





































isparchitecture.com

USE-VALUE VALUE AND THE QUESTION OF 
COMPLETION

EMRE DEMIREL

The post-modernist approach to architecture 
often presents tradition as a problem  of  image 
[2]. Postmodernism prioritizes the display of  
stylized images of  historic buildings in order 
to prompt one to deal primarily with the visual 
appeal of  the historic forms rather than the (bodily 
and emotional) experience of  the buildings [3]. 
Tradition is polarized against modernity when it is 
treated as a reconstruction of  past images or styles, 
which is to say that the appearance of  traditional 
buildings or their object-like material presences are 
treated as always complete and fixed to a particular 
point in time when they were built. When tradition 
is understood in purely visual terms, it loses its 
relevance in our modern world, becoming instead 
a static image of  the past. The rigidity of  historical 
images creates a sense that tradition has nothing to 
do with future imaginations, and history’s appeal 
operates by virtue of  its fictive attributes [4].

Past images or styles cannot be re-created in the 
present time. When they are re-constructed today 
they permanently demarcate the moment to which 
they belong. On the other hand, the bodily and 
emotional experiences of  such buildings are free 
of  time. Such experiences could be re-embodied 
through new building materials and techniques 

Tradition is 
polarized against 

modernity when 
it is treated as a 

reconstruction 

“
”

You say to me: ‘You understand this expression, don’t 
you? Well then – I am using it in the sense you are 

familiar with’. – As if  the sense were an atmosphere 
accompanying the word, which is carried into every kind 

of  application.

Ludwig Wittgenstein [1]



AP . vol 2 . No 2 . 2017

170

DE
M

IR
EL

which are specific to the present time. The possibility of  the re-embodiment 
of  our emotional experiences from a traditional environment opens a door 
to new architectural configurations and the invention of  an alternative 
modernity which is connected to our past. Looking from a non-visual 
but tactile view point, tradition can be considered as incomplete and 
enduringly open to new completions by offering a negotiable dialogue 
between the past and future.

In order to explore how tradition can be understood in terms of  the 
building’s physical qualities so as to open tradition to future inventive 
possibilities, Wittgenstein’s philosophical proposition of  meaning as use is 
herein used as the basis of  argument. Wittgenstein’s proposition suggests 
meaning cannot be predetermined or contain absolute definitions limiting 
our understanding to fixed mental images or other forms of  representation. 
Meaning is provisional, open-ended, and continuously re-configures itself  
as it is used [5]. The flexibility and fluidity of  Wittgenstein’s definition of  
meaning suggests that our understanding of  things can be viewed in both 
complete and incomplete aspects. What is completed is associated with 
an object-like presence or, in Edmund Husserl’s terms, with the object of  
thought, whereas what is not yet complete refers to use, the experience of  
things, or the act of  thought, all of  which require active bodily engagement 
in the environment [6].

Before going into further detail, it might be useful to explain briefly 
what is meant by the word completion. The word complete is defined 
as “lacking nothing, whole, entire, full, or having all the required or 
complementary parts included; something undivided, uncompromised 
or unmodified” [7]. Such a definition indicates any kind of  situation or 
process that has already ended. Therefore, complete suggests any case that 
has been fully established in itself  or reached an ideal form which has no 
flexibility or tolerance for further interference. On this basis, Paul Ricoeur 
distinguishes between two types of  meaning: ideal (complete or absolute) 
and circumstantial (or situational). According to the first type, the grasp of  
language occurs in reference to the absolute presence of  objects, materials 
or actions. The absolute is similar to the way a dictionary introduces a 
term’s meaning within purely objectified and pictoral norms. The second 
type, on the other hand, suggests a grasp of  language based on our 
experiences of  the lived world. Accordingly, Ricoeur draws attention to the 
differences between names (words) and sentences. While any single name 
or word individually refers to the purified object-like presence of  the thing 
as defined in the dictionary, a sentence refers to our lived experiences, our 
circumstantial engagements with the environment [8].



171

isparchitecture.com

Regarding our lived experiences, Ricoeur 
underlines the second concept: the process of  
completion or fulfillment. He argues that whatever 
we have experienced in the past remains in our 
minds or memories and in turn all these experiences 
cause us to re-embody these through new actions, 
events, or structures. It is like referring to past 
experiences for our future actions. What is meant by 
the term completion is simply the re-embodiment 
of  our lived (emotional) experiences, and this 
embodiment renews itself  continuously [9]. As 
Hannah Arendt notes, our lived experiences are 
like an invisible energy which enduringly holds 
a potential to be converted into a new concrete 
entity [10]. Applying this approach to tradition, 
it can be said that stylistic engagements present 
tradition as a picture: like reality, they develop a 
kind of  normative understanding of  tradition. 
However, our sentimental engagements with 
traditional environments structure our emotional 
experiences of  them. These experiences are always 
open to renewals or new completions as they could 
be re-embodied through new modes of  building 
materials and building techniques.

Taking Wittgenstein’s position as a framework 
for this analysis, tradition is generally completed 
as an image or picture reality when it is engaged 
with its object-like qualities. When tradition is 
introduced as a display commodity, our encounter 
with tradition is reduced to a visual understanding. 
Within the terms of  visual understanding’s 
reduction, tradition can only be contemplated 
retroactively in picturesque re-productions but not 
in new beginnings. Wittgenstein’s approach draws 
attention to the experiential and participatory 
qualities of  traditional environments [11]. Such 
qualities can never be concretized by specifically 
defined stylistic orders; they are formless but at the 
same time formative; our emotional experiences 
and participation within spaces act like an invisible 
power that continuously initiates a person into 

Meaning is 
provisional, 

open-ended, and 
continuously re-
configures itself 

as it is used.

“

”



AP . vol 2 . No 2 . 2017

172

DE
M

IR
EL

re-embodying it as new architectural reality. 

The question of  completion in tradition will be demonstrated with 
three examples. The first is a miniature painting by the Persian artist 
Kamal al-din Bihzad (1450-1535), the second is a series of  Le Corbusier’s 
sketches of  Istanbul and the Green Mosque—which were done during 
his trip to Turkey in 1910—and the final example is the 1994 B2 House 
designed by the Turkish architect Han Tümertekin. At first glance these 
examples might appear completely different and irrelevant to one another. 
However, when the sketches are closely analyzed they reveal distinctly 
similar positions regarding the concept of  tradition. The common point 
between Kamal al-din Bihzad, Le Corbusier, and Han Tümertekin is that 
they propose an alternative way of  understanding tradition which suggests 
that one considers tradition not as a fixed object-like reality—or what is 
typically rendered as stylistic images or the outer appearance of  building 
facades—but rather as an experiential reality, which is to say, a reality that 
is fluid, unfixed, and open to new configurations. From this perspective, 
Kamal al-din Bihzad, Le Corbusier, and Han Tümertekin share similar 
grounds in that each envisions architecture not as an object to be seen 
but rather as an articulation of  an emotive terrain [12]. The emotive 
terrain does not prioritize the optical but rather a full bodily and sensuous 
contact with the physical built environment. Such an approach leads to 
a perception that traditional architecture is not primarily a physical but 
rather an existential entity.

Viewing MINIATURES Through THE EYES OF WITTGENSTEIN

The fifteenth century miniature painting by the Persian artist Kamal 
al-din Bihzad (1450-1535) depicts a famous religious event: the escape of  
the Prophet Joseph from his lover Zulaykha. Zulaykha, the wife of  the 
respected Egyptian officer Potiphar, falls in love with Joseph and seduces 
him in her house. Joseph attempts to flee, but the house is structured in 
such a way as to make escape difficult (Figure 1).

Although Bihzad was a talented painter and well aware of  perspective, 
he opts to depict the cosmos in a distorted manner [13]. The distortion 
goes beyond the compositional technique typical of  miniature paintings. 
It also relates to his way of  conceptualizing architecture.

The representation of  architecture reveals something of  Bihzad’s 
idea about what architecture itself  means to the human mind. On closer 
inspection, Bihzad avoids illustrating a literal or realistic representation 
of  the building. He was apparently not interested in how the building 
could be seen from the outside. Rather, his interest lies in what could be 



173

isparchitecture.com

FIGURE 1: THE PALACE OF POTIPHAR AND THE ESCAPE OF JOSEPH. ILLUSTRATED BY 
KAMAL AL-DIN BIHZAD  (1450 – 1535).



AP . vol 2 . No 2 . 2017

174

DE
M

IR
EL

emotionally experienced moving from one space to another throughout 
the building [14].

As seen in the painting, the overall composition is established in the 
patterning of  oblique lines. The movement—or the escape of  Joseph 
from one space to another—is sensed through the change of  door color, 
each located on the oblique lines. Each oblique wall draws attention to the 
movement from one closed door to another. The attention to each door 
creates a feeling as if  someone is running from one corner to another 
in a labyrinth but cannot find a way out. There are many oblique walls 
and lines that suddenly change colors, creating a chaotic and confined 
atmosphere. As it is seen in the miniature, the building is not presented as 
an enclosed space; rather it looks like an unfolded box or an unwrapped 
three-dimensional shape. It seems that Bihzad did not envision the 
building in the sense of  an object, which is apparent in Bihzad’s treatment 
of  shape and profile as a topoi or a cartographic map. In Paul Rodaway’s 
terms, a topoi is the collection of  emotional experiences and sentimental 
contacts that all draw an unfixed, re-imaginative, shapeless world [15]. 
According to Sufi philosophy, the case of  shapelessness always presents 
the challenges of  re-embodiment or finding new form, but perhaps such 
a challenge is unattainable for any sustained period [16]. The concept of  
shapelessness is similar to the idea that whatever meaning we attribute 
to the environment renews itself  as we use it, or, in other words, as we 
sentimentally experience it each time.

Bihzad’s approach runs parallel to Wittgenstein’s idea of  meaning as 
use. Looking at this miniature painting from Wittgenstein’s point of  view, 
Bihzad tries to create a perception of  the cosmos which renders itself  
in an account of  use rather than in picturing reality. As explained above, 
use refers to our bodily involvement with things and activities; it is highly 
connected to what we experience sentimentally through our environment 
[17]. As Wittgenstein asserted, any temptation to concretize meaning 
reduces our understanding of  it to mental representations [18]. Presenting 
architectural reality as a fixed physical presence is avoided by Bihzad. His 
interest lies in the shapeless presence of  the building, as if  he wants us 
to think about the paradox which is, in Wittgenstein’s terms, between the 
non-existence of  the intended object and the fullness of  the seen object 
[19].

The way Bizhad conceptualizes architecture constructs a kind of  vision 
that recommends how to look at tradition and traditional architecture. 
In the miniature, what we see is an example of  traditional architecture, 
but it is presented in a way that is dramatically different from the way 



175

isparchitecture.com

FIGURE 2: LE CORBUSIER, MajesticSilhouettes of themosques on the”hugehumpedback

toStamboul”, 1911.



AP . vol 2 . No 2 . 2017

176

DE
M

IR
EL

the postmodern has conditioned us to see tradition. The building is 
presented not in a completed shape; rather, it looks shapeless. The reason 
for presenting reality in such a way is closely linked to how Bihzad wants 
us to give meaning to (traditional) architecture. It seems Bihzad brought 
architecture into consideration not as a question of  the object, which is 
how postmodernity intends to shape our perception of  the traditional 
environment, but as a question of  completion. The question of  completion 
is not concerned with the reproduction of  reality (representing as fully 
as possible the appearance of  things and thus repeating past forms and 
styles) which is already completed; instead, it is primarily concerned with 
the re-activation of  what is sensually experienced, which leads the way 
toward the configuration of  new realities.

MINIATURES AND LE CORBUSIER’S DRAWINGS: RE-CONCEPTUALIZING TRADITION 

The analysis of  one of  Bihzad’s miniatures has shown that the building 
is not presented with a photorealistic impression. It was argued that lack of  
photorealistic impression is closely linked with how Bihzad conceptualizes 
architecture. He constructs a vision about the built premises that suggests 
the viewer consider traditional architecture not in the sense of  its material 
reality but in the sense of  what we emotionally experience through it. 
Thus, Bihzad’s engagement with the traditionally built environment is in 
this regard parallel to how Le Corbusier considers tradition. Le Corbusier’s 
approach is clearly demonstrated by his sketches of  Istanbul and the 
Green Mosque in Bursa during his trip to Turkey in 1910 [20]. Although 
the sketches were made using different painting techniques and materials, 
like Bihzad, Le Corbusier did not picture the buildings in the way they 
realistically appear. Le Corbusier’s concern was not the outer appearance of  
the buildings or their stylistic images, but what he emotionally experienced 
through his immersion in the historic environment.

Looking at Le Corbusier’s sketches more closely, it can be seen that 
they lack any photorealistic depiction or clearly rendered detail; his record 
of  the existing built environment was always intentionally left incomplete 
(Figure 2). As in Bihzad’s miniature, the manner of  incompleteness releases 
the architectural object from its physical existence and converts it into an 
experience of  its emotional ambiance. In doing so, the sketches refresh 
our engagement with the architectural object in keeping the prospect of  
wonder alive and arousing different emotional states in each and every 
moment viewed. Thereby, our perception of  the architectural figure is not 
confined to the aesthetic definition of  its absolute object-like appearance, 
and is instead left open-ended to new emotional encounters. 



177

isparchitecture.com

FIGURE 5: THE SULTAN’S PRAYER ROOM is NOTED IN LE CORBUSIER’S DRAWING AS THE DARKEST 
PLACE. EMOTIONAL EFFECT CREATED BY THE TRANSITION FROM DARKER TO LIGHTER SPACES THET 
PRIMARILY INDICATED IN LE CORBUSIER’S PLAN DRAWING.

FIGUREs 3 & 4: Floor plan of the green mosque in bursa by leon parville (LEFT); Plan sketch 
of The Green Mosque in bursa by le corbusier (RIGHT).



AP . vol 2 . No 2 . 2017

178

DE
M

IR
EL

The aforementioned attitude of  Le Corbusier can also be attributed 
to his drawing of  the Green Mosque. Le Corbusier’s notation on the 
plan of  the Green Mosque demonstrates that he is imprecise about the 
exact position of  the walls, the location of  the outer windows and the 
doors, and does not elaborate the ornamental details that emphasize 
the material-like presence of  the building. Instead, he keenly illustrates 
the emotional reactions created in the transition from the darker to the 
brighter and from the brighter to the darker spaces. Le Corbusier does 
not intend the drawing to re-construct the object-like presence of  this 
traditional building but rather reconfigure its  emotional cartography [21]. 
For example, the darkest hatch is the sultan’s prayer room, which was clad 
with dark blue tiles and was located opposite to the large prayer hall clad 
with white marble (Figures 3-5). Moving from the lower darker space to 
a higher and brighter space creates an emotional experience that affects 
how the building renders itself  in our mind. Le Corbusier’s concern is not 
what exists as a literal built reality but as a sensed reality. Again, the aim of  
analyzing Le Corbusier’s drawing of  the Green Mosque is not to show the 
material Le Corbusier engaged. Instead, it is to reveal his working methods 
insofar as tradition is concerned. His visual notations demonstrate that 
his approach to tradition is not architectural but topical [22]. This non-
architectural but topical vision is in keeping with how Bihzad and the 
Turkish architect Han Tümertekin engage with tradition.

Overall the point of  significance is not Le Corbusier’s sketching or 
painting methods. Instead, his alternative method of  engaging traditional 
architecture is the point of  interest. As elaborated above, Le Corbusier 
offers a model for understanding tradition [23]. For Le Corbusier, 
tradition is not the fixation of  things in representations inherited from 
the past, such consideration that inevitably causes the development of  a 
standardized position toward tradition highly conditioned by pre-defined 
patterns. Instead, tradition suggests new beginnings for Le Corbusier. 
He exemplifies the alternative notion of  tradition in his paintings as he 
does not limit reality to pre-defined norms and patterns or to picturesque 
definitions. Instead, he intended to evoke different emotional reactions 
each time his paintings were viewed. Therefore, his painting is alive and 
dynamic as it produces new feelings and thus new meanings at each 
viewing of  it. Le Corbusier’s attempt to re-approach tradition is similar to 
a Wittgensteinian philosophical approach in that both suggest discovery is 
what makes meaning renewable.

Putting things into rigid preconceived patterns of  what they ought to 
mean makes our perception of  meaning past-oriented because meaning 



179

isparchitecture.com

refers to the moment when things first appeared 
to us. Like the outer appearance of  the building, 
the patterns are already constructed and mark the 
moment of  the time completed. However, what 
makes meanings persist through time is perhaps 
their shapelessness that puts actions in the first 
place as opposed to meanings. Within the context 
of  this issue, how tradition could be future-oriented 

is the main question of  this paper [24].

B2 HOUSE

The B2 House was built in a small traditional 
Mediterranean enclave, Büyükhüsun, in north-
western Anatolia. This small settlement is 
established on a mountain slope, which descends 
steeply southward towards the Aegean Sea below. 
It is a couple of  miles away from the ancient Greek 
city of  Assos located on the coast. Büyükhüsun is 
a traditional town and in keeping with the town’s 
look and feel, the intention of  Han Tümertekin was 
to create a traditional house [25]. When the award-
winning house was built, the building’s front facade 
(Figure 8) drew the attention of  respected local 
and international journals. However, Tümertekin’s 
approach to tradition was different. On the one 
hand, the architect controversially reveals the 
ways in which modernity has conditioned us to 
see traditional architecture. On the other hand, his 

FIGURES 6-8: VIEW OF B2 HOUSE OVERLOOKING AEGEAN SEA AND 
LESVOS ISLAND; DISTANT VIEW OF B2 HOUSE subtly emerging from 
landscape; AND VIEW OF FRONT FACADE (left to right).



AP . vol 2 . No 2 . 2017

180

DE
M

IR
EL

FIGURE 9: Sketch of b2 house depicting 
tensions BETWEEN DEFINED AND 
UNDEFINED BOUNDARIES.

FIGURE 10: view of RETAINING WALL AND 
BUILDING suggesting a kind SPATIAL 
DIALOGUE  BETWEEN the two.

FIGURE 11: VIEW OF HoUSE AND REAR 
RETAINING WALL.

FIGURE 12: VIEW OF HoUSE AND REAR 
RETAINING WALL.



181

isparchitecture.com

approach strongly parallels the way both miniaturist 
Bihzad and Le Corbusier consider traditional 
Turkish architecture, particularly when looking to a 
Wittgensteinian inspired reading of  tradition.

Approaching the enclave, the settlement’s houses 
have a landscaped look, as they are camouflaged 
to blend into the slope’s surface. Among them 
is the B2 House, which stands with a back-like 
front, aligning with its context. It is not visually 
insistent and therefore does not dominate over the 
other buildings. On the front facade, Tümertekin 
refrained from a picturesque definition. The large 
binding panels made by reed strips create a plain 
front surface unrelated to any picturesque display 
of  existing traditional dwellings.

In the overall simplicity, only the bindings’ colors 
permit the building to be seen from a distance. 
Before gaining a clear idea of  the appearance of  the 
building, the dark-brown color strikes the eye and 
evokes curiosity. The experience of  the building 
piques interest before one even arrives at it (Figures 
6 & 7).

The starting point for Tümertekin is the 
retaining wall at the back rather than the building 
itself. However, Tümertekin’s intention is more 
than constructing a simple wall to hold the earth 
behind. His intention, rather, is to continue the 
angled pattern of  the already existing traditional 
street. Following the street pattern, the building 
was not designed as an absolutely individual object. 
It emerges as a seemingly natural outcome of  the 
continuing wall (Figure 8). The retaining wall begins 
before a person arrives at the boundary of  the 
building and in doing so, it prolongs the path that 
one normally expects to complete at the building’s 
main entrance. However, when a person arrives at 
the entrance door, the retaining wall immediately 
directs attentions to another distant point. The 
purpose of  the retaining wall is not defining a 
physical boundary but rather topographically 

The Confinment 
to appearance 
practiced in  an 
architectural 

context can be 
interpreted as 

the idealization 
of meanings.

“

”



AP . vol 2 . No 2 . 2017

182

DE
M

IR
EL

narrating the building as evoking a bodily and emotional experience. In 
fact Tümertekin does not want the visitor to face the building immediately. 
As Gill explained by referring to Wittgenstein, immediacy is limitation 
[26]. When we grasp things immediately, our understanding of  the things 
are reduced to the visual level [27]. Such understanding is like the way a 
dictionary presents things as a momental event that allows no freedom 
to consider them habitually [28]. Here delaying the arrival enables bodily 
involvement with the building, which happens before the visual one. The 
delay in turn gives time to construct the architecture mentally in the mind 
before physically experiencing it.

The other intention of  Tümertekin’s retaining wall is to create a street-
like settlement. He addresses the experience of  the Turkish street. For 
Tümertekin, the street is not a collection of  the building facades set side-
by-side. Rather, he considers it a journey already-begun in order to enact 
it bodily. Neither the retaining wall on the left nor the blind wall of  the 
building on the right is directly related to any appearance of  the traditional 
Turkish houses specific to the region. His attempt is not to re-picture 
them but rather to allow traditional architecture to re-establish meaning as 
the re-embodiment of  what we have bodily and sentimentally experienced 
through the setting.

Therefore, the building reveals its meaning not so much when someone 
looks at its front and other façades individually, as when one actively 
participates in the journey which starts from the enclave and continues 
throughout the building.

The irregular relationship between the retaining wall and the north face 
of  the building is manipulated in such a way as to create a spatial dialogue 
that encourages bodily experience. Arriving at this point, one faces a lower 
retaining wall, which is positioned in such a way as to create a passageway 
to the other side of  the building. On first viewing, the convergence of  the 
retaining wall and the building itself  gives the impression that the journey 
to the building site is complete. However, this is not actually so.

Surprisingly, on approach, the upper wooden deck immediately frames 
the view far beyond the building, and, together with the lower retaining 
wall (in the middle), takes the attention away from the building to the sea 
and to the infinite horizon in the rear (Figures 9-12).

Tümertekin’s intention is not to create a destination that is completed 
by physical boundaries, but rather to create the sense of  an incomplete 
journey. Here the temptation is always to draw attention toward the back 
of  the building. In contrast to a building’s front, David Leatherbarrow 
argues that “the back is hardly an identifiable figure, neither a picture-like 



183

isparchitecture.com

FIGURE 13: MAIN FLOOR PLAN OF THE B2 HOUSE.

FIGUREs 14  & 15: Floor plan of traditional turkish house juxtaposed with 
photograph of traditional turkish house (left to right).



AP . vol 2 . No 2 . 2017

184

DE
M

IR
EL

display of  representational shapes” [29]. Yet, for Tümertekin, the building 
does not consist simply of  its outer appearance. Its appearance constitutes 
an emotional experience engendered by bodily movement, responding 
through personal interaction with all aspects of  the building [30]. In doing 
so, more emphasis is given to invisible presence, which is re-configurable 
ad infinitum over time.

For Tümertekin architecture does not start when we physically enter 
the building but rather occurs at the moment we sentimentally begin to 
experience things related to the building before and after arriving within its 
physical boundaries. Architecture begins when the building begins to alert 
one’s feelings and evoke some anticipation. In this regard, Tümertekin 
addresses the traditional Turkish Mediterranean houses in Bodrum. 
The B2 House’s design was based on the same traditional experience, as 
described by the architect here:

I am gradually thinking that architecture lies in the differences between the 
physical boundary and the perceived boundary. […] First I formulized this a 
little with the Bodrum House; here the boundary of  the house physically exists, 
but these are the boundaries that are set up when only the doors are closed. 
Outdoor and Indoor are deliberately interlaced with each other. During day-time 
the sliding doors of  the house around the courtyard remain open and the garden 
continues into the inside and the inside continues into the garden. This obscurity 
is so advanced that when all these sliding doors are closing at night-time, the 
small kid says that his grandmother is setting up a house […]. There are two 
boundaries; one is physically what you own and the other is what you can see 
beyond or what you can perceive a location which is yours and not yours [31].

Accordingly, architecture has two boundaries. In the first case one can 
physically see it, and in the other, one can sense it, but cannot show or 
empirically demonstrate it. Mentally, architecture first occurs at the moment 
of  tension between these defined and undefined albeit boundaries. The 
tension is the same that Wittgenstein described as the emptiness of  the 
intended sign and the fullness of  presence [32]. Accordingly, architecture 
may not be limited by its physical boundaries. Its sentimental boundaries 
are not stabilized as exactly as the physical ones, and therefore they are 
incomplete. The experience of  boundary continues both before and after. 
The continuation is what Tümertekin sought to achieve using the uniquely 
placed retaining wall.

In fact, buildings are constructed on the definition of  physical boundaries 
which separate inside from outside. However, when too much focus is 
given to boundaries, architecture reduces itself  to a frontal articulation, 
or an outward appearance. Addressing Wittgenstein, the confinement 



185

isparchitecture.com

to appearance practiced in an architectural context can be interpreted 
as the idealization of  meanings. In other words, reducing circumstantial 
meanings to ideal ones occurs when things are decontextualized from the 
intended audience and environment [33].

The crucial point for Tümertekin is creating a journey before creating 
the object itself. Creating a journey means taking off  any façade-like 
frontal barrier and by doing so initiating a person to move. In one sense, 
Tümertekin’s manner addresses how the miniature artist Bihzad perceives 
architecture, which is façade-less and boundless so that it is presented in a 
picturesquely less defined and more ambiguous form. It comes into being 
as an unfolded box or a topoi, a sentimental narration of  landscape that 
contains a collection of  emotional moments.

In the B2 House, the utility spaces appear withdrawn and are located 
in the back. As a result, there is large empty living space generated for the 
daily use. The living space is not divided into smaller rooms, going so far 
as to have no interior wall or partition separating the terrace. The space is 
like a large room, except for a wardrobe compulsorily used to separate two 
bedrooms on the upper floor. In contrast, it is completely left open and 
tolerant of  future arrangements and other incremental adaptations that 
occur as someone inhabits the space. In that sense, the way Tümertekin 
arranged the house’s layout is attributed to the re-embodiment of  the 
traditional Mediterranean Turkish house experience (Figures 13-15). In 
those dwellings, all functional places and storage units are placed to the 
sides allowing for the creation of  a large open space in the middle perfect 
for a variety of  social activities [34]. As Turkish scholar and architect 
Cengiz Bektaş has noted, traditional Turkish architecture is so often 
tempted to eliminate frontal barriers and characterizes itself  as an open 
venue [35]. Even furniture is constructed as earth-bounded element; any 
object used for sitting is not much heightened or separated from wherever 
it is located. Such objects are introduced as part of  their ground. Less 
heightened furniture does not sharply separate one space allocated for a 
specific activity from others arranged in a single living room. So the entire 
floor is a piece of  furniture, not confined to a predetermined activity.

More openness increases the opportunities for possible bodily 
interactions with the space. Taking traditional Turkish architecture as 
reference, the intention of  Tümertekin is not to create architecture in the 
sense of  building, because building to him means to verticalize things 
or construct spatial elements in a vertical sense. Verticalization physically 
gives space a boundary or physical definition. Instead the tendency in 
experiencing the B2 House is to eliminate a definitive account or sense of  



AP . vol 2 . No 2 . 2017

186

DE
M

IR
EL

total completion as much as possible. The B2 House interior comes into 
being in the sense of  topology [36], an open venue that continually takes 
shape as someone interacts with it.

Perhaps there are other factors, beyond the way of  interpreting 
tradition, contributing to the B2 House’s success. However, when looking 
at the region where the B2 House was built—Büyüksun—many buildings 
imitate local traditional buildings by using local materials. Many originally 
concrete buildings are clad with traditional facades consisting of  stylistic 
figures and ornaments. The superficial use of  material strengthens the 
stylistic consciousness of  tradition created by post-modernist tendencies. 
That the B2 House exemplifies a model of  encountering tradition in 
building, not in an imitative manner but in an inventive one, remains 
worthy of  exploration.

CONCLUSION

The philosophical approach of  Wittgenstein’s meaning as use is a 
model for an alternative way of  considering tradition in architecture. A 
miniature painting by Bihzad, sketches of  Istanbul and the Green Mosque 
by Le Corbusier, and the B2 House design by Han Tümertekin were 
the examples of  how Wittgenstein’s notion of  tradition transpires in 
architecture. Although it seems that these examples appear quite different 
in material and method, or that they are seemingly irrelevant to one 
another, they share the same concern and propose a similar approach to 
tradition. How each handles tradition, as demonstrated here, serves as a 
model for contemporary practice, which maintains a propensity toward 
an incessant vacillation between the imitation of  the past and the ultra-
technocratic conception of  the future. The alternative is consistent albeit 
constantly in flux. It is not limited to an encounter with the historic image 
of  buildings, but is rather concerned with what is emotionally experienced 
or communicated through them. The emotional reading of  buildings 
could explain why Bihzad avoided photorealistic, object-like depiction of  
the buildings in his miniatures and likewise why Le Corbusier’s sketches 
lack any precise depiction. The main interest of  these thinkers was not 
representing a picture of  reality but rather the emotional contact between 
a sensuous body and the built environment. In a similar way, the B2 House 
comes into being not as a re-figuration of  the traditional motifs but as 
a re-embodiment of  the emotional experiences of  traditional building. 
Their conceptualization of  tradition addresses Wittgenstein’s criticism 
that the fixation of  a meaning is a kind of  idealization that converts things 
into frozen mental images. Yet, as Husserl suggested, anything more ideal 



187

isparchitecture.com

means more remote and independent from its audiences; idealization is subject 
to mere objectification. The concern then is not the object-like presence 
of  the traditionally built environment, but the sentimental contact with it 
however so conceived. As Merleau-Ponty suggested, our direct bodily (and 
sentimental) involvement with things is always provisional, indeterminate, and 
open-ended [37]. Merleau-Ponty’s idea could be interpreted to mean that the 
appearances of  traditional forms are fixed to a particular time when they are 
constructed. However, the sentimental connections are renewable; they can 
be re-collected and re-embodied through new materials and forms specific to 
the present time. In doing so, they hold out the promise of  new architectural 
configurations derived from traditional architecture. As such, the B2 House 
can be taken as an example of  how tradition can play an inventive role in an 
alternative modernity.

endnotes

[1] Ludwig Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations, trans. P. M. S. Hacker and J.
Schulte (West Sussex: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2009), §117.

[2] Joseph Rykwert, The Necessity of  Artifice (New York: Rizzoli, 1982). See
also David Leatherbarrow, The Roots of  Architectural Invention: Site, Enclosure,
Materials (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993) and Nathaniel
Coleman, Utopias and Architecture (London and New York: Routledge, 2005).

[3] Hannah Arendt, Between Past and Future: Eight Exercises in Political Thought
(New York: Viking Press, 1968).

[4] Ibid.

[5] Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations, §43.

[6] Edmund Husserl, Logical Investigations, Vol. 1 (International Library of
Philosophy, trans. J. N. Findlay (Oxon: Routledge, 2001).

[7] July 16, 2015, “Complete,” Dictionary.com, http://www.dictionary.com/
browse/complete?s=t

[8] Paul Ricoeur, “The Later Wittgenstein and the Later Husserl on Language,”
Ricoeur Studies 5, no. 1 (2014).

[9] Ibid.

[10] Arendt, Between Past and Future.

[11] Máire Eithne O’Neill, “Corporeal Experience: A Haptic Way of
Knowing,” Journal of  Architectural Education 55, no. 1 (2001): 3-12. See also
David Seamon, “Body-Subject, Time-Space Routines, and Place Ballets,” in
The Human Experience of  Space and Place, ed. Anne Buttimer and David Seamon
(London: Croom Helm, 1980), 157-158.



AP . vol 2 . No 2 . 2017

188

DE
M

IR
EL

[12] Giuliana Bruno, Atlas of  Emotion: Journeys in Art, Architecture, and Film 
(New York: Verso, 2002).

[13] Michael Barry, Figurative Art in Medieval Islam: And the Riddle of  Bihzad of  
Herat (1465-1535) (Spain: JCG, 2005).

[14] Robert Hillenbrand, “The Uses of  Space in Timurid Painting,” in Timurid 
Art and Culture: Iran and Central Asia in the Fifteenth Century, ed. Lisa Golombek 
and Maria Subtelny (Netherlands: E. J. Brill, 1992), 76-102.

[15] Paul Rodaway, Sensuous Geographies: Body, Sense and Place (London: 
Routledge, 1994).

[16] William C. Chittick, The Sufi Path of  Knowledge: Ibn al-Arabi’s Metaphysics of  
Imagination (Albany: State University of  New York Press, 1989).

[17] Walter Benjamin, “The Work of  Art in the Age of  Mechanical 
Reproduction,” in Illuminations, ed. Hannah Arendt (New York: Schocken 
Book, 1968), pp. 217-51.

[18] Ludwig Wittgenstein, The Blue and Brown Books: Preliminary Studies for the 
Philosophical Investigations (New York: Harper and Row, 1965).

[19] Ricoeur, “The Later Wittgenstein and the Later Husserl on Language,” 
28-48. 

[20] Le Corbusier, Journey to the East, trans. Ivan Zaknic (Cambridge: The 
MIT Press, 2007). See also Le Corbusier, Towards a New Architecture, trans. F. 
Etchells (New York: Dover Publications Inc, 1986).

[21] Bruno,  Atlas of  Emotion.

[22] David Leatherbarrow, Topographical Stories: Studies in Landscape and 
Architecture (Philadelphia: University of  Pennsylvania Press, 2004).

[23] Alois Riegl, Problems of  Style: Foundations for a History of  Ornament, trans. 

Evelyn Kain (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993). 

[24] Benjamin R. Tilghman, Wittgenstein, Ethics, and Aesthetics: The View from 
Eternity (London: Macmillan, 1991).

[25] Tansel Korkmaz, “B2 House: Both Strange and Familiar,” Domus, 
last modified February 24, 2005, http://www.domusweb.it/en/
architecture/2005/02/24/b2-house.html.

[26] Jerry H. Gill, “Language and Reality: Whitehead, Wittgenstein, and the 
Analytic,” Process Studies 43, no. 1 (2004): 59-67.

[27] David Trotter, “Sterescopy: Modernism and the Haptic,” Critical Quarterly 
46, no. 4 (2004): 38-58.

[28] Riegl, Problems of  Style.

[29] David Leatherbarrow, Uncommon Ground: Architecture, Technology and 



189

isparchitecture.com

Topography (Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2000), 173.

[30] O’Neill, “Corporeal Experience,” 157-158.

[31] “Han Tumertekin Söyleşi,” Arkitera, accessed May 1, 2009,

http://www.arkitera.com/v1/diyalog/hantumertekin/soylesi/html.

[32] Ricoeur, “The Later Wittgenstein and the Later Husserl on Language,” 
28-48.

[33] Nicholas F. Gier, Wittgenstein and Phenomenology: A Comparative Study of  the 
Later Wittgenstein, Husserl, Heidegger, and Merleau-Ponty (Albany: State University 
of  New York Press, 1981).

[34] Önder Küçükerman, Turkish House: In Search of  Spatial Identity (Istanbul: 
Touring and Automobile Association of  Turkey, 1996).

[35] Cengiz Bektaş, Türk Evi (Istanbul: Yem Yayın, 2016).

[36] Leatherbarrow, Topographical Stories.

[37] Maurice Merleau-Ponty, Phenomenology of  Perception (London and New 
York: Routledge, 2000).



AP . vol 2 . No 2 . 2017




