, Face-to-Face, Tensta Konsthall Catalogue #1, (Spånga; 2004.)
8

of de-politicization, wiping out all ‘suspicious’ collectivities; that was before the social
atomization of the neo-liberal discourse regulating the eighties with its promotion of
entrepreneurship and pursuit of self-interest and with its multiplying, low-quality TV
channels.”
10
The middle class had not been culturally, ethnically, and economically diverse
and Istanbul had not yet been segregated into impoverished neighborhoods and gated
communities. Thereby, the psychological borders that currently exist among Istanbulians
were not as prevalent in society then as they have become over the last three decades. After
1980, due to the rapid deterioration of the city and the shrinking of its public spaces—such as
green fields, parks, seaside, and city squares, in which different segments of society share the
same spaces with gentrification projects—the interaction between Istanbul’s citizens was not
facilitated by merely living in the same neighborhood or sharing the same resources. A
dialogue between city dwellers was mainly possible only between people who had shared
interests and common cultural tastes.
11
This has led to a decrease of the possibility of
encounters between different societal groups in the city. In this sense, Oda Projesi’s effort in
bringing these different communities together was essential. Both societal and spatial
separation in cities may negatively affect a sovereign and democratic future of countries,
especially a territory such as Turkey, which has an inherently multi-layered society and
suffers from aversions to shared identities.
Diversity of life styles and traditions, clashing values and identities, ideological
combats, and extremes of economic disparity characterize Turkish society. Ideological
differences have also established borders within society. Turkish art writer and curator Erden
Kosova explains the social dichotomies in the form of “Muslim versus non-Muslim, Sunni
versus Alewite, Turkish versus Kurdish, nationalist versus cosmopolitan, isolationist versus

10
Ibid.
11
Sibel Yardimci, Kuresellesen Istanbul’da Bienal; Kentsel Degisim ve Festivalizm (Istanbul: Iletisim,
2005)
9

pro-European, extremely rich enclaves versus vast ranges of slums of poverty; bourgeoisie
versus nouveau riche; Istanbulian versus Anatolian; urban versus rural; urbanized versus
urbanizing; and so on, and so forth”
12
in his article about Oda Projesi’s practice. Kosova
considers Oda Projesi’s practices in Galata as the “pursuit of disidentification with social
formations they [the three artists comprising Oda Projesi] are associated with.”
13
In 1997, the
Oda Projesi artists agreed to move into their own place together in order to obtain new living
experiences. As a result of their limited student budget, the artists rented an apartment in
Beyoglu, in the neighborhood of Galata. For several centuries, the neighborhood of Galata
had been a shelter for social minorities, and in the 19
th
century, non-Muslim inhabitants
populated the neighborhood. However, throughout the early and mid-20
th
century, due to a
nationalistic policy, the non-Muslim population was forced to leave Galata. After a long
period of abandonment in Galata, beginning in the 80’s, in conjunction with a pattern of
migration in which people moved from rural areas to urban areas, Galata became home for
Eastern Anatolian newcomers. The new migrants reshaped the interiors of their houses in
Galata according to their own particular culture.
14
Since “the traditional Turkish houses
evolved from the dwelling of the nomad tribes: the tent, or yurt,” the houses “kept the same
functions and the same relations between the individual tents (rooms in the house) and their
common area, called a sofa. Each room was multifunctional, it provided space for sleeping,
seating, cooking, eating and even bathing.”
15
This housing tradition is maintained in Eastern
Anatolia and rural regions in Turkey. Thus, when families come from this culture to big cities
where real estate values are high, they tend to continue this housing tradition in a single-room

12
Erden Kosova, Face-to-Face, Tensta Konsthall Catalogue #1, Spånga, Sweden, 2004.
13
Ibid,.
14
Kosova, Face-to-Face, Tensta Konsthall Catalogue #1, Spånga; 2004.
15
Regina Raycheva, “Architecture of Residential Buildings in Bulgaria from the Revival Period”, June
2012, University of Forestry Sofia, accessed on 01/15/2014.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:KD2eKmedJVkJ:https://aup-
journals.rtu.lv/article/download/aup.2012.003/48+&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=safari
10

apartment due to economic factors. Özge Açikkol addressed this cultural difference when she
said that she had never lived in a flat consisting of only a single room, but she saw it in
Galata, as her neighbor practiced the housing tradition of living in a single room.
16
Although
the Oda Projesi artists belonged to a more westernized and modernized urban Istanbulian
community, instead of harboring disdain for their neighbors, the collective became attuned to
their Anatolian lifestyle. Their effort was “to traverse the barriers between the binaries within
the social hierarchies.”
17
Due to the long-term oppressive cultural regime and conservative
political practices of the Turkish government, there existed no place in the urban or political
environments for radical expressions of different cultures, even Anatolian culture. Oda
Projesi’s alternative art space in Istanbul “offers a gate to a spatial trialectics that might
encourage similar (independent, non-budget but effective) experiments in the fields of
political gatherings, publishing ventures, and other cultural scenes.”
18
Therefore, the space
functioned to create what they called an alternative “third space” where not only dominant
western culture could express itself, but also subcultures. Situations that were created by Oda
Projesi in their Galata space offered different cultures a common physical ground in the
service of exchanging ideas, and sharing and making decisions together.
The cultural differences in Istanbul that Oda Projesi referred to in their activities also
pertained to Turkey’s specific geography as a country straddling the divide between the East
and the West. In the Galata room, Oda Projesi created situations to alleviate the tension
between contrasting cultural groups. Turkey’s location between the Arab Islamic world and a
Judeo-Christian Europe has been an essential factor in the production of its layered culture
and society. Historically, Turkey developed issues in terms of its identity that have
engendered cultural separation within its society. Yücel Bozdağlı identifies this identity crisis

16
Deniz Ozkan, “Spatial Practices of Oda Projesi and the Production of Space in Istanbul” Public Issues,
issue: 11
17
Kosova, Face-to-Face, Tensta Konsthall Catalogue #1, Spånga; 2004.
18
Ibid,.
11

in “two dimensions: domestic and international.”
19
The international dimension relates to an
ongoing exclusion from the European Union and Turkey’s continuing attempts to join the
Union. Since 1958, Turkey has been trying to fulfill the requirements of the European Union.
Acceptance into the European Union would help Turkey in creating a western identity and
would also “eliminate anti-Western forces by giving them (pro-Ottomans, pro-Islamists,
isolationist) a credible national identity”
20
since arguably one of the aims of Turkey’s
modernization project’s was eliminating these anti-secular ideologies and identities. On the
other hand, although Turkish territory is close to Arab countries, Turkey has never felt close
to Arab Islamic Countries. Although ninety percent of Turkish society identify as Muslims,
most of the society have never adopted and wholly understood Islamic culture. Islamic
practices in Turkey are different than many Islamic practices in the Arab world. Islamic
religion forbids drinking alcohol, however most Turkish Muslims do not abide by the same
strictures against drinking alcohol. The traditional beverage ‘rakı’ has 40% alcohol, which
many Turkish Muslims drink. Furthermore, “Islam was an ethnic religion identified with
Arabs and their language.”
21
Both Ottoman Turkish and modern Turkish languages are
distinct from Arabic, the language of the Koran, and most Turkish people have never been
able to read the Koran in Arabic. Therefore, the tradition of Islam in Turkey was developed
by the people who interpreted the Koran from what they heard, according to their own culture
or interest. Hence, Turkey found itself alienated from its neighboring countries since its
cultures and traditions are neither European nor Arabic. Nonetheless, this estrangement was

19
Yucel Bozdaglioglu, Turkish Foreign Policy and Turkish Identity; A Constructivist Approach, New York,
Rutledge, 2003, p.72.
20 ibid.,90.
21
Çaglar Keyder, The Dilemma of Cultural Identity on the Margin of Europe, Review, Vol. 16, No. 1,
Winter, 1993, p.19.
12

not a reason why Turkey was flawed in terms of producing its own shared-culture, but it was
a cause of Turkey’s isolation from its neighboring countries.
22

The lack of shared culture in Turkey can be identified with its historical background
and successive instances experienced during the last two centuries. Culturally layered society
first emerged in this territory during the extensive presence of the Ottoman Empire. As a
multicultural empire, the Ottoman rulers “never attempted to impose a cultural hegemony”
23

on its inhabitants. The ethnic background of the ruling class was also complex. The tradition
of the Ottoman Empire embraced religious tolerance. The Empire had never tried to gather its
inhabitants under a singular shared identity. This multicultural background was the cause of
the problematic solutions at a time when the western world was going through a period of
rapid modernization. The Empire could not find any resources in its culture to empower the
state. The necessity of the resurgence at the time led the rulers to import modern institutions
and ideas from the West. However, lacking a Christian background and having a syncretistic
culture, the assimilation of western modernization did not wholly penetrate into society. It
only added another dichotomy to the populace: pro-western and anti-western, which is still a
dominant polarity in Turkish society today.
24

Sprawling ideas of nationalism concurrent with a period of modernization in Europe
also instigated this separatism. Nationalism was also deemed as necessity for modern
countries. However, the Ottoman intelligentsia was reluctant to embrace the trend towards
nationalism since they could not construct an identity for themselves even after they tried to
invent Ottomanism, which was foiled by Armenian separatism and Hellenism. The
intelligentsia also overlooked identification with Turks, the Anatolian peasantry in the
Empire. Moreover, the term Turk was a slanderous label used by Europeans to vilify Turkish

22
Keyder, The Dilemma of Cultural Identity on the Margin of Europe, p.22.
23
ibid,. 20.
24
ibid,.30.
13

people. This led the Ottoman Empire to fail to construct a nationalist identity and continue
with the Empire’s multicultural tradition and adopting Western technology and ideas of
enlightenment. “The intelligentsia cum state elite were already westernized, and there were
no intellectuals originated in the populace who might be expected to want to preserve “their”
culture.”
25
For the Ottoman Empire, modernization was equal to the Westernization, which
helps to explain why the word “culture” in Turkish always refers to Western culture: ballet,
opera, theatre, and the like—not the shared traditions of the majority of Turkish society.
26

The other historical instance that has promoted the proliferation of identities in
Turkish society and its complex issues around identity today is explained by Keyder as the
urgent shift from the Empire to a nation-state. The push came from Europe after the Greek
independence from the Ottoman Empire, and in order to defend their state, it was necessary
for Ottomans to adapt nationalism. Due to European exclusion, Ottoman intellectuals should
have considered their identity as non-Judeo-Christian and non-Greco-Roman. The Arab
exclusion also made it unviable to adopt the nation of Islam. Besides, the Westernized
Ottoman intellectuals preferred a nationalist state rather than a religious identity because they
knew that modernization also required a secular government. Therefore, the only option was
to build a Turkish nation, which didn’t have roots or traditions. For the founder of the
Turkish Republic, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, Turkey’s aim was to attune the country to
contemporary civilization through Republican modernization project, which meant Western
civilization.
27
His notion of national identity was also western and secular. Subsequently, the
Turkish Republic’s primary goal was to construct a new nationalist identity in addition to
building a secular and democratic state that was inspired by Western values. This national
identity did not intend to be exclusionary in terms of ethnicity as opposed to more

25
Keyder, The Dilemma of Cultural Identity on the Margin of Europe, p.23.
26
ibid,.30.
27
Bozdaglioglu, Turkish Foreign Policy and Turkish Identity; A Constructivist Approach, (New York,
Routledge, 2003), p.72.
14

generalized objectives of nationalism. However, until today it could not eradicate the
divisions among society and even helped to add new contradictions in politics and popular
attitude.
28
Bozdağlıoğlu interprets Turkish identity as a creation “by the bureaucratic-
authoritarian elite, which single-handedly carried out the modernization project.”
29
He quotes
from Doğu Ergil to indicate that the problem pertained to the bureaucratic-authoritarian
elite’s creation of identity: “When national identity is not a construct negotiated by the
citizens of that nation, it creates problems for neglected and excluded groups that can escalate
into perceived security threats by the hyper-sensitive state."
30
The Turkish identity, which
stressed secularism and prioritized western values, was eventually perceived as oppressive to
other ethnic and religious identities. For most Turkish middle-class urbanized societies, the
republican project helped to construct Turkish identity and build shared values shaped by
Western culture, which was embraced by the majority of urban societies. However,
Bozdağlıoğlu considers this attempt on identity construction a creation of ‘white Turks.’
Therefore, the poor and the people who subscribed to traditions of Anatolian custom,
identified themselves with their ethnicity or religion, and became ‘black Turks.’ This result
may have also occurred because the Republican modernization project had not yet fully
reached Turkey’s Northern, Central and Eastern Anatolian territories. The project was
effective only in the Western territories. Furthermore, incoming governments had prioritized
joining the global economy rather than continuing Turkey’s modernization project. As a
result, ethnic, religious, and ideological oppositions to the republican ideology came into
proper existence during the 1960’s. The dichotomous hierarchies had multiplied and
penetrated every social relationship as a result of the economic policy that enabled the
mechanization of agriculture and supported immigration from rural to urban areas. Thanks to

28
Keyder, The Dilemma of Cultural Identity on the Margin of Europe, p.19.
29
Bozdaglioglu, Turkish Foreign Policy and Turkish Identity; A Constructivist Approach, (New York,
Rutledge, 2003), p.72.
30
ibid.,80.
15

neo-liberal economic politicies, until the end of the 80’s Istanbul’s population tripled with the
influx of migrants who came from Anatolian Turkey. Since the beginning of the 90’s Istanbul
had been the capital of the both the industrial and creative sectors in Turkey. The clashes
between Anatolian traditions and Westernized urban values became much more visible
within Istanbul’s boundaries. The distinction between ‘white Turks” and “black Turks” was
more prevalent in the city of Istanbul than anywhere else. However, these encounters were
not based on sharing or doing something together. While ‘white Turks’ looked down on
‘black Turks’, ‘black Turks’ saw ‘white Turks’ as corrupt, heathen, wicked, or excessively
westernized. In their activities at Galata, Oda Projesi aimed to bring ‘white Turks’ and ‘black
Turks’ together in micro situations based on sharing, and worked to deconstruct prejudices
between these two societies.

16

Strategies for Encountering Cultural Multiplicities
Although recent migrants populated Galata, the neighborhood remained one of the most
impoverished areas in Istanbul. At the same time, Galata was located in the heart of Beyoglu,
which has become a center for art and entertainment in Istanbul. With the economic boost in
the 90’s, there was increased interest from town-dwellers and developers in the city center.
“As the rules go, first the artists arrived to Galata, then the real estate offices, then the design,
advertisement, architecture offices, then the cafes and restaurants…”
31
Appropriately,
Beyoglu has been an area for a diverse and vibrant crowd. When the artists moved into the
apartment in Galata on Sahkulu Street, unlike everyone else their priority was to make an
effort to understand the neighborhood and its people.
32
In contrast, many new art galleries in
Istanbul that opened in old, closed, primarily Anatolian residential neighborhoods were
motivated by low rent and attracting the attention of the contemporary global art market,
rather than making an effort to understand and interact with their new neighborhood. In those
instances, the exclusion of the art galleries from their new neighborhoods was inevitable. In
one of the oldest neighborhoods in Istanbul, Tophane, art galleries are mostly ignored by
inhabitants of the same neighborhood, and are even threatened and attacked by their
neighbors. The most extreme case occurred in Tophane on September 21
st
, 2010. Residents
of Tophane attacked art patrons with pepper spray and spray painted one of the galleries on
the art row during an opening reception. The suspected motivation for these attacks included
hostility towards the politically anti-conservative works in the gallery, and opposition to the
consumption of alcohol on the street in front of the gallery, behavior which insulted the
gallery’s neighbors. Several years before these incidents occurred, Oda Projesi instinctively
knew that—due to the artists’ living experiences in 70’s Istanbul where neighborhoods had
not been segregated by diverse social and economic classes—in order to survive and create

31
Kosova, Face-to-Face.
32
Oda Projesi archive, SALT Research, accessed on July 10, 2013.
17

something positive they must respect and understand their new environment in the context of
its new ‘black Turk’ culture.
33

To this end, the artists observed their new environment for a period and created a
dialog with the Galata Association to obtain more information about the community. They
realized that almost all their neighbors were comprised of large families who frequently used
public spaces in the neighborhood more often than other residents in other parts of the city.
Especially during the spring and summer, a great deal of children played outside in the street
and neighborhood women met outside of the buildings in the courtyard or on sidewalks to
drink tea and do handwork.
34
In most families, men worked outside of their homes and
neighborhoods, with the exception of shopkeepers, often leaving women and children as the
only denizens of daily life in the neighborhood. The considerable population of children
proved to be an advantage for the artists as a way to initiate interaction with the
neighborhood. Several years later this experience would be one of Oda Projesi’s
methodological approaches to launch a dialogue with their new environments. As in the case
in 2001, Oda Projesi stated that in their experience, the best way for strangers to engage with
their new environment was to meet the children living in the surrounding areas.
35

In most parts of Turkey, including Istanbul, streets belonged, unofficially, to children in
which to play. This custom has been slowly eradicated by the development of big cities after
the 80’s. However, in old and underdeveloped neighborhoods like Galata, children still play
in the streets due to the lack of public parks and lack of space in their apartment. Along with
Oda Projesi’s apartment space in Galata, Sahkulu Street, the three artists, Özge Açıkkol, Seçil
Yersel, and Güneş Savaş first encountered the neighborhood children and immediately
developed an interest in the usage of public space in Istanbul. Due to their interest in

33
Oda Projesi interview by Basak Comert, Istanbul, 1/11/2014.
34
Internet interview with Oda Projesi on March 17
th
2008, Istanbul, accessed on April 2013,
http://sinkabout.blogspot.com/2008_03_01_archive.html
35
Oda Projesi’s project description from their archive, SALT Research, accessed on July 15, 2013.
18

understanding the neighborhood, the artists began spending time on the streets of Galata. The
objective of spending time on the streets of Galata was to observe the children and share the
same space with them. Regardless of the process of initiating communication with the
children, Oda Projesi’s relationship with them had begun. As soon as the artists attempted to
converse with the children, the children included them in their games, discussions, and
invited the artists into their apartments. According to the three artists, the process of building
a relationship with the children was the least difficult, and since children are open to
everything, they are naturally curious about what they do not know and they are unprejudiced.
The artists also state that being young at the time was an advantage for them in being able to
form a connection with children. At first, the artists joined in children’s games, played ball
with them, and jumped rope. The artists then created games in order to sustain their
relationship with the children. In order to spend time together, the Oda Projesi artists brought
drawing materials, the only materials that they had in their apartment/studio, to make
drawings with the children.
36
The artists and the children had begun to regularly to spend
time together during the day by playing games, including making paintings and little
sculptures from waste materials. In time, as their relationship advanced, they read books,
wrote stories, documented dreams, and prepared meals together. The artists also showed the
children images of famous artworks, and photographs that they took of the children. As the
artists state both in their archive and in an interview I conducted with them, while they were
engaging in these activities they never intended to teach the children how to draw, paint, or
express their views on art.
37
All of the actions were about being together with children and
deepening their relationship with them. In time, the artists and the children began to travel
outside of the neighborhood to draw in the park or by the seaside, as well as drawing and
walking around the historic Galata tower. The drawing sessions around the historic Galata

36
Oda Projesi interview by Basak Comert, Istanbul, 1/11/2014.
37
Ibid.
19

tower became regular Sunday activity for them. They named this event, “Drawing on Paving
Stones.” Although it was primarily for the neighborhood children, the event was open to
everyone. In a short time, the activity drew the attention of shopkeepers around the tower, its
visitors, and their children and national magazines. Thus, through the artists’ connections
with the Galata Association, the children became involved with the Galata festival through
their drawing event, which took place during the festival and lasted several years.
38
In terms
of organizing the painting event, Oda Projesi stated, “Like always, we did not do anything
special to realize this event. We provided painting materials to children and they carried them
through the Galata Tower. Together we pasted papers on the ground and they started to draw.
Subjects of the paintings were mostly independent but sometimes to provide motivation we
would suggest drawing the Galata tower or a fountain around us.”
39
The artists added,
“Painting for us has been always a vehicle for talking and sharing time. The ‘Drawing on
Paving Stones’ event was also aiming to achieve the same goal.”
40
By that time, the
children’s paintings of the Galata Tower had been collected and the Oda Projesi artists
planned an exhibition to display them in the neighborhood. They hung the pictures on cloth
lines, which was a system created by inhabitants of the neighborhood to dry clothes. The
exhibition caught the attention of neighbors and people who passed by Sahkulu Street.
Sponsored by a national newspaper, the exhibition also took the form of a book entitled,
“Paintings on Cloth Lines.” The book was displayed in the Galata Festival. “Painting on
Cloth Lines” consisted of several children’s paintings and some texts written by Oda Projesi,
as well as the director of the newspaper company. The text written by Oda Projesi resembles
a manifestation of the event and is comprised of five bullet sentences.
“ – Children paintings can not be displayed in a white cube.
– Paintings on street are a part of a game.

38
Oda Projesi archive, SALT Research, accessed on July 10, 2013.
39
Oda Projesi interview by Basak Comert, Istanbul, 1/11/2014.
40
Ibid.
20

– The paintings done on paving stones are different than those paintings drawn on a
table.
– A child’s eye is the only authority to decide the completeness of a painting.
– A child is the best person for depicting a painting.”
41

In these statements we can read the artists’ approach towards the site-specificity of the
exhibition and the children’s independent approach to making art. In referring to the last
bulleted sentence, under each painting in the book there are captions written by its creator
(Fig.1). The captions under each painting depict pictures. In one of them, a child writes, “I
am depicting. Here is a house. Dilek’s house. Rich people bought the house. Here there is a
couch. This house looks like it belongs to wealthy people.” The pictures and their captions in
the book reveal the children’s inner worlds and thoughts, depicting their lives for viewers
(Fig.2), (Fig.3).
Relative to Turkish society’s hierarchical and paternalistic structures, the artists’
relationships with the neighborhood children were formed in the model of sisterhood. The
children called the artists: Seçil Abla, Özge Abla and Güneş Abla. ‘Abla’ means sister in
Turkish, and is used by younger brothers or sisters to express their respect, love, and
relationship to elder sisters.
42
Turkish psychoanalyst Güler Okman Fişek also considers this
form of address as a positive collaborative statement. She states that accepting a stranger as a
family member indicates a desire to build a sincere relationship. It also demonstrates a
hierarchical position, because to call a stranger ‘Abla’ means to accept her as an authority.
43

The Oda Projesi artists did not seem annoyed; in fact they appeared to accept their identity as
designated by the children. In an interview with Oda Projesi, published in a magazine, the
artists mention Galata’s underdevelopment, especially in the realm of children’s facilities.
Secil Yersel states that as the neighborhood lacked public facilities, such as a park for

41
Oda Projesi, Camasir Iplerinde Resim, Istanbul: Hurriyet, 1999.
42
Oda Projesi archive, SALT Research, accessed on July 10, 2013.
43
Guler Okman Fisek, “Psikoterapide Bağlamsal Duyarlılık ve Batı Kokenli Psikoterapilerin Uygulanmasi”,
Bogazici Universitesi, Psikoloji Arastirma ve Uygulama Merkezi, accessed January, 24, 2014,
http://www.bupampsi.boun.edu.tr/?q=node/63.
21

children to play in or cultural/community centers for them to spend their time pursuing
intellectual activities, the artists had felt responsible for the children’s intellectual
development.
44
The children’s families provided for needs such as food, shelter, and affection,
while the artists provided them with alternative leisure activities, friendship, and offered the
children different perspectives on life, in a manner similar to the way elder sisters behave
towards younger siblings. The sincere intentions of the artists’ relationship with the children
paved the way for creating a dialogue with the children’s mothers. In this way, the artists’
neighborhood relationships began developing, and they started to spend time not only with
the children but also with all their neighbors, meeting with them in the courtyard or inviting
their neighbors into their apartment. The artists had thus successfully become involved with
the neighborhood community in Galata on Sahkulu Street.

Raising Awareness about the Use of Space
The Oda Projesi artists have been interested in the practices and usage of Istanbul’s
public space since they were students. Since then, the artists have initiated a long-term
research process about how public space in Istanbul is used and the ways in which it has
formed and been transformed by its users. Yersel, Açıkkol, and Savaş circulated the city to
record interactions made by citizens with Istanbul’s public spaces. The artists photographed
and documented what they had seen in the city. In these works, the artists attempted to
document how Istanbulians saw public space as an opportunity and possibility to attach or
detach their belongings.
45
The way that public space was used in Galata on Sahkulu Street,
albeit the shortage of public space in the neighborhood, also advanced the artists’ research on
public spaces in Istanbul.

44
Oda Projesi archive, SALT Research, accessed on July 10, 2013
45
Internet interview with Oda Projesi on March 17
th
2008, Istanbul, accessed on April 2013,
http://sinkabout.blogspot.com/2008_03_01_archive.html

22

Finding equivalent Turkish words for ‘public’ and ‘private’ proved highly difficult
since the concepts of public and private had not previously existed. Therefore, the
problematics of defining these words in dictionaries contrasted with their signification in
Turkish minds. In one English-Turkish dictionary dated 1860, this was the Turkish definition
for the word private: (1) ‘Halvete mahsus: mahsus: has’ (seclusion: exclusive: belonging to
the Sultan) (2) ‘gizlü: saklu: hafi: mektum: mahremane’ (secret: hidden), (3) ‘adi: zati: ferdi’
(personal: individual). The word public as an adjective was defined: (1) ‘Umuma sayi ve
müsterek’ (communal) (2) ‘devletin: miri: amire: mamure’ (belonging to the state: state-
owned) (3) ‘devletin hizmetinde olan:’ (serving the state) (4) ‘mütevatir’ (mutawatir) (5)
‘aleni’ (explicit) (6) ‘cumhurun: ortaligin: alemin: halkin: milletin’ (belonging to a crowd:
related to the folk and nation) (7) ‘devletin her hangi bir fer’inin: eyaletin: sancagin:
nahiyenin: sehrin: köyün: mahallenin: çarsunun: ordunun: donanmanin: hazinenin: zabitanin:’
(belonging to an authority of the state: related to a state, county, city, village, neighborhood,
military, navy, and city force).
46
These defintions from the dictionary illustrates that there
was a complex understanding of the concepts of private and public. The first (1) definition of
private denotes “belonging to the Sultan,” while the third (3) definition denotes “person,
individual.” The first (1) definition of public denotes communality, while the second (2)
definition defines public as “state-owned,” producing a contradiction within its own
definition of the word. However, since it was the time of Imperialism, and since the Sultan
owned everything in the territory, these types of complications were inevitable. The right to
property ownership has been in existence since the beginning of the 20
th
century. Despite that
property ownership rights paved the way for the development of concepts of private space, its
inverse, public space, remained undefined and unknown.

46
Ugur Tanyeli, “Kamusal Mekan-Ozel Mekan: Turkiye’de Bir Kavram Ciftinin Icadi”, in Genişleyen
Dünyada Sanat Kent ve Siyaset: 9. Uluslararası Đ stanbul Bienali’nden Metinler, ed. Deniz Unsal, (Đ stanbul:
Istanbul Kültür Sanat Vakfı, 2005) 200.
23

As the notion of public space had not yet been defined by the state in western terms,
the parameters of the separation of space continues to be based on secrecy. In a copy of the
Oxford English-Turkish dictionary published in 1947, the noun ‘public’ still corresponded to
‘open’ in Turkish.
47
Since the word public as an adjective (kamusal) in Turkish was
perceived as governmental, or belonging to the state, spaces outside the state buildings and
private spaces remained undefined. As a result of this, in Turkey those undefined spaces—in
fact the actual public spaces shared by citizens—have been discerned as ‘no one’s land’ by
the public.
48
Therefore in Turkey, especially in urban areas, there has been a struggle between
spaces that are open to public interaction and spaces in which public interaction is not
allowed. That is to say, private landowners have seen the ‘no one’s lands’ as an opportunity
to enlarge their property onto the “no one’s lands.’ For example, the owner of a house would
feel free to build an additional shed on an adjacent vacant space, since that space was
unowned. Shopkeepers and restaurants might place their tables and stands on streets and use
the space in their own interest. Municipalities have even freely built cafes, restaurants on
beaches, public parks, and historical sites for commercial purposes without polling public
opinion. Beginning in the 1930’s there existed regulations for urban planning in Istanbul to
stabilize the land, yet the regulations had never functioned properly or been strictly enforced.
It may also be true that the regulations were not enough to change the public’s perception of
‘no one’s land’ in terms of public land. As a result, Istanbul’s urban plan has never been
stable, and especially after the increase in population during the seventies and eighties, the
urban plan has become more energetic and unsteady. Hence, Istanbul has been collectively
shaped by its citizens and immigrants who came from different regions of Anatolia with
contrasting traditions. It is this history of public space that can be evidenced in Oda Projesi’s
practice as a reference.

47
Ibid,.
48
Ibid,. 204.
24

The artists were fascinated with this culture of seeing public space as an opportunity
and possibility to attach or detach people’s personal goods. Oda Projesi made a ten-minute
video entitled, For Istanbul, in 2001, aiming to record and document the way that public
space is consumed by people in Istanbul. The video For Istanbul represents how Oda Projesi
sees the city of Istanbul and shows how Istanbul was collectively created by its inhabitants.
49

The video opens with the text “special tour” on a black screen. The text signifies that the
scenes seen in the video will represent Oda Projesi’s perception of Istanbul. A special tour
guided by Oda Projesi continues with an image of a map of Istanbul located on a street by a
travel agency to attract customers. Random pedestrians appear, walking disobediently in a
construction zone, despite the presence of ‘no trespass’ signs. This scene is typical of Istanbul,
as most people do not obey rules, including drivers while they traverse ‘no one’s lands.’ The
next few scenes exemplify how people use public spaces for individual interests, such as a
motorbike parked on a sidewalk, and commercial stalls located on streets and sidewalks.
(Fig.4)(Fig.5)(Fig.6)
These scenes are everyday images from Istanbul. Most Turkish people, even the most
westernized ones, do not find these individually or commercially occupied public spaces
strange. After the scenes of individual occupations of public spaces, creative interventions
made in public spaces by inhabitants appear in the video, such as ropes attached between
apartments to hang commercial products and an old building’s façade used as a place for
displaying business signboards. (Fig.7) (Fig.8) (Fig.9) For Istanbul also displays how
Istanbulians behave in public spaces. For instance, some scenes show groups of citizens
sitting on stairs; people standing and rambling, always in a group and in a square; groups of
dwellers sitting together, seaside. (Fig.10) (Fig.11) (Fig.12) (Fig.13)

49
Oda Projesi interview by Basak Comert, Istanbul, 1/11/2014.
25

In producing this video, each Oda Projesi artist toured and shot images of the city
separately, and then edited selected footage. Locations shown in the video are mostly old and
commercial neighborhoods used by different cultures and subcultures in Istanbul. The artists
shot For Istanbul with the facilities that they had at that time. As none of the artists were then
professional video artists, they had not previously used a professional camera. Oda Projesi
had also never been a collective that had a budget for art projects. They produced almost all
their work with student budgets between 2000 and 2005. Their aesthetic concerns for the
video was only documenting the scenes and making it available for future audiences. This
video enabled people who searched for Oda Projesi to see Istanbul from Oda Projesi’s point
of view. Thus, people would perceive what Oda Projesi intended when they began Istanbul’s
collective urban shaping. For Istanbul functions as a document that Oda Projesi created to
show Istanbul’s idiosyncratic urban shaping and usage of public space.
Oda Projesi’s activities have not been limited to poetic expressions of public space.
During their presence in Galata, the artists functioned as agents of public space. In 1999, at
the time Oda Projesi’s weekly event with children “Painting on Paving Stones” was occurring
in Galata Square, the event became a part of the protests that occurred against Beyoğlu
municipality’s project of redesigning the square. Upon a request from a hospital located in
Galata, the municipality generated a new design project for the square that foresaw opening
the square to streams of traffic. Permitting traffic flow in Galata Square meant losing a
considerable amount of common space belonging to pedestrians and the inhabitants of Galata.
Furthermore, the square was a significant public space for many neighborhood children in
which to play, perhaps more than others who used the space. In Galata, this was the only
space for children where they could play away from the dangers of traffic. As a result, while
inhabitants of Galata were collecting signatures against the redesign project, Oda Projesi and
neighborhood children twice stopped construction authorities by turning their drawing events
26

into protests. Children drew posters and placards addressing the unwanted redesign project of
the square; on some placards they wrote statements such as “We want our square back.” The
artists and neighborhood children occupied the square with their posters and placards, taking
a stand against construction. Through these oppositions, the municipality of Beyoğlu
canceled the redesign of Galata Square and thereafter the square remained a place of leisure
for inhabitants of Galata and a safe playground for children. Several local and national papers
and magazines wrote about the incident. (Fig.14)
The artists advanced their practice of encouraging people to think about concepts of
space by opening one of the rooms in their studio to the public and naming themselves Oda
Projesi (Room Project) in January, 2000. The limitations arising from defined spaces such as
school, home, people’s parents’ houses or art spaces, the artists wanted to create an undefined
space free from the scripted behavior accompanying these pre-defined spaces. In accordance
with this goal, on January 22, 2000, the artists emptied one of the three rooms in their studio
and painted it white to mock the white cube of a gallery space. The Oda Projesi artists named
it the “ODA” (room) exhibition space and described it in a press release as an open room on
view located inside a private apartment shared by two.
50
In the release the reason for
choosing this specific space also explained “a possible contribution of daily life in the house,
and of street life to the works that will take place in the space.”
51
Lead by the member of the
collective, Özge Açıkkol, the first project ‘Yararsiz bir uzama dair” (About a Useless Space)
in the room was realized. This exhibition displayed an empty room located between the
private rooms in the space and the street. The event also functioned as an invitation to and
reception for future activities in the newly-opened space. In the room, there was nothing but
copies of a text written by Georges Perec, “About a Useless Space,” that the visitors could
take with them. In the text, Perec, a French novelist, filmmaker, and essayist, defines the

50
Oda Projesi archive, SALT Research, accessed on July 10, 2013
51
ibid.
27

useless space in these words: “I tried to imagine many times a useless room, an absolutely
and deliberately unnecessary room in a place. This would be neither a closet nor an additional
room nor a long passage nor a cabinet nor a secret corner. This would be an unfunctional
space with no reference at all.”
52
The useless space created by Oda Projesi for the project
“About a Useless Room” was the room, which opened to an Italian courtyard surrounded by
buildings, one of the few common spaces in the neighborhood. The artists saw this feature of
the room as an opportunity to allow street life and everyday life into the apartment to
contribute to projects that could take place in the space. They asked, “What kind of memory
will be loaded into this empty room together with art projects?”
53
The very first project in the
room was dedicated to thinking about the new possibilities and the meaning of using an
undefined space, and determining how social relationships form spaces. In their projects, Oda
Projesi explored everyday activities in terms of their capabilities of shaping spaces and
creating social spaces for exchange.
54
In describing the central aspect of the artists’ works,
Nina Möntmann quotes from Certeau: “A room is a network of elements, to some extent it
can be said to be the sum of what is going on inside it, that is, a result of activities or in short,
a room is somewhere for doing something.”
55
This emphasis on the flexibility of space in
Oda Projesi’s projects led the participants to remember the power they had to shape spaces,
as they had already achieved in the instance of Istanbul’s public space custom. Hopefully, the
participants reclaimed the authority of their quotidian spaces by collaborating with Oda
Projesi.
56
These efforts are seen in the collective’s situational works in the room. The project
“One Day in the Room” consisted of a series of events dedicated to spending a day in the
room with participants to realize the invited artists’ projects. The first work in the series was

52
Oda Projesi archive, SALT Research “ About a Useless Space” 09/08/2003
53
ibid.
54
Nina Möntmann, Mixing with the locals process and identity in the work of Oda Projesi. Catalogue to
Oda Projesi exhibition at Tensta Konsthall. Edited by: Karl Holmqvist, Autumn 2004.
55
Ibid.
56
Ana Paula Cohen, Dispositiv workshop- part 1: Oda Projesi, 5 June-31 August. “Kunstverein Mūnchen,
Drucksache, spring 03’,
28

titled “Dance.” For this event, a guest artist, Serkan Özkaya, invited neighbors in Galata to
dance in the room to disco songs. The other event was organized by Özge Açıkkol, entitled
“Bring an object from your home.” Özge asked the neighbors to bring something from their
apartments and place it in to the room for one day. The neighbors, mostly children, brought
several objects into the room, such as coffee tables and toys. Seçil Yersel staged the event
“Wedding and Birthday Party” as a part of the “One Day in the Room” project and invited all
the neighbors to celebrate Ozge Açikkol’s birthday and the wedding of their neighbors. These
situations altered the daily functions of the room.
Oda Projesi, together with the participants, turned their private room into a public one
in order to explore the possibilities of the way that the space was used in Istanbul. Their
method of building informal relationships to shape the space allowed the artists to draw
inspiration from the informal relationship between Istanbul’s public space and the inhabitants
who have been shaping the city. Oda Projesi constructed projects by “acting informally both
within the art scene and within society.”
57
The collective states: “We are directly
appropriating the ways in which the city functions, using informal methods of establishing
relations. This would be a reference point, more than any discourse.”
58

The Oda Projesi artists also worked with children to realize the room’s function. By
interviewing the children who were coming to the room, the collective collected their
answers about the existing capacity of the room. These answers were documented as
publications, which they could read as reflections of the collective’s ongoing process in
researching how spaces can form, and finding new uses for their useless space. The first
publication was a small booklet, “Oda Projesi-Room Project-2002.” It consisted of interviews
conducted by the artists with the neighborhood children to ascertain the meaning of the space.

57
Cohen, Dispositiv workshop- part 1: Oda Projesi, 5 June-31 August. “Kunstverein Mūnchen, Drucksache,
spring 03’
58
Love and Devotion, 36 questions; Love and Devotion to; Oda Projesi, Love and Devotion interview with
Oda Projesi, (2004): Tensta Konsthall, accessed June 15, 2013 through SALT Research.

29

They asked the children ten essential questions: What is the purpose of this place? What
would you do if this room were yours? Why do you come here? Do you remember how you
met us? What was the most amusing experience that you have had in the room? What have
you done in this room when we are not around? Have you had any dreams about us? What
would change in your life if we moved out? What would happen if the room was gone, but
we stayed? What is the difference between your house and this room? The other questions
the collective asked the children differed, depending on the artists’ personal relationships
with them. For instance: Do you remember the time when you were angry with us? The
children’s answers to the questions seemed helpful to the artists in their queries. The answer I
found most fascinating came from a ten-year old. When asked the question, What is the use
of this place?
59
he said, “This place has different meanings for different people. For us this
place is for drawing, painting, and playing, and for you it is for resting, for others, talking,
making exhibitions, making plans for us with strangers.”
60

Separating a room from the rest of the private apartment/studio and opening it to
strangers may refer to traditions in Ottoman houses. Even though general historical resources
mostly mention the confidential qualities of Ottoman houses by stressing the presence of the
“harem,” which is a secluded space in a house for women and their blood relatives, an
Ottoman house cannot be described by only discussing the presence of a segregated room. As
a result of the tradition of built-environment spaces that are separated by degrees of
confidentiality, the spaces were multi-layered, since in this territory, spaces had not been
contextualized or deemed mutually exclusive in terms of public and private spaces. To better
understand this tradition, Tanyeli offers a look at the relationships of the Ottoman household
to the to outside. Tanyeli presents an example of the ‘hücerat’ (meaning related to cell) style
single room-housing, which dates back to the 15
th
century. This type of housing consisted of

59
Oda Projesi, Oda Projesi- Room Project 2002, accessed June 15, 2013 through SALT Research.
60
Ibid,.
30

side-to-side single rooms centered around a shared courtyard, kitchen and bathroom. Here we
encounter the classified borders of confidentiality. The first degree of a confidential area was
a room in which a family lived that was closed to strangers. A courtyard represented a second
degree of confidentiality, which was used by all of the inhabitants, mostly by women since
men worked outside. A courtyard has a controlled relationship with street life, and it is
neither a private nor a public space but a primary place for dwellers to socialize. As a
‘hücerat’ was located on a street in a neighborhood, that street was also confidential to the
dwellers of the same ‘hücerat.’ It was a second space for neighbors to socialize. Though there
existed no written rules about who could enter that street or neighborhood, strangers from
other neighborhoods were not welcomed by dwellers.
61
In this sense, Galata and Sahkulu
Street, where the Oda Projesi artists had settled, possessed similar qualities. Before the artists’
presence, the neighborhood was closed to others who do not live there. The courtyard was a
space for dwellers of the street to socialize. Albeit the courtyard was not gated, Oda Projesi’s
neighbors recognized that space, as well as the street, as an intimate space for them. Before
the formation of the room in Galata, the artists witnessed their neighbors’ negative behaviors,
such as pouring water from windows on strangers who happened to pass or who were sitting
on benches in the courtyard. The Oda Projesi artists stated that these behaviors discontinued
after their project started.
62

It is also known that in addition to the presence of the ‘harem’ in the mid-19
th
century
Ottoman houses belonging to well-to-do families, there were also ‘selamlik’ which was a
divided section of house for men, their guests, and business meetings. Tanyeli presented the
archetype of this tradition by giving examples of the 16
th
and 17
th
century housing model,

61
Ugur Tanyeli, “Kamusal Mekan-Ozel Mekan: Turkiye’de Bir Kavram Ciftinin Icadi”, in Genişleyen
Dünyada Sanat Kent ve Siyaset: 9. Uluslararası Đ stanbul Bienali’nden Metinler, ed. Deniz Unsal, (Đ stanbul:
Istanbul Kültür Sanat Vakfı, 2005) 200.
62
Oda Projesi interview by Basak Comert, Istanbul, 1/11/2014.
31

“içli-dışlı ev,”
63
which can be interpreted in English as ‘inner-outer house.’ In this housing
culture, an‘inner’ part of a house was allocated for a household, including their relatives and
close friends, while an ‘outer’ portion was designated for people who came from the outside:
guests, servants, etc. The ‘outer’ part of a house was not as confidential as the ‘inner’ part; it
was a common space open to outside interaction. Tanyeli explained this ‘outer’ part of a
house as an extension of street life in to the house, but in much more regulated way. Similarly,
in Oda Projesi’s apartment, the ‘inner’ part of the space consisted of two rooms that were
closed to all, while ‘the room’ or ‘useless space’ was separated from the ‘inner’ part. The
room represented the ‘outer’ part of the apartment/studio space, since it was open to everyone
as well as to street life. In this way, Oda Projesi revived a culture of housing that was
inclusive of the function of socialization as well as maintaining a quality of sheltering, while
the collective interrogated borders of confidentiality at the same time.

Attempts at Mediation
In January 2014, when the Oda Projesi artist Özge Açıkkol said in an interview on the
Gezi Parkı resistance that occurred in the summer of 2013, “That is it. This was the thing that
we had always been trying to realize in Galata. They accomplished that throughout Istanbul,”
the artist was not only referring to the aspect in the resistance of fighting to save a public
space from excessive applications of neo-liberalism in Istanbul. The artists were also
addressing a very unusual social condition that occurred during the resistance in Istanbul: the
peaceful solidarity of millions of Turkish people, who have different background, cultures,
ideologies, traditions, beliefs, ethnic identities, and ethics. The communities who were
generally behaving hostilely to each other came together to collaborate on the same issue. On
the 30
th
of May, a small group of environmental activists who were represented in a biased

63
Tanyeli, “Kamusal Mekan-Ozel Mekan: Turkiye’de Bir Kavram Ciftinin Icadi”.
32

and generalized manner by white Turks, westernized intellectuals, pro-republicans, and
seculars, gathered at the Gezi Parkı, the last green public space left in Taksim, the central
European part of Istanbul, to protest and stop the government’s regeneration project for the
park. The government’s renewal plan for the park proposed building shopping malls, luxury
flats, and rebuilding the Ottoman Military Barracks. The police’s response to the activists
was rigorous; they attacked activists with tear gas bombs and beat the protesters. Despite
being subjected to the disproportionate police force, the activists occupied the park on 31
st
of
May and erected tents in the area. Early in the morning of June 1
st
, the police force and
Beyoglu officers attempted to set the activists’ tents on fire. As the protesters shared the
incidents of arson on social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter, thousands of
people around Istanbul dispersed through Gezi Parki to join and stand along with the
protesters against the police force. In a couple of days the resistance became the biggest mass
movement in the history of the Turkish Republic, accompanied by additional rising protests
throughout Turkey. Seventy-nine out of eighty-one cities around the state attended protests
against the government by chanting, “Everywhere Taksim, Everywhere Resistance.” The
latest official numbers showed that three million and six hundred people were physically
present at the protests, and a considerable number of the public supported the resistance on
various social media platforms. The protestors occupied Gezi Parkı for fifteen days against
excessive police forces, as the government brought thousands of police officers from adjacent
cities. However, riots continued in Taksim Square and on the streets of seventy-nine cities for
approximately two months. The unification of Turkish people happened during these two
months of resistance, and the riots that took place were unexpected, due to Turkey’s
reputation as a conservative and divisive society. White Turks and black Turks banded
together in unexpected solidarity against the government. These groups were also divided in
to many sub-groups within itself, which “Kosova explained as Muslim versus non-Muslim,
33

Sunni versus Alewite, Turkish versus Kurdish, nationalist versus cosmopolitan, isolationist
versus pro-European, extremely rich enclaves versus vast ranges of slums of poverty;
bourgeoisie versus nouveau riche; Istanbulian versus Anatolian; urban versus rural; urbanized
versus urbanizing; and so on, and so forth…”.
Taksim square in Istanbul was a microcosm of the peace occurring between hostile
communities throughout the country. Contrary to expectations, the fight was not only adopted
by westernized, urbanized communities. In the square, almost all groups were represented for
each existent community in Turkey, and they stood alongside other groups such as
Anticapitalist Muslims and Atheists, Kurdish and Nationalists, the left wing and the right
wing, intellectuals and illiterates, Kemalists and pro-Ottomans, and liberals and conservatives
for the first time in the history of the Republic. During the fifteen days of the Gezi Parki
occupation, these disparate societies shared the same spaces, resources, and built structures
such as kitchens, libraries, and infirmaries together, and talked about revolution. It was
thrilling to watch people coming from different cities to see the environment. In fact, the
peaceful conditions in Taksim did not differ from other parts of the city and around the
country. Furthermore, on June 2nd when Prime Minister Tayyip Erdoğan accused protesters
of being “çapulcu” (“looters” in English), the public who attended or supported the protests
embraced this new identity for themselves. On social network platforms, many Turkish
people changed their profile name by adding “çapulcu” before or after their names and last
names. Praise for ‘çapulcu’ appeared on posters and placards in squares. Thanks to the PM
Erdoğan, the invention of this supra identity condensed the existent solidarity of these
segregated communities. The word ‘çapul’ also became popular internationally, and many
celebrities around the world used the word to address the brutal attacks of Turkish police on
protestors. (See Patti Smith in Fig.15) After the resistance ceased, widespread peace in public
has not ended. Most people stopped seeing others as a threat to their individuality. For
34

instance, during the protests, Ramadan was concurrently occurring in August. Protesters and
people in other public forums broadcast that Ramadan was taking place, and as a result, the
‘çapulcu’s decided not to drink alcohol in public squares to show respect for protesting
Muslims. Finally, once these segregated communities shared the same space, and became
allies fighting for the same cause, they realized that they could talk to each other and respect
each other.
Oda Projesi’s function in Galata can be understood as a micro version of the Gezi
Parki Resistance. The artists admit, “The most important thing that Oda Projesi accomplished
is being mediators between discrete societies and providing a space for them to create and
produce together.”
64
Oda Projesi’s efforts to mediate between these discrete societies began
with their presence in Galata. The artists represented white Turks in the context of an artists’
settlement in a neighborhood populated mainly by black Turks. The fact that there existed no
prejudice towards the community there was unusual. Istanbulians were generally
discriminatory towards rural Anatolian immigrants, as Istanbulians harbored an egocentric
belief that their westernized, urban culture was superior. The artist Gülsün Karamustafa, who
has been dealing with Istanbul’s migration issues in her practice said, “Those who come from
rural areas bring their own culture. The city culture is always very rigid against this change.
They do not want to integrate with it.”
65
Oda Projesi changed this cultural hierarchy by
respecting and integrating with the migrant culture in Galata. After the Galata room opened,
the interactions that served as mediation between these two communities increased due to
Oda Projesi‘s presence. As a result of these events and daily interactions, more white Turks
came into the neighborhood and integrated with the neighbors. Further, in these events the
Oda Projesi artists acted as mediatory agents. Since the artists had been living in Galata for a

64
Oda Projesi interview by Basak Comert, Istanbul, 1/11/2014.
65
Artist to Artist; Shahzia Sikander at the 13th Istanbul Biennial, online streaming, directed by David
Howe, 2014, Istanbul, Turkey: Art21, inc. 2013.
35

long time when they began to invite guests from outside the neighborhood to organize events,
the collective helped the guest artists to engage with the neighborhood. In Oda Projesi’s
words, they tried “to mollify people’s (artists, musicians and so on who came from outside
Galata, Sahkulu Street) prejudice towards the existent culture in the neighborhood,”
66
which
was a different approach, deviating from Istanbul’s typical social order. Similarly, the artists
also attempted to change their neighbors’ perception of white Turks or Europeans—who are
identified with white Turks—by arranging an interaction between these societies and by
providing a shared space and activities through art as a medium. Hence Oda Projesi helped
these distant communities experience and explore ways in which their relations could be
benign with one another.
Aside from the first three exhibitions that took place in the room, the events and
situations that took place in the room were participatory and collaborative. The artists invited
many artists, musicians, and performers to realize methods for cultural exchange. There were
also artists who proposed collaborative events with Oda Projesi in Galata. As artist residency
programs in Istanbul had just come into existence in the beginning of the 2000’s, some
European artists in Istanbul at residencies asked Oda Projesi to collaborate on creating
situations in Galata between the years of 2000-2005. The first example of these
collaborations was in June 2001, with the artist Eric Göngrich. As a part of Göngrich’s
research-based project, “Istanbul as a Picnic City,” completed during his residency at Proje
4L, a contemporary art museum, in which the artist used the word “picnic as a metaphor for
the temporary spatial formations that abundantly exist in Istanbul,”
67
Göngrich and Oda
Projesi organized a picnic event in the courtyard located near the room. PÍKNÍK consisted of
an afternoon potluck and screening of Eric Göngrich’s photos, taken in Istanbul. The artists

66
Oda Projesi interview by Basak Comert, Istanbul, 1/11/2014.
67
Derya Ozkan, “The Misuse Value of Space; Spatial Practices and the Production of Space in Istanbul”
(PhD diss., University of Rochester, 2008) p. 222
36

announced the picnic to the neighbors and asked for their participation. The neighbors took
part in the event, shopping for groceries, cooking meals, and providing carpets for dining. At
4:00 pm in the afternoon, the picnic started with tea and cookies, followed by screenings of
Göngrich’s photos on a curtain screen hung from one of the balconies.
68
(Fig. 16) As with all
their work in Galata, Oda Projesi again functioned as a mediator between the Western
cultures inherent in Eric Göngrich’s work and the Anatolian customs in Galata.
Another of Oda Projesi’s projects, From Place to Space, is also a good example of the
collective’s focus on mediating between white and black Turks. In the winter of 2005, Oda
Projesi received an invitation to join the Collective Creativity show curated by the What,
How and for Whom (WHW) curatorial collective, based in Zagreb, in cooperation with
Kunsthalle Friedericianum and the Siemens Arts Program in Munich. The exhibition’s
objective was to gather different forms of artistic collective creativity from around the world,
whose practitioners had similar methodological and political positions. In the exhibition
catalogue WHW explains, “Although the work of collectives is in many ways determined by
certain historical, existential, intellectual or political contexts, the exhibition is interested in
specific kinds of social tensions that serve as a common axis around which various group
activities are being organized.”
69
The Collective Creativity show functioned as an act to
explore “which strategies are taken by collectives in public space, which alternative forms of
sociability are generated, in which ways do they occupy and change the system and the
conditions of production and representation, how do they affect the social order?”
70

Oda Projesi created the project From Place to Space for the Collective Creativity
show. The project was built as an architecture contest “to form a brand new plan based on the

68 Nese Ceren Tosun,“Manifestations of Relational Artist Practices: Dwelling Oda Projesi and Nomading
Julie Upmeyer as differing modes of participatory engagements”, Master Thesis, Theatre and Cultural
Policy Department, University of Warwick, UK, December, 2010.
69
WHW’s essay in the exhibition catalogue, Kollektive Kreativitat/ Collective Creativity, What, How and
for Whom/WHW, Revolver,2005.
70
Ibid.
37

experience originating from the courtyard located at the Sahkulu Street Italian Courtyard
region in Galata.”
71
The Italian Courtyard was the only public space in the neighborhood that
was capable of various functions, such as: a park for children, a space for doing laundry, and
a meeting place for residents. The courtyard also hosted several of Oda Projesi’s events. (Fig.
17) To commence the architecture contest, Oda Projesi published a specification sheet that
declared the conditions and the definition of the project entitled, “Within the scope of the
Collective Creativity, From Place to Space, Architecture Contest, A new Model: Based on
the experience at Sahkulu Street.”
72
The objective of the contest was stated as such:

Article 1.:
“Creating a new neighborhood plan in accordance with the below mentioned specifications,
together with other artists, architects, musicians, show artists, sociologist, authors, tradesmen
and quarter inhabitants. These groups of people have been invited to Oda Projesi, beginning
in 2000; Oda Projesi has conducted its art projects in a 42m2 apartment within the Italian
Courtyard since 1997. The new plan, based upon this experience, will be applied in a room at
the Kunsthalle Friedericianum in Kassel, through the use of different techniques. The contest
will also present an opportunity to think about how to create social areas in different places
and contexts in the revaluation of the projects and types of social relations empowered by the
architectural structure of the region. This contest will present totally different ways of
expanding collective creativity through the participation of Oda Projesi, the architects, and
the inhabitants of the quarter.”
73

The intention of the contest was to reverse traditional architectural processes “by taking life
experiences in an already-existing place as the basic criterion.”
74
This approach can be seen
as a critique of Istanbul’s neoliberal real estate policies that had been accelerated by the
A.K.P.’s
75
government since 2001. After the A.K.P. obtained authority, comprehensive urban
regeneration projects in Istanbul began to be implemented via corporal private companies and

71
From Place to Space Project Description, Oda Projesi archive.
72
Specification, document listing the terms of a contract, published by Oda Projesi
73
ibid,.
74
ibid,.
75
A.K.P is a so-called Muslim conservative, neoliberal political party rules the government for 12 years
since 2002. English interpretation is Justice and Development Party. Their urban development policies on
Istanbul have been criticizing for a long time by masses. Consider occupy Gezi movement.
38

the government. The projects focused on revaluating residential areas including Galata and
Sahkulu Street in parts of the city that were inhabited by impoverished populations. While
real estate companies, in cooperation with the government, seized people’s houses or squatter
houses, the companies offered them rental apartments in public housing sites in areas that
were forty to fifty kilometers outside of the city. The real estate companies, as well as
governmental companies, claimed that the public housing was a perfect way of modern living.
In fact, one of the companies declared that they were the “Architectures of life.”
76
Sahkulu
Street in Galata was subjected to the urban regeneration project in 2003. In 2005, some
neighbors of Oda Projesi had already left the neighborhood. That same year, Oda Projesi was
forced to leave their Galata apartment, two months after their project From Place to Space.
By aiming to reverse the architectural process, published in the statement for the
architecture contest, Oda Projesi provided the neighborhood with a considerable space to
improve the political and social conditions in Galata, in addition to merely providing the
geographical location within the courtyard in which to host events and happenings. The
conditions of traditional Anatolian culture listed in the specification also aimed to normalize
black Turk culture. The political and social conditions listed in the specification were:
“Suitable for picnicking, drinking tea, sewing, making embroidery, chatting,
cooking/eating…
Bridges made up of small wooden structures can be erected between the windows.
The starting point of the stairs is an important point to view the entire region and to
make announcements. This point becomes even more important due to Senel
Grocer’s.
The Grocer is well-known with its tea and “menemen” service at noon. The place of
the grocer’s is an important meeting and sharing point. Somebody may be called out,
food receipts can be given and the grocer may be addressed from the balcony/window
(saving costs incurred by phone charges).
Basket may be hung down from the window/balcony/terrace.
An additional hut may be erected on the balcony/terrace.
Excess items at home and churns may be dropped down and gathered together at the
common place on the courtyard-cleaning day.
Carpets may be washed on the concrete surface, on the street, and the entries of the
buildings.

76
Ecumenopolis: City without limits, DVD, Directed by Imre Azem, 2011, Istanbul, Turkey: Kibrit Film.
39

A private area, for example a tent, can be created where the inhabitants of the quarter
can come together and tell stories to one another, play various games, etc.
Shadow plays, dance shows, body percussion, and live performance can be conducted
in the courtyard.
Theatre studies may be conducted in the courtyard.
Special days such as wedding ceremonies, birthday parties, etc. can be organized in
the courtyard.
Games such as blind man’s bluff, soccer, playing with families, worm picking from
soil, transporting dirt with toy trucks, bouncing on empty benches, fire burning,
snowman-making, swinging, jumping ropes, hula-hoop, foam making, and repartee
games can be played inside the courtyard.
Film or film slide shows can be screened in the courtyard.
Wool quilts can be washed or ventilated in the courtyard.
Fires can be made in the courtyard, as it is covered by earth.
Local radio broadcasting can be performed by erecting a radio antenna on the small
column located in the middle of the courtyard. A secret and silent unity can be
achieved within the region through radio broadcasting. (The radio may be used to
order water from the grocer’s, to make announcements, to sing, to give receipts, to
gossip, etc.)
The column in the middle of the courtyard can be used as a New Year column, a wish
tree, or a decorative item.
The terraces and balconies can be turned into places to meet. (One of the buildings
that surround the courtyard has a system of ‘communal balcony.’ This balcony has to
be used by two different families.)
Light ropes may be stretched between balconies or windows in order to hang wet
clothes, pictures, photographs or balloons.
Pictures, photographs, play cards, or announcements can be placed in the shop
window, the grocer’s window, or on the facades.
The grocer’s and the blacksmith’s shops are sometimes places for drinking tea and
chatting.
Balloons might drop down from the terraces.
A big balloon may be placed on one of the balconies.
Accidentally, people can slip from the stairs, pieces can fall from the facades, and
laundry clothes or carpets could fall down.
While the residents clean their apartments, a bucket of water can be dropped down
from balconies and terraces onto someone who is sitting in the courtyard.
The courtyard that the stairs open onto, and the passage placed at the end of the
building complex is just beneath the house of Haydar the grandfather. Thus, the
passage at the exit point of the area and Haydar the grandfather’s house is a kind of
watch house, an information-obtaining spot, and shelter from the rain.”
77

These instances summarize Oda Projesi’s memories of the courtyard. Each sentence
gives clues about what had happened in the courtyard during the artists’ residence, or what
they witnessed. By looking at these entities one can imagine the daily life of the courtyard

77
Specification, document listing the terms of a contract, published by Oda Projesi
40

shaped by its residents. The main purpose of the list was to make the prospective architects
understand the circumstances of life in the neighborhood and the needs of the residents. In
this way, the architects would be able to make a plan for the courtyard according to the
activities and needs of the neighbors. Oda Projesi made an abundant and detailed list of the
specific conditions and practices taking place within the courtyard by assuming that the
potential architects had not seen the space before. Moreover, since in Istanbul most of the
architects come from middle class or upper class families, it is almost impossible for them to
have had the same kind of neighborhood experiences as the residents of Sahkulu Street in
Galata. As a result, this list above was published to provide insight into how the Italian
courtyard functioned in the neighborhood. The matters on the list present every possible daily
activity conducted by the residents in the courtyard. For instance, some articles indicate the
cleaning habits of residents, stating that the residents may wash their carpets in the street or in
the courtyard. In other words, the artists imply that in Galata, washing carpets in the street
was accepted, unlike in other neighborhoods in Istanbul. By providing those facts, Oda
Projesi actually attempted to convey the culture and living habits of the community to
architects. Correspondingly, in the articles specifying the political and social conditions, there
was a warning note to participants.
“During the project phase, it is obligatory to stay loyal to the daily conditions of life in the
neighborhood, regardless if they are positive or negative. The main purpose is not to present a
solution. The main goal is to create a new place by making use of all possibilities, and by not
turning the conditions into ‘problems’.”
78

In this note, Oda Projesi emphasizes that even if the activities of daily life in the
neighborhood may appear unusual to someone who comes from westernized neighborhoods
in Istanbul, the activities should not be considered positive or negative in the context of
someone else’s subjectivity. The sentence “the main purpose is not to present a way of
solution” stresses that given conditions are not considered a problem on Sahkulu Street in

78
ibid,.
41

Galata, that is to say that the project was not aimed at finding Western solutions to the ways
in which Anatolians lived. The warning note says that the residents hung their laundry on
window-to-window ropes, because it was what they needed. The architect’s role in the
contest was to create an alternative or more functional way to given situations in the
neighborhood, not to find solutions. Ultimately, this statement can also be taken as a criticism
of the public housing companies and regeneration projects in Istanbul who claim that in their
complexes they offer ideal living conditions to all human beings by building simulated
neighborhoods, as if people did not already have lifestyles.
In Article 7 in the specification, the contest’s jury was declared as the inhabitants of
Sahkulu Street. The neighbors would choose the best proposal in terms of its coherence to the
given scenarios as determined by the activities of daily life in the courtyard. The winning
project was presented in the exhibition hall in Kassel with the cooperation of Oda Projesi
under the title ‘From Place to Space’.
The contest was announced on March 29
th
and five proposals were submitted before
April 13
th,
the final day proposals could be submitted. The presentation and award ceremony
organized by neighborhood residents and Oda Projesi in the courtyard took place on the 18
th

of April. The five architects who had submitted proposals presented their projects to the jury.
While four architects introduced their proposals on cardboard with plans and drawings, one
architect presented his proposal verbally, with no visual aids. The architect Tolga Adanir
gave a talk about how he did not want to provide an architectural plan because he felt that the
inhabitants of the courtyard had the power to change aspects of their street, as evidenced by
what they had already accomplished. Hence, he became the winning architect. However,
since Tolga Adanir didn’t propose a physical project, for the exhibition in Kassel Oda Projesi
“decided to present elements from each proposal and include each presentation’s video
documentary. Along with the architects’ presentations and jury’s opinions, another video
42

documented how the city of Istanbul is comprised of collective interventions and mini-
urbanism.”
79

Conclusion
Oda Projesi left their space in Galata in March 2005, as a result of the gentrification
project in neighborhood. They distinguished themselves from other art spaces and galleries
situated in underclass neighborhoods around Istanbul, and in other cities, by refusing to
participate in gentrification. Instead, they tried to develop and foster the voices and practices
of the community. Rather than imposing their own will on a region, as an artist collective,
Oda Projesi challenged outside forces trying to dictate their power.
Since their presence in Galata, representing white Turks in a neighborhood of black
Turks, the collective worked as an agent of mediation between these discrete communities
within Istanbul. The situations and events that took place in Galata were realized by Oda
Projesi’s collaboration with their neighbors, foreign artists, and already-initiated art
audiences across Istanbul. By bringing these distant communities together in the same space,
the collective tried to reconcile these groups and facilitate positive relations between them in
order to allow them to get to know each other. In this way, these communities would not
marginalize each other, they would make peace with the other demographics, and stop seeing
each other as a threat to their own individuality.
As Istanbul has become a city with few public spaces shared by diverse crowds, Oda
Projesi’s effort to construct a shared space for a span of five years was essential for Istanbul
and its people. Since Istanbul’s public spaces are still being diminished by the government—
as witnessed by the world with the protests in Gezi Parki, which was fortunately saved by the

79
Oda Projesi archive, SALT Research, accessed on July 10, 2013

43

citizens of Turkey—Oda Projesi’s attempts to create a common space in the service of
mediating Western and Anatolian cultures remain important.
Since the neighborhood of Galata, where Oda Projesi conducted their practice, was
demolished, evaluating the results of their efforts is difficult. According to Croatian painter
Djuro Seder, “The collective work cannot be foreseen as a form, only as an effort. The final
appearance of the collective work is of no consequence at all.”
80
In this way, Seder’s words
may apply to Oda Projesi’s efforts in Galata. However, Oda Projesi, as a collective, still
exists, and they continue their practice nomadically. The collective considers the Galata
period of 2000-2005 as a unique experiment that would never occur again. For them, it is
impossible to realize the same project again due to its relationship to the particular time,
space, neighbors and all other participants who took part in the project. After the Galata
period, Oda Projesi continued their practice and proceeded in developing as an artist
collective.

80
Kollektive Kreativitat/ Collective Creativity, What, How and for Whom/WHW, Revolver, 2005.
44

Bibliography
Altindere, Halil, and Sureyya Evren. 101 Artworks forty years of Turkish
Contemporary Art, Istanbul: Revolver Publishing, 2011.

Artist to Artist; Shahzia Sikander at the 13th Istanbul Biennial, online streaming,
Directed by David Howe, 2014; Istanbul, Turkey: Art21, inc. 2013.
http://www.art21.org/artisttoartist/films/shahzia-sikander-at-the-13th-istanbul-
biennial

Bloom, Bret. “SUPERKILEN: PARTICIPATORY PARK EXTREME!” Oda Projesi
Blog, July, 2013. Accessed August 21, 2013.
http://odaprojesi.blogspot.com/2013/07/thinking-around-parks.html

Bishop, Claire. Artificial Hells Participatory Art and the Politics of Spectatorship.
London: Verso, 2012.

Bozdaglioglu, Yücel. Turkish foreign policy and Turkish identity: a constructivist
approach, New York : Routledge, 2003.

Brunskog, Per. “Oda Projesi”, MA thesis, Institution of Art History, Lunds University,
2009.

Cohen, Ana Paula. “Dispositive workshop- part 1: Oda Projesi,” Kunstverein
Mūnchen, (spring 2003) accessed June 10, 2013 through SALT Research.

Çalikoglu, Levent. “Oda Projesi 7 Aralik 2005”, in Cagdas Sanatta Sivil Olusumlar
ve Insiyatifler, Cagdas Sanat Konusmalari 2, Istanbul: YKY Yapimcilik, 2007.

Ecumenopolis: City without limits, DVD, Directed by Imre Azem, 2011, Istanbul,
Turkey: Kibrit Film.

Freitag, Wilhelmsburger. Ein Ausstellungsproject im Stadtgebiet, Hamburg: Sud,
2007.

Karlholm, Dan. “Reality Art: the case of Oda Projesi,” Journal of Art in the Age of
Visual Culture and the Image, no.2, Led on Lime, (February 2006).

Kelley Jr., Bill. “To Teach and To Learn: The MDE11 and Thoughts on Curating
Within the Local”, P .E.A.R, Issue #5, Medellin through a Kaleidoscope, P .E.A.R
magazine, London: 2012.

Kester, Grant H. The One and The Many, Durham: Duke University Press, 2011.

45

Kester. Grant H. Conversation Pieces: Community and Communication in Modern
Art, Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2004.

Keyder, Çaglar. “The Dilemma of Cultural Identity on the Margin of Europe,”
Journal of the Fernard Braudel Center for the Study of Economies, Historical
Systems and Civilization 16, no.1 (Winter, 1993): 19-33.

Keyder, Caglar. “Globalization and Social Exclusion in Istanbul,” International
Journal of Urban and Regional Research 29, no.1, (March 2005): 124-34.

Kollektive Kreativitat/ Collective Creativity. What, How and for Whom/WHW,
Revolver, 2005.

Kosova, Erden. “Bir Araci Olarak Sanatci, Oda Projesi,” XXI Mimarlik Tasarim ve
Kent Dergisi, no.15, (September 2003): 68-71.
Kosova, Erden “Face-to-Face,” Tensta Konsthall Catalogue #1, Spånga, Sweden,
(2004) accessed June 10, 2013 through SALT Research.

Lind, Maria. “Actualization of Space: The Case of Oda Projesi” accessed March 10,
2013, http://eipcp.net.

Möntmann, Nina. “Mixing with the locals process and identity in the work of Oda
Projesi. Catalogue to Oda Projesi exhibition at Tensta Konsthall, Edited by Karl
Holmqvist. Autumn 2004. accessed June 15, 2013 through SALT Research.

Möntmann, Nina. “Community Service”, Frieze Magazine, January 10, 2006.
Oda Projesi, Oda Projesi, Mahalle, oda, komsu, misafir? Istanbul: IKSV , 2005.
Oda projesi, Oda Projesi- Room Project 2002, accessed June 15, 2013 through SALT
Research.

Özkan, Derya “Spatial Practices of Oda Projesi and the Production of Space in
Istanbul” Public Issues, Journal of On Curating, issue: 11, 52-61 accessed April 20,
2013.
http://www.oncurating.org/files/oc/dateiverwaltung/old%20Issues/ONCURATING_Is
sue11.pdf

Özkan, Derya “The Misuse V alue of Space; Spatial Practices and the Production of
Space in Istanbul” PhD diss., University of Rochester, 2008.

Raycheva, Regina. “Architecture of Residential Buildings in Bulgaria from the
Revival Period,” University of Forestry Sofia, June 2012, accessed on 01/15/2014.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:KD2eKmedJVkJ:https://aup-
journals.rtu.lv/article/download/aup.2012.003/48+&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&cl
ient=safari
46

Reschke, Nadin and Oda Projesi. Tongue Ein Sprachbuch Dil Bilgisi Kitabi, Berlin:
Revolver Publishing, 2011.

Tan, Pelin. “Self-initiated collectivity: artist-run spaces and artists’ collectives in
Istanbul,” Art papers magazine, January 7, 2006. 20-23.

Tan, Pelin. “Locality as a discursive concept in recent socially engaged art practice,”
Art History Department, Istanbul Technical University, PhD diss., Istanbul, 2010.

Tanyeli, Ugur.“Kamusal Mekan-Ozel Mekan: Turkiye’de Bir Kavram Ciftinin Icadi”,
in Genişleyen Dünyada Sanat Kent ve Siyaset: 9. Uluslararası Đ stanbul Bienali’nden
Metinler, ed. Deniz Unsal, (Đ stanbul: Istanbul Kültür Sanat V akfı, 2005) 199-209.

Thompson, Nato. Living As Form, New York: Creative Time Books, 2012.

Tosun, Nese Ceren. “Manifestations of Relational Artist Practices: Dwelling Oda
Projesi and Nomading Julie Upmeyer as differing modes of participatory
engagements”, Master Thesis, Theatre and Cultural Policy Department, University of
Warwick, UK., December, 2010.

What am I sinking about. “Oda Projesi ile Roportaj-17 Mart 2008”, what am I sinking
about blog, accessed 07.11.2013. http://sinkabout.blogspot.com/2008/03/oda-projesi-
ile-rportaj-17-mart-2008.html

Yardimci, Sibel. Kentsel Degisim ve Festivalizm: kuresellesen istanbul’da bienal,
Istanbul: Iletisim Yayinlari 2005. 149-154.

47

List of Figures

Fig.1 Paintings on Cloth Lines, Dilek Yesil’s painting. Istanbul: Hurriyet, 1999.

48

Fig.2 Paintings on Cloth Lines, Istanbul: Hurriyet, 1999.

49

Fig. 3 Paintings on Cloth Lines, Oda Projesi, Istanbul: Hurriyet, 1999.

50

Fig. 4 A still from For Istanbul, video, 10 mins, 2000.

51

Fig.5 A still from For Istanbul.

52

Fig.6 A still from For Istanbul.

53

Fig.7 A still from For Istanbul.

54

Fig. 8 A still from For Istanbul.

55

Fig. 9 A still from For Istanbul.

56

Fig. 10 A still from For Istanbul.

57

Fig. 11 A still from For Istanbul.

58

Fig. 12 A still from For Istanbul.

59

Fig. 13 A still from For Istanbul.

Fig.14 “A Protest with paintings at Galata” Istanbul: Cumhuriyet, March, 1999.

60

Fig.15 Patti Smith

61

Fig.16 PIKNIK Oda Projesi and Eric Göngrich

Fig.17 The Italian Courtyard near Oda Projesi’s room.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Oda Projesi, an artist collective based in Istanbul, breaks down barriers of prejudice among clashing cultures by investigating Istanbul’s public and private space custom. Turkish territory has a long history of occupation, which has produced a myriad of often‐contrary ideas and ideologies of the East and the West, engendering the syncretism of different cultures and identities. As Istanbul evolved into a global metropolitan city, the dichotomic cultures of Westernized and Anatolian societies developed (or were forced to develop) into segregated ghettos where eastern and western cultures were able to maintain dissociation. Oda Projesi serves as a mediator between these disparate communities by using art as a means to generate interrelations and cultural exchange.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Locating the microcinema: Echo Park Film Center, Light Industry, and Other Cinema

PDF

Animating the periphery: Studio of the Streets and the politicization of the Buffalo community through public access television and media literacy

PDF

Reinventing ephemeral forms: an investigation of the reinvention of Allan Kaprow's work in Allan Kaprow—Art as life (2008)

PDF

Nude performances in the practice of Fiona Banner, 2006-2010

PDF

Up to code: geopolitics and its influence on cultural production on the Internet

PDF

Excavating Beirut: a study of time and space in Ziad Abillama, Ilaria Lupo, and the Dictaphone Group

PDF

Parasite 1997-1998: "It's always while looking at the part that the whole is seen to be moving"

PDF

Fragmented memory: William Olander and the exhibition as criticism

PDF

Alison Knowles' Make a salad and Identical lunch: communal and sensory performance through open scores

PDF

Anna Halprin's Ceremony of us: pedagogy for collective movement and embodiment

PDF

Subverting madness: on translating the mental illness memoir into a curatorial practice

PDF

On events

PDF

From land art to social practice: environmental art projects by Helen Mayer Harrison and Newton Harrison, Bonnie Ora Sherk, Mel Chin, Fritz Haeg, and Fallen Fruit

PDF

Light and space as experience: a study of the work of James Turrell, Olafur Eliasson, and perceptual phenomenology

PDF

Acting out dissent; imaginary lives the performance strategies of My barbarian’s Post-Living Ante-Action Theater

PDF

Quilting bodies: the Gee's Bend Quilters, Sanford Biggers, and Jonathan VanDyke

PDF

Territories of resistance: the impact of the Zapatista Rebellion on artistic practices in Mexico City, 1994-1995

PDF

Performed absence and a pre-formed audience: Martha Rosler's postcard novels and their implications for feminist art practice from the seventies to today

PDF

Teaching freedom: the power of autonomous temporary institutions and informal pedagogy in the work of Tania Bruguera and Suzanne Lacy

PDF

The plausible, ongoing, and disappearing acts of James Lee Byars: early performance works (1955-1967)

Asset Metadata

Creator Comert, Basak (author)

Core Title Oda Projesi's practices of mediation

School School of Fine Arts

Degree Master of Arts

Degree Program Art and Curatorial Practices in the Public Sphere

Publication Date 08/28/2014

Defense Date 08/27/2014

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag art Istanbul,art mediation,art Turkey,Basak Comert,OAI-PMH Harvest,Oda Projesi,public art,room project,Turkish art

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Anastas, Rhea (committee chair), Hudson, Suzanne P. (committee member), Tain, John (committee member)

Creator Email basakcomert@hotmail.com,comert@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-465953

Unique identifier UC11286974

Identifier etd-ComertBasa-2854.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-465953 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-ComertBasa-2854.pdf

Dmrecord 465953

Document Type Thesis

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Comert, Basak

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA