Destruction as an event

Since its entering the urban life at the end of the nineteenth century not only as a medium but also as a place of spectating, 'cinema' has become one of the inevitable everyday practices for the people of Istanbul like other cosmopolitan cities. Considering especially their massive influences in the first half of the twentieth century, movie theaters can be defined as important memory tools of the world before the age of television and internet. In this respect, the preservation of the old movie theaters of Istanbul, whose number is gradually decreasing in the city, seems to be necessary not only for the movie industry but also for the sustainability of the memory of urban life in a particular time. However, in the last quarter of the century, a great majority of them had already disappeared due to financial inconveniences, fires, etc. In addition, few remaining buildings are also being destroyed on the pretext of urban renewal or transformation in the last period. Emek Sineması (or first name, Melek Sineması), which can not be ignored in terms of the urban history and the Turkish cinema, is among the movie theaters that were demolished in 2013 as part of a renovation project. On the contrary, at the beginning of this renovation, as a conservation project at the same time, it had been claimed that the current construction would not be completely destroyed and would be entirely moved. Emek Sineması reconstructed with just only its original ceiling decorations on the top floor (or at the most prestigious point of the project according to the expert witness report) of the Shopping Center built on it. Beyond the demolition itself, this study aims to discuss what the destruction of 'Emek Sineması' has acted on our memory, in addition to what we have already forgotten. In the last period, many places of minor narrative in the city have disappeared with similar acts of destruction. For the authorities, it can be stated that dismantling of these places for urban-rent is part of a developmental state policy. On the other hand, it can also be deduced from the various discourses of the state and local authorities that the destruction (or the renovation) is also considered to be some kind of necessity for the erasing of memory that were thought to represent these places, or for the suppression of memory by cartoonizing them. However the destruction of these places which bring together diverse minor groups as part of the social formations leads to the elimination of the differences in the city. This dissertation aims to show how these destructions, which lead to a kind of sameness, are manipulated or constructed by not only political and bureaucratic authorities, but also all subjects who experience them as a part of power relations. This dissertation discusses the destruction of Emek, Ipek and [Yeni] Rüya Cinemas as event and studies their architectural thinking potentials. While doing this it approaches destruction not as the act of destruction itself but as a becoming, which comes to actualization through the act. So, it does not focus on the architecture but on the subject that makes its experience possible. This is why it finds it theoretical basis in Deleuze's duration and memory concepts. In his reading through Bergson, Deleuze separates time and duration. According to him duration is the difference, the transformation itself. From this point, in contrast to homogenous time, duration points to in part to past, in part to future, continuous and continuously divided infinite moments. Memory, in its ontological meaning, is the accumulation of duration and so, the virtual multitude of difference. This conceptualization of Deleuze is very important in the context of the dissertation. The loss of time (duration) by destruction, which displaced the potential(s) of differentiation/differenciation of urban area, is critical. In this frame the dissertation approaches the memory of the mentioned cinemas with their minor-becomings, in other words singularities, in three headings: Lost Memory, Repressed Memory and Reconstructive Memory. In this dissertation, Deleuzien memory is not only a concept which problematizes destruction by constructing the conceptual framework but also has been accepted as a reading method. This triple reading, which references the various states of memory, attempts to make partially specific, partially constructive and partially critical analysis of the destruction of Emek, İpek and [Yeni] Rüya. In three main chapters of the dissertation, narratives based on memories, various testimonies, expertise are used to discuss the issue of destruction and memory. The arguement that memory is a state of becoming-of-subject is an important factor in the selection of these texts taken from printed or online sources. The state of becoming-of-subject is based on the fact that the destruction of the cinemas, as an event that occurs in many dimensions at the same time, could be grasped by each participant at a different realization levels within his/her own variable present. With this method, it was asked to make visible how different identities shape memory by positioning the places and themselves, and so how the space is also constantly established, demolished, repressed and reproduced. There is another chapter before these main three, in which the state of multitude created by cinema as a modern fragment and the conservative reflex, which came to be against it, is explained. Through this chapter, the aim is to understand the sociological conditions that gave birth to cinema and setup their destruction. Lost memory is a chapter about understanding the memory losses in the sphere opened to discussion/forum through the destruction. In the focus of this chapter is Ipek Cinema, which was closed for 30 years before it was completely destroyed through a fire on May 2013. It is claimed that this cinema, which has been an object of the sequence of destruction since its opening in 1924, is already a lost memory. Repressed Memory chapter tries to show, through the story of [Yeni] Rüya Cinema, the minor becomings, which are repressed, were tried to annihilate or ignored, and the memory about them. Also, it can be said that the fact that this cinema, the name of which was changed repeatedly from the year of its opening 1931, had no façade and could not be distinguished from the street was a sign of its repression: Because, this is the reason it was not seen as a cultural asset by Council of Monuments and becomes the only building in the building complex which is not under protection. Reconstructive memory focuses on the things, that builds memory again through pointing at the use of different subjects in an event actualized through destruction. It can be said that this chapter, different from the others, makes Deleuzean virtual memory more visible. The most important reason behind this is the Emek Cinema itself. The whole chapter, specifically the second part, shows how Emek was rebuilt again and again, the togetherness of the power relationships, that come to being in this context, in other words different actors and the increase of knowledge, accumulation of memory that come to being through these relations. It looks like, exactly at this point, the destruction by disrupting all these differentiations closes becoming sphere and causes the duration to wither away. But, in this sense, considering the destruction act towards Emek and social movements after what May 2013 brought to light and made visible, it is very vital. This brings us to the conclusion. This dissertation seeks a minor architecture by thinking on becoming beyond the continuity of state-action, which is able to pave the way for new subjectivities, which escapes control, and which creates new time and space. The conclusion opens to discussion the idea of looking at the architecture through forgetting and remembering practices. From this angle, as event, as a singular circumstance different from any other event – it is like building and maybe as a part of it – it is stated, that the becoming just before the destruction is important to create/say something different for architecture. In this sense, 'forgetting' the historical aspect of an event, 'remembering' its becoming aspect is indispensable in architectural practice – maybe in all practices.