Research Article


DOI :10.26650/artsanat.2024.22.1360929   IUP :10.26650/artsanat.2024.22.1360929    Full Text (PDF)

Can We Mention About an Idea Called “Abstract Symbolic Style” in Turkish Art?

Yunus Aslan

Symbols play a crucial role in various domains, serving as conveyors of meaning through concrete signs with abstract significance. In some periods, it is seen that certain symbols stand out uniquely to that period and some symbols are used repeatedly or transformed throughout history. It is very difficult to reach definite conclusions about the origin of symbols in the history of art. However, the external and internal factors that influence the art, of course, shape the symbols that the work contains, as well as the work. A work of art, which is the product of a collective process is affected by many conditions such as the social environment, economy, material supply, geographical variables, the government, the wishes of the administrator and the artist, the understanding and style of art of the period, religion and sacred elements, the artist’s experience and inner world. The work, which is formed by selection among all these variables is a cornerstone of the general art style. Anatolian Medieval art can be interpreted as the art of societies, not the art of individuals like modern art. In this respect, in Turkish art and symbolism, where the state, religion and social powers come to the fore, these mentioned elements appear as the dominant and guiding power. Should the idea of “abstract symbolic style” be mentioned in Turkish art? Which factors influenced art and style? What is the place of stamps in the transformation of ancient symbols into art? In this study, answers to these questions and problems are sought.

DOI :10.26650/artsanat.2024.22.1360929   IUP :10.26650/artsanat.2024.22.1360929    Full Text (PDF)

Türk Sanatında “Soyut Simgesel Üslup” Düşüncesinden Söz Edilebilir Mi?

Yunus Aslan

Simgeler birer anlam aktarıcısı olarak genellikle soyut anlama sahip somut işaretler şeklinde, sanattan günlük yaşama kadar her alanda kullanılmaktadır. Bazı dönemlerde belli simgelerin o döneme has olarak öne çıktığı, bazı simgelerin ise tarihî süreçte tekrar ederek veya dönüşerek kullanıldığı görülmektedir. Sanat tarihi içerisinde simgelerin kökeni konusunda kesin sonuçlara ulaşmak oldukça güçtür. Fakat sanatı yönlendiren dış ve iç etkenler meydana gelen eser kadar, eserin barındırdığı simgeleri de şekillendirmektedir. Kolektif bir sürecin ürünü olan sanat eseri, toplumsal çevre, ekonomi ve malzeme temini, coğrafi değişkenler, devlet yapılanması, yöneticinin ve baninin istekleri, dönemin sanat anlayışı ve üslubu, din ve kutsal unsurlar, sanatçının deneyimleri ve iç dünyası gibi pek çok koşuldan etkilenmektedir. Bunca değişken içerisinden seçilimle meydana gelen eser, genel sanat üslubunu oluşturan bir temel taşı niteliğindedir. Anadolu Orta Çağ sanatı, modern sanat gibi “bireylerin sanatı” değil, “toplumların sanatı” şeklinde anlamlandırılabilir. Bu bakımdan devlet, din ve toplum erklerinin öne çıktığı Türk sanatında ve simgeciliğinde, bu bahsi geçen unsurlar, söz sahibi ve yönlendirici güç olarak karşımıza çıkmaktadır. Türk sanatında “soyut simgesel üslup” diye bir düşünceden bahsedebilir miyiz? Sanata ve üsluba hangi faktörler etki etmiştir? Kadim simgelerin sanata dönüşümünde damgaların yeri nedir? Bu çalışmada bu soru ve sorunlara cevap aranmaktadır. 


EXTENDED ABSTRACT


Words and concepts such as icon, symbol, stamp, sign, insignia, indicator, brand, symbol, emblem and trademark, basically have the same meaning. It is the concrete depiction of an idea or concept that cannot be perceived by the senses, having the common denominator of conventional meaning. In addition to symbols that can be defined as abstract signs, objects that replace something or depict it themselves also function as symbols.

The work of art and the general art style are influenced by many factors such as the social environment, material supply, geographical variables, temporal changes, the government, the wishes of the ruling powers, the artistic understanding and style of the period, ancient and neighboring state cultures, religion and sacred elements, the experiences and inner world of the artist. It is affected by many variables. In addition to these, conditions such as the technology of the period, tools and construction techniques also have an impact. In Turkish art and symbolism, where the powers of state, religion and society come to the fore, these mentioned elements are the dominant and guiding force. 

Firstly, it is necessary to mention some concrete artistic symbol contents in Turkish art. For example, in terms of building architecture, “mosque” symbolizes Islam. While the mosque is one of the art symbols that have a concrete function, the symbol and decoration content included in the mosque has abstract features. On the other hand, “arrow” and “bow” are concrete war tools as objects, but the “bow-arrow” form engraved on the surfaces has become an abstract and artistic symbol. In this context, meaningful abstract symbols are sometimes based on meanings attributed to objects that have equivalents in nature, and sometimes on mental productions that have no equivalents in nature. In the second case, geometric shapes are widely preferred as tools for new and original symbols in Turkish art. While vegetal forms are generally transferred verbatim or stylized from similar examples in nature; It is abstract based on geometric forms and there is no need for stylization in practice.

Figural decorations were used in two types: fantastic and natural. New species resulting from fantastic combinations of different species and figures encountered in nature have been symbolized through art and different meanings have been attributed to them. Predatory and powerful animals representing political power can be given as an example of this symbolization. Stylization can be seen in figural symbols and ornaments to the point of almost turning into vegetal ornaments. Although fantastic figures are not visible, they are not considered in the category of abstract art because they are created by the combination of two animal (or sometimes human and animal) figures existing in nature.

Arts based on symbols and decoration continued through various evolutions until the end of the reign of the Great Seljuk and later Anatolian Seljuk states. Ornamentation maintained its importance in portable arts as well as in architecture. “Ornament”, as it is understood in our language today, refers to the compositions created by decorative elements on any surface or each of these elements. However, in the first sense of the word that comes to mind, the purpose here is not to fill the surface meaninglessly. The motifs, symbols and figures applied to the surface are carefully selected and applied as parts of an established tradition and the general style that was being created during the period.

Geometric arrangements, one of the main types of decoration, are the preferred tools for reflecting abstract symbolic art content in a certain order. Geometric ornaments were used in early Islamic arts in the Umayyad Period and mostly in the Abbasid Period; In Turkish art, it started to develop together with the Karakhanids. Subsequently, the Ghaznavid and Great Seljuk states used rich geometric arrangements in almost every field. This tradition was transferred and continued to Anatolia through the Anatolian Seljuks. It is also known that indigenous ancient civilizations in Anatolia used geometric arrangements in both architecture and pottery. Unlike decoration, the origin of symbolic geometric forms can be traced in rock painting regions such as Kyrgyzstan Saymalitas, Kazakhstan Tamgalısay and Azerbaijan Qobustan, which is among the Central Asian cultural regions. Examples that are the continuation of rock paintings start from the east of Anatolia and extend to the central and western regions.

If “Stamp-Tamga” is defined in a classically, it is the tool used to print a mark or insignia on something, and the sign itself is printed with this tool. Certain concrete and abstract shapes symbolically remind every community, nation, and state. These shapes are generally meaningful forms specific to that culture. Stamps are special signs that are used mostly by societies of Turkish origin, meaning the expression of belonging, membership, independence element, tribe-lineage unity, national membership and holiness.

Stamps that turned into motifs, which is a phase in the transformation of stamps are a concept that emerged over time when the symbolic meanings in the background of the stamps were not recognized or known by the viewers. These elements, which are placed as symbols by the maker, are considered motifs and compositions for decorative purposes only. When taking step back and the symbolic aspect of geometric arrangements is investigated, the abstract symbolic content of the Turks is reached.

Geometric arrangements whose meanings are not yet known cannot be considered in the symbol category. Stamps are created by stylizing objects that have counterparts in nature. As a result of this stylization, the art viewer cannot know from which object the symbol was originally derived. This situation makes the symbol abstract. 

Symbols are not always encountered as artistic content in terms of purpose. In this regard, for symbol to be defined as art, its functional aspect must be put in the background and its artistic aspect must be prioritized. If a symbol is presented in different forms in the public domain, without being part of mass production, this makes it part of art. This subject, which is like the difference in meaning between art and craft, can be interpreted as a work of art that displays unique features each time, as well as uniform elements, produced dozens of times. “Symbol” alone is not the subject of art. However, the symbol transformed into a work or included in the content of the work is the subject of art.

Abstract symbolic content in Turkish art is mainly formed by Oghuz tribal stamps that signify national identity. In an artwork, stamps from different tribes are carefully placed by the artist, varying in number, size, and material. In addition to the tribal stamps found in Turkish culture and art, there are also more general sacred-common (superior) stamps that express common meanings. These common stamps are widely used in Turkish art. Unlike tribal stamps that convey belonging, common stamps are abstract symbols representing beliefs and sacred meanings. It is known that after the original purpose of stamps was fulfilled, they transformed into letters and writings as a means of communication. Initially known as stamps, these letters, with some modifications or directly turned into letters were put together to form words. However, at their core, they are all stamps. These letters, stylized as motifs, are repeatedly used in almost every element of Turkish art with an abstract meaning. 

Abstract symbols in Turkish art can be classified (in an open-ended manner) as national identity stamps, common identity stamps, sacred stamps, and letter stamps that have been transformed into the alphabet, based on existing data. Nearly all these symbols have geometric and angular lines and are characterized by abstract forms that do not refer to real objects. These symbols, applied with fine craftsmanship, are essentially messages and are reused in works of art by being stylized as motifs. 

These rich types of stamps found in every corner of Anatolia are important artistic contents in terms of Turkish abstract symbolic style. Abstract symbols are original products of the imagination. Understanding and examining the abstract symbolic language of a nation is essential for its art and symbolic history. After decoding the original meanings of these symbols, which are both abstract and concrete sources, they should be further examined for their effects and reflections on the art object.

As a result, according to the available data, it can be said that there is an “abstract symbolic art style” that takes shape depending on the ancient Turkish culture and art and derives from Turkish stamps. This style indirectly penetrated art in terms of meaning during its period. Turkish art, which emerged because of the shaping of many political, religious and social factors emphasized in the relevant section, also includes the abstract symbolic style as a subheading. This style reveals the richness of mental and abstract thinking of Turkish states and communities.

This study mentions the existence of the “abstract symbolic style” in Turkish art, which has not been brought to the fore sufficiently before. The “Abstract Symbolic Turkish Art Style”, which was introduced to the scientific world for the first time with this publication, should be examined with the methods and classifications that are the basis of science and should be developed with more symbolic and iconographic studies. 


PDF View

References

  • Aksoy, Hasan. “Anadolu’da Erken Dönem İzleri Kaya Resimleri ve Yazılı Kaynaklara Göre.” Yayımlanmamış Doktora tezi, Selçuk Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, 2022. google scholar
  • Aslan, Yunus. “Anadolu Selçuklu Dönemi Yapılarında Motifleşen Türk Damgaları.” Yayımlanmamış Doktora tezi, Selçuk Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, 2022. google scholar
  • Aslan, Yunus ve Remzi Duran. “Türk Sanatında Tengri-Tanrı Damgası”, Ulakbilge Dergisi 8/54 (2020): 1378-1398. google scholar
  • Aslan, Yunus ve Remzi Duran. “Türk Sanatında Cennet Damgası ve Türk Kültüründe Sekize “8” Yüklenen Anlamlar.” Selçuk Üniversitesi Türkiyat Araştırmaları Dergisi 51 (2021): 383-405. google scholar
  • Cassirer, Ernst. Sembolik Formlar Felsefesi. Berlin: Bruno Cassirer Verlag, 1923. google scholar
  • Cassirer, Ernst. İnsan Üstüne Bir Deneme. Çev. Necla Arat. İstanbul: Remzi Kitabevi, 1980. google scholar
  • Cündioğlu, Dücane. Sanat ve Felsefe. İstanbul: Kapı Yayınları, 2012. google scholar
  • Çaycı, Ahmet. Selçuklularda Egemenlik Sembolleri. İstanbul: İz Yayıncılık, 2008. google scholar
  • Duran, Remzi. “Türk Süsleme Sanatlarındaki Motif ve Kompozisyonların Kültürel Kaynakları: Mitler ve Destanlar Üzerine.” Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi 8 (2002): 151-168. google scholar
  • Duran, Remzi. “Motiflere Dönüşmüş Türk Damgaları - Geometrik Motiflere Farklı Bir Bakış.” Akdeniz Sanat Dergisi 13/23 (2017): 679-697. google scholar
  • Ekiz, Mehmet. “Niğde Sungur Bey Camisinde Tespit Edilen İşaretler Tamga mı?” III. Uluslararası Türk Dünyası Araştırmaları Sempozyumu. Bakü: Bakı Avrasiya Universiteti 2016, 3. cilt, 219221. google scholar
  • Eliade, Mircea. İmgeler Simgeler. Çev. Mehmet Ali Kılıçbay. Ankara: Gece Yayınları, 1992. google scholar
  • Ercilasun, A. Bican. Türk Kağanlığı ve Türk Bengü Taşları. İstanbul: Dergah Yayınları, 2016. google scholar
  • Esin, Emel. “Evren, Selçuklu San’atı Evren Tasvîrinin Türk İkonografisinde Menşe’leri.” Selçuklu Araştırmaları Dergisi 1 (1970): 161-182. google scholar
  • Gülensoy, Tuncer. Orhun’dan Anadolu’ya Türk Damgaları. İstanbul: Türk Dünyası Araştırma Vakfı Yayınları, 1989. google scholar
  • Kalyoncu, Hülya. “Ehl-i Hiref-i Hassa Teşkilatının Osmanlı Kültür ve Sanat Yaşamındaki Yeri ve Önemi.” The Journal of Academic Social Science Studies International Journal of Social Science 33 (2015): 279-294. google scholar
  • Karpuz, Haşim ve Emine Karpuz. “Selçuklu Döneminde Sanat ve Estetik”, VI. Dini Yayınlar Kongresi. İstanbul: Diyanet İşleri Başkanlığı, 2013, 185-198. google scholar
  • Lewis Williams, J. David. Mağaradaki Zihin. Çev. Tolga Esmer. İstanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları, 2019. google scholar
  • Mülayim, Selçuk. Değişimin Tanıkları Ortaçağ Türk Sanatında Süsleme ve İkonografi. İstanbul: Kaknüs Yayınları, 2015. google scholar
  • Ögel, Semra. Anadolu’nun Selçuklu Çehresi. İstanbul: Akbank Yayınları, 1994. google scholar
  • Öztürk, Rıdvan. “Eb” İdeogramının Mimaride Kullanılması ve Beyşehir Eşrefoğlu Camisi Örneği”, Uluslararası Türkçe Edebiyat Kültür Eğitim Dergisi 6/3 (2017): 1293-1305. google scholar
  • Panofsky, Erwin. Studies in İconology Humanistic Themes in the Art of the Renaissance. New York: Harper & Row, 1972. google scholar
  • Somuncuoğlu, Servet. Saymalıtaş: Gökyüzü Atları. İstanbul: Atokyay, 2011. google scholar
  • Sönmez, Zeki. Başlangıcından 16. Yüzyıla Kadar Anadolu Türk-İslam Mimarisinde Sanatçılar. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 1995. google scholar
  • Sümer, Faruk. Oğuzlar. Ankara: Ankara Üniversitesi Basımevi, 1972. google scholar
  • Sümer, Faruk. “Kınık,” İslam Ansiklopedisi, 25. Ankara: Diyanet Vakfı Yayınları, 2022, 417-419. google scholar
  • Tunalı, İsmail. Estetik. İstanbul: Remzi Kitabevi, 2002. google scholar
  • Yılmaz, Muzaffer. Babasız Doğma Fenomeni: Kutsal ve Sanat İlişkisine Yönelik Bir Yorumlama. Konya: Literatürk Academia, 2020. google scholar

Citations

Copy and paste a formatted citation or use one of the options to export in your chosen format


EXPORT



APA

Aslan, Y. (2024). Can We Mention About an Idea Called “Abstract Symbolic Style” in Turkish Art?. Art-Sanat, 0(22), 199-226. https://doi.org/10.26650/artsanat.2024.22.1360929


AMA

Aslan Y. Can We Mention About an Idea Called “Abstract Symbolic Style” in Turkish Art?. Art-Sanat. 2024;0(22):199-226. https://doi.org/10.26650/artsanat.2024.22.1360929


ABNT

Aslan, Y. Can We Mention About an Idea Called “Abstract Symbolic Style” in Turkish Art?. Art-Sanat, [Publisher Location], v. 0, n. 22, p. 199-226, 2024.


Chicago: Author-Date Style

Aslan, Yunus,. 2024. “Can We Mention About an Idea Called “Abstract Symbolic Style” in Turkish Art?.” Art-Sanat 0, no. 22: 199-226. https://doi.org/10.26650/artsanat.2024.22.1360929


Chicago: Humanities Style

Aslan, Yunus,. Can We Mention About an Idea Called “Abstract Symbolic Style” in Turkish Art?.” Art-Sanat 0, no. 22 (Jun. 2025): 199-226. https://doi.org/10.26650/artsanat.2024.22.1360929


Harvard: Australian Style

Aslan, Y 2024, 'Can We Mention About an Idea Called “Abstract Symbolic Style” in Turkish Art?', Art-Sanat, vol. 0, no. 22, pp. 199-226, viewed 26 Jun. 2025, https://doi.org/10.26650/artsanat.2024.22.1360929


Harvard: Author-Date Style

Aslan, Y. (2024) ‘Can We Mention About an Idea Called “Abstract Symbolic Style” in Turkish Art?’, Art-Sanat, 0(22), pp. 199-226. https://doi.org/10.26650/artsanat.2024.22.1360929 (26 Jun. 2025).


MLA

Aslan, Yunus,. Can We Mention About an Idea Called “Abstract Symbolic Style” in Turkish Art?.” Art-Sanat, vol. 0, no. 22, 2024, pp. 199-226. [Database Container], https://doi.org/10.26650/artsanat.2024.22.1360929


Vancouver

Aslan Y. Can We Mention About an Idea Called “Abstract Symbolic Style” in Turkish Art?. Art-Sanat [Internet]. 26 Jun. 2025 [cited 26 Jun. 2025];0(22):199-226. Available from: https://doi.org/10.26650/artsanat.2024.22.1360929 doi: 10.26650/artsanat.2024.22.1360929


ISNAD

Aslan, Yunus. Can We Mention About an Idea Called “Abstract Symbolic Style” in Turkish Art?”. Art-Sanat 0/22 (Jun. 2025): 199-226. https://doi.org/10.26650/artsanat.2024.22.1360929



TIMELINE


Submitted15.09.2023
Accepted24.07.2024
Published Online08.08.2024

LICENCE


Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC)

This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work non-commercially, and although their new works must also acknowledge you and be non-commercial, they don’t have to license their derivative works on the same terms.


SHARE



Istanbul University Press aims to contribute to the dissemination of ever growing scientific knowledge through publication of high quality scientific journals and books in accordance with the international publishing standards and ethics. Istanbul University Press follows an open access, non-commercial, scholarly publishing.