Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
Lmprs
Arch Duke
Joined: 30-Dec-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1869
|
Topic: Convert Hagia Sophia back to a church Posted: 02-Feb-2006 at 22:05 |
I agree those minarets don't look natural...
Edited by barish
|
|
arch.buff
Colonel
Joined: 18-Oct-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 606
|
Posted: 02-Feb-2006 at 22:10 |
Ill use an example that my professor/retired architect once revealed to me.
Imagine architecture as an automobile coasting down the road at approx. 25mph when he comes across the Egyptians he drops the clutch and accelerates past the speed limit. The vehicle also does this when passing the Greeks, Romans, Gothic period etc...
I dont believe the Ottoman age to be an acceleration point when it comes to architecture, not to say that they didnt advance or to belittle their structures.
|
|
R_AK47
Baron
Joined: 25-Jan-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 468
|
Posted: 02-Feb-2006 at 22:21 |
Originally posted by barish
I agree that minarets doesn't look natural... |
Well, that's one thing we agree on.
|
|
Beylerbeyi
Chieftain
Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Cuba
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1355
|
Posted: 03-Feb-2006 at 05:34 |
Now lets take look at what you wrote, you said that the Ottomans improved on Byzantine by adding Flying Butresses, when infact when the Ottomans took control of Hagia Sophia they found Buttresses already in place, they just amended the existing ones. |
No, this isn't what I have written. You misunderstood. To the contrary, I wrote that the Byzantines had used Flying Buttresses to carry the weight of the dome, whereas the Ottomans have developed a way to carry theirs without buttresses, which improves the looks of the building from the outside. If the Byzantines knew how to do that, they would have built Ayasofya in the same way. They simply lacked the necessary technical knowledge.
The Pantheon, Partheon and the Hagia Sophia are in my opinion the most influential buildings. |
I agree to this. They predate other buildings, it is natural that they are both technically inferior and more influential.
What do the Ottomans have that sets them apart architectaully? Is the Sears Tower superior to Selimiye? Obviously yes, due to modern day building practices and materials. Is that what you solo think of when you think of superiority in architecture? |
Well, some people were claiming that the Ottoman architecture is an ugly and inferior copy of the Byzantine one, and I moved in to teach them a thing or two about architecture. Then you came along claiming that they are right. Now, I guess, you conceit the point.
If your still not convinced stroll thru the internet and try and find what empires have invented more advances in architecture, hell call your local architecture firm in the closest available city and ask the senior architect or partner/owner of the firm this specific question-"Out of the Ottomans, Byzantines, and Romans, what empire has contributed the most to architecture?" I wont hold my breath for a response, less I urge to die of suffication. |
Nobody claimed that Ottomans or the Byzantines have 'invented more advances' than the Romans. On the contrary, I said all Ottoman grand mosques are based on the Byzantine design. Stop putting words in my mouth, go back to my message and your reply and read again. My claim is pure and simple, 'Ottoman grand mosques are technically and aesthetically superior to Ayasofya', it's not 'they are more influential and original'.
PS- Id like to clarify I truly do love all three "styles" of architecture, all have made their advances. |
Now you claim this, but your actions talk differently. If you really liked and respected Ottoman architecture, you would not have rushed in to write 'nothing they built comes close to Byzantines' (something which you later admitted was untrue), as an answer to my defence of the Ottoman architecture against aggressors who claimed that it is 'just an ugly and inferior copy of the Byzantine'. If you are sincere, let's see you edit your original 'provocative' remarks in a more respective way.
Edited by Beylerbeyi
|
|
Digenis
Colonel
suspended
Joined: 22-Nov-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 694
|
Posted: 03-Feb-2006 at 08:11 |
beylerbey... comparing Ayia Sophia with the Blue Mosque,just shows that u are not so much familiar to architecture... Except the external obvious imitation...the gap is huge. Plz read previous posts before u write:i had a list of Ottoman building of Thessaloniki-that survived and restored. (although low quality) So greeks were leaving in huts before the ottoman invasion??? Fortunately ,the Turks brought civilization to this part of the world... This shows u dont have a clue about the subject.Take a look at hunderds of Byz.churches of the 13-14th century. And take a look:the part of Europe that was under Ottoman rule (balcans) and rest of Europe in the 16-18th centuries!!! The comparison shows the huge turn back in architecture CAUSED by the Ottomans! Anyway..the most important thing is the negletion and the bad behaviour towards a monument that belongs to the World...
Edited by Digenis
|
|
Seko
Emperor
Spammer
Joined: 01-Sep-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8595
|
Posted: 03-Feb-2006 at 11:02 |
Aesthetics aside (we all have an opinion beauty), this topic raises a concern where many individuals support their rhetoric with animosity and bias. Whats mine is mine, but whats yours is also mine.
Though I've been abscent for a while, I could always get a recap on such old fashioned debates by reading threads like this.
|
|
arch.buff
Colonel
Joined: 18-Oct-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 606
|
Posted: 03-Feb-2006 at 13:22 |
Originally posted by Beylerbeyi
Now lets take look at what you wrote, you said that the Ottomans improved on Byzantine by adding Flying Butresses, when infact when the Ottomans took control of Hagia Sophia they found Buttresses already in place, they just amended the existing ones. |
No, this isn't what I have written. You misunderstood. To the contrary, I wrote that the Byzantines had used Flying Buttresses to carry the weight of the dome, whereas the Ottomans have developed a way to carry theirs without buttresses, which improves the looks of the building from the outside. If the Byzantines knew how to do that, they would have built Ayasofya in the same way. They simply lacked the necessary technical knowledge.
The Pantheon, Partheon and the Hagia Sophia are in my opinion the most influential buildings. |
I agree to this. They predate other buildings, it is natural that they are both technically inferior and more influential.
What do the Ottomans have that sets them apart architectaully? Is the Sears Tower superior to Selimiye? Obviously yes, due to modern day building practices and materials. Is that what you solo think of when you think of superiority in architecture? |
Well, some people were claiming that the Ottoman architecture is an ugly and inferior copy of the Byzantine one, and I moved in to teach them a thing or two about architecture. Then you came along claiming that they are right. Now, I guess, you conceit the point.
If your still not convinced stroll thru the internet and try and find what empires have invented more advances in architecture, hell call your local architecture firm in the closest available city and ask the senior architect or partner/owner of the firm this specific question-"Out of the Ottomans, Byzantines, and Romans, what empire has contributed the most to architecture?" I wont hold my breath for a response, less I urge to die of suffication. |
Nobody claimed that Ottomans or the Byzantines have 'invented more advances' than the Romans. On the contrary, I said all Ottoman grand mosques are based on the Byzantine design. Stop putting words in my mouth, go back to my message and your reply and read again. My claim is pure and simple, 'Ottoman grand mosques are technically and aesthetically superior to Ayasofya', it's not 'they are more influential and original'.
PS- Id like to clarify I truly do love all three "styles" of architecture, all have made their advances. |
Now you claim this, but your actions talk differently. If you really liked and respected Ottoman architecture, you would not have rushed in to write 'nothing they built comes close to Byzantines' (something which you later admitted was untrue), as an answer to my defence of the Ottoman architecture against aggressors who claimed that it is 'just an ugly and inferior copy of the Byzantine'. If you are sincere, let's see you edit your original 'provocative' remarks in a more respective way.
|
First off, Im not going to edit my above post because well I simply meant what I said. I dont see any disrespect in my previous posts, I simply stated a truth that I believe.
I never said Ottoman architecture was "an ugly and inferior copy of Byz". Maybe you have a different "idea" of what architecture is than I. Maybe you should re-read my above example.
For instance, speaking from a technical point, it is well known thru the architectual world that building a dome the size of the Pantheon and have it stand for 2000 years would be extremely hard, nigh unthinkable.
This is more amazing seeing as how the Pantheons dome is made of concrete, not re-inforced concrete(meaning no steel rebar skeleton).
Edited by arch.buff
|
|
R_AK47
Baron
Joined: 25-Jan-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 468
|
Posted: 03-Feb-2006 at 13:40 |
Have any groups considered making Hagia Sophia a church/mosque? This is not an idea I would support, as I believe it needs to be a church, and for other reasons that we have already discussed in this thread and others. However, I am wondering if this idea has ever been considered. Maybe they would put the cross on the dome, but leave the minarets (topped with crescents) on, the mosaics would all be uncovered and restored, but those big islamic disks inside would remain. Of course, an orthodox altar would have to be restored. Perhaps this would be a temporary compromise until a permanent solution (preferrably the one I believe should be done) is found, though the building might look somewhat odd.
|
|
erci
Chieftain
Joined: 22-Jun-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1426
|
Posted: 03-Feb-2006 at 14:43 |
Solution for what? We don't have any problem with it.We have a saying in Turkey which goes "You are arguing with your own $hit"
|
|
arch.buff
Colonel
Joined: 18-Oct-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 606
|
Posted: 03-Feb-2006 at 15:02 |
Ya, I say its fine as a museum.
|
|
Digenis
Colonel
suspended
Joined: 22-Nov-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 694
|
Posted: 03-Feb-2006 at 15:11 |
ITS NEGLETED AND COLLAPSING.
|
|
R_AK47
Baron
Joined: 25-Jan-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 468
|
Posted: 03-Feb-2006 at 15:16 |
Well erci, reading your post has confirmed that a compromise can not be reached. You don't have a problem with the building being a "museum" because it still looks like a mosque and retains all of the islamic features with a few mosaics uncovered that are out of site in the main area "so as not to offend muslim visitors", according to an online source I read (can't remember the link). I offered a possible compromise, but it has been rejected. I guess my original plan to convert Hagia Sophia back to a church is the only solution. I will continue to support this idea.
|
|
Beylerbeyi
Chieftain
Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Cuba
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1355
|
Posted: 03-Feb-2006 at 15:38 |
I think we should put up a huge neon sign saying 1204 on it and turn it into a theme-brothel with the prostitutes dressed as nuns and visitors dressed as crusaders, and reenact the happy event...
|
|
azimuth
Caliph
SlaYer'S SlaYer
Joined: 12-Dec-2004
Location: Neutral Zone
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2979
|
Posted: 03-Feb-2006 at 16:00 |
oh ok
i think all said what they wanted to say, if not plz continue via PMs plz.
this thread is closed.
|
|
|