Views
25
Downloands
5
Tek partili dönemde Türkiye’de yukarıdan aşağı doğru bir ivmeyle gerçekleştirilen modernleşme politikaları, yeni bir kültür formunu da inşa etmeyi hedeflemiştir. Bu sebeple sanat ve estetik gibi öznel alana ait olduğu düşünülen unsurlar, devlet ve toplum arasındaki ilişki üzerinden sosyolojinin bir araştırma konusu haline gelir. Türk toplumunun Batı sanatlarına ilgisini Tanzimat Fermanına kadar geri götürmek mümkündür. Bununla birlikte geleneğin terk edilerek Batı sanat ve estetiğinin toplum tarafından benimsenmesi için devlet eliyle bir programın başlaması Türkiye Cumhuriyeti ile birlikte olmuştur. Tek partili dönemde medeniyet ile ilgili algı imal edilmek istenmiş ve toplumsal estetiğin devlet eliyle üretilmesine çalışılmıştır. Kültür nesneleri üzerinden neyin iyi neyin kötü olduğunu belirleme ve bunları halka dikte etme beraberinde devlet ile toplum arasında bir gerilime yol açmıştır. Bununla birlikte resmi kurumlar, sanat eğitimi, devlet desteği ve genel olarak eğitim kurumları aracılığıyla devletin estetik anlayışı yeniden üretilmiş ve evrensel ilkeler haline getirilmeye çalışılmıştır. Bu sürecin daha iyi anlaşılabilmesi için mesele Gramsci ve Althusser’in kültür yaklaşımları çerçevesinde ele alınmıştır. Gramsci iktidarla ilgili hegemonya yaklaşımı ile belirli bir iktidarın kendi üstünlüğünü sağlamak için sadece fiziksel ve ekonomik güce değil aynı zamanda kültürel bir gücü de kullandığını savunmuştur. Hegemonya entelektüel olarak rızanın imalatını hedeflemektedir. İktidarı elinde tutan üst sınıflar, toplumsal yapının kendi istedikleri gibi kalması için belirli kültür formlarını toplum tarafından tartışılmadan kabul edilmesini ön görmektedir. Egemen sınıflar bunu yaparken tek tip bir dünya görüşü ortaya koymak yerine muhalefeti etkisizi hale getirecek bir yöntemle hakim kültürün evrensel olduğu fikrini oluşturmak isterler. Bu yolla devlete bağımlı halk kitleleri mevcut toplumsal yapıyı koruyacak şekilde belirli idealler, amaçlar ve kültürel sembolleri destekleyerek egemen sınıfların hegemonyasını kabul etmiş olur. Böylece mesela belirli sanat dalları eskimiş/köhnemiş, çağın beklentilerini karşılamayan, modern estetik bakışı doyurmayan gibi ifadelerle nitelendirilirken, diğer bazıları bunun tersi bir yerde konumlandırılarak modern, çağdaş, geçerli, uygun sanat olarak görülüyorsa, bunun altında sadece estetik bir değerlendirme olmayıp iktidarın kendini sürdürmek için belirli bir kültür yorumunu yaymak istemesinin bir sonucu olabilir. Bu sebeple sanat alanındaki faaliyetler, süreçler, akımlar, saf estetik bakışı ile sanatçı öznesinin ürettiği tekil eserler olmaktan çıkarak belirli iktidar formlarının yeniden üretim biçimine dönüşebilirler. Türkiye Cumhuriyeti’nde tek partili dönem kültür politikaları bu perspektiften ele alındığında benzer örüntüleri görmek mümkün olacaktır. Tek partili dönem boyunca kültür ile ilgili yaklaşımların belirli aşamalardan geçtiği görülmektedir. Uzun yıllar etkisini sürdüren en önemli yaklaşım Türkiye’nin ilk sosyologlarından birisi olarak kabul gören Ziya Gökalp’e ait olmuştur. Batı sanatlarının kültür alanına hakim olmasında meşruluk temellerini atan önemli bir yaklaşım olarak, kültür ve medeniyet kavramlarını birbirinden ayırmıştır. Bu yaklaşım ile birlikte kendi kültürel öğelerimizi Batı tekniği ile sunmak evrensel bir yaklaşım biçimi olarak sanat alanına uzun yıllar hakim olmuştur. Bu yaklaşım ile birlikte İsmet İnönü döneminde medeniyetin kaynağı Türk kültür öğelerinde değil yine Batı tarihinde aranmıştır. Hümanist evre olarak görülen bu dönemde bu dönemde Yunanca ve diğer Batı dillerinden eserler Türkçe’ye tercüme edilmiş, Yunan klasikleri tiyatrolarda oynamış, Köy Enstitülerinde Yunan heykellerinin replikaları yapılmıştır. Yine tek partili dönemde kültürel üretim üzerinde uygulanan sansür ile estetik anlayışın şekillenmesine çalışılmıştır. Tek partili dönem boyunca devlet sanat ürünleri üzerinde bir denetim kurarak ne tür eserlerin üretilebileceğine, hangi tür, biçim ve içerikte üretim yapılabileceğine müdahale etmiştir. Bu müdahale bir taraftan üst ve evrensel görülen Batı sanatlarının halka kabul ettirilmesi hem de tek parti ideallerinin bu sanatlar aracılığıyla halka sevdirilmesi için gerçekleşmiştir. Bu sebeple devrim düşüncesini anlatan eserler desteklenirken, geçmişi hatırlatacak, devrim ideolojisiyle çelişen eserler sansüre uğramıştır. Bu çabanın pratik sonuçları, o dönemde ortaya çıkan eserlerin biçim ve içeriğinde görülmektedir. Öncelikle tek partili dönemde Batı sanatları dışında bir üretimin olmadığı görülür. Yine bu dönemde resim, tiyatro, mimari, gibi sanat dallarına ait eserlerde tek partili dönemin sürekli övülürken Osmanlı negatif sunulmuştur. Yeni estetik algıda eskiye ait unsurların olumlu anlamda yer almasına sıcak bakılmamıştır.
Modernization policies implemented in Turkey in the single-party period with a upward-down drive have also aimed at building a new form of culture. Thus, the elements that are considered to belong to the subjective field such as art and aesthetics become a subject of research of sociology through the relationship between the state and society. It is possible to bring the interest of the Turkish community in Western art back to the Tanzimat Ferman. However, with the abandonment of the tradition, the beginning of a program with the government's hand for the adoption of Western art and aesthetics by society was with the Republic of Turkey. In the single party period, the perception of civilization was sought to be produced and the social aesthetics was sought to be produced by the government's hand. The determination of what is good and what is bad through the objects of culture and the dictating of them to the public has led to a tension between the state and society. However, through official institutions, art education, state support and educational institutions in general, the esthetic understanding of the state has been rebuilt and attempted to become universal principles. To better understand this process, the issue was addressed in the framework of Gramsci and Althusser's cultural approaches. Gramsci argued that with the hegemony approach to power, a particular power used not only physical and economic power but also a cultural power to ensure its own superiority. Hegemony is intellectually aimed at the production of consent. The highest classes holding the power in their hands predict that certain forms of culture be accepted by the society without discussion, so that the social structure should remain as they want. In doing so, the dominant classes want to create the idea that the dominant culture is universal in a way that will make the opposition influential, instead of showing a single type of world view. In this way, the public masses dependent on the state accept the hegemony of the ruling classes by supporting certain ideals, purposes and cultural symbols in order to preserve the existing social structure. Thus, for example, certain branches of art are defined as old, unable to meet the expectations of the age, unable to satisfy the modern aesthetic point of view, while others are placed in the opposite place and viewed as modern, contemporary, valid, appropriate art, it may be the result of not only an aesthetic assessment and the power wants to spread a specific cultural interpretation to maintain itself. Therefore, the activities, processes, flows, pure aesthetic sight and the unique works produced by the artist’s essence can be transformed into a form of re-production of certain forms of power. In the Republic of Turkey, one-party cultural policies will be possible to see similar examples when addressed from this perspective. In the course of a single party period, the approaches to culture are seen to pass through certain stages. The most important approach, which has been influenced for many years, belonged to Ziya Gökalp, who was recognized as one of the first sociologists in Turkey. As an important approach that puts the foundations of legitimacy in the domination of Western art in the cultural field, it has distinguished the concepts of culture and civilization. With this approach, we have dominated the field of art for many years as a universal approach to presenting our own cultural elements with Western technology. With this approach, the source of civilization was not in the Turkish cultural elements, but in the Western history. In this period seen as a humanist phase, works from Greek and other Western languages were translated into Turkish, Greek classics played in theatres, and Greek sculptures were replicated in rural institutions. Again, in the single party period, a sense of aesthetics was tried to be formed by censorship applied to cultural production. During the one-party period, the state has interfered with the type of works that can be produced, the type, the form and the content that can be produced by establishing a control over art products. This intervention, on the one hand, took place in order to recognize the public of the western art, which appears to be superior and universal, as well as to love the people through the ideals of the single party. Thus, while the works that describe the revolutionary thought are supported, the works that remind the past, which are contrary to the revolutionary ideology, are censored. The practical results of this effort are seen in the form and content of the works that occurred during that period. First of all, it appears that there is no one except the Western art in the single party period. Again in this period, the works of art branches such as painting, theatre, architecture, and one-party period are constantly praised while the Ottoman negative was presented. In the new aesthetic perception, it was not warm to see the elements of the old in a positive sense.
Top-down modernisation process during the one-party period in Turkey, aimed to build a new cultural form that encapsulate all society. For that reason, art and aesthetic which are thought to be the part of subjective space, become the part of sociological inquiry by the mediating of state and society relationship. It is possible to starts the interest of Turkish society to Western arts from the Tanzimat. However, state program of abandoning the tradition and embracing the Western art and aesthetic by the society, started during early years of the Turkish Republic. During one-party years, the perception about civilisation and social aesthetic were tried to produce by the hand of state. To determine which cultural objects are good and which are bed, and to dictate states perception on society, created the tension between state and the society. At the same time, state aesthetic was turned to universal principles and reproduced by the official institutions, art education, state subvention and general education. To understand the process better, the problem will be studied from the cultural perspective of Gramsci and Althusser. Gramsci claims that ruling classes use not only physical and economic power but also cultural power to sustain their position in the society. Hegemony aims the cultural manufacturing of consent. Upper classes want to make society accept the certain cultural forms without questioning to continue their control on the power. By doing this, ruling classes defend the idea of universality of their culture by neutralise the oppositions rather than produce standard and monotype worldview. In this way, the masses accept hegemony of ruling classes by gathering around cultural symbols, aims and ideas. For that reason, when certain art branches are seen outdated, old-fashion, not valuable and some others are seen modern, contemporary, valid, could means that ruling classes want to spread certain cultural forms to maintain their power. Activities, processes and trends in an art breake from artist concept and become a part of reproduction of certain power forms. From Gramsci perspective, it is possible to see similar pattern in culture politics of one-party era in Turkey. It can be said that perception of culture went through the stages. The one that had long term effect was belong to early Turkish sociology, Ziya Gökalp. He separated culture and civilisation that created legitimacy for Western culture to dominate cultural arena in Turkey. The presentation of Turkish traditional culture with Western technique dominated art environment as a universal value. Notwithstanding, during İnönü era, the source of civilisation searched not in Turkish roots but in Western history. It was called Humanist era and during this period, books from Greek and other Western languages were translated, Greek classics were played at theatres, Greek status were replicated in Village Institutes. During one party era, it is aimed to shape aesthetic perception of society by censor on cultural production. In this period, the state established a total control over the art production and decided what kind, which form and content the art will be produced. The reason of state control was both to make society accept Western arts as high and universal and spread the one-party ideology. For this very reason, while artworks that are symbolising the state ideology were supported, others that remind old/Ottoman era were censored. Practical results of these efforts can be seen artworks of that period. First of all, it is seen that there was almost no art production except for Western arts in the one-party period. In artworks from cinema, theatre, paintings, one-party era were praised and Ottoman time were criticised. It was not a positive thing to appreciate the old era, in the new aesthetic realm. The mission loaded the cinema and theatre were to educate the public that was believed to be backward and to impose the oneparty ideology. In this way the aesthetic tried to be produced by the hand of state and made it the part of social identity. This method during the one-party period created a cultural hegemony on the society. The effort to regulate social aesthetics by the state in the single-party period, while trying to teach the public what to like and dislike, with censorship and limitations, created on the one hand long-term discussion on originality of Turkish arts and on the other hand created a distance between society and modern arts. “Cannot reaching the public” was seen as a failure for artists however, failure was not sought in the gap between social expectation from art and art production, but in the failure of a successful representation of the aesthetic judgment, which was determined by the state and accepted as absolute truth during the single party period. Thus, it was observed that politics determined the production of art in the one-party period and in this way, it wanted to consolidate its own power.
Field : İlahiyat
Journal Type : Uluslararası
Article Detail 
Similar Articles
Download PDF
Journal Information
Listen Paper
Cite
Print This Page
Share
Mendeley
