THE REVIEW OF ‘THE STYLE OF SİNAN’S DOMED STRUCTURES’

   THE REVIEW OF ‘THE STYLE OF SİNAN’S DOMED STRUCTURES’

   Introduction

   Sinan; one of the best architects of the world history. Many native and foreign historian wrote and spoke about him. Today’s architects still speak his marvellous architecture skill. But there are still his aspects stayed in shadow. Doğan Kuban talks about his talents on architecture, which is not appreciated enough by humanity, in the article of ‘The Style of Sinan’s Domed Structures’. He mentions that Architect Sinan is the creator and developer of Ottoman Architecture Style thanks to his innovations on domed structures. He explains the origin of Sinan’s works respectively and correlates with his art. Also, he compares Sinan’s style with other architectural styles and separates his art from others.

   Review

   Kuban enlightens the claim that Sinan copies Hagia Sofia in his works. Against people who ignore intelligence and talent of him, he shows how his methodology formed and developed.

   The only community that used just semi-spherical dome for roofing even in the simplest building roofs was the Ottomans. It is obvious that they imitate and adopt the dome of Hagia Sophia, but they reinterpreted dome culture. In time, the dome was developed and shaped with respect to Islam and became a symbol for the religion. Dome roofing of Ottoman architecture was presented well in Sinan’s buildings. He was available to reach a lot of buildings thanks to its position in the state. He saw Central Asian, Iranian, Syrian Balkan and Christian domed buildings. He examined closely The Dome of the Rock and octagonal mausoleum of Sultaniyya with its double shell dome and eight towers. He was familiar with the Byzantine architecture, so we can see a centralized plan in his projects. He was affected by Justinian’s Hagia Sophia and wanted to make that much gorgeous domed structure, but he never copied and competed with it. As Kuban said, we understand he has no concern that his domes should be greater than Hagia Sophia. Even, Süleymaniye dome is two meters smaller than Hagia Sophia’s dome. If he wanted to compete, it was easy to build a bigger dome for him. Also, the construction type of Hagia Sophia and Sinan’s

buildings opposites. Justinian’s architects firstly designed plan and construct a dome in respect to plan. However, Sinan starts to design from the dome. In the article,      Kuban has a brilliant answer to ‘Süleymaniye is the structural crisis of Hagia Sophia’. In Suleymaniye, only roof scheme of Hagia Sophia is the basis for it. Courageousness of Justinian’s architects is not seen on Sinan who behave rationally. In return for Hagia Sophia’s asymmetrical buttresses and spontaneously designed looking roof, with Kuban’s words, ‘Süleymaniye is well-planned and properly dimensioned support system counterbalanced the lateral thrusts of the dome, and the elements of this support system were judiciously integrated into composition of the enclosure walls from both inside and outside’ (p. 84).

       

  

   Kuban separates Hagia Sophia and Süleymaniye in the fields of both structural and conceptual. When it comes to the concept of his mosques, he designs central buildings with no horizontal direction, but vertical. The dome symbolizes dome of heaven and sultan. We can say political and religious concerns are seen relatively.

   Sinan has own style that always seen in his works. Domes are quite simple and exterior and interior of it do not differ. Domed baldachin form was the starting point for his designs, which is the origin of all domed structures. He selected square, hexagonal and octagonal baldachin. We can see centralization and simplification of the structural system, so he creates infinite symmetry with the plan and spatial variation with structural elements.

   Kuban mentions that Edirne Üç Şerefeli Mosque affects Sinan’s designs, which we see he develops and takes Üç Şerefeli Mosque as a model. In this structure, space-generating dome constructed with simple geometry and construction techniques. Simple walls carry all dome load because the structural system was not developed. The mosque expands horizontally covered with other domes that proportioned the main dome. This idea is seen Fatih, Beyazıt Mosque and Şehzade Mosque which is built by Sinan.

   Contrary to balky walls of Üç Şerefeli Mosque, he developed arcaded side facades. Şehzade mosque is the first example of getting rid of massy walls and mastership of fenestration. Whereas Christian churches have a mystical atmosphere, Ottoman mosques are filled with light. Sinan plays with light very well. Arrangement of windows at different levels, various sizes and different transparencies provided variety and rhythmic order. Qıbla wall of Mihrimah has well-arranged windows that are used efficiently although mihrap and facing with the when praying make hard to organize façade. Sinan does not focus on a single element on his design. Kuban collects the style of Sinan under three unit ‘domical covering, the support system and the fenestration’ (p. 82).

    In all buildings of Sinan, space under the main dome is emphasized. Entering directly the main dome first seen at Mihrimah Mosques in Edirnekapı and Üsküdar and Sokullu Mosque. He also used semi-domes to enlarge space and distributed the load of the main dome. Use of semi-domes was the innovation in Ottoman style, which is developed and constructed by Sinan. He applied efficiently arrangement of main dome and semi-domes in his great mosques like Şehzade, Süleymaniye and Selimiye.

   Şehzade is the consequence of spatial developments that began at Üç Şerefeli Mosque. Before Üç Şerefeli Mosque, masonry walls used. Fatih and Beyazıt Mosque was the first buildings where free-standing interior supports seen. That is not succeeded in Beyazıt, Şehzade has great centralized building scheme. The base is divided five to give the impression of a great dome. Polygonal-shaped piers unify the interior. Arcaded outside walls reduce massy looking. He removed hospital building that exists in Beyazıt and minarets are integrated with the mosque so he creates integrity in Şehzade Mosque. 

 

   The Süleymaniye Mosque, as we discussed before, is the reinterpreting of Hagia Sophia. But only roof scheme of Hagia Sophia was seen Sinan’s structures that are Süleymaniye and Kılıç Ali Paşa, and Beyazıt mosque before him. Suleymaniye’s domical composition has a magnificent appearance instead of Hagia Sophia’s uncontemplated roofing system. Actually, Süleymaniye is formalistically opposite to   Hagia Sophia except for use of semi-domes.

   The Selimiye Mosque is his mastership work as Sinan said. Kuban express this masterpiece best like that: ‘It represents the utmost rationality ever reached by sixteenth-century Ottoman culture. It expresses better than any description can convey the most original concept of domed space created in the history of architecture.’ (p.86).

   Single doom dominates all structure and octagonal baldachin comes to the forefront. This type baldachin was the best because piers were thinner and arches were smaller compared to the dome’s size, and its stability was greater. He prefers half-dome corner squinches instead of large pendentives. There is no intended direction except symbolic orientation through qibla. Pantheon is regenerated here but more lightened. He built several hundred known monuments beside these great mosques. He is remembered with his great mosques but previous works were not less charming buildings. Mosques such as Sokollu, Rüstempaşa and Mihrimah are masterpieces as well as buildings such as Darüşşifa of Haseki, Süleyman’s tomb, Ilgın caravansarai and Maglova aqueduct.

                         

 

   Conclusion

   To conclude, Doğan Kuban makes clear Sinan’s intelligence, art and architecture. He explains how Sinan developed baldachin form to his great mosques and which techniques he used in construction. Simple elements such as central dome, half domes, quarter domes, supporting piers, squinches, pendentives and buttresses are used visually enriched on his hand. In the article, originality of Sinan and contributions to Ottoman Architecture Style comes to forefront and Kuban who understood Sinan well retails his in all aspects.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

REFERENCE:

Doğan Kuban,’The Style of Sinan’s Domed Structures’ Muqarnas 4(1987): 72-97