oda projesi

This paper aims to discuss the role of artists in the transformation of the city space, specifically in Istanbul. Their interventions take the form of concrete art projects and/or decisions as to where to work and/or live. In both ways, aesthetic preferences and their intervention play a role. In the first way, the city rises as the subject of art. While many artists prefer to use the city space as a scene to exhibit their art, some prefer to make city space and its culture the subject of their art, for instance by producing site specific art. The number of these examples is limited, since Istanbul only started to witness ‘real’ public art examples during the 1990’s. Among these, Nisantasi Yaya Sergileri can be cited as the most comprehensive one, encompassing various public art projects, while Oda Projesi in Galata represents the most performance based and collaborative example. Yet, as discussed in a recent symposium, Turkish understanding of public art is still largely limited to producing and positioning sculptures. In this paper, however I would like to focus on the other way of artistic intervention, namely the artists’ role in the gentrification of the city space. I wish to pinpoint certain areas that are first gentrified by artist such as Cihangir, Galata, Kuzguncuk and Asmalimescit in Istanbul. By especially focusing on Asmalimescit, the so called ‘Republic of Bohemia’, as the most recent example, I will try to show how interaction and change have been realised and how the market, culture and the city space have been affected subsequently.

The term ‘gentrification’ simply refers to the process by which decaying inner-city neighbourhoods are transformed after being re-discovered, bought-out or occupied by an upper class choosing to live or work at the city centre. Such transformation might occur in a few steps. Usually, change in physical structure follows change in function after the first renovations have been initiated. Similarly, the composition of inhabitants changes as the land value and cultural specificity of the place are being transformed. There are two main categories among gentrification theories aiming to explain the complexities of this process. One is an economic approach, which follows rent-gap theories and underlines the importance of function and the role of real-estate agents (Smith, 1979, 1986, 1996). The other constitutes on individualist demands underlining consumers’ spatial and cultural preferences (Ley, 1983, 1996, 2003). In both, the first gentrifiers play a special role. The word ‘gentrification’ derives form the word ‘gentry’. It was first used by Ruth Glass in 1964, while describing the London aristocracy’s return to inner-city neighbourhoods used as working class settlements. This points to the importance of class and refers to the cultural and economical capital of the actors. Thus, the inhabitants and key actors in the transformation processes must be analysed as the interveners of gentrification, as much as the urban conditions.

Artists as producers of cultural capital have a strong effect on the formation of consumer tastes and preferences. By transmitting their ideas through their art to a wider audience, some become ‘symbolic producers’ of new life style dynamics and cultural goods, while others become ‘cultural entrepreneurs’, who “seek legitimate new fields to stand alongside and undermine the traditional restricted definitions of taste provided by the established intellectuals and embodied into a high culture” (Featherstone, 1991:100-2).

A reciprocal relation exists between city culture/space and artists. While artists depend on the city for their livelihoods, the opposite, also applies. It is difficult to comfortably locate the role of artists within the context of the art market and the urban economy, as they have come to act as ‘cultural intermediaries’. The term ‘cultural intermediaries’ was first used by Bourdieu while focusing on tastes and preferences of the French middle class. With the aim of determining distinctive attributes of the tastes of different classes, Bourdieu believes in the existence of an “objectively established correspondence between classes of products and classes of consumers, realized in the acts of consumption only through the mediation of that sense of the homology between goods and groups which defines tastes”. And he names “the new petit bourgeoisie as the cultural intermediaries who provide symbolic goods and services” (1986:232, 359). Furthermore, Featherstone (1991:91) underlines that the new petit bourgeoisie “identifies with the intellectuals’ lifestyles and acts as intermediaries in transmitting the intellectual’s ideas to a wider audience”. Yet, artists, as opposed to the new petit bourgeoisie as understood by Bourdieu and Featherstone, do not necessarily identify themselves with particular lifestyles, but become themselves creators and transmitters of new ideas by being taste-makers and trend-setters.

As Habermas (1983) declared, “avant-gardes must find a direction in a landscape into which no one seems to have yet ventured” and artists have always foreseen the undiscovered. For artists, the choice of where to work and live is very important. They follow their preferences, which are not bound to any theories, nor to expectations of interventions. Instead they seek a place that supplies basic conditions for artistic creation, such as freedom, heterogeneity, and aesthetic values. And following the time line mentioned above, especially in the 1980’s, many artists chose to live close to the city centre due to such reasons as low rent, aesthetic and/or historic virtues of the buildings etc. As additional motivators, Ley (2003) names moral values such as tolerance and openness to minority groups, and adds that sterile, planned and saitised (sainted) places are not prefered due to their ordered, artificial and homogenous social-physical patterns.

Keeping with Bourdieu’s theoretical frame, the value of urban space is determined by its cultural capital that is formed according to specialties of the place or the region. These include architecture, aesthetic values, status and inhabitants. Especially today, as Zukin (2001) underlines, in the global symbolic economy order, certain places become more valuable when they are assigned life style norms, consumption patterns, and fame. In other words, the spaces that are rich in cultural capital but low in economical value are appreciated by artists, thus giving the space a new identity and increasing its symbolic value. These changes further result in an increase in cultural and economical capital of an existing building. In this situation, artists take on the role of entrepreneurs by creating value.

Ley (2003), working on artists and their role in the gentrification of Canadian cities, names gentrification as an ‘act of transformation’, by which a product or place moves from ‘junk to art and then on to commodity’. Ley, focusing on artists who create art from junk or garbage, and who love to transform dilapidated spaces by adding their cultural capital, depicts them as transformers. Transformation as a result of gentrification, not only affects the physical structure, but the social status of the space and its consumer group as well. The agencies that create symbolic production and members of artistic services, members of cultural industries and cultural intermediaries, have a specific role in this process. As time passes, these places are recognized as the new cultural-symbolic attraction points of consumption. Ley depicts this situation as follows:

“The population that follows artists does not enter the field haphazardly but in a succession that is shaped by their proximity to the aesthetic disposition and cultural competency of the artist. The aesthetic appropriation of place, with its valuation of the common place and off-centre, appeals to other professionals, particularly those who are also higher in cultural capital than in economic capital, and who share something of the artist’s antipathy toward commerce and convention” (Ley,2003:2541).

Such results as in Canadian cities are the same as in the many major cities like SoHo of New York City, Docklands in London or 12 Arrondissements in Paris. First, these regions are re-discovered and gentrified by artists. In Istanbul the first gentrification processes were observed in Cihangir and Galata starting in early 1980’s. A very special type of gentrification has been observed in Kuzguncuk as well. It was initiated by the tremendous interest of an architect who wanted to preserve that area and create a neighbourhood model. He was later followed by other architects and artists. Altough many of the artists claim to have been attracted by the diversity of the region, Cihangir seems to reach its saturation point as a residential area, after having been gentrified from transexuals, prostitutes and dealers. Now the dewellers agree that life is more peaceful with its enclaves such as cafes and bars. Meanwhile Galata remains an alternative region with its slowly gentrified buildings, most of which still function as small-manufacturing units. Not only fine and performing arts artists but also intellectuals find both of the regions appealing. It is important to mention that all those three examples (including Asmalimescit) are found in Beyoglu (formerly Pera) where the ‘modernisation project’ of the Ottoman Empire was initiated.

All these regions rose to become hubs of activity with the help of their non-muslim or foreign population. Most of the first gentrifiers who wanted to invest or live in these areas were aware of the local cultural and economic heritage. This does not entirely apply to the successors who are usually cultural producers (intellectuals and students), journalists, other media workers, employers, clients, and patrons (businessman and investors) who circulate among the city’s consumption and media spaces and cultural institutions. (Islam,2003; Uzun, 2001). Bourdieu (1984) understands this shift in social status as a change of ownership from high cultural and low economical capital to high economical and low cultural capital.

Gentrification In Asmalımescit
The first gentrifiers of Asmalimescit were artists and foreign citizens who were willing to take the risk of being first inhabitants, after the houses and streets were deserted as a result the 6-7 September riots and the 1964 deportation. The new occupiers were “fortune tellers, pickpockets, gigolos, bobsyles, spies, vagabonds, penny-pinchers, heroin addicts, homeless people, rascals, pimps, prostitutes” (Aydil, 1988). They were not interested in the apartments for historic or aesthetic reasons, but seized the opportunity of occupying empty buildings where no or very cheap rents had to be paid.

The first artist eager to own a property in the area, was Muzaffer Akyol who was fascinated by the region’s atmosphere on his visits to Bedri Rahmi’s atelier in Narmanli Han when he was a student in the 1960’s. He states that “those dark streets were fitting to dark business”, and adds “they were not only living in, but also were destroying the houses by burning the wood or selling the iron or the brass that was used in the buildings”. This uncanny situation had reached its climax in the 1980’s. Another attraction point of Asmelimescit was its meyhanes where Turkish literati spent their time. According to Akyol, in meyhanes he had a chance to be in close contact with the people he was longing for. Akyol first rented the house that he still lives in 1987, but later in 1995 bought the whole building with the capital he had earned through one of his exhibitions. He restored the five-storey building and made it his home and atelier. Although Akyol had to struggle with grievous life standards, he tells that he invited friends to claim to be the owner of the region and its history. Akyol especially underlines the importance of heterogeneity in the region which functioned as a guarantee for freedom. He further adds that, in Asmalimescit as in most of the Beyoğlu buildings, each floor was designed in a different layout in order to show the diversity as well as avoiding the architectural monotony.

Another occupant of the region is painter Yusuf Taktak (1987), who bought a three story apartment in the Hamson buildings in 1991, and moved to Asmalimescit from Cihangir. Taktak took the conscious decision to move into the area and especially into this building which was designed by two British architects between 1890-1895. The Hamson buildings were made of two blocks, connected by an inner courtyard and have played a central role in the region’s life. Taktak had felt attracted by its spacious, well-lighted and airy atmosphere, and the stories he heard about its previous dwellers. Taktak was a pioneer in that sense, being followed by other artists such as Gülsün Karamustafa, Orhan Taylan and Ipek Duben.

Painter Orhan Taylan also moved from Cihangir to the Hamson buildings to live and work. Taylan bought his flat in 1994 with the support of the Turkish Government. He ironically recounts how he had been lucky. Originally this grant was intended as a one-off payment to the artists who were willing to produce art. Even though the offer was simply covering the expenses of film producers, Taylan succeeded by claiming that painting was an equivalent form of artistic production. According to him, he could have bought a building if he had gotten the money at the time of application, but due to time consuming bureaucratic procedures, he could only afford a flat in the Hamson buildings years later.

By the mid 1990s, the number of artist ateliers had reached 40. As Taylan asserts, most of the artists were attracted by Asmalimescit’s small-scale retailers and tradesman such as hardware dealers, carpenters and frame makers. Thus, a great distance between home, necessary facilities and the ateliers is said to be an obstacle for artistic creation. Asmalimescit served for those needs, and further proved a ‘neighbourhood atmosphere’ for artistic, social and cultural exchange between artists and art dealers, visitors and students. Although the night time scene was still dangerous at the beginning of the 1990s, most of the artists were courageous to rent and work in their ateliers during day time when shops were open. At the end of 1990s, land use had started to change in the time with the needs of the art market. In addition to artist residents, three arts galleries (Galatea, Cep, Asmalimescit Sanat) and several outdoor cafes and restaurants had opened.

The year 2000 can be cited as the turning point in the history of gentrification of Asmalimescit, when a twelve-episode long documentary named ‘Asmalimescit through the year 2000’ was shot. This documentary alluded to the history and the social life in Asmalimescit with typical scenes form everyday life such as a gallery opening, lunch time in a coffee shop or a conversation in one of the famous meyhanes, but it questioned the future of the region. Most of the actors in the documentary were artists, filmed while performing in their ateliers. They expressed happiness about unique atmosphere, but also doubts regarding the future of the area: they did not want Asmalimescit to turn into another touristy region such as Ortaköy, where the streets were covered with dining tables or handy-crafts counters. As artists were becoming aware of their magnetic affect, the region started to attract more attention through this documentary that was shown on the national channel (TRT) .

As Zukin (1988, 20) suggests, art and artists were always used as a strategy to create a real-estate speculation, thus attracting new consumers and developers. Artists have become an important group of ‘cultural intermediaries’ who firstly prove that an area is ‘safe’ for living, further more awake ‘feelings of nostalgia’ in people, especially for the petit bourgeoisie, by unleashing the dust of old buildings. Bali (2002) mentions that in mid 1980’s, the trend turned to remembering what it meant to be an ‘Istanbul citizen’. In 1985, ‘Beyoglu Beautification NGO was thus established to commemorate the time in which Beyoglu has been the pioneer of modernity at the beginning of the 20th century. Various districts of Beyoglu, including Cihangir, Galata and Asmalimescit, all profited from above mentioned nostalgia movement. As a result, new dwellers decide to settle in the region, hence forcing similar changes as described for the Hamson buildings, and setting a new order. As the building manager Duben expressed, after they started to collect maintenance, some of the old dwellers such as glazier, tailor, carpenter and a tea-house owner had to leave the buildings due to high living costs. As it is common in most gentrification cases, property value and rents rise simultaneously. Consequently many of the artists moved their ateliers because of high rents or new estate plans while others who owned property made profit by selling.

Another artist, Selda Asal, aware of the regions past and possible future, proposed to her artists friends to jointly acquire a building for work purposes. After having moved in 1994, Asal wanted to become active in the transformation of the area, or at least of the street of her atelier. Her aim was to create an ‘interdisciplinary exchange base’. Hence, she made an agreement with the local shoe-store-keeper who was, at the same time, also to act as a real-estate agent. Within three years, they succeeded to place her friends into six nearby buildings. As another significant contribution to Asmalimescit’s future, she acted as a mediator for finding a place for a club called Babylon. Babylon opened in 1999 as a performance centre. It now operates 11 months a year, six nights a week and has become one of the favourite live music venues of Istanbul. The opening had consequences beyond what Asal has expected. Its location and the area around it have become the new entertainment centre of Istanbul. It attracted a broader audience than anticipated, as well as the real-estate agents and other urban investors, who had never before been interested in the region. While Asal dreamt of a harmony in which sociologists, artists, philosophers lived side by side with butchers, bookkeepers and record store owner, the area turned out to be a trendy neighbourhood only famous for its entertainment and leisure facilities.

Finally, despite the new understanding of the region as the ‘Soho of Istanbul’, and despite its bohemian and nostalgic reputation which attracts a wide audience, most of the artists interviewed were content with their lives, and emphasised that, they did not intend to be a part of any speculation. Asmalimescit remains the only place they can wish to live in Istanbul. They prefer to work against the unwanted change under the roof of their newly opened NGO called ACEK.

Conclusion
The case of Asmalimescit illustrates how artists become pioneers of gentrification and it validates the proposition that artists can act as ‘cultural intermediaries’ both in the art market and the urban space. The case also points out that artists are not solely responsible for the consequences of gentrification. The analysis of cases of gentrification in a historical context shows that artists are talented at discovering new frontiers with their aesthetic taste and artistic intuition. As opposed to other examples in Istanbul, the transformation of Asmalimescit continues as the valorisation of cultural capital heightens. The region was first gentrified by artists, later followed by other artists, art galleries and investors in search for artistic taste and life style. The cumulative cultural capital affected the economical capital, and attracted investors. Meanwhile, resident artists, having realised the potential of Asmalimescit in opening new ways of cultural production, invited their friends. This resulted in inter-disciplinary collaborations, street festivals, opening of gourmet restaurants and the club Babylon. After the region became famous for its entertainment business and service sector, the value of economical capital started to increase simultaneously with the cultural capital. Now, Asmalimescit faces the same challenges as the above-mentioned world cities within the global order, in which economical capital dominates by controlling the saturation point of gentrification. Only the artists who own property can determine in Asmalimescit’s future development process.

Acknowledgements
For the realisation this paper I am indebted to the following people who were so kind to allow me to interview them. (Some of the interviews were done at the period that I was preparing my sociology master thesis called “Spatial Transformation of Asmalimescit and the role of the cultural intermediaries in the music industry” in 2003.)
Ada, Nuran (28.01.05) ceramics’ artist, works and lives in Asmalimescit since 1997
Aksoy, Murat (03.02.05 via telephone) painter, works in Kazanci-Taksim
Akyol, Muzaffer (01.02.05) painter-poet, works and lives in Asmalimescit since 1985
Asal, Selda (24.03.01 via e-mail) artist, works in Asmelimescit since 1998-lives in Cihangir
Duben, Ipek (09.05.03) artist, works in Asmalimescit since 1994-lives in Galata
Gonenli, Necmiye (03.02.05 via telephone) decorative painter, works in Asmalimescit since 1996
Guzelbeyoglu, Aylin (03.02.05 via telephone) painter, works in Galata
Guzelkan, Yasemin and Bulent (30.01.05) businessman and women-Asmelimescit Balikcisi
Kahraman, Ekrem (30.01.05) painter, works in Cukurcuma
Karadana, Selim (03.02.05 via telephone) painter, works and lives in Tarlabasi
Karadeniz, Nejat (29.01.05) architect, works and lives in Asmalimescit since 2000, head of ACEK
Karamustafa, Gulsun (14.05.03 via e-mail) artist, works in Asmalimescit since 1994
Karamustafa, Sadik and Ayse (14.03.01 via e-mail) graphic artists, works in Asmalimescit since 2001
Nejat, Ahmet ( 03.02.05 via telephone) painter, works and lives in Cihangir
Paker, Seza (03.02.05 via telephone) painter, works and lives in Asmalimescit since 2002
Sirinyurt, Kubra (03.02.05 via telephone) painter, works in Gumussuyu-Taksim
Saribas, Baris (03.02.05 via telephone) painter, works and lives in Asmalimescit since 2000
Sanliman, Tayfur, (04.02.05 via telephone) painter, worked and lives in Asmalimescit between 1991-2001
Sozeri, Nurten (03.02.05 via telephone) painter, works and lives in Asmelimescit since 1998
Taylan, Orhan (28.01.05) painter, works and lives in Asmalimescit since 1994
Topal, Poyraz (03.02.05 via telephone) painter, works and lives in Tophane

Bibliography
Aydil, F. (1988) Asmalımescit 74 (Bohem hayatı). İstanbul: Iletisim Yayinlari.
Bali, R. N. (2002) Tarz-ı Hayatta’tan Life Style’a, İstanbul:Iİletişim Yayinlari.
Bourdieu, P. (1984) Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste, trans. NR. Nice. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Demir, H., Akar, A. (1994) İstanbul’un Son Sürgünleri, İstanbul: Belge Yayınları,
Featherstone, M. (1991) Consumer Culture& Postmodernism. London: SAGE.
Glass, R. (1964), “Aspects of Change”, Aspects of Change, (ed.) Centre for Urban Studies, London: MacGibbon and Klee.
Habermas, J. (1983) ‘Modernity: an incomplete project’, in H. Foster (ed.) The Anti-aesthetic: Essays on Postmodern Culture. 3-15, Port Townsend, WA Bay Press.
Islam, T. (2003) Gentrification In Istanbul: A Comparison of Different Cases, in Tarihi ve Merkezi Semtlerin Dönüşümleri: Gentrification Kuramlarının İtanbul’a Uygulanabilirliği Sempozyumu, 20-21 Mayıs 2003, Istanbul
Ley, D. (1983) A Social Geography of the City, New York: Harper and Row
Ley, D. (1996) The New Middle Class and the Remarking of the Central City, New York: Oxford University Press.
Ley, D. (2003) “Artists, Aestheticisation and The Field of Gentrification”, Urban Studies, 40 (12): 2527-2544.
Smith, N. (1979), ‘Towards a theory of gentrification: a back to the city movement by capital, not people’, Journal of American Planning Association, 45:538-48.
Smith, N. (1986), ‘Gentrification, the frontier and the restructuring of space’ in Smith, and Williams ( ed.) Gentrification of the City, Boston: Unwin Hynman.
Smith, N. (1996) The New Urban Frontier: Gentrification and the Revanchist City, London: Routledge.
Uzun, N. ( 2001) Gentrification in Istanbul: A Diagnostic Study, Utrecht: KNAG.
Zukin, S. (1988) Loft Living: Culture and Capital Change. London: Radious.
Zukin, S. (2001) ‘How to create a cultural capital: Reflections on Urban Markets and Places’, Cities Exhibition Catalogue, London: Tate Modern.

Akşam, 10.01.05, “Bohemler residence’lara terfi etti”
Art+Decor, January 2003, “Pera’da Bir Sevda Ressamı”
Cumhuriyet Dergi, 11.05.03, “Karanlık Sonrası”
Gate, April 2003 , “Asmalimescit Ressamlari”
Habertürk, 25.01.03, “Babylon’un Sokağı”
Hürriyet, 06.01.01, “Tünel Canlandı”
Tempo, 19.03.03, “Cihangir Cumhuriyeti”
Vizyon Dekorasyon, October 1997, “Tünel Geçidi’nden Asmalımescit’e sanatla canlanan sokaklar: Sofyalı, Jurnal, Şeyhbender..”