Product Description / Information
As a construct of human consciousness and an artefact, the wall is a constitutive element of the spaces called village, town and city. Village, town and city – structurally – differ from each other with a significant amount of “less walls” and “more walls”. Because in today’s cities, words such as room, house, building, street, avenue, park almost entirely gain meaning as “spaces or voids between walls”. Accordingly, city life is turning into “life between walls”. In other words, human life in cities becomes a process that emerges between the walls of birth rooms, then flows between the walls of spaces such as buildings, streets, avenues and finally disappears between the dark walls of graves. Since the relationship established between the human self and the outside world in this process is generally shaped by reference to walls, walls gain a special dimension as a manifestation (knitting) of the way the “self” and the “world” are woven together. Despite this special dimension, it is an intriguing question why walls do not enter the field of awareness of our consciousness sufficiently in our daily lives. Could the source of this problem be related to the semiotic banality (pointing beyond oneself) of walls, which are a fiction of human consciousness and a product of hand? Or is it related to the fact that walls have already been interpreted within tradition in the context of being easily identified in terms of the function they serve?
-
As a construct and artifact of human consciousness, the wall is a constitutive element of the spaces called villages, towns and cities. Villages, towns and cities - structurally - differ from each other by the amount of "fewer walls" and "more walls". In today's cities, words such as room, house, building, street, avenue, park are almost exclusively understood as "spaces or spaces between walls". Accordingly, city life turns into "life between walls". In other words, human life in cities becomes a process that emerges between the walls of birth rooms, then flows between the walls of spaces such as buildings, streets and avenues, and finally disappears between the dark walls of graves. Since the relationship established between the self and the outside world in this process is usually shaped with reference to walls, walls gain a special dimension as a manifestation (weave) of the way the "self" and the "world" are woven together. Despite this special dimension, it is an intriguing question why walls do not sufficiently enter the field of awareness of our consciousness in our daily lives. Could the source of this problem be related to the semiotic ordinariness (pointing beyond itself) of walls, which are a construct and a product of human consciousness? Or is it related to the fact that walls are already interpreted within tradition in the context of their easy identification in terms of their function?