Usûl-i Mi’mârî-i Osmanî [Ottoman Architecture], a catalogue compiled for the 1873 Vienna World’s Fair, is probably one of the earliest answers to the question of whether a different imagination is possible for the theory and practice of architecture.1 This naïve attempt right at the beginning of the manuscript is attributed to the Ottoman Empire’s goal to introduce itself to the West and Sultan Abdulaziz’s endeavors in that regard. However, this account is not entirely true. It is clear that Usûl-i Mi’mârî-i Osmanî is an effective rhetoric activity, or in fact, a manipulation within the theory of architecture. This manipulation can be easily seen through the architectural unit of measure and the descriptions of Ottoman styles of architecture—types (of measures and styles) that would not be mentioned in any other book. In other words, while trying to relay information, the attempt is to present a perfect perception of architecture through architectural elements and ornaments. In short, the catalogue tries to systematize and engraft—and thus convince its reader in favor of—the triangular pillar order, which was believed to be adopted by the Ottoman Empire against the Doric-Ionic-Corinthian order.2
To be more precise, Usûl-i Mi’mârî-i Osmanî, which defines architecture in literary and visual terms within the vocabulary of the 19th century, provides documentation of architectural structures in line with the ideological context of the time by offering insights into the topics of “measure” and “style.”3 In that respect, the book shapes its information about construction styles under three titles: Mahrûtî, Müstevî, Mücevherî.4 These styles, situated above and beyond the styles of “other” nations,5 are defined as “ideal.” The drawing in the featured image is of a Mücevherî style, describing the relationship between the column heading and plinth in accordance with the definition of 'architectural unit of measure. Located to the right of the image and theoretically idealized by the book, the architectural unit of measure defines column headings by dividing them up into nine equal pieces based on the measure of width, and then dividing each piece again into four.6
As can also be understood from this example, Usûl-i Mi’mârî-i Osmanî, which focuses on the systematization and elaboration of architectural knowledge and documentation, constitutes an important threshold in shaping architectural historiography that succeeds it, in terms of an aspiration to reach perfection, obedience to the past, a resistance against disidentification and degenerateness, and a connection formed with the West. This threshold is an important breaking point that paves the way for a certain discourse on the perpetuity7 and linearity of history to be established within architectural theory in Turkey. In short, this form of historiography, which is proposed by taking the relationship between measure and style as a universal conception, becomes the starting point of a manipulation that still affects contemporary theories of architecture.
About the author Serap Durmuş Öztürk is a lecturer at the Karadeniz Technical University’s Department of Architecture. Working through the theory-criticism-method axis, Öztürk’s research delves into the thought of architecture within the fields of rhetoric, narrative, and discourse.