Panorama as a representation form for city image: Panoramic Istanbul

As a city image that authorities are trying to leave a trace, panoramas are vulnerable to interpret. However they are deprived of critical thinking because they are not included in the history of photography as a genre. In this research, panorama of Istanbul as representation for city is examined through the phases of the iconic Istanbul panorama. Focusing on photography; gravures, drawings and paintings are searched as well. In the context of urban representation, various works of artists –who works with photography- are examined. In the second chapter, history of the panorama is researched. Apart from the present daily use, the panorama word was describing a demonstration venue when it was invented. Later on, "panorama" is used for painting, gravure and photography and even started to be used in everyday life in the meaning of "wide scope". Concepts like panorama, silhouette and landscape are replacing within each other. These concepts were argued ant it is emphasized that in the thesis panorama concept is used for the urban representation; and includes cylindrical display space, paintings, drawings, engravings and photographs. Panorama creates a community of symbols that transforms the city into a readable text. Although panorama is an iconic city image for many cities, it is unique to the topography of the city that distinguishes the Istanbul panorama from the others. In the first part of panorama's conceptual study, the panorama experience as a cultural practice was examined in the context of being a ritual and the state of the city was explored from iconic and current viewing points. In the last part of the chapter, it is examined which objects are replicated and objectified. In this context, postcards, panorama engravings and photos sold as editions were investigated. In the first chapter, concept of panorama is examined as a cultural practise in the context of being a ritual for the city and state of observing the city from iconic and new viewing points are examined. In the last part of the chapter postcards and edition of photographs are investigated in the context of reproducing of a representation medium. In the third chapter under the title of "politics of panorama", it has been explored that the power and panorama relationship, city as a phenomenon which is seen and ablo to see. In the same period of invention of the panorama concept of panoptic was emerged as well. This two phenomenon was investigated comperatively. During the first periods, Istanbul panoramas, which were mostly made to order, could be manipulated according to the wishes of the orderer. Part of the city which is subject of the panorama was selected by the orederer so it could be manipulated according to the wishes of the orderer. In this context, it is considered that the panorama may contain manipulations from the first years. In order to understand the criticality of today's produced panoramas, Istanbul's urban development is investigated at the last section of the chapter. In the fourth chapter, the use of photography in urban representation was investigated by taking into consideration of the stages of visualisation methods, and the visualisation points were investigated. Increasing possibilities of high view leads everyone to produce their own panoramas according to collective and personal memory of themselves. Today, the change in the panorama has been tried to be understood from the alternatives produced in Istanbul panorama. Recently understanding of the preserving panoramic format and the shaping the city according to this form is very common. It can be claimed that there is a paradigm shift about panorama from its invention to recent meaning. While it was a describing landscape or battle scenes at the beginning, it evolves to an iconic city image which contains symbols of city. The discussion was grounded on the case of Istanbul. In final part, it has been focused on how artists transformed panoramic form by intervening in the content of the panorama, with the understanding that city could not be represented by an image produced from a single point. This interventions can be using photographs of different places to form one image of panorama or it can be digitally manipulated with various features of softwares or can be manually manipulated. It is not possible to represent city from a single point of view anymore, therefore artists are manipulating the context of panorama by cleaving the form of it. Criticism of this works starts at the point that they are cleaving the form but intervening the content of an iconic urban representation method. Through this way comparing of historical panorama and contemporaries can be conceived better. Before invention of the photography, panoramas –produced by few people- were representing certain places. With democratizing characteristic of photography it got possible to produce panoramas of different parts of the city for everyone. In addition common usage of internet provided that images to spread into world. All these improvements supply a new reality for panoramas different from iconic Istanbul panoramas.