外文翻译工业设计的停滞和先锋派的必要性-毕业论文.doc

南 京 理 工 大 学
毕业设计(论文)外文资料翻译

学院（系）： 机械工程学院
专 业： 工业设计
姓 名： 华昊
学 号： 0101160112
(用外文写)
外文出处：

附 件： 1.外文资料翻译译文；2.外文原文。

指导教师评语：
选材与专业相关；翻译准确；行文流畅。

签名：
2005 年 4 月 5 日
注：请将该封面与附件装订成册。
附件1：外文资料翻译译文

北部的设计报道——审美传统的牢笼
工业设计的停滞和先锋派的必要性

摘要

本文主要论述了，为了有效的处理当今存在的众多环境恶化、社会不平等等问题，我们必须从根本上重新审视我们对于物质文明的看法。潜在的可能是设计行业通过发展设计方法，挑战原有的，并论证出其他可能的解决方法，从而在物质文明领域中做出重大的贡献。可完成这样的一个目标需要我们重新思考设计教育和设计实践，还要求我们对产品造型美学和“好”设计的概念定义有一个全新的认识。

导言

不论是在设计工作还是在设计教学中，对于产品外观定义的专注使得产品造型美学变得空洞而肤浅。这种过分的专注使工业设计不能成为真正的、独立的、能够有效解决我们时代重大问题的一门学科。比如，可持续性就是我们现今最紧迫但又没能在产品设计和制造领域有效解决的一个问题。至于其他问题也非完全和可持续性无关，它们包括了与设计、产品制造相关的几个概念：意义、特征、文化。以时尚为导向的定义，从根本上说是些琐碎、低下的审美定位。它们的统治暗示出怎样的事实呢？思想的贫瘠，对创新的背弃，以及平淡的，以市场为导向的“无风险”的解决方案对原创方案的替代。

设计和钻石

几年以前，当我还在学习工程学时，我听说世界上大多数的钻石生产都是出于工业的需要。工业钻石有着很大的市场，它们可以被用于制造切割工具，钻头，研磨轮和打磨工具。这些低等级的钻石没有特别出色的光学性质，于是被压碎成大小不同的颗粒。很明显，因为工业钻石的高需求量，再加上宝石级品质钻石的相对缺乏，许多的矿石开采单位都已经转向了工业钻石的生产。在这一过程中，矿石都压碎成粗砂大小，然后大密度的钻石颗粒都被分离出来。在如此体系中，想要发现另一颗“希望之星”或是“非洲之星”都是不可能的。他们都轻易地被这一生产过程抹杀了。

显然，我们需要工业钻石，但我们也同样需要希望之星和非洲之星。非洲之星和镶嵌钻石的工业圆盘刀具就好似白垩（一种白色的矿物）和奶酪一样，差别明显。工业钻石的价值在于它们可以作为工具，是完成某项任务的工具手段，它们的价值源于用途。它们被使用，被磨损，然后被替换掉。非洲之星的价值在于她是如何闪光，光又是如何穿折于多个切面之间并激起我们彻底的敬畏感。但是它在功能方面完全是一无是处。非洲之星的存在无关于功能，她是关于诗，关于美，关乎奇迹的。她既是其自身存在的目的又是自身存在的结果。她具有自己内在的价值，她永远不会被磨损，她是不可替代的。

在一定程度上，工业设计无论从教育还是从实践方面来说，与工业钻石的生产还是有一定相似之处的。现在的倾向是强调那些管用的、实际的和有用的设计方案，这些解决方案遵从于现有的规范，并且在已经确立的美学、制造、经济和实用性的概念范围内发挥作用。因此，我们大量生产的产品一般都是有用的，以自我为中心改造自然，同时又是便利的和经济的，并且还有一个取悦人的外表。

然而，我们还需要去创造出其他的解决方案，它们要违背现有的规范模式，要挑战传统，要重新思索什么是设计，什么是生产，什么是产品，重要的是，要创造出能启发人的解决方案。要做到这样，必须保证在我们将这些解决方案应用在设计教育和设计实践中时，它们不会自动的受到抵制和排挤。为了达成使设计事业繁荣起来的初衷，除了技术上的能力和对设计的精通程度，我们必须重视和培养那些新奇的，不典型的，甚至是令人不解的设计。创造性的眼光和想法具有持久的价值，但不可避免的是，同时要赢得它们是很艰难的，且机率极小。但是这种创造性的眼光和想法正是现今工业设计领域中迫切需要的。

重要的是，得承认在过去的世纪里产生了很多具有启发性的设计案例。这些设计挑战了当时盛极一时的、刻板的规范，激励和影响了后来的设计师们。从历史的观点来看，荷兰的Van Doesburg, Gerrit Reitveld和德斯太尔抽象画派从1917年起的作品，以及德国包豪斯包括Marcel Breaer和Gunta Stölzl在内的设计师们在1919到1933这一时期内的作品，都对20世纪的设计起了极大的影响，并且他们遗留下来的东西仍然具有高度的影响力。更近的例子是孟菲斯风格派20世纪80年代在意大利所做的设计，它对设计教育和实践都有着深远的影响。在他们的时代，这些团队都具有很高的创造性和开拓性，他们属于他们所处的时代。但他们面对的问题不是我们所面对的，他们的设计流程也不该是我们的流程。如今，我们面临新的挑战，这些挑战与工业资本全球化、环境问题、国内及国际范围内的社会经济不平等、主要的技术进步等方面都有关联。加速发展能够解决上述问题。在认识到加速发展的重要性和必要性的同时，鼓励那些打破常规的想法也是十分必要的，它们挑战偏见，进而重构我们对产品设计的原有概念，重建后工业时代的物质文明。又是在荷兰，Droog的设计师们用全新的、创造性的方法处理当今面临的一些问题，这些全新的手段介于艺术和产品设计之间，介于清晰与含糊之间，介于严肃与调皮之间。Droog的许多设计师们反对已经存在的对工业设计的分类。这种做法是适当的，因为在对现代社会中工业设计地位和角色的反思中，有一部分就是对工业设计的范围和领域的重新思考。

设计中的偏见

当一件产品的美学定义被当作该产品自身首要的目标时，我们必须思考自身的审美判断是从何而来的。个人的经验、记忆、品味观念和对美的一贯看法都是判断的来源。然而，正是这些一贯的看法影响了，塑造了，在一定程度上决定了个人的经验、记忆和品味。于是乎，美学定义成为了一种悖论。我们对于美和品味一贯的概念是因传统而产生，但也正是传统的影响力使我们无尽地徘徊在一个主题上，把产品设计囚禁在自我封闭的牢笼中。派生和重复造成了对创新必要性的忽视和否定，而这种派生和重复却恰恰是所谓美学表现的实质、核心。虽然现在多数产品都有如经济、方便、美观，这些方面的属性，但它们也还是倾向于单调的世俗化，从本质上讲是破坏环境的，它们代表了极不公平的应用惯例，在使用它们的地区造成了文化危害，并且在伦理道德方面，它们的营销方式也是受到质疑的。这些观点并非独创，有可敬的前辈也曾提出过。20年以前，设计批评家Stephen Bayley曾说过，“相互模仿的状态”决定了许许多多消费品的外观必然是大同小异的。

除了将它视为直接目的，美学需要也可以被看作是一设计过程的结果，这一过程有着一些不同的目标。然后，工业设计就能集中研究物质文化的内涵，从而得到发展和进步。具有讽刺意义的是，这种做法也能使美学定义得到发展，使其不再受到习惯和过去产品定义的束缚。换句话说，美学将与产品的全部内容更加深刻的联系起来。最终，当一件产品的美学定义来自于不同的地方时，现有的规范无疑将受到挑战。美学将找到它自己的位置，作为一个结果而非一个不顾一切的目的。这样做，产品设计就能以贴切的、慎重的、具有启发性的和创造性的方式对我们时代里的重大问题做出反应。

反对习惯性的做法和以美学为直接目的并不意味着反对历史和经验，实际上恰恰相反，历史、个人经验、文化经历应该被我们接纳，因为它们为产品的定义提供了重要的见解和参考。如果想要超越时尚和流行，用植根于意味深长、经久不衰的人类文化价值中的方式去有效地解决当代的问题，我们就迫切的需要从历史和经历中汲取营养。这一点必须在我们的设计学校中就开始并且通过教学过程传授给我们的学生。

先锋派的艺术家们，诸如Marcel Duchamp和Richard Long，作曲家John Cage，也许还能算上当代的建筑大师Frank Gehry，他们都论证过真正的创造力是具有挑战性的，同时又很艰难，并且经常被人误解。通常的情况下，真正创造性的东西在商业上是不成功的。经常的，或者至少在开始的一段时间里，是受人嘲笑和不被理会的。1912年，Duchamp将名为“泉”的一件作品送到纽约去参展。这次展览不设评判，并且面向所有的艺术类作品。Duchamp从供应商那买来白瓷的便池，再写上R.Mutt（笨蛋），“泉”就完成了。然而，这件作品被展会拒收了。尽管如此，这已经成为了20世纪的一项标志，它使人们重新评价他们对艺术的原有观点。Cage 1952年的乐曲4’33’’，“对任何的乐器或是一组乐器”来说，都是同样的受人争议，令人迷惑，并且至今仍被人们批评和攻击。这首曲子由三个乐章组成，每个乐章都标有“休止符”，这就意味着演奏者从头到尾都要保持沉默。当Duchamp使我们开始置疑原有的视觉艺术的同时，Cage又使我们重新评价我们对音乐的偏见。两者都证明了通过新的形式去解决人类各方面的重要问题是完全可能的，而且一些新的形式都是具有很高创造性的，原创的和启发人的。相类似地，雕刻家Richard Long的作品和建筑师Frank Gehry的作品都是具有挑战性的，可能有时还是令人迷惑的，但是他们的贡献在于让我们能够重新的审视，他们打破了我们的安逸，考验着我们的态度。在我们现有的极度偏见将我们自己活活埋葬于那些垃圾、污物和彻底的平庸之前，产品设计太需要上面所说的这类工作去打破偏见。

产品设计需要先锋派

在上个一百年的历程里，产品不断发展并保持其“新颖”和“前卫”主要是依靠两点：美学和技术，并且现在仍是如此。最先拥有最新的有关时尚、款式、颜色的咨讯信息是设计师首要关注的。其次关注的包括外观特征，功能性质，小配件，还有就是多多了解工程方面的知识。但它们没有哪个给我们带来持久的，具有深远意义的物质文化。相反，它们造就了我们当今设计和制造方式中不可持续的、具有破坏性的特征。我们之所以需要先锋派是因为岁月在流逝，世界在变化，新的问题浮现出来有待解决。过去恰当的、合意的东西不一定一如既往的恰当、合适。时光推移，这一点将随着由我们做事方式造成的破坏性后果的显现而变得尤为正确。时尚和许多技术发明通常是肤浅、琐碎和一成不变的浪费。是时候为产品设计建立新的标准了，这一新的标准既是为设计中的进步而制定又是为“好”设计的定义而制定。基于解决关系重大而又紧迫的当代问题，先锋派可以为产品设计提供推动力，从而得出全新的、迫切需要的思想和方向。

为了使新想法有意义、有创见、有根据，设计者所受教育不应局限于传统的设计领域。哲学、历史问题及当今的问题、时事，有助于激发批判性思维的讨论，都可以被用来对我们如何重构产品及工业设计的概念，如何重新对创造和物质文化的内涵下定义，施加影响。

这里的一个例子也许会暴露出我们的假想和偏见。我们传统的、植根于社会的对商业、增长和资本主义的理解认识事实上相对而言是较新的。工业资本主义起始于工业革命时英国棉花产业，因此它也不过是数百年的历史。工业资本主义这一系统的显著特征是开始将生产剩余用于扩大生产能力，这一点在现在看来是很平常的，毫无疑问的。它给了工业持续增长的概念，并给出了这样做的必然后果：持续的扩大消费，一次性的产品，资源耗尽，污染和废弃物。如今我们正是生活在这样的后果中，并且似乎无力从它毁灭性的掌控中解救自我。然而，在资本主义出现之前，生产剩余是被用于其他方面的。它们被投资在非生产性的领域，参照我们现在的标准这是既可笑又难以置信的。顺便一提的是，遗留下来的东西仍能实现重要的功能，欧洲的那些大教堂就是其中一例。

这个例子说明，那些我们现在认为是荒谬的事情曾经是十分自然和合意的。这并不暗示着我们应尝试返回到资本主义之前的中世纪时代。然而，这让我们看到现存的规范是可以改变的，其他选择是有可能的。考虑到我们现今生态破坏的速度和社会总体的不平等现象都与现在的习惯做法有关，我们批判性思维和对先例、现有标准的挑战必须开始对设计过程进行事先的塑造。这种预先的影响要变得比现在的实际情况更普遍更实在。设计师的重要使命仍是将想法转化为现实形态，但是最终，现代文明要想进化发展成持久的、有意义的、更良性的物质文明，重要的是思想的力量。

附件2：外文原文（复印件）
Northern Design Report -- The Cage of Aesthetic Convention
Stasis in Industrial Design and the necessity of the Avant-Garde
by Stuart Walker
Abstract
In this paper the argument is made that, in order to deal effectively with many contemporary issues of environmental degradation and social disparity, we must radically re-think our notions of material culture. Potentially, the design profession can make significant contributions in this area through the development of design solutions that challenge precedents and demonstrate alternative possibilities. Such a direction requires a rethinking in design education and design practice, as well as new understandings of product aesthetics and our notions of 'good' design.
Introduction
The focus on the definition of product appearance, in both the industrial design profession and design education, renders product aesthetics hollow and superficial. This preoccupation prevents industrial design from evolving into an authentic, substantive discipline that effectively addresses important issues of our time. For example, one of our most pressing contemporary concerns that is not being effectively addressed in the field of product design and manufacturing is sustainability. Other concerns, not unrelated to sustainability, include notions of meaning, identity and culture associated with the design and production of our material objects. The dominance of fashion-oriented, essentially trivial aesthetic definitions suggests a barrenness of thinking, a relinquishment of creativity, and a replacement of originality by bland, market led, 'safe' solutions.
Design and Diamonds
Some years ago, when I was studying engineering, I heard it said that the majority of the world's diamond production was for industrial applications. There are huge markets for industrial diamonds - for cutting tools, drill bits, abrasive wheels and grinding tools. These low-grade diamonds, which have no special optical qualities, are crushed into grits of various sizes. Apparently, because of the high demand, and the relative rarity of gem quality diamonds, many of the mineral processing systems have been geared towards the production of industrial diamonds. In this process the ore is crushed to the size of coarse sand and the dense diamond grit is separated out. With such a system there is no possibility of finding another Hope Diamond or Great Star of Africa - they are simply eliminated by the process.
Obviously, we need industrial diamonds, but we also need the Hope and the Great Star of Africa. The Great Star of Africa is about as close to a diamond-embedded industrial disc cutter as chalk is to cheese. Industrial diamonds are valued for instrumental reasons - they are a means to some other end - they are valued for their utility. They are used, they wear out and they are replaced. The Great Star of Africa is valued for how it shines, how the light plays through its facets to inspire sheer awe - but it is totally useless in terms of function. The Great Star of Africa is not about function. Its about poetry and beauty and wonder. It is an end in and of itself. It has intrinsic value, it never wears out and it is irreplaceable.
In some ways industrial design - in both education and practice - is not unlike industrial diamond processing. It tends to emphasize the production of competent, practical and useful design solutions that conform to current norms and work within established notions of aesthetics, manufacturing, economics and utility. Accordingly, our mass-produced products are generally useful, ergonomic, convenient, economic, and have a pleasant appearance.
However, there is also a need to generate solutions that defy current norms, that challenge convention, that re-conceive what design, production and products might be and, importantly, to create solutions that inspire. To do this we must ensure that such solutions are not automatically rejected or eliminated by the processes we have put in place, in both design education and design practice. For original thinking to flourish in design we must value and nurture the unfamiliar, the atypical and even the perplexing, in addition to technical competency and design proficiency. Inevitably, creative insights and ideas that are of lasting value will be rare and hard won, but they are urgently needed in today's industrial design milieu.
It is important to acknowledge that, over the past century, there have been many inspiring examples of design that have challenged prevailing stereotypes and stimulated and influenced subsequent designers. Historically, the work of van Doesburg, Gerrit Reitveld and the De Stijl group in The Netherlands from 1917 (Overy, 1991), and of the Bauhaus designers in Germany, such as Marcel Breuer and Gunta Stölzl, in the period 1919-1933 (Whitford, 1984), had an enormous effect on 20th century design, and their legacy is still highly influential. More recently, the work of the Memphis group in Italy during the 1980s had profound effects on design education and practice (Dormer, 1993). In their time, these groups were highly innovative and ground-breaking; they were also of their time. The issues and agendas they were responding to are not our issues and agendas. Today, we are facing new challenges associated with the globalization of industrial capitalism, the environment, national and trans-national socio-economic inequities, major technological developments, and so on. While incremental developments that address these issues are important and necessary, it is also essential to encourage ideas that break with convention, that test preconceptions and, potentially, re-frame our notions of product design and post-industrial material culture. The 'Droog' designers, again in The Netherlands, are dealing with some of these contemporary issues in innovative ways that lie somewhere between art and product design, between clarity and ambiguity, between seriousness and wry wit. It is quite appropriate that many of the Droog designs defy existing classifications because part of the process of rethinking the current place and role of industrial design is to reconsider its boundaries and scope (see Ramakers and Bakker, 1999; Ramakers, 2002; Droog Design website).
Preconceptions in Design
When the aesthetic definition of a product is regarded as a primary objective, in and of itself, we must consider from whence our aesthetic decisions are derived. Personal experience, memory, notions of taste and conventions of beauty are all sources. However, it is these very conventions that have influenced, configured and, to an extent, determined personal experience, memory and taste. Here then, is the paradox of aesthetic definition. It is informed by convention - our conventional notions of beauty and taste. But it is this very influence of convention that results in the endless regurgitation of variations on a theme and imprisons product design in its own cage of introversion. The derivations and repetitions that result disregard and deny the necessity of innovation that lies at the heart of aesthetic expression. While many contemporary products may have the attributes of being economical, convenient and pleasant to look at, they also tend to be monotonously mundane, inherently destructive of the environment, representative of grossly inequitable employment practices, culturally damaging in their blanket distribution, and ethically questionable in terms of their marketing. These observations have an honourable precedent. Over twenty years ago the design critic Stephen Bayley spoke of the 'plateau of mutual pastiche' that determined the appearance of so many consumer products (Bayley, 1980)
Rather than viewing aesthetics as a direct aim, it can also be considered as an outcome of an approach to product design that has different objectives. Industrial design can then focus on the meanings of material culture and thus develop and evolve. Ironically, in doing so, aesthetic definition will also evolve, unconstrained by the customs and precedents of product definition. In other words, aesthetics will begin to be more profoundly related to the whole of what a product is. Consequently, the aesthetic definition of a product, when derived from a different source will without doubt challenge current norms. It will find its own place as an outcome rather than an all-consuming aim. In doing so, product design can respond creatively to the critical issues of our times in ways that are thoughtful, considered and inspiring.
The rejection both of 'convention' and of 'aesthetics as a direct aim' is not, however, a rejection of history and experience, in fact quite the opposite. History and personal and cultural experience can be embraced as providing important insights and nourishment for product definition. A nourishment that is urgently required if we are to effectively address contemporary issues in ways that overcome fads and fashions, and which are rooted in meaningful and enduring human and cultural values. This must start in our design schools and in the ways we educate our students.
Avant-garde artists such as Marcel Duchamp and Richard Long, the composer John Cage, and perhaps also the contemporary architect Frank Gehry, demonstrate that true creativity can be challenging, difficult and frequently misunderstood. It is often commercially unsuccessful and frequently, at least initially, ridiculed and dismissed. Duchamp submitted the piece known as 'Fountain' to an exhibition in New York in 1917 that was jury-free and open to all