室内设计外文翻译-- 设计空间的意义

室内设计外文-- 设计空间的意义 设计空间的意义 Meanings of designed spaces 学 部(院): 建筑与艺术学院 专 业:艺术设计(环境艺术设计) Since the accession of design knowledge to the ranks of modern university departments, the built environment, which represents one of the main areas of study of this knowledge, has endured a huge fragmentation according to the analytical model of modern inquiry. It too finds itself fragmented into several disciplinary fields,most often erected into competing silos:product design, graphic design, interior design, architectural design, urban design, landscape design, and so on. This parceling of logic in itself can be quite beneficial to the extent that it ensures a certain depth of thinking when the time comes to consider objects of limited and very specific knowledge. Nonetheless, in its most basic and essential aspects, there is one object of knowledge that continues to elude the understanding and reasoning of all these disciplinary silos. it continues to stand as an obstacle and challenge to all the leak ages of what Henri Raymond (1984) calls"spatial rationality." We refer, of course, to the occupant, the individual who is commonly called the user of the built world: The occupant remains at the heart of architecture: as a negative, refusing to dwell in theory, and as obstinacy,attaching himself obstinately to housing models that architectural reason has condemned. But he is also at the heart of the problem of spatial rationality:Should we plan without the occupant?How should we plan with him? In all of this, the occupant's situation and skill can play a major role; we may be permitted to think that this is one the future adventures of reason. (pp.252-253) The User's Obstinacy Refusal to Dwell in Theory For the purposes of this essay, consider a very ordinary urban occurrence: An individual, a city dweller, strolls along Sainte-Catherine Street in Montreal, Canada, on a sunny autumn afternoon and, every so often, stops in front of a store window to examine and admire the objects displayed.Two questions, existential at the very least,challenge design disciplines. First, in which disciplinary or professional boundaries does this person find himself? Is it in the product designer's, the graphic designer's,the interior designer's, the architect's, the urban designer's, or the landscape architect's? Each of these professionals would seem to have a right to claim that this person is truly within his field of expertise:Each would say,He's my user." But does the person in front of the store window really care about knowing which disciplinary field he finds himself in, or at what moment he crosses over from one to the other? Yet, at that very moment, that actual experience or slice of life that the person in our example is undergoing in front of the store window is not fragmented into various experiences. The person is not telling himself, I'm living an architectural experience, now suddenly /'171 going through a manufactured object experience, and now I'm off on an urban experience, and so on. These same questions can be asked in the same way for many other situations:a person seated at a table on a bistro terrace, or in an office at the top of a high-rise m New York City or Singapore with an inverted view of the city; a driver of a car or a city bus who manoeuvres through the streets of the city every day; a person waiting for the bus in a bus shelter; or a glazier working to repair part of the stained glass in a church, or perhaps even to repair the outside of a shop window on Sainte Catherine Street in Montreal. In fact,these very ordinary urban occurrences in which our city dweller, or Homo Urbanus(Paquot, 1990), engages constitute a comprehensive or a total situation, according to the meaning of the concept advanced by Maurice Merleau-Ponty in his famous phenomenology of the body (Merleau-Ponty,1962). The experience that this city dweller lives is not fragmented at all; conversely,it is integral and whole. In an editorial on an issue of the journal Urbanisme devoted specifically to the theme of the user, Thierry Paquot readily points out and drives home this whole and total condition: He explains that the user "is first and foremost a human being, a mortal who exists,there, and tries to enable the plurality of his ego to express itself without accepting to have his personality parcelled out and broken down into tiny fragments. The user remains whole and refuses to divide himself up and play an infinite number of roles. This unity confers on him his identity and enables him, at all times and in all places, to be a user of the world" (Paquot,1999, p. 51). If our user's life experience is a total one,what idea have all these design disciplines come to respectively about this person who still lays no claim to any disciplinary field? Do they have or share a common conception of the user's human condition?(Arendt, 1958) Or instead do they hold different but complementary views? I would venture to say here that the user constitutes a phenomenon that, in essence, escapes disciplinary logic: The user is a transdisciplinary phenomenon, crossing all these disciplines without any one of them being able to claim complete right of ownership to understanding and acquiring all the issues that might flow out of each of the professional design practices. This complexity,which characterizes the phenomenon of the user, is the true difficulty and presents an obstacle and a challenge to understand know: The object of thought is, by principle,always superior to the thought process that attempts to understand it, to grasp or even to manipulate it. As well, design disciplines might find there a common issue to unite them when the time comes to assign themes to the disciplinary and professional specialties unique to each of them; our achievements and professional work are aimed at the same user whose life experience is not divided. Given this, the theme of the user could be used in true arbitration fashion to clarify boundary disputes among our disciplines. The Lesson of Prevert's Glazier How should we now consider and approach the notion of our common user? Are there specific concepts or visions that can help us m this endeavour? In fact, when it comes to much of the essential dimensions that make up the user's human condition,there are major gaps in our disciplinary design knowledge that researchers need to address on a priority basis. For example,I cite the primordial phenomenon of the body. Setting aside the knowledge that biology, ergonomics, psychology, anthropology, physics, and geometry all offer on this subject, what knowledge and visions have we developed about our user's body,his spatiality, and the various situations he encounters, among others? What common ground can the product designer, the graphic designer, the interior designer, the architect, the urban designer, and the landscape designer find to address the issue of the body? In this section, I would like to explore the possibilities offered by a concept so common that we use it regularly, even spontaneously and automatically, in our everyday conversations and professional language as designers: the concept of solution. I will attempt to expand my ideas on the subject by using some supporting texts borrowed from three authors in particular:poet Jacques Prevert and architectural theorists Robert Prost and Philippe Boudon.Design professionals often express their ideas, and the results of their projects, in terms of solutions: design solution, architectural solution, urban planning solution,simple solution to a complex situation,inspired solution, and the like. But when we engage in a little phenomenology of this concept in the framework of our disciplines, we soon realize that what seems to one professional like a final solution in a design process may be nothing more than an initial solution to another professional.A chair, a bench, a lighting fixture, or an electrical appliance that is the final solution in the industrial design process may simply be initial solution elements in the interior design process, landscape architecture, or urban design. An atmosphere or existing interior space can be the starting point for a craftsperson's or a product designer's proposal (for instance, made-to-measure furniture). In the same way, the plans and guidelines for an urban project may provide the initial conceptual backdrop to the work of the architect. What constitutes the end point for one person becomes the starting point for another's work. The eye that Prevert's glazier casts on the world illustrates this phenomenon clearly and perceptively.What sociologists dryly call the social division of labor is in fact a basic characteristic of the human condition, one that famed poet Jacques Prevert renders admirably in his poem "Chanson du vitrier": How beautiful is What you can see Through the sand through the glass Through the window panes Here look for example At how beautiful This tree feller is There in the distance Chopping down a tree To make boards For the furniture maker who must fashion them into a large bed For the young flower girl Who is marrying The lamplighter Who lights the streetlamps every night So that the shoemaker can see clearly To repair the shoes of the shoeshine boy Who polishes the shoes of the grinder Who sharpens the scissors of the hair dresser Who cuts the hair of the bird seller Who gives his birds to everyone So that everyone may be in good spirits.(1963) But what then becomes of the user in this tangled web of solutions that are final for some and starting points for others?In reality, the user has a vital role to play because he or she is the one who brings closure to all the design processes: The user is the equivalent of Mr. or Ms. Everyone in Prevert's poem. Once all the designers have delivered their final solutions,everything in the user's world becomes a starting point, an initial solution for experiences and life projects. They become part of the user's overall experience, his or her life experience, and the user imbues them with his or her own meanings. I borrowed the concept of initial and final solutions from Robert Prost's thoughts, particularly his thesis on architectural works as "works in progress": "We want to draw attention to the possibility of considering architectural phenomena as works in progress and not merely worksthat find status and complete and definitive legitimacy only at the moment of their creation, like works of art" (Prost 1991,p. 40). Robert Prost's reading of the problem posed by architectural design (Prost,1992) attempts to group together the four main players in an architectural project:the client, the architect, the builder, and the occupant. Each appears as a player acting completely in his or her own area of skill: the client formulates the goals and uses of the project; the architect proposes architectural solutions; the contractor turns the architectural solutions into reality; and the occupant appropriates and transforms the architectural work. The notion of the work-that is, the architectural solution for Prost-appears to beat the heart of the process:“Rather than looking at architectural solutions from the standpoint of one question (What are they made of?) I will introduce three additional questions: What ends/uses do they fulfill? How are they made? And, finally, how do they transform themselves?" (Prost 1992,p. 13). The first two questions query the design process. The work, or built architectural solution, appears in a nodal position, constituting the end of the design and realization process and, at the same time, marking the beginning of another process,that of appropriation and transformation through social practices (whence the notion of a work in progress). The work,which the architect considers to be the final solution, acquires the status of an initial solution for the occupant, a sort of infrastructure that provides support to his projects and initiatives regarding his dwelling.In other words, it is "free of its designers and status as the final solution and open to the social practices and status of the initial solution" (Prost 1992, p.133). The user is the one who brings closure to the overall process. Once the solution(or solutions) is delivered, it becomes an open work: open to the user's life experience, his or her appropriation and transformation projects. This concept of openwork, formulated by Umberto Eco and taken here in its architectural sense, is borrowed from Philippe Boudon (1969).Boudon's study of those living in a residential neighborhood designed and completed in 1926 by Le Corbusier at Pessac,near Bordeaux in France, shows the scope of transformations introduced into the work of a famous thinker of the Modern Movement by the occupants. Henri Lefebvre, who penned the preface to Boudon's book, underscores this act of acquisition: "And what did the occupants do?Instead of incorporating themselves into this receptacle and adapting to it impassively, they occupied it actively to a certain extent. They showed what it means to inhabit a place: in one activity. They worked on, changed and added to what they were given. What did they add? What they needed. Philippe Boudon shows the significance of the differences they made.They introduced qualities. They built a differentiated social space" (Lefebvre, 1969).It is in this sense that one of the proposals Boudon made in the study was the conclusion that architecture is an open work,in other words, open to the occupant's initiatives and corrections: "Based on an occupant's own expression, architecture can be considered an infrastructure upon which the occupant's free expression can evolve both qualitatively (combinations)and quantitatively (surfaces) within fairly broad boundaries" (Boudon, 1969, p. 106). We have seen that the user's logic extends far beyond the disciplinary logic in which we are involved. To end on a poetic note, I gladly offer Prevert's "Cancre" as a fitting comparison to the user: He says no with his head But yes with his heart He says yes to what he likes He says no to the teacher He stands He is questioned And all the problems are posed Suddenly he is overcome with uncontrollable laughter And he erases everything The numbers and the words The dates and names The sentences and the traps And in spites of the teacher’s threats And the jeers of the prodigal students With chalk of all colors On the blackboard of the happiness .(Prevert,1972) Design Territories and the Logic of the User since the accession of design knowledge to the ranks of modern university departments, the built environment, which represents one of the main areas of study of this knowledge, has endured a huge fragmentation according to the analytical model of modern inquiry. It too finds itself fragmented into several disciplinary fields,most often erected into competing silos:product design, graphic design, interior design, architectural design, urban design,landscape design, and so on. This parceling of logic in itself can be quite beneficial to the extent that it ensures a certain depth of thinking when the time comes to consider objects of limited and very specific knowledge. Nonetheless, in its most basic and essential aspects, there is one object of knowledge that continues to elude the understanding and reasoning of all these disciplinary silos. It continues to stand as an obstacle and challenge to all the leak-ages of what Henri Raymond (1984) calls"spatial rationality." We refer, of course, to the occupant, the individual who is commonly called the user of the built world: The occupant . . . remains at the heart of architecture: as a negative, refusing to dwell in theory, and as obstinacy,attaching himself obstinately to housing models that architectural reason has condemned. But he is also at the heart of the problem of spatial rationality:Should we plan without the occupant?How should we plan with him? . . . In all of this, the occupant's situation and skill can play a major role; we may be permitted to think that this is one of the future adventures of reason. pp.252-253) For the purposes of this essay, consider a very ordinary urban occurrence: An individual, a city dweller, strolls along Sainte-Catherine Street in Montreal, Canada, on a sunny autumn afternoon and, every so often, stops in front of a store window to examine and admire the objects displayed.Two questions, existential at the very least,challenge design disciplines. First, in which disciplinary or professional boundaries does this person find himself? Is it in the product designer's, the graphic designer's,the interior designer's, the architect's, the urban designer's, or the landscape architect's? Each of these professionals would seem to have a right to claim that this person is truly within his field of expertise:Each would say, "He's my user." But does the person in front of the store window really care about knowing which disciplinary field he finds himself in, or at what moment he crosses over from one to the other? Yet, at that very moment, that actual experience or slice of life that the person in our example is undergoing in front of the store window is not fragmented into various experiences. The person is not telling himself, I'm living an architectural experience, now suddenly I'm going through a manufactured object experience, and now I'm off on an urban experience, and so on. These same questions can be asked in the same way for many other situations: a person seated at a table on a bistro terrace, or in an office at the top of a high-rise in New York City or Singapore with an inverted view of the city; a driver of a car or a city bus who manoeuvres through the streets of the city every day; a person waiting for the bus in a bus shelter; or a glazier working to repair part of the stained glass in a church, or perhaps even to repair the outside of a shop window on Sainte-Catherine Street in Montreal. In fact, these very ordinary urban occurrences in which our city dweller, or Homo Urbanus (Paquot, 1990), engages constitute a comprehensive or a total situation, according to the meaning of the concept advanced by Maurice Merleau-Ponty in his famous phenomenology of the body (Merleau-Ponty,1962). The experience that this city dweller lives is not fragmented at all; conversely, it is integral and whole. In an editorial on an issue of the journal Urbanisme devoted specifically to the theme of the user, Thierry Paquot readily points out and drives home this whole and total condition: He explains that the user "is first and foremost a human being, a mortal who exists,there, and tries to enable the plurality of his ego to express itself without accepting to have his personality parcelled out and broken down into tiny fragments. The user remains whole and refuses to divide himself up and play an infinite number of roles. This unity confers on him his identity and enables him, at all times and in all places, to be a user of the worjd" (Paquot,1999, p. 51). If our user's life experience is a total one,what idea have all these design disciplines come to respectively about this person who still lays no claim to any disciplinary field? Do they have or share a common conception of the user's human condition?(Arendt, 1958) Or instead do they hold different but complementary views? I would venture to say here that the user constitutes a phenomenon that, in essence, escapes disciplinary logic: The user is a transdisciplinary phenomenon, crossing all these disciplines without any one of them being able to claim complete right of ownership to understanding and acquiring all the issues that might flow out of each of the professional design practices. This complexity,which characterizes the phenomenon of the user, is the true difficulty and presents an obstacle and a challenge to understanding among our disciplines. Based on this, it might appear that a setback exists for the design disciplines, but in reality, this is an opportunity to be seized. First and foremost,it is a chance for our disciplines to cultivate a certain spirit of modesty toward what we know:The object of thought is,by principle,always superior to the thought process that attempts to understand it, to grasp or even to manipulate it. As well, design disciplines might 6nd there a common issue to unite them when the time comes to assign themes to the disciplinary and professional specialties unique to each of them; our achievements and professional work are aimed at the same user whose life experience is not divided. Given this, the theme of the user could be used in true arbitration fashion to clarify boundary disputes among our disciplines. 设计空间的意义 设计空间的意义 Tiiu,Vaikla-Poldma 关键词: 空间设计，居住区，用户 自从加入设计知识的现代大学的部门,建筑环境,代的一个主要研究领域的知识,根据现代调查的分析模型经历了一个巨大的碎片变革。发现分散成几个学科领域,通常树立成竞争的部门:产品设计,平面设计,室内设计,建筑设计、城市设计、景观设计等等。这个打包的逻辑本身是非常有益的。在某种程度上,它可以确保一定深度的思考时要考虑的对象和具体的知识非常有限。尽管如此,在最基本的和必要的方面,有一个对象的知识继续躲避着所有这些学科的理解和推理。它继续作为一个障碍和挑战所有亨利?雷蒙德(1984)所说的“空间合理性”。当然,“我们参考通常被称为世界建立的用户的主人。这个主人停留在架构的核心:消极,拒绝停留在理论上,固执,固执地将自己房屋模型,建筑变成谴责的理由。但他的核心空间合理性的问题:我们应该计划没有主人吗?我们应该怎样的计划?在所有这一切,居住者的情况可以发挥重要作用,我们可能认为这是允许的未来的冒险的原因。 理论上用户对住宅的顽固拒绝 这篇文章的目的,考虑一个很普通的城市发生:一个个体,一个城市居民,徜徉Sainte-Catherine街在蒙特利尔,加拿大,在一个阳光明媚的秋日下午,经常站在商店橱窗前检查和欣赏对象显示出来。两个问题,存在至少,挑战设计学科。首先,在这这个人 它的产品设计师,平面设计师,室内设计师,建筑师,城市发现自己学科或专业的界限呢? 设计师的,或景观设计师的吗?这些专业人士似乎有权宣称,这个人真的是在他的领域的专业知识:每个人都说,他是我的用户。“但是在商店橱窗前的人真正关心了解学科领域他发现自己,或者什么时候他十字架从一个到另一个?然而,就在那一刻,生活的实际经验或片的人在我们的例子中是发生在商店橱窗前不是支离破碎成不同的经历。这个人是不会告诉自己,我住一个架构经验,现在突然/ ' 171年经历生产对象的经验,现在我在一个城市经验,等等。 这些同样的问题可以问同样对许多其他情况:一个人坐在小酒馆阶地上的表,或在办公室顶部的一个高层m纽约市或新加坡一个倒的城市;一辆车或一个城市巴士的司机每天演习在这座城市的大街上,一个人在公交车站等公共汽车,或装玻璃修复工作的一部分,一个教堂的彩色玻璃,甚至来修复商店橱窗外面的圣凯瑟琳街在蒙特利尔。事实上,这些非常普通的城市出现在我们的城市居民,或者城市人属,参与构成一个全面或总情况,根据提出的概念的含义莫里斯梅洛庞蒂在他的著名的身体现象学(梅洛庞蒂,1962)。 –1– 设计空间的意义 这个城市居民生活的经验不是支离破碎;相反,它是积分和整体。杂志在一篇社论中对一个问题的主题等专门的Urbanisme用户,蒂埃里Paquot欣然指出,开车回家这整个和总条件:”他解释说,用户首先是一个人,一个致命的存在,在那里,并试图实现的多元化他的自我表达自己没有接受他的个性分散和分解成小碎片。用户仍然是整体和拒绝除自己和发挥无限的作用。这种统一赋予了他的身份,使他在任何时候,在所有的地方,一个用户的世界”(Paquot,1999年,p . 51)。 如果我们的用户的生活经验是一个整体,有什么想法所有这些设计学科来分别对这个人还了没有声称任何学科领域吗?他们有或共享一个公共用户的人类状况的概念?(阿伦特,1958)或相反他们持有不同但互补的观点吗?我敢说这里用户构成现象,从本质上说,逃学科逻辑:用户是一个跨学科的现象,跨越所有这些学科没有任何一个人能够宣称所有权的完整正确的理解和获得所有可能的问题流出每个专业设计的实践。这种复杂性,描述用户的现象,是真正的困难和理解的障碍和挑战观点:对象的思想,原则,总是优于试图理解的思维过程,掌握甚至操纵。设计学科,他们可能会发现有一个常见的问题统一分配的时候主题学科和专业特殊关系每个人独有的;我们的成就和专业的工作目的是在同一用户的生活经验是不分裂。在这种情况下,用户可以使用的主题以真正的仲裁方式澄清边界争端我们的学科之一。 卜的教训是装玻璃 我们现在应该考虑什么样的方法的概念，是我们共同的用户吗?有特定的概念或愿景可以帮助我们这奋进号吗?事实上,当涉及到的基本维度构成用户的人类,有很大的差距，在我们学科设计知识,研究人员需要解决优先。例如,我引用原始身体的现象。留出的知识生物学、人体工程学、心理学、人类学、物理和几何所有提供关于这个问题,我们开发了什么知识和视野对我们用户的身体, 他的空间性,他遇到的各种情况,等等?什么共同点能产品设计师,平面设计师,室内设计师,建筑师,城市设计师,景观设计师找到身体的来解决这个问题吗? 在本节中,我想探索一个概念所提供的可能性如此普遍,我们经常使用它,甚至自发和自动,在我们的日常对话和专业语言作为设计师:解决的概念。我将尝试扩大自己的想法在这个问题上通过使用一些支持文本借鉴尤其是三位作者:诗人雅克?卜和建筑理论家罗伯特•普罗斯特和菲利普Boudon。设计专业人士经常表达自己的想法,和他们的项目的结果 解决方案:设计解决方案,架构解决方案,城市规划解决方案,简单的解决一个复杂的情况下,解决方案的启发,等等。但当我们从事的现象学这个概念在我们学科的框架,我们很快意识到,似乎一个专业的像一个最终的解决方案在设计过程中可能只不过是一 –2– 设计空间的意义 个初始解到另一个专业。一把椅子,椅子上,灯具,电器,工业设计的最终解决方案可能只是过程。 初始元素在室内设计的过程中,景观建筑、城市设计。或现有的室内空间氛围的起点可以是工匠或产品设计师的建议(例如,定制家具)。同样的,一个城市项目的计划和指导方针可能提供初始概念背景的工作的建筑师。什么是一个人的终点变成另一个人的工作的起点。在世上卜的眼睛被蒙上了，很明显,敏锐地说明了这种现象。社会学家说所谓的社会分工实际上是人类状况的一个基本特征,一个著名的诗人在他的诗歌中雅克?卜呈现出令人钦佩的“杜vitrier”: 多么的美丽啊 正如你能看见的 穿过沙粒透过玻璃窗 正如这看见的 多么美丽 这棵树的家伙就这样 在如此的距离 砍倒了一棵树 去制造木板 那些做家具的人啊 它们必须变成一张大床吗 年轻的卖花姑娘 在为谁嫁娶 那些灯盏 每天是谁照亮了街道 让鞋匠可以看得清楚一些 修复的鞋擦皮鞋的男孩啊 是谁抛光了制鞋研磨机 是谁锋利了制梳妆台的工具 是谁剪短了卖鸟人的头发 谁把鸟给了别人 好让每个人都是精神抖擞(1963) 但就变成了用户在这个复杂的解决方案,最后,对于某些人起点吗?在现实中,用户有一个至关重要的作用,因为他或她是结束所有的设计过程:用户相当于先生或女士每 –3– 设计空间的意义 个卜的诗。一旦所有的设计师带来了他们最后的解决方案,用户的世界上的一切都成为一个起点,一个初始解决方案经验和生活的项目。他们成为用户的整体体验的一部分,他或她生活经验,用户向他们灌输自己的含义。 我借了初始和最终解决方案的概念从罗伯特•普罗斯特的思想,特别是他的论文在建筑作品“在进步”:“我们想要关注的可能性考虑建筑现象不仅在进步和工作worksthat找到状态和完整和明确的合法性只有此刻的他们的创造,像艺术作品”(1991年普罗斯特,p。40)。罗伯特•普罗斯特的建筑设计带来的问题(普罗斯特,1992)试图一起四个主要玩家在一个建筑项目:客户端,建筑师,建造者,主人。每个作为球员的表演完全出现在他或她自己的的技能领域:客户制定项目的目标和使用,架构师提出建筑解决方案;承包商建筑解决方案转化为现实,和主人占有了和转换架构的工作。工作的概念是,Prost-appears击败的建筑解决方案的核心过程:“而不是从的角度看建筑解决方案(他们是一个问题做的?)我将介绍三个额外的问题:他们履行结束/使用做什么?他们是怎么做成的呢?最后,他们如何转型?”(普罗斯特1992,13页)。前两个问题查询设计过程。工作,或建立架构解决方案,出现在一个节点的位置,构成最终的设计和实现过程,同时,标志着另一个过程的开始,拨款和转换通过社会实践(从一项正在进行中的工作的概念)。建筑师的工作,认为最终的解决方案,获得主人的初始解的状态,一种基础设施提供支持的项目和项目有关他的住所。换句话说,这是“自由的设计师和地位最终解决方案和开放的社会实践和状态初始解决方案”(1992年普罗斯特,p.133)。 用户结束整个过程。一旦交付解决方案(或方案),它就变成了一个开放的工作:开放用户的生活经历,他或她的拨款和转换项目。透空式的概念,由Umberto Eco制定和采取在其建筑意义,是借用了菲利普Boudon(1969)。Boudon对那些生活在居民区的研究设计和完成贝勒?柯布西耶于1926年,在法国波尔多附近,显示了转换的范围引入现代的一位著名的思想家的作品。亨利?Lefebvre写序言Boudon书,突显出这收购行为:“居住者做了什么? 而不是将自己融入到这个容器和适应它冷漠,他们占领了它积极地在某种程度上。他们居住在一个地方意味着什么:一个活动。他们工作,改变和添加到他们。他们添加了什么呢?他们需要什么。菲利普Boudon显示了不同的意义。他们介绍了品质。他们建立了一个有区别的社会空间”(Lefebvre,1969)。在这个意义上,其中一个提议Boudon制造研究的结论是,架构是一个开放的工作,换句话说,打开主人的计划和纠正:“基于一个居住者的表情,架构可以被认为是一个基础设施的主人的自由表达进化(组合)和定性定量两个(表面)在相当广泛的范围内”(Boudon,1969年,p . 1969)。 –4– 设计空间的意义 我们已经看到用户的逻辑远远超过我们涉及的学科逻辑。结束在一个诗意的注意,我很乐意提供卜的“Cancre”作为拟合对比给用户: 他说没有头 但对他的心 他说,是的,他喜欢 他没有向老师说 他站 他是质疑 和所有提出的问题 突然他克服了无法控制的笑声 他抹去一切 数字和单词 日期和名称 句子和陷阱 老师和欺侮的威胁 学生和嘲笑的浪子 用粉笔的颜色 ,1972) 写在黑板上的幸福。(卜 设计地区和用户的逻辑 自从加入设计知识的现代大学的部门,建筑环境,代表的一个主要研究领域的知识,经历了一个巨大的碎片根据现代调查的分析模型。也发现自己分散成几个学科领域,通常竖立成竞争的部门:产品设计,平面设计,室内设计,建筑设计、城市设计、景观设计等等。这个打包的逻辑本身是非常有益的 在某种程度上,它可以确保一定深度的思考时要考虑的对象和非常具体的知识有限。尽管如此,在最基本的和必要的方面,有一个对象的知识继续躲避着所有这些学科的理解和推理。它继续作为一个障碍和挑战的所有leak-ages亨利?雷蒙德(1984)所说的“空间合理性。当然,“我们是主人,人通常称为用户建立的世界的主人。仍然架构的核心:消极,拒绝停留在理论上,固执,固执地将自己房屋模型,建筑谴责的理由。但他也的核心空间合理性的问题:我们应该计划没有主人吗?我们应该怎样和他计划?。在所有这一切,居住者的情况技能可以发挥重要作用,我们可能认为这是允许的未来的冒险的原因。pp.252 - 253) –5– 设计空间的意义 这篇文章的目的,考虑一个很普通的城市发生:一个个体,一个城市居民,徜徉Sainte-Catherine街在蒙特利尔,加拿大,在一个阳光明媚的秋日下午,经常站在商店橱窗前检查和欣赏对象显示出来。两个问题,存在至少,挑战设计学科。首先,这个人发现自己学科或专业的界限呢?它的产品设计师,平面设计师,室内设计师,建筑师,城市设计师的,或景观设计师的吗?这些专业人士似乎有权宣称,这个人真的是在他的领域的专业知识:每个人都说,“他是我的用户。”,但这个人是否在商店橱窗前真正关心了解学科领域他发现自己,或者什么时候他十字架从一个到另一个?然而,就在那一刻,生活的实际经验或片的人在我们的例子中是发生在商店橱窗前不是支离破碎成不同的经历。这个人是不会告诉自己,我住一个架构经验,现在突然我经历生产对象的经验,现在我在一个城市经验,等等。 这些同样的问题可以问同样对许多其他情况: 一个人坐在小酒馆阶地上的表,在办公室或在纽约市高楼的顶部或新加坡一个倒的城市;一辆车或一个城市巴士的司机每天演习在这座城市的大街上,一个人在公交车站等公共汽车,或装玻璃修复工作的一部分,一个教堂的彩色玻璃,甚至来修复外面的橱窗Sainte-Catherine街在蒙特利尔。事实上,这些非常普通的城市出现在我们的城市居民,或者城市人属(Paquot,1990),参与构成一个全面或总情况,根据提出的概念的含义莫里斯梅洛庞蒂在他的著名的身体现象学(梅洛庞蒂,1962)。这个城市居民生活的经验不是支离破碎;相反,它是积分和整体。在一篇社论《Urbanisme投入的问题专门的主题用户,蒂埃里Paquot欣然指出,开车回家这整个和总条件:”他解释说,用户首先是一个人,一个凡人存在,在那里,并试图使他自我表达的多元化本身没有接受他的个性加以分配,分解成小碎片。用户仍然是整体和拒绝除自己和发挥无限的作用。这种统一赋予了他的身份,使他在任何时候,在所有地方,用户worjd”(Paquot,1999年,p . 51)。 如果我们的用户的生活经验是一个总,有什么想法所有这些设计学科来分别对这个人还了没有声称任何学科领域吗?他们有或共享一个公共用户的人类状况的概念?(阿伦特,1958)或相反他们持有不同但互补的观点吗?我敢说这里用户构成现象,从本质上说,逃学科逻辑:用户是一个跨学科的现象,跨越所有这些学科没有任何一个人能够宣称所有权的完整正确的理解和获得所有可能的问题流出每个专业设计的实践。这种复杂性,描述用户的现象,是真正的困难和障碍和挑战中了解我们的学科。在此基础上,似乎挫折存在设计学科,但在现实中,这是一个被抓住的机会。首先,这是一个机会为我们的学科培养一定的谦虚精神对我们所知道的:思想的对象,通过原则,总是优于试图理解的思维过程,掌握甚至操纵。,设计学科可能6nd有常见问题而团结起来的时候指定主题的学科和专业的专业他们每个人独有的;我们的成就和专业工作旨在相同的用户是谁的生活经 –6– 设计空间的意义 验分裂。在这种情况下,用户可以使用的主题以真正的仲裁方式澄清边界争端我们的学 科之一。 参考文献:略 –7–