台灣人對包浩斯與現代椅創意設計的心態類型評量

An Assessment of Taiwanese's Attitudes Towards Creative Bauhaus and Modern Chairs

簡秋薇(Chiu-Wei Chien)

包浩斯經典椅 ； 現代椅 ； 創意指標 ； 創意類型 ； Bauhaus Chair ； Modern Chair ； Creativity Indicator ； Creativity Type

設計學報

25卷2期（2020 / 06 / 01）

41 - 58

繁體中文

在知識容易取得的世代我們並不缺乏創意，重要的是如何選擇好的創意。從包浩斯年代的產品來評量對於創意的認知，將有助於創意構想的產生與選擇。並且對於創意工作者及創意管理人員之間的互動原則及其改進能夠產生重要的參考價值。本研究以Mueller的八個創意指標，評量台灣人面對創意時的心態是偏向哪一個類型，並以被認定有創意的產品─包浩斯與現代椅作為刺激物，比較其結果有何差異。結論如下：1.台灣人面對創意的心態是偏向務實的「如何／最好」類型。對於實用性因素需求偏高，新穎性因素則偏低。2.面對創意的心態類型與椅子的創意類型的比較，則是從具有實用性的指標─方便使用、容易製造與大眾市場；透過包浩斯與現代椅這兩個刺激物，創意指標因而轉變為有時尚感、特別方式、應用領域，偏向「為甚麼／有潛力」的類型。這對於以製造業為主要經濟發展方式的台灣人，面對創意的心態轉變是可以理解的。3.包浩斯與現代椅的創意指標的差異，五個包浩斯經典椅均值高於現代椅，而且透過椅子的刺激有時尚感成為均值最高的創意指標。而生產技術不但影響產品創意構想的結果，也影響創意類型的評量結果。

In an age when knowledge is easily acquired, there is no lack of creativity; the important issue is how to choose good creativity. And it also has important reference value for the interaction principle and improvement between creative workers and managers. Using products of the Bauhaus era to assess understanding of creativity will facilitate the generation and selection of creative concepts. This study used Mueller's eight creativity indicators to evaluate which type of attitude Taiwanese people hold regarding creativity. The study also compared how results differ in terms of products deemed to be creative - with Bauhaus and modern chairs as the stimulus. The conclusions are as follows: (1) Types of Taiwanese attitudes toward creativity: A relatively high level of need for rational practical factors and a relatively low level of need for the emotional novelty factors. The Taiwanese attitude toward creativity is a pragmatic ＂how/best＂ type. (2) Comparison of attitude types toward creativity and creative types of chairs: From practical indicators such as convenient to use, easy to manufacture, and mass market, however, through specific stimulus of Bauhaus and modern chairs, the creative indicators transform into fashion, special methods, operational fields, turning toward ＂why/potential.＂ For Taiwanese people, whose primary mode of economic development is the manufacturing industry, this change in attitude toward creativity is understandable. (3) Differences in creative indicators for Bauhaus and modern chairs: The mean values of all five classic Bauhaus chairs were higher than those of the modern chairs; through stimulus of the chairs, ＂fashion＂ became the creativity indicator with the highest mean values. The production technology of products affects the outcome of creative concepts as well as the outcomes of creativity types.

1. Adner, R.,Levinthal, D.(2008).Doing versus seeing: Acts of exploitation and perceptions of exploration.Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal,2,43-52.
2. Bernhard, E. B.(2005).Design history, theory and practice of product design.Berlin:Birkhäuser.
3. Carlile, P.(2002).A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: Boundary objects in new product development.Organization Science,13,442-455.
4. Chapman-Daniel, S.(2018).MA Projects.
5. Chien, C. W.,Lin, C. L.,Lin, R.T.(2015).The study of rational and emotional cognition of chairs.Bulletin of Japanese Society for the Science of Design,62(3),57-66.
6. Dezeen (2018). Cassina reissues Frank Lloyd Wright's Taliesin 1 chair. Retrieved from https://www.dezeen.com/2018/12/03/taliesin-1-chair-frank-lloyd-wright-reissued-cassina/
7. Fiell, C.,Fiel, P.(2007).Design Now!.Italy:TASCHEN GmbH.
8. Fischer, V.(ed.)(1988).Design Now: Industry or Art?.Munich:Prestel-Verlag.
9. Giampietro, M.,Cavallera, G. M.(2007).Morning and evening types and creative thinking.Personality and Individual Differences,42(3),453-463.
10. Gilson, L. L.,Madjar, N.(2011).Radical and incremental creativity: Antecedents and processes.The Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts,5,21-28.
11. Guilford, J. P.(1950).Creativity.American Psychologist,5,444-454.
12. Guilford, J. P.(1967).Creativity: Yesterday, today and tomorrow.The Journal of Creative Behavior,1(1),3-14.
13. Helson, R.,Crutchfield, R. S.(1970).Creative types in mathematics 1.Journal of Personality,38(2),177-197.
14. Ivcevic, Z.,Mayer, J. D.(2006).Creative types and personality.Imagination, Cognition and Personality,26(1),65-86.
15. Keller, J.,Loewenstein, J.,Yan, J.(2017).Culture, conditions and paradoxical frames.Organization Studies,38(3-4),539-560.
16. Litchfield, R. C.,Gilson, L. L.,Gilson, P. W.(2015).Defining creative ideas: Toward a more nuanced approach.Group & Organization Management,40(2),238-265.
17. Loewenstein, J.,Mueller, J.(2016).Implicit theories of creative ideas: How culture guides creativity assessments.Academy of Management Discoveries,2(4),320-348.
18. Mueller, J.(2017).Creative Change: Why we resist it...how to embrace it.Boston:Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
19. Mueller, J. S.,Melwani, S.,Goncalo, J. A.(2012).The bias against creativity: Why people desire but reject creative ideas.Psychological science,23(1),13-17.
20. Mueller, J. S.,Wakslak, C. J.,Krishnan, V.(2014).Construing creativity: The how and why of recognizing creative ideas.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,51,81-87.
21. Rubenson, D. L.(1991).On creativity, economics, and baseball.Creativity Research Journal,4,205-209.
22. Rubenson, D. L.,Runco, M. A.(1995).The psychoeconomic view of creative work in groups and organizations.Creativity and Innovation Management,4,232-241.
23. Runco, M. A.(1988).Creativity research: Originality, utility, and integration.Creativity Research Journal,1(1),1-7.
24. Runco, M. A.,Acar, S.(2012).Divergent thinking as an indicator of creative potential.Creativity Research Journal,24(1),66-75.
25. Sternberg, R. J.(1999).A propulsion model of types of creative contributions.Review of General Psychology,3(2),83-100.
26. Sullivan, D. M.,Ford, C. M.(2010).The alignment of measures and constructs in organizational research: The case of testing measurement models of creativity.Journal of Business and Psychology,25(3),505-521.
27. Wilkinson, P.(2013).Great designs: The world's best design explored and explained.London:DK.
28. 明日誌（2016）。一分鐘讀懂設計椅這椅子好難坐！打破傳統超前衛《Zig Zag》。取自http://www.mottimes.com/cht/article_detail.php?type=1&serial=856. MOT Time (2016). Yi fen jung du dung she ji yi je yi tz hau nan tzuo! Da po chuan tung chau chian wei 《Zig Zag》. Retrieved from http://www.mottimes.com/cht/article_detail.php?type=1&serial=856 [in Chinese, phonetic translation]
29. 林榮泰, R. T.(2009)。文化創意產品設計：從感性科技, 人性設計與文化創意談起。人文與社會科學簡訊，11(1)，32-43。
30. 國家發展委員會=National Development Council(2017).臺灣經濟發展歷程與策略 2017.台北=Taipei:國家發展委員會=National Development Council.
31. 湯馬斯．佛里曼, T. L.,楊振富（譯）,潘勛（譯）(2005).世界是平的.台北:雅言.
32. 達瑞爾．夏溥, D.,易之新（譯）(2012).榮格人格類型.台北:心靈工坊.
33. 顏擇雅, T. Y.(2018).最低的水果摘完之後.台北=Taipei:天下雜誌=Common Wealth Magazine.