MEHMED FUAD KÖPRÜLÜ’NÜN VE ERWIN PANOFKSY’NİN SANAT YAPITI İNCELEME YÖNTEMLERİNİN KARŞILAŞTIRILMASI
COMPARISON OF MEHMED FUAD KÖPRÜLÜ’S AND ERWIN PANOFSKY’S ARTWORK ANALYSIS METHODS

Summary/Abstract: Mehmed Fuad Köprülü has presented how to solve Turkish Literature with European sciences and methods by his article “Usul in Turkish Literature History” written in 1913. The method involved in this article is of three stages; shape, subject and essence. In the first stage of the shape section, it is examined the poem or the writing is written which measure and how it is written. In the subject section, the subject of work is presented in detail. In the essence part which is the last chapter, the information analyzed in the section of shape and subject is synthesized and content is present. From this point of view, it appears that Panofsky overlaps with the three-stage theory of primary or natural meaning (pre-iconographic stage), secondary or convergent meaning (iconographic stage) and internal meaning or content (iconological stage). In the primary or natural meaning (pre-iconographic) stage is examined the formal elements in the work of art. It reflects the same expressions as the shape title in Köprülü’s article. In the secondary or convergent (iconographic) stage is located the subject of work, symbols and identities. This stage includes the information that Köprülü examined in the subject heading. In the inner meaning or content (iconological) stage, the information analyzed in the primary meaning and the secondary sense are synthesized and the content of the work is revealed. It is interesting that both theories have the same stages when examining the artwork. Köprülü makes you think that he is a writer who passed the age of sixteen years before Panofsky had done such a study.

• Details
• Contents