當“歷史”碰上“設計”－重看“設計史或設計研究”的爭論，及其背後的歷史思維

When History Meets Design-Re-examining the Debate over "Design History or Design Studies?" and Their Underling Historical Thoughts

10.6381/JD.200206.0015

翁註重(Ju-Joan Wong)

歷史思維 ； 設計研究 ； 馬格林 ； 霍梯 ； 派文斯納 ； historical thought ； design history ； design studies ； Margolin ； Forty ； Pevsner

設計學報

7卷1期（2002 / 06 / 01）

15 - 32

繁體中文

雖然1970年代，設計史作為一門學術領域似乎於焉完成，但是伴隨著設計操作的日新月異，設計史的主體性始終處於流動的狀態，不斷引發質疑和討論。本文回顧了1990年代早期維克‧馬格林(Victor Margolin)與安得列‧霍梯(Andrian Forty)(及其有關學者)對於設計史主體性的辯論，發掘存在於爭議背後，兩者設計思維的差異。馬格林追溯建構設計史主體的早期著作：《現代設計先驅：從威廉‧摩理斯到華德‧葛羅庇斯》，認為派文斯納侷限於現代主義道德式的敘述，羈絆了設計史主體的擴張。因此主張以設計研究來取代設計史，使得新的研究課題、不同的研究取向，都能夠在以設計為中心匯集而成的共同領域上，進行學術研究的對話與積累，引導進一步發展的方向。但是，霍梯認為區分設計的良窳並非瑣碎無益，反而是提升設計品質的根本。其次，設計史經由和其他領域的跨界互動，逐漸浮現了新的研究視野。因此，劃分設計史的領域似乎是庸人自擾。兩人除了對於設計史的認識論和範疇界定有所歧異外，仍有較為正面的肯定之處：馬格林在批判派文斯納式的設計史觀同時，分開了設計與藝術的曖昧關係；霍梯在舉證反駁馬格林對設計史的誤解時，更將設計與社會脈絡接合在一起。兩人共同的焦慮與矛盾乃是來自於期望設計史能夠干預設計操作，所產生的不同考量。循此，吾人可以將後續議題轉向歷史研究和設計實踐兩者關係的討論；藉由反省過去設計發展的軌跡，迎向當下、乃至於未來科技演變所帶來的艱鉅挑戰。

Although design history has been an established academic discipline since the 1970s, its subject matter-'following design practices' is always fluctuating. This paper reviews the arguments between Victor Margolin and Adrian Forty(amongst other scholars) regarding design history in the early 1990s, exploring the disputes of their historical thoughts. Margolin retraced the primary writing, ”Pioneers of Modern Design: From William Morris to Walter Gropius”, commenting that the modernist moralistic narration leashed the expanding of the area of design history. He purported that design studies should substitute for design history in order to gather a variety of issues and approaches, and therefore direct new developments. Whereas Forty, on the other hand, considered that judgements were still necessary in order to improve the quality of design; and that after cross-fertilization with other disciplines, many new visions in design history would be produced, deeming it needless to bother with the boundary of design history. Besides the inconsistencies of the epistemology and the category of design history, there are further positive aspects. In Margolin's critique of Pevsner's historical idea, he clarified the ambiguous relationship between design and art; and when Forty refuted Margolin, he articulated design and social contexts. They were both anxious and contradictory about how properly history influenced design. Therefore it is possible to pinpoint the debate of history research and design practice. By reflecting on design history's past trajectory, we can interface with the present and future challenges in design's technological transformation.

1. Giedion, S., 1948, Mechanization Takes Command: a Contribution to Anonymous History, New York: Oxford University Press.
2. Banham, R.(1960).Theory and Design in the First Machine Age.London:Architectural Press.
3. Doordan, Dennis(1995).On History.Design Issues,11(2),76.
4. Findeli(1995).Design History and Design Studies: Methodological, Epistemological and Pedagogical Inquiry.Design Issues,11(2),44+46.
5. Forty, Adrian(1995).Debate: A reply to Victor Margolin.Design Issues,11(2)
6. Forty, Adrian(1986).Objects of Desire-Design and Society Since 1750.London:Thames and Hudson.
7. Giberti, Bruno(1991).Design and Theory.Design Book Review,53-56.
8. Hauser, Arnold、居延安譯(1988)。藝術社會學。台北:雅典出版社。
9. Hays, K. Michael(ed.)(1998).Architecture theory since 1968.MIT Press.
10. Ingersoll, R.(1986).Zeitgeistbuster: A mandate for architectural critics.Design Book Review,Spring,9.
11. Julier, Guy(1993).Encyclopaedia of 20th century design and designer.London:Thames and Hudson.
12. Krippendorff, Klaus(1989).Product semantics; a triangulation and four design theories.Product Semantics '89 Conference,Helsinki:
13. Margolin, Victor(1992).Design history or design studies: subject matter and methods.Design Studies,104-116.
14. Margolin, Victor(1995).A Reply to Adrian Forty.Design Issues,11(2),21.
15. Margolin, Victor(ed.)(1984).Design discourse: History‧Theory‧Criticism.Chicago:The University of Chicago.
16. Margolin, Victor(ed.),Buchnan, Richard(ed.)(1995).The Idea of Design.Chicago:The University of Chicago.
17. Miller, Daniel(1987).Material Culture and Mass Consumption.UK:Blackwell.
18. Pevsner, Nikolaus、王申祐譯(1993)。現代設計的先驅—從威廉‧莫里斯到格羅皮烏斯。台北:建築與文化出版社。
19. Pevsner, Nikolaus、蔡毓芬譯(1998)。現代建築與設計之起源。台北:地景企業股份有限公司。
20. Richard, Buchanan(ed.),Margolin, Victor(ed.)(1995).Discovering Design: Explorations in Design Studies.Chicago:The University of Chicago.
21. Simon, Herbert A.(1969).The Science of the Artificial.London:MIT Press.
22. Sparke, Penny(1987).Design in Context.London:Bloomsbury.
23. Sparke, Penny(1986).Design source book-A Visual Reference to Design from 1850 to the Present day.USA:Chartwell Books,Inc.
24. Sparke, Penny(1986).An Introduction to Design & Culture in the Twentieth Century.London:Routledge.
25. Sparke, Penny(1999).A Century of Design: Design Pioneers of the 20th Century.Barrons Educational Series.
26. Tafuri, Manfredo(1986).There is no Criticism, Only History.Design Book Review,Spring,7-11.
27. Tafuri, Manfredo、鄭時齡譯(1991)。建築學的理論和歷史。北京:中國建築工業出版社。
28. Walker, John A.(1989).Design History and the History of Design.London:Pluto Press.
29. Watkin, David(1977).Morality and Architecture.Chicago:The University of Chicago.
30. Woodham, Jonathan M.(1995).Resisting Colonization: Design History Has Its Own Identity.Design Issues,11(2),22+24+28-30.
31. Woodham, Jonathan M.(1997).Twentieth-century design.New York:Oxford University.
32. 王受之(1997)。世界現代設計。台北:藝術家出版社。
33. 王鴻祥(1998)。設計史的再思考—一個台灣設計史論述的假說。設計學報，2(1)，66。
34. 周樑楷(1993)。歷史學的思維。台北:正中書局。
35. 翁註重(1998)。布希亞的擬像理論與後現代的商品形貌。建築與城鄉研究學報，9，117。
36. 張景森譯(1993)。空間的文化形式與社會理論讀本。台北:明文書局。
37. 陳冠廷(1998)。重探工業設計的本質及其文化上的定位。中華民國設計學會第三屆學術研究成果研討會論文集
38. 滕守勝譯(1998)。非物質社會—後工業世界的設計、文化與技術。四川:四川人民出版社。
39. 盧永毅、羅小未(1997)。工業設計史。台北:田園城市文化事業有限公司。

1. 王志弘(2013)。彈性的藝術─商業矛盾：書封設計的創意勞動與專案團隊。設計學研究，16(2)，95-116。
2. 王志弘(2015)。藝術工人、專業服務者與美學企業家室內設計師的生產關係與自我認知。臺灣社會研究季刊，101，125-170。
3. 翁註重、翁註重(2016)。從設計史跨界書寫探究設計文化研究。設計學報，21(4)，45-60。
4. (2003)。從非同一性的歷史哲學對設計思潮的再思考。商業設計學報，7，101-116。