The Meaning of the Contemporary

Question 1

First of all, when we compare the meanings of the term “contemporary,” we should examine and be aware of what “the contemporary” actually means.

There are several parameters that I will use to explain the term contemporary. I am going to focus on temporality, culture, critical theory, and aesthetics.

The word “contemporary” refers to a specific meaning related to time: “at the same time” or “çağdaş.” However, temporality can be understood in different ways. For example, an artwork from 1990 and a building from 2014 can both be considered contemporary, and we can talk about their respective contemporaneities. Existing in time and practicing in time resist the present, as Deleuze describes.* The untimely practice of art or architecture is shaped within the idea of the “contemporary.”

The ways of practicing and thinking within the contemporary condition do not have strict rules as modernism does. At this point, culture and our lifestyles intervene in the processes of creating and thinking. Of course, contemporary also has a global dimension, but we cannot ignore our history, culture, educational practices, and homeland. I am not referring to a particular civilization or to traditional practices. As an example from architectural practice, Alvar Aalto says, “Architecture belongs to culture, not to civilization.” Of course, we have global concerns and global forms of happiness, but the reflection of these global issues must differ from culture to culture.

Being untimely while preserving one’s cultural essence plays one of the most important roles in being contemporary. However, the content of the contemporary is also shaped by critical theory. The contemporary consists of many rivalries, disagreements, and agendas carried on in many places.** We can determine a starting point through contrasts with the modern and modernity, or through political issues shaped by our culture and lifestyles, such as the fall of the Berlin Wall.

In this context—critical theory and political issues—we can also refer to Elke Krasny and her valuable ideas. Especially in the last decade, political decisions and situations that people do not socially embrace have affected the movements of people themselves. Criticism and disagreement occur in public spaces such as squares or landmarks. Argument, as a fundamental aspect of being contemporary, also appears in architecture. Parts of art galleries become common spaces for democratic discussion. Terms such as “urban context,” “architecture of the city,” and “individuality of the person” are discussed within architectural discourse. “The contemporary” attempts to fulfil its role in architecture.

After this long explanation, what can we say about the differences and similarities between the terms “contemporary” and “çağdaş” or “muasır”? The primary meaning of “çağdaş” is “aynı çağda olan,” similar to the English word. However, in Turkish usage, it often defines something better, more sophisticated, more democratic, and refers to an existing condition in Europe. It appears as a national goal articulated by Atatürk in the expression “Muasır medeniyetler seviyesi.” In English, however, the meaning of contemporary is more closely related to criticizing and changing existing conditions and reacting in different ways, as John Rajchman describes through the phrase “identifying points of divergence.”

As a result, in my understanding of the meaning of contemporary, two main questions arise. How can we observe ongoing situations—politically, aesthetically, and sociologically—and how can we react to and criticize them from an untimely position through our individual language, whether global or not? This also provides an answer to the question: why and how do architects become contemporary? Architects have to sustain these ideas in their work. They do not have to serve any particular political or critical idea, but their work should embody analysis and innovative solutions in order to be contemporary.