MİMARLIK OBJESİNİN KURUMSALLAŞTIRILMASI

The archive of Auguste Perret was deposited at the Centre d'archives d'architecture du XXe siâcle of the Institut Français d'Architecture (İFA) in Paris, in 1992. This archive was previously housed at the Conservatoire National des Arts et Metiers, the result of a donation by Madame Perret in 1959. The material contained in the fonds Perret included various documents: dravvings, sketches, drafts of articles, personal notes, legal documents, magazines, account books, and correspondence (2). Although these documents were already identified with the name of the architect, one particular folder challenged this designated aulhorship. This folder, Iabeled 'C. E. Jeannerel' contained more than fifty letters written by Le Corbusier to Auguste Perret between 1908 and 1923. Signed Charles Edouard Jeanneret, the letters identified the author who would later be known as Le Corbusier. In addition to the text, these letters also contained sketches made by Le Corbusier. According to the convention signed by the Archives Nationales in 1986, the Centre d Archives of the İFA had the legal rights to keep these letters in its archives. Through its affiliation with the Archives Nationales and as an architectural institution, the Centre d Archives was the legal possessor of these letters. How-ever, this did not prevent the Fondation Le Corbusier, established after the death of the architect, from claiming moral rights över the intellectual content of the letters (3). As they carried the signature of E. C. Jeanneret, the intellectual content of the letters could be considered the property of the Fondation Le Corbusier. The existence of sketches in the letters reinforced the foundation's claims. Therefore, even if Auguste Perret was the owner of the letters as material entities, the ideas in the text and in the sketches were considered the work of the author, Le Corbusier. The designation of legal power and control över these letters was bound to a decision regarding their ovmership and authorship. In other words the issue of ownership and authorship had to be addressed, and the outcome was determined by specifıc circumstances. While the authorship was derived from the signature of the sender (Le Corbusier), ıhe ownership was derived from the name of the receiver (Auguste Perret). As a public institution, the İFA has the responsibility to give the public access to these documents. As a private institution, the Fondation Le Corbusier has the right to control access to the material. This conflict (which has yet to be resolved) highlights the problematic status of artifacts in architectural institutions. The İFA is not the only institution which faces the problem of recognizing moral rights över the intellectual content of an artifact and claiming legal rights över the material itself. Contemporary specialized institutions which collect, exhibit, and publish architectural artifacts have been confronted with the same problem. In the following study, I shall examine the way two contemporary institutions handle this problem: the Institut Français d'Architecture (İFA) in Paris and the Canadian Centre for Architecture (CCA) in Montreal (Figures 1 and 2). The İFA was established under the jurisdiction of the French Ministere de l'Equipement, de VUrbanisme et du Logement. Moreover, since 1986 it is also governed by the regulations of the Archives Nationales. The İFA obtained its legal status according to the Law of Archives passed in 1979. In its legal transactions and publication, it respects the French lavvof copyrights introduced in 1901. The CCA, on the other hand, is an independent institution. In September 1979, the CCA was incorporated in accordance with 'part-2' of the Canada Corporations Act for non-profit corporations. In January 1984, it was accredited as a public museum by the Canadian Museums Association. The same year, it was granted a legal status by the Department of Communications, Department of Cultural Property Import and Export Act. It also recognizes the Access of Information Act and the Privacy Act re-affirmed in the National Archives of Canada Act of 1987. Established and governed under the laws of two different countries, the opera-tional structures of the İFA and CCA appear to be framed by two different legal contexts. Yet, I believe that the designation of legal rights över architectural artifacts is not solely conditioned by these external processes. On the contrary, I would argue that this designation is further challenged by the institutional definition of architectural artifact. As a problematic construct, an architectural artifact can resist the straightforward designation of ownership and authorship. As I will try to show, the legal processes within architectural institutions are also dependent on their internal conceptualization of architectural artifact. In the following section, I will describe the legal context within which these two institutions function. This description will serve as a basis for our discussion, the way each institution addresses the designation of legal and moral right över architectural artifacts.