the word “materiality” can be found interesting as a linguistic approach in turkish, because of its two different use, it leads us to think in both way: first one is refer to “tangible” as a conceptual meaning, and the second one is related with “architectural rhetoric” which gives us a building material “image” or “statement”.  it is worth discussing the second one to criticise Tanyeli’s rhetoric defences material’s nature behaviours. in this case, two question can be put forward with all their difficulties find an answer to them: one is “what is natural?” and the second is “what material wants to be?”
the methods applied to a material can be seen as a data to think about “materialty” and “natural”. thus, whether we see a textile looking stone in any architectural example, it isn’t surprising because this mental process starts with our perception “to think that stone as a monolithic element”. this can be percieved as deterministic method again itself.
finalizing the discussion with an argument make sense: although material gives us sometimes “extraordinary” images with any kind of “new” methods and technology, like in the seattle music center’s “flying metal surfaces”, material is installed with arhitectonic, phenomenological perceptions as presents itself with all these contradictions and commonness that we should accept.
 refers to vitruvius’s definition of architecture which includes the phrase “building production”.
 it derives from quote by louis kahn: “even a brick wants to be something”.
 a synonym instead of the word “surprising” explains also deterministic approach by using “ordinary”.
*seminar was given by the lecturer , ugur tanyeli in faculty of architecture, taskisla (140915)