Parallels between Two Identity Searching Nations in the 20 th Century through the Museum and Exhibition Buildings

During the 19th and 20th centuries, museums and exhibition buildings have been immensely important in the nation-building of newly born countries all over the world. By means of art and architectural representation, it was possible to bring people together in the pursuit of enduring their nationhood, to make them proud of their identity and to create a new concept of the country with a powerful historical background. Within this context, Hungary from the Compromise with Austria in 1867 up to the second decade of 20th century, and Turkey starting from the Second Constitution in 1908 until the mid-century possess proper examples of architectural production firmly connected to the identity search of both countries. This study aims to investigate the manifestations of this approach through case studies mainly from two capitals, Budapest and Ankara. While comparatively examining the chosen buildings regarding their structural features, spatial organisations, contents and function, the general architectural environment and leading actors of the era are aimed to be revealed. Additionally, the quality of the buildings themselves as display objects will be investigated.


Introduction
The turn of 20 th century constitutes a significant period for both the Ottoman Empire (Republic of Turkey) and Austro-Hungarian Monarchy (Hungary) regarding political and social changes and their reflections on the architectural realm.The emerging idea of nationalism in the Second Constitutional Period (1908Period ( -1918)), the fall of the Ottoman Empire and eventually the proclamation of the Turkish Republic in 1923 after the Turkish War of Independence (Kurtuluş Savaşı) (1918)(1919)(1920)(1921)(1922)(1923), the political and military fight of the people of the Ottoman Empire, against the allied powers including Greece, Armenia, France, United Kingdom and Italy, with the ultimate defeat in the First World War caused a striking shift in the mindset, lifestyle and architectural taste of society in accordance with the approach and directives of the new regime that promoted a different architecture to reform both the physical environment of the country and mentality of the society in the course of time.
Constructing a new capital with the buildings that can speak for the new identity of a nation-state was the main task of the architects in that time, which mainly showed itself in two different styles.The design approach, later known as "First National Style" (Birinci Ulusal Mimari) (1908-1930s), was created by architects mostly educated in Europe and who believed that they could reflect both the stylistic vocabulary of preceding eras and contemporary needs and technologies.Thus, they used the Ottoman and Seljuk features including domes, pointed arches, large eaves, tile decorations and projected and monumental entrances mostly on the public and governmental buildings.In the following decades, a freer architectural context developed that was not oriented by the state power, hence it gave place to foreign architects who mostly design either international-functional or Western neo-classicist styles, with local architects competing with them for the governmental commissions and looking for a national style yet differing from the previous historicist attitude.The "Second National Style" (İkinci Ulusal Mimari) (1930s-1950s) was represented by those architects who investigated the pre-Ottoman civilisations' architecture in Anatolian lands and "Turkish House" typology (Aslanoğlu, 1986, p. 17).
In the case of Hungary, besides a rapid development in industry and urbanisation in the 19 th century, the 1867 Compromise with Austria provided an increased political independence.Therefore, the architecture of the era developed with two tendencies; the first was historicist and the second, more related to Hungarian nationalism (Gerle, 1998, p. 223).The outcomes of these changes can be traced through the architectural production of the era in both countries, especially through the memorial buildings, state museums and exhibition buildings.This proximity of the spaces of display stems from the representative character and reflective power of such buildings (Macdonald, 2003).The Hungarian Pavilion at the World Fair in Paris in 1900, Vajdahunyad Castle (Vajdahunyadvár), designed by Ignác Alpár, and the Museum and School of Applied Arts designed by Ödön Lechner and Gyula Pártos for the Millennial Exhibition and officially opened in 1896 in Budapest, will be examined in terms of their architectural features and content with the aim of understanding the importance of reflecting the national identity during this period.The examples from Turkey, the 1 st National Assembly Building (Birinci Türkiye Büyük Millet Meclisi) (Anıtkabir) designed by Emin Onat and Orhan Arda, which show the parallelism with Hungarian counterparts, will also be investigated with the same approach.
2 "Hungarian" Architecture Hungary, which had been a part of the Habsburg Empire, started to present its independent culture and economy on the international platform after the Austro-Hungarian Compromise in 1867 (Székely, 2013).This stark political change and World War I kept the concept of sovereignty and a modernised Hungarian identity as the focus ideas of internal and international representation of the country during the forthcoming decades.Such paradigm of creating new, individual identities respectively relies on the ethnographical basis, historicising, and vernacular modernism.Also, the developmental competition between Vienna and newly united Budapest (from the cities of Buda, Pest and Óbuda in 1873) turned architecture into a medium to manifest freedom (Akyürek, 2009).Thus, the peasant patterns and motives started to shape the new structural and ornamental characteristics of the art and architecture of the era, which can be seen mainly through the international exhibitions and state administration public buildings (Székely, 2013).
The search for a national style would also alternate the former historicist understanding of design directed the architects towards the East, Hindu, Persian, and ancient Sassanian motifs (Houze, 2009, p. 15), depending on the phenomenon of Turanism and Orientalism (Kowalczyk, 2017), and in some cases to Transylvania (Akyürek, 2009).Ödön Lechner (1845Lechner ( -1914) ) was one of the most influential actors of the period regarding the search for a Hungarian national identity, especially in the pre-Christian Hungarian folk art motifs (Gerle, 1998, p. 225).After his designs with characteristics borrowed from or influenced by eastern motifs, there followed another group of architects called Young Ones (Fiatalok) who favoured conventional structures and materials over the possibilities of the new.The principles of folk architecture were their guide in the pursuit of finding sincere and pure architecture (Gerle, 1998, p. 237).An important member of Fiatalok, Károly Kós (1883Kós ( -1977)), also used local elements belonging to a mutual European heritage, especially in his rural building designs, as a reflection of the Arts and Crafts movement influenced by Finnish and German architecture (Gerle, 1998, p. 236).
One of the main areas where Hungary could depict its independence and power was the Millennial Exhibition planned in the capital Budapest in 1896.This was to celebrate the thousandth anniversary of the occupation of the Carpathian Basin (Sezer, 2007, p. 138).It was a critical attempt focusing on the display of industrial and agricultural achievements.Two buildings from this event carry significance in reflecting the ideology and approach of the architects of the era.The first was the Museum and School of Applied Arts designed by Ödön Lechner and Gyula Pártos.The other one was the Vajdahunyad Castle (Vajdahunyadvár) constructed as a part of the Historical Building Complex (Történelmi Épületcsoport) in the same year as the Applied Arts Museum.The building, located in today's City Park close to Heroes Square with the statues representing the rulers of the nation through its thousand-year history, generates a special focus in the city.

Museum and School of Applied Arts, Ödön Lechner, Gyula Pártos, 1896, Budapest
After the Compromise with Austria, applied arts, especially textile and ceramics were the main means to reflect the folk culture of the nation throughout the country.The design of Museum and School of Applied Arts, which was executed within the Millennial Festivities, was very important in being the first non-historical museum in Europe (Gerle, 1998, p. 225) while reflecting the contemporary techniques and expressing the developing identity of the country.
The building has unique features including Hungarian folk motifs, ceramic tiles on the façade and roof (Fig. 1) from the Zsolnay Factory in Pécs (Gerelyes and Kovács, 1999), owned by Vilmos Zsolnay (1828-1900).In the 1870s, Zsolnay introduced new colours, materials and techniques to his porcelain, and used Persian, Turkish, Japanese and Chinese motifs he found in pattern books or museum items with influences of Orientalism (Kovács, 2002).The Orientalist and Art Nouveau decorations (Fig. 2), Moorish, Hindu, and Islamic, also influenced arcading for the interior (Fig. 3) and are distinctive (Gerle, 1998, p. 226).Lechner tries to reflect a new Hungarian character with the densely coloured floral and organic articulation of the surfaces on the exterior and Oriental forms for the interior (Fig. 4) (Akyürek, 2009).
The importance of this building stems from the fact that it was intended as a museum and exhibition object in the first place, rather than being transformed into a museum   later.This approach sheds light on the importance of such buildings in 19 th century Hungary.Another significant aspect of the building is its aim to represent different parts of the country by referring to many buildings, so reflecting a strong identity and past.

The 1900 World Fair in Paris, Hungarian Pavilion
With the aim of reflecting its modernised economy and culture, Hungary attended the international exhibitions in  Turin (1902and 1911), Saint Louis (1904), Milan (1906), Bucharest (1906), Rome (1911) andDresden (1911).This attendance at events abroad and organising own exhibitions illustrated how the country started to see its glorious past and current political and economic achievements and wanted to demonstrate these to its people and the world (Székely, 2015).
The pavilion with which Hungary joined the 1900 World Fair in Paris when seen from outside, looks like a copy of Vajdahunyad Castle in Budapest, which was already a patchwork of the architectural oeuvre and legacy of all Hungary.The main tower referring to the Transylvanian Vajdahunyad Castle (Fig. 9), the entrance façade of the Ják Chapel (Fig. 10) and even in the inside, (Fig. 11) the similarity to the Agriculture Museum in Budapest (Fig. 12), can be detected at first glance.Carrying the same or similar design and combination of buildings to an international level can be interpreted as the willingness to show Hungarian culture to all nations.

"Turkish" Architecture from 1908 up to 1950s
The idea of nationalism in Turkey shows itself in two steps.The former, which can be named as proto-nationalism, appears after the Second Constitution (İkinci Meşrutiyet) established in 1908 (Ortaylı, 2007).Through this political event, the parliamentary system goes in effect and sultanate downs into a symbolic place (Akyürek, 2009, p. 62), and later, "Young Turks", the group of people consisting of bureaucrats, intellectuals and journalists educated   in Europe, take over influence.The nation idea of this group is based not on the ethnic roots or language, but on the common religion and cosmopolitan character of Ottoman society and pride in the empire.
The Young Turks, who were interested in the urban development and public buildings, brought a new codification regarding aesthetics, which then appeared in architecture.Beginning with the public buildings in Istanbul, capital of the empire, a new style referring to the Classical Ottoman features like domes, large eaves, pointed arches and tile decorations started to develop.Meanwhile, in 1873, the text of Principles of Ottoman Architecture (Usul-i Mimari-yi Osmani) was written by order of the Padishah to represent the Ottoman Empire at the 1863 Vienna World's Fair as one of the three textbooks, besides the architectural arrangements (Ersoy, 2007, p. 117).The opus that was in Ottoman Turkish, French and German was created under the responsibility of Ibrahim Edhem Pasha, the Minister of Trade and Public Works and inspection of his son Osman Hamdi Bey who is another important figure of Ottoman art and history.It consisted of text and drawings explaining the chronological architectural history of the empire, details of different building types, some architectural productions and techn iques (Yazıcı, 2003, p. 16).The text also carried the idea of documenting and extracting the order, principle and geometries of the classical Ottoman buildings that were suitable for the new universal programmes and sites.The leading architects of the period, who were educated in Europe but committed to the Ottoman Empire, were eager to use this stylistic vocabulary by which they believed they could reflect both the patrimony of the empire and the contemporary needs and technologies and called it the "National Architecture Renaissance" (Ulusal Mimari Rönesans) (Bozdoğan, 2001, p. 27).The change in the educational system of architecture and engineering along a European style occurred within a decade after the establishment of the Academy of Fine Arts (Sanayi-i Nefise Mekteb-i Alisi) in 1883.Some of the most influential Turkish architects of the era worked at this academy and reflected the new approach on their design, including Ahmed Kemaleddin (1870-1927), Vedat Tek (1873-1942) and Arif Hikmet Koyunoğlu (1888Koyunoğlu ( -1982)).
With the foundation of the Turkish Republic, the leaders intended to put a physical and symbolic distance between the new regime and old Ottoman capital (Kezer, 2010, p. 42).Thus, after the proclamation of Ankara as the new capital in 1923, this so-called "First National Style" spread through public buildings like banks, post offices, cinemas and museums in Ankara and other cities.This new style brought the Ottoman and Seljuk features and beaux-art principles like symmetry and axial system together.Whereas the main façades of buildings were highly emphasised and articulated, generally with the 16 th century Ottoman floral tile patterns produced in Kütahya, marble columns and crystalline capital orders (Sözen, 1996) and projected gates of Seljuk madrasa (school for Islamic religious instruction), the plan schemes were of secondary importance (Çügen et al., 2013, p. 131).It can also be regarded as the first relationship between the last Ottoman and first Republican architects with new functions such as hotels, post offices and banks, and materials and technologies like reinforced concrete, steel and iron frameworks (Bozdoğan, 2001, p. 21).
The following decades gave birth to the influence of another design approach known as Second National Style (İkinci Ulusal Mimari) (1930s-1950s), which was represented by prominent architects such as Emin Onat , Orhan Arda (1911Arda ( -2013) ) and Sedad Hakkı Eldem (1908Eldem ( -1988)).This new style stems from another political change abandoning the Ottoman revivalism, the shift to the single-party regime of the Republican People's Party in 1931.Other reasons behind are the death of Atatürk in 1938, the difficulty of importing materials because of the emerging of the Second World War and the reaction to the dominance of foreign architects in the commissions (Aslanoğlu, 1986, p. 21).All these circumstances led architects to use more local materials, and to investigate the traditional Turkish House (Eldem, 1984) especially by Eldem for its adaptivity to modernist functions (Balamir, 2003), and as a source, referring back to civilisations prior to the Ottoman Empire like the Seljuks and Hittites.

War of Independence Museum -1 st Turkish Grand National Assembly Building, (Kurtuluş Savaşı Müzesi, Birinci Türkiye Büyük Millet Meclisi) Salim Bey, İsmail Hasif Bey, 1920, Ankara
The first remarkable "National Style" building of the republic was built in Ankara as a structure embodying both Turkish collective consciousness and the new character.The location of the building, known as "old Ankara" carries significance since the building contrasts with its new function and identity.The design of the building belongs to Salim Bey whereas the construction responsibility belongs to Hasif Bey.The First National Assembly Building was opened on 23 April 1920, the date which would be celebrated as National Sovereignty and Children's Day.Although the building was designed for the Committee of Union and Progress, it was used as the assembly building until 1924 and then as the General Centre of Republican People's Party and Law School.The transformation of the building into a museum started in 1957 and dates to 1961, when the Turkish Grand National Assembly Museum was opened.Following some restoration and procedures, by the 100 th birthday of Atatürk, it was opened to the visitors again in 1981 and named as the War of Independence Museum (Republic of Turkey Ministry of Culture and Tourism).
Reflecting the First National Style, the building is a two storey, symmetrical mass covered by large eaves; the pointed arches also give reference to Ottoman Architecture.Use of andesite as a local material on the façade is another aspect of the strongly applied style (Fig. 13).Inside the building, on the corridor walls, some guns, documents and oil paintings are exhibited.The council of ministers' room, assembly meeting room, chairmanship council room, first secretary room are generally kept with their original configuration and decorations coming from different parts of the country.
This can be regarded as the first and most important building of the style based on its function, and revealing the national will, with its characteristics reflecting the new function and old roots at the same time.

Republican Museum -2 nd Turkish Grand National Assembly Building, (Cumhuriyet Müzesi, İkinci Türkiye Büyük Millet Meclisi) Vedat Tek, 1923, Ankara
The building of the Second Grand National Assembly of Turkey was designed in 1923 as the Republican People's Gathering Hall by Vedat Tek .His architectural education was at École des Beaux-Arts (1893-1898).It was used as the National Assembly between 1924 and 1960.After the assembly moved to a newly constructed building in 1961, the building was used by the Central Treaty Organization.After this function, in 1979, the building was transferred to the Ministry of Culture and became the Republican Museum following restoration in 1981 (Müzekart).
The building consists of two storeys and a basement.At first sight, the symmetrical mass, large eaves, pointed arches over the openings and projected entrance with a crown gate attract the attention as the main features of First National Style in which the building was designed (Fig. 14).Ottoman and Seljuk influences as star figures on the wooden ceiling and tiles on the façade are other details of the design referring to the glorious history of the nation.
The museum display consists of rooms arranged through old photographs and mainly dedicated to the Assembly, Atatürk, his revolutions and later presidents.Today, besides the exhibition inside, the building itself exists as a witness to the important decisions, changes and shifts during the critical years of the newly born country.

Ankara Palace (Ankara Palas), Ahmed Kemalettin, Vedat Tek, 1927, Ankara
The building, designed as the State Guesthouse where senior bureaucrats and foreign statesmen stayed, can be regarded as the most paradigmatic "national style" building in Ankara (Bozdoğan, 2001).The project, which is the joint work of two leading designers of the era, was started through Vedat Tek's design but was completed by Ahmed Kemalettin.
It illustrates many aspects of the National Architecture Renaissance with its symmetrical mass, two towers on the corners, pointed arched full windows and projected entrance ornamented with 17 th -century Rumî tiles.The main portal, with a crown gate from Seljuk tradition, is topped with a non-structural wooden dome covered with lead, which has been an Ottoman feature (Fig. 15).The plan scheme (Fig. 16) of this concrete building, surrounded by rooms around the lightwell in the middle, might have been inspired by the madrasa plan.The importance of the building generates from its talented combination of traditional forms on the façade and very modern features, including central heating system, pressurised water, bathtubs and toilettes, and the ball and congressional function to which citizens attended with modern costumes and gestures.The building is located on the same street as the First (1920) and Second (1923) Turkish Grand National Assembly buildings, which also reflect the mainstream architectural style of the same period.Its function, design elements and location serve as a piece of a whole that emphasises the strong historical background as well as the new progressive national identity.The street hosting these representative institutions of the new Republic, today's Cumhuriyet Street in Ulus District, was designed according to German planner Hermann Jansen's masterplan (designed in 1927 and applied in 1932) (Tankut, 1993;Cengizkan, 2006, p. 25) that comes with a general zoning and a main north-south axis for pedestrians and vehicles.The plan also allows the city to develop towards the south and the station area to be the city centre (Cengizkan, 2010).This axis connecting the city centre and the train station, also began to be used for public ceremonies (Cengizkan, 2010), and the triangular urban area shaped by the station, the National Assembly Buildings and the Ankara Palas Hotel defined the borders of the city in the early Republican decades (Altan Ergut, 2014, p. 67).

Ankara State Art and Sculpture Museum (Devlet Resim ve Heykel Müzesi), Arif Hikmet Koyunoğlu, 1927
The building, as another representative of the First National Style (Birinci Ulusal Mimari) (1908-1930s), is located on the Namazgâh Hill where a prayer site and a cemetery used to be in the history (Erdoğan, 2004, p. 359).This area is selected for a secular function in parallel to the idea of putting a distance between the religious past and new secular state 1 , and the building was designed by Arif Hikmet Koyunoğlu as the Central Building of Turkish Hearths (Türk Ocakları) for an architectural competition held in 1926.After its completion in 1930 and the Turkish Hearths, the voluntary institution established in 1912 to raise awareness among the public about their Turkish origin and withstand the ethnical divisions that started to appear after the Second Constitution and inadequacy of the ideas of Ottomanism and pan-Islamism, it was closed in 1931; the building served as the Republican People's Party for a year.It was then converted into the People's House of Ankara (Halkevi), which brought life to the cultural activities of the new capital with events including 1 The area was used as a prayer place as a solution to the lack of a huge mosque for all the citizens during the War of Independence (Erdoğan, 2004, p. 359) and martyrs were buried here (Erdoğan, 2004, p. 370).concerts, ceremonies, theatres and operas.In the following years after People's Houses were closed in 1952, the building served for several institutions until it became the State Art and Sculpture Museum (Anonymus, 2017b).
The building consists of a basement and two storeys, of which the first contains the main room and service spaces and the second the official rooms.The masonry structure of the building is combined with concrete beams and arches.The design of the building reflects the main characteristics of Ottoman eclecticism with its symmetrical mass, pointed arches over the windows, and projected monumental entrance (Fig. 17).The detailing of the entrance, marble arch and the balcony over it also gives reference to the former periods of Turkish architecture (Fig. 18).The Turkish Room inside the building is ornamented, taking references from Ankara houses under the orders of Atatürk; all details were realised by the architect himself, but the room was furnished with modern furniture, which also referred to the conditions of the society then (Fig. 19).The collection hosts different types of art, reflecting the 19 th and 20 th -century Turkish art approaches.Thus, it serves as both representing the architectural approach of the era, which refers to the previous elements, and the art of the time as a part of the identity of the new society.

Ankara Ethnography Museum (Ankara Etnografya Müzesi), Arif Hikmet Koyunoğlu, 1928
Located on the same hill as the former Turkish Hearths Central Building, the Ethnography Museum is the first building in the Republican period of the country that  was designed and served as a museum from the beginning (Etnografya Müzesi).Since it was designed by one of the remarkable practitioners of the First National Style, Koyunoğlu, it looks like a collage formed from a courtyard, dome, and a monumental platform and a triple entrance system with four columns and pointed arches, which are the features of Classical Ottoman architecture (15 th -17 th centuries) (Fig. 20).This emphasis of the main gate and the crystalline column capitals refer to the text of Principles of Ottoman Architecture (Bozdoğan, 2001).The four-iwan plan scheme dating back to the Seljuks can be traced through the building (Fig. 21), whereas the rectangular window system looks like an Ottoman feature, and the symmetry on the façade and on the plan is more likely to be a beaux-art feature.The materials used in this (Source: Wowturkey) concrete building can be listed as cut stones, marble and as a local material, Ankara stone, namely andesite.In line with its architectural quotations, the collection of folk costumes, carpets, metal objects, bows and arrows, guns, tiles and porcelains hosted in the museum also ranges from the Seljuk era up to present.
Another significance of the structure is that it had been the grave of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk until his body was transferred to Anıtkabir in 1953.This temporary burial place also serves as a display today., the saviour and the founding leader of the Turkish Republic.His body stayed in the Ethnography Museum temporarily after his death on 10 th November 1938 until its transfer to the new monumental place.For the design of this memorial building, an architectural competition was held in 1942, to which 49 local and international architects applied with their projects (Öztürk, 2009).The completion of the project was realised in three steps over 10 years.Besides the burial place function of the subject of the competition, a museum for displaying the relevant objects was a preliminary condition.This museum section of the building, including areas with Atatürk's personal belongings, an oil painting of the independence wars, explanations of the wars and revolutions, and Atatürk's books and personal notes, opened to visitors only in 1960.Some other conditions for the design were its visibility from a distance and its capability to receive thousands of people at the same time (Anıtkabir).

Atatürk
The commission winning design belonged to Emin Onat  who studied in Istanbul andZurich, andOrhan Arda (1911-2013) educated in Istanbul.The main approach of their design reflects the ideas of the thousand years old civilisation in Anatolian soil and of the world classics, rather than referring only to the medieval era of the Ottoman Empire (Batur, 1997).Thus, the body of the building is designed as a rectangle prism surrounded by colonnades, which may refer to the mausoleum of Mausolus in Halicarnassus (Bodrum) erected in 353 BC and assigned as one of the Seven Wonders of Antique World or to the impressive and elegant peripteral temples (Kortan, 2007).Spatial organisation of the complex within two axis separates the design from the general one axis approach of previous years and brings it closer to a timeless body (Fig. 22).The material choice of stone also represents the strength against the time.The main space of the Mausoleum is the Honour Hall (Şeref Holü) and consists of two storeys with another one underground.With a 9 × 7 m size tomb niche inside the 18 × 29 × 17 m structure, it reveals a simple configuration.The burial room that is covered by marble on the floor and walls has a green mosaic upper cover and octagonal light well resembling the cupola grave (kümbet mezar) of Seljuk times (Çakmakoğlu Kuru, 2017).For the cladding of the interior space, marbles from different cities of Anatolia are brought as local materials referring the national characteristics.The 12 pairs of lion statues located along the alley leading to the main gathering area refer to Anatolian mythology, and the original dimensions of these statues keep the human scale in contrast to the dominant character of the architecture of the complex (Fig. 23).The floor of the main gathering area With its elements, from the scale of the details to the mass itself and the spatial configuration of the volumes, the building reflects the dominant style of the period in which it was built and still protects its representative importance for the whole country as one of the spaces displaying several layers of the nation's history and identity, and as a significant mausoleum belonging to the most influential character of the Turkish Republic.

Conclusion
As this research reveals, the last decades of the 19 th century and the first half of the 20 th century are remarkable for Hungary and Turkey regarding the changes in the political realm and their reflections on architectural production.There is a parallelism and similar context between the discourse of architecture of Hungary, just after its compromise with Austria, and Turkey, following its transition to a nation state from the Ottoman Empire, that shows itself in the search for an identity, examining history, using references from traditional styles and combining them with new function, material and techniques that indicate the openness to the new and contemporary standing, and the way of commissioning buildings such as competitions.This kind of impression shows itself in Turkey as tending to pre-Ottoman characteristics of art and architecture through the emphasis of the new Republican government, also employing the contemporary international-rational styles, and in Hungary, as a search towards the Orient cultures away from the Carpathian Basin.Regarding the discussions on Turanism, Orientalism and Historicism, which are influential approaches of the way of building in the mentioned era, the examined buildings reveal the richness of both cultures' history and potential.Building a "national" identity through architectural attitudes has been an attempt of both governments and the designers accordingly.
It is possible to seek the application of such theoretical background, including parallels and differences, through the examples from both countries.For instance, Ankara Palas that has the contemporary infrastructure such as the bathtubs and central heating system; the reinforced concrete framework of the building is hidden behind the revivalist façade, of which the main features, the false dome in the centre, tile decorations, projected entrance and the side towers, belong to previous periods.In opposition to such masking of the parts of the building that demonstrates the technological developments, the steel structure covering the main hall of the Museum and School of Applied Arts is exposed to the viewer, while the interior of the building gives references to Oriental arts, and the roof and the façade to preceding Hungarian architectural history.Meanwhile, the State Art and Sculpture Museum combines the masonry structure with concrete beams and arches as it fuses Ottoman pointed arches, entry on the projected symmetry axis and monumentality with balconies, muqarnas and decorations of previous civilisations.It helps to keep it in mind that the aim of the museums of the era, including the State Art and Sculpture Museum and Ethnography Museum in Ankara and Museum and School of Applied Arts in Budapest, is not only to exhibit the artistic heritage and local artefacts within, but also to illustrate the embraced contemporary styles and technologies.Although one of the reasons directing local architects to the Second National Style was their reaction to the foreign architects who were receiving a great proportion of the governmental commission, the motive leading Hungarian architects to search their roots was their desire to construct a national identity based on historical facts and reflecting it through their architecture.This ambition takes Hungarian architects to Eastern lands physically far from the Carpathian Basin, whereas the inspiration that Turkish architects looked for was within Anatolian civilisations, that shows itself especially on the characteristics of Anıtkabir.The further impact of the architectural approach of the era also differs, since the elements such as the folk motifs and decorative tiles were later used and had imitations in rural dwellings.Meanwhile, the two national styles in Turkey did not have a significant reflection on private houses, but remained on the governmental, administrative and public buildings.Also, the buildings designed within the Vajdahunyad Castle (Vajdahunyadvár) and Hungarian Pavilion in Paris were initially exhibition spaces; although, the 1 st and 2 nd Turkish Grand National Assembly buildings were converted into museums, respectively the War of Independence Museum and Republican Museum, after some decades.Yet, all the designs have been strong representatives within the country and in the international realm.
This oeuvre of buildings also shed light on the relationship between architecture and its representative role alongside the changing political and social circumstances.It is not a coincidence that this new architecture, through which the designers tried to reach their national roots and sources to create a new identity, can be easily traced through the museums, exhibition and memorial buildings, since these types of architectural structures carry the importance of both being the place to exhibit the objects and artefacts from all over the country to create an image for both citizens and foreign countries, and of having a representative character itself as a display object.Carefully designed by the leading actors of their era, these buildings keep their image value as the tangible products of the economic, political, technical and social shifts within short time periods.

Fig. 1 Fig. 2
Fig. 1 The façade with abstracted flower patterns that resemble traditional Hungarian costumes, and the tapestry-like coloured tile covered roof that reminds us of the tents of Central Asian nomads, from the Museum and School of Applied Arts, Ödön Lechner, Gyula Pártos, 1896.(Source: Photo by the author, 2017, Budapest)

(Fig. 3
Fig. 3 Detail of the Museum and School of Applied Arts, Ödön Lechner, Gyula Pártos, 1896.The technological progress demonstrated with the articulation of the vertically pierced floors and Orientalist ornaments on the mouldings can be seen.

Fig. 4 Fig. 5 Fig. 6 Fig. 7
Fig. 4 Vestibule detail of Museum and School of Applied Arts, Ödön Lechner, Gyula Pártos, 1896.The engrailed / scalloped arches piercing the double-tiered arcade that encircles the space, and the ornamented spandrels can be regarded as Oriental features of the interior of the building.(Source: Photo by the author, 2017, Budapest)

Fig. 8
Fig. 8 The exterior of the Historical Building Complex, formed by the similar features of the Castle of Vajdahunyad (Hunedoara) in Transylvania such as the tower on the corner, projections on the façade and roof, and the window styles.

(
Fig. 9 Outer view of the pavilion in the World Fair in Paris, 1900, that repeats the façade of the Vajdahunyad Castle (Vajdahunyadvár).

(
Fig. 10 The gate of the part of the Hungarian Pavilion in the World Fair in Paris, 1900.The motifs around the gate such as the engravings and the arrangement of the sculptures give references to the Ják Chapel that also has influences on the chapel gate of the Millennial Exhibition in Budapest.(Source: europeana collections (b))

Fig. 11
Fig. 11 Detail from the interior of the Hungarian Pavilion in the World Fair in Paris, 1900, that shows similarities with the today's Agriculture Museum in Budapest.(Source: europeana collections (c))

Fig. 13
Fig. 13 Façade of the 1 st Turkish Grand National Assembly Building, Selim Bey, İsmail Hasıf Bey, 1920.The symmetrical mass, large eaves and the arrangement of the arched windows reflect the main characteristics of the dominant style of the era, namely the First National Style.(Source: Photo by the author, 2018, Ankara)

Fig. 14
Fig. 14 Front façade of the 2 nd Turkish Grand National Assembly Building, Vedat Tek, 1923.Three pointed arches (Ottoman feature) made of pink Ankara stone as a local material, blue tiles over the rectangular windows and large eaves can be seen as the characteristics of the First National Style.(Source: Photo by the author, 2018, Ankara)

Fig. 17
Fig. 17 Exterior of the State Art and Sculpture Museum, Arif Hikmet Koyunoğlu, 1927 within its context and depicting the whole monumental mass of the building.

Fig. 18
Fig. 18 The main entrance of the State Art and Sculpture Museum, Arif Hikmet Koyunoğlu, 1927.The projected entrance in a monumental scale, the symmetrical mass of the building, and arches above the windows and balconies reflect the eclectic revivalist style of its period.(Source: Photo by the author, 2018, Ankara)

Fig. 22
Fig. 22 Aerial view of Anıtkabir, Emin Onat, Orhan Arda, 1953.Ankara.The monumental memorial building, main gathering place and leading alley can be seen within their spatial organization scheme.(Source:Anonymous, 2017a)

Fig. 24
Fig. 24 Floor patterns, consisting of abstract black and red patterns referring to carpet motifs, of the main gathering area in front of the main façade of the Mausoleum, reached by stairs.

's Monumental Tomb (Anıtkabir), Emin Onat, Orhan Arda, 1953, Ankara Regarding
its representative character, monumentality and display function, one of the most remarkable examples of the Second National Style appears in the Mausoleum of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk