外文翻譯--藝術(shù)設(shè)計(jì)方面的知識研究

1、<p>　　2700英文單詞，1.4萬英文字符，4250漢字</p><p>　　文獻(xiàn)出處：Newbury D. Knowledge and research in art and design[J]. Design Studies, 1996, 17: 215-220.</p><p>　　Knowledge and research in art and design<

2、/p><p>　　Darren Newbury</p><p>　　Birmingham Institute of Art & Design, University of Central England,</p><p>　　Margaret Street, Birmingham B3 3BX, UK</p><p>　　The idea

3、 of research has tended to elicit two sorts of response from artists and designers. On the one hand, it is perceived as the antithesis of art and design activity, something to do with questionnaires and statistics, test-

4、tubes and laboratories, at one remove from the real world with which artists and designers seek to engage. On the other hand, it is argued, artists and designers have been doing research all along, dealing with issues

5、of technology, materials, meaning and communication,</p><p>　　Recent trends in higher education in art and design have combined to make the question of research increasingly important. There is a growing rec

6、ognition in art and design that in order to achieve parity of status with the more traditional academic disciplines, and, importantly, to attract sufficient funding to develop its potential, there will need to be a great

7、er attentiveness to the needs of research. As Allison points out, there will be important financial and status implications for higher </p><p>　　Research activity, in terms of volume, quality and direction,

8、will be a major issue in the funding of institutions, courses and programme areas. It would be a reasonable guess that quality 'league tables' of institutions will be devised and that both the allocation to '

9、leagues' and places in the 'leagues' will be related to institutional research profiles.</p><p>　　However, as Allison also points out, the issue of funding follows from the ability of practitione

10、rs and academics within the field of art and design to create an environment appropriate to the development of research, and not the other way around. And, of course, it is more than simply a question of ability: ‘There

11、must be an institutional, or pedagogical, or academic, or technical, or some reason for wanting to do research. Not just status, promotion and fund-raising’.</p><p>　　The question of what counts as research

12、in art and design is once again brought to the fore. For funding reasons alone it is important that research in art and design is recognised as such. Yet there is no clear consensus about how this should be achieved. All

13、ison's collection of data for his database of art and design research suggested that, ‘research degree registrations are not an adequate measure of the amount of research which is being carried out in art and design

14、as they constitute only </p><p>　　The aim of this paper is to explore the question raised by Frayling, 'why research in art & design?' In his paper 'Research in art & design' Frayling

15、 makes the distinction, adapted from Herbert Read's ideas on art education, between research into art and design, research through art and design and research for art and design.</p><p>　　Research into a

16、rt and design is perhaps the most conventional of the three, and accounts for research where art or design is the object of study, for example historical, sociological, and technical approaches, along with a number of ot

17、hers, can all be considered in this way. This represents without doubt the strongest tradition of research within the field of art and design. Art history, particularly, is a long established discipline with its own auth

18、orities and approaches to research. However,</p><p>　　As it stands Frayling's analysis of art and design research activity seems to cover all possibilities, and on this basis one is tempted to conclude

19、with him, that it would mistaken to seek to justify the research status of solely practical work. However, to base proposals for the future of art and design research on an analysis of the present situation, may be to mi

20、ss a significant opportunity, and reinforce an ideology of the arts and creativity (Frayling notes Picasso's suspicion of art histor</p><p>　　What I am suggesting is that Frayling's paper evidences a

21、 failure of imagination, and despite the subtleties of his argument, it is underpinned by, and in danger of reinforcing, the institutional divide between theory and practice in art and design. As Coyne and Snodgrass po

22、int out, the development of an educational practice of design has been hampered by the adherence of many to, what they refer to as, ‘the dual knowledge thesis’: ‘The argument that there are two ways of thinking - logical

23、, a</p><p>　　It is the perception of art and design as inherently mysterious activites, which are in some way inaccessible, and about which little can be said, that has provided a conceptual basis for the di

24、vision between theory and practice, and hence between practical work and communicable research. It is not difficult to see in the emphasis on the intuitive and sensory qualities of art, the Cartesian dualism between mind

25、 and body. However, given that (post)modern philosophy has brought this opposition int</p><p>　　To return to Frayling's set of distinctive art and design research practices, I think it is possible to arg

26、ue that the development of research in art and design depends not so much on the promotion of research in one or all of the categories, but rather in seeing how art and design research can actually dissolve, what may be

27、institutionalized divisions of knowledge, rather than intellectually justifiable ones. The best of art and design research seems to facilitate an interaction between the dif</p><p>　　Given that the majority

28、of practising artists in this country have strong links with the educational sector it seems unnecessary to hold back from this interaction any longer, both traditions have much to gain.</p><p>　　Two example

29、s, one of a completed doctoral submission, the other of a research degree in progress, provide an illustration of what I have in mind here. The first example, is Tom Gilhespy's doctoral submission which combined both

30、 a written thesis and a practical exhibition of work, under the title, 'A theoretical appraisal and artistic response to Soviet monumental sculpture'. The contribution of the thesis is to reassess the development

31、 and artistic significance of Soviet monumental sculpture. Wh</p><p>　　Although there has, and rightly so, been an intellectual shift in the sculpture produced during the period of the research there remains

32、 an element of tracing historical influences. At the beginning of the research I was following the trail of a constructivist language as I understood it, quoting Boccioni, Popova and Tatlin, which did not jell with the i

33、nformation I was acquiring. The trail is now Soviet and I believe follows the influence of Lenin's ideas on monumentalism. Stylistic changes an</p><p>　　This submission does not fit neatly into any one

34、of Frayling's categories, but instead draws on knowledge, and research methodologies attributable to all three. Both the written thesis and the practical submission are successful and coherent on their own terms, bot

35、h make a contribution and are recognised as doing so by the award of the PhD, and the exhibition of the sculptural work at the Ikon Gallery, Birmingham. Frayling looks to the past when he raises the spectre of having to

36、award an honora</p><p>　　The second example is a piece of research aiming to offer a new theory for the production of Hellenistic and Roman mosaic glass. The starting point for the proposal was the intuitive

37、 feeling that theories put forward by archaeologists, concerning the production of mosaic glass from this period, did not ring true from a glassmaker’s point of view, as this student put it, 'that was not how a glass

38、maker would have done it'. The process of research involves the putting to the test of this intuition,</p><p>　　What becomes apparent is that it is characteristic of research in art and design that it is

39、 motivated by art and design practice. Whether it is research in industrial design or in fine art, the application of knowledge is often at the forefront of the research. To argue that research into art and design, and

40、research through art and design, should remain institutionally separate from research for art and design is to cling to a Romantic view of the artist that has outlived its usefulness. The </p><p>　　藝術(shù)設(shè)計(jì)方面的知

41、識研究</p><p>　　Darren Newbury</p><p>　　研究的想法往往會引起藝術(shù)家和設(shè)計(jì)師的兩種反應(yīng)。一方面，它被視為藝術(shù)設(shè)計(jì)活動的對立面，與問卷調(diào)查和統(tǒng)計(jì)、試管和實(shí)驗(yàn)室有關(guān)，與藝術(shù)家和設(shè)計(jì)師試圖接觸的現(xiàn)實(shí)世界相距甚遠(yuǎn)。另一方面，據(jù)認(rèn)為，藝術(shù)家和設(shè)計(jì)師一直在進(jìn)行研究，處理技術(shù)、材料、意義和交流的問題。研究只是所有藝術(shù)設(shè)計(jì)活動的一個(gè)組成部分。雖然后者有很多值得推薦的地方

42、，我認(rèn)為這是一個(gè)獨(dú)特的實(shí)踐研究傳統(tǒng)，但這兩種答復(fù)都不完全令人滿意。事實(shí)上，可以說，從前者轉(zhuǎn)向后者只是對高等教育經(jīng)費(fèi)變化的一種務(wù)實(shí)反應(yīng)，是試圖尋求現(xiàn)有的信貸實(shí)踐，而不是希望以任何方式改變這種做法。</p><p>　　近年來藝術(shù)與設(shè)計(jì)高等教育的趨勢相結(jié)合，使研究問題變得越來越重要。在藝術(shù)設(shè)計(jì)領(lǐng)域越來越認(rèn)識到，為了與更傳統(tǒng)的學(xué)科保持同等地位，并且重要的是為了吸引足夠的資金來發(fā)揮其潛力，需要更加注意研究的需要。正如艾利

43、森指出的那樣，高等教育機(jī)構(gòu)將會產(chǎn)生重要的財(cái)務(wù)和地位影響：</p><p>　　就數(shù)量，質(zhì)量和方向而言，研究活動將成為資助機(jī)構(gòu)，課程和計(jì)劃領(lǐng)域的主要問題。這將是一個(gè)合理的猜測，即制定高質(zhì)量的“排名榜”，并且“聯(lián)賽”的分配和“聯(lián)賽”的排名都將與機(jī)構(gòu)研究概況相關(guān)。</p><p>　　然而，正如艾利森所指出的那樣，資金問題源于藝術(shù)設(shè)計(jì)領(lǐng)域的從業(yè)人員和學(xué)者的能力，以創(chuàng)造適合研究發(fā)展的環(huán)境，而不是相

44、反。當(dāng)然，這不僅僅是一個(gè)能力問題：“必須有制度的、教學(xué)的、學(xué)術(shù)的、技術(shù)的，或者想要研究的理由。不僅是地位，促進(jìn)和籌款。</p><p>　　藝術(shù)設(shè)計(jì)研究的重要問題再次凸顯出來。僅出于資金原因，重要的是對藝術(shù)設(shè)計(jì)的研究是公認(rèn)的。然而，關(guān)于如何實(shí)現(xiàn)這一目標(biāo)并沒有明確的共識。Allison收集他的藝術(shù)設(shè)計(jì)研究數(shù)據(jù)庫的數(shù)據(jù)表明，“研究學(xué)位注冊并不能充分衡量藝術(shù)設(shè)計(jì)中正在進(jìn)行的研究的數(shù)量，因?yàn)樗鼈儍H占整個(gè)研究活動中相對較小

45、的比例”。Allison的建議是，在高等教育的藝術(shù)設(shè)計(jì)中，需要建立一種“專業(yè)的研究態(tài)度”，這意味著一種更系統(tǒng)和更嚴(yán)謹(jǐn)?shù)姆椒▉砝斫夂鸵靡郧巴瓿傻难芯?，并傳播研究發(fā)現(xiàn)該領(lǐng)域。當(dāng)然，這是值得贊揚(yáng)和必要的，但如果要取得成功，我認(rèn)為有必要先解決更為哲學(xué)的問題，即為什么藝術(shù)設(shè)計(jì)研究的學(xué)術(shù)認(rèn)證，特別是更高等級的研究本身應(yīng)該受到歡迎，而不僅僅是作為創(chuàng)造資本的一種方式。</p><p>　　本文的目的是探討Frayling提出的

46、問題，“為什么研究藝術(shù)與設(shè)計(jì)？”Frayling在他的論文“藝術(shù)與設(shè)計(jì)研究”中做出了區(qū)分，并根據(jù)HerbertRead的藝術(shù)教育思想，藝術(shù)與設(shè)計(jì)研究進(jìn)行了改編。</p><p>　　對藝術(shù)設(shè)計(jì)的研究可能是三個(gè)中最傳統(tǒng)的研究，并且說明藝術(shù)設(shè)計(jì)是研究對象的研究，例如歷史，社會學(xué)和技術(shù)方法以及其他一些研究都可以考慮這條路。毫無疑問，這代表了藝術(shù)設(shè)計(jì)領(lǐng)域最強(qiáng)大的研究傳統(tǒng)。藝術(shù)史，尤其是它自己的權(quán)威和研究方法，是一個(gè)歷史悠

47、久的學(xué)科。然而，隨著社會和文化理論的變化，藝術(shù)史將不能保持這種特權(quán)和獨(dú)立的地位。通過藝術(shù)設(shè)計(jì)研究解決了藝術(shù)設(shè)計(jì)是研究工具的研究，以及傳達(dá)結(jié)果的手段。對藝術(shù)設(shè)計(jì)的研究是三者中最有爭議的，也是最不服從傳統(tǒng)學(xué)術(shù)研究概念的。Frayling將其描述為：“最終產(chǎn)品是一種人工制品的研究”?？梢哉f，這種思維體現(xiàn)在人工制品中，其目標(biāo)主要不是以口頭交流的形式傳播知識，而是以視覺或標(biāo)志性或形象化的溝通。這最后一類符合意見，認(rèn)為藝術(shù)設(shè)計(jì)活動，現(xiàn)在已經(jīng)涉及高度

48、的研究，只有一個(gè)小的“r”。Frayling使用畢加索的例子，他指出，參考資料是收集材料的一種手段-一種畫-而不是對自己感興趣，或值得與觀眾溝通。Frayling提出的問題是，為什么在排除資源問題的情況下，任何人都應(yīng)該將這種活動視為為學(xué)術(shù)研究，其主要目標(biāo)是藝術(shù)本身，而不是知識或理解。這個(gè)論點(diǎn)是一個(gè)很熟悉的論點(diǎn)，鑒于在藝術(shù)方面</p><p>　　按照Frayling對藝術(shù)設(shè)計(jì)研究活動的分析，似乎涵蓋了所有可能性，

49、在此基礎(chǔ)上，人們試圖與他一起總結(jié)，認(rèn)為它會錯(cuò)誤地尋求證明純粹實(shí)際工作的研究狀況。然而，為了將藝術(shù)設(shè)計(jì)研究的未來建立在對現(xiàn)狀分析的基礎(chǔ)上，可能會錯(cuò)過一個(gè)重要的機(jī)會，并強(qiáng)化藝術(shù)和創(chuàng)造力的思想（Frayling指出畢加索懷疑藝術(shù)史家）研究文化的發(fā)展。</p><p>　　我所建議的是，弗萊里林的論文證明了想象力的失敗，盡管他的論點(diǎn)有微妙的含義，但它卻是在藝術(shù)設(shè)計(jì)理論與實(shí)踐之間的制度鴻溝的基礎(chǔ)之上的，并有強(qiáng)加的危險(xiǎn)。正如

50、科恩和斯諾德格拉斯所指出的那樣，設(shè)計(jì)教育實(shí)踐的發(fā)展受到許多人對他們稱之為“雙重知識論”的阻礙：論證有兩種思維方式——邏輯的一方面是分析和理性的，另一方面是主觀的，特殊的和非理性的”。同樣清楚的是，這種立場有礙于藝術(shù)設(shè)計(jì)研究的成功發(fā)展。</p><p>　　藝術(shù)設(shè)計(jì)的觀念是一種內(nèi)在的神秘活動，它在某種程度上是無法進(jìn)入的，而對于這種活動幾乎沒有什么可說的，這為理論與實(shí)踐之間的分工提供了理論基礎(chǔ)，因此在實(shí)際工作與研究之

51、間提供了理論基礎(chǔ)。我們不難看出，強(qiáng)調(diào)藝術(shù)的直覺和感官品質(zhì)，即軀體與身體之間的笛卡爾二元論。然而，鑒于（后）現(xiàn)代哲學(xué)使這一對立成為疑問，并且顯示啟蒙理性主義的危險(xiǎn)和局限性，藝術(shù)家和設(shè)計(jì)師也應(yīng)該質(zhì)疑這是對自己實(shí)踐的解釋。當(dāng)代文化中的自我反思傾向以及理論家和實(shí)踐者，評論家和藝術(shù)家/設(shè)計(jì)師之間界限的模糊化，為開發(fā)藝術(shù)設(shè)計(jì)研究文化提供了獨(dú)特的機(jī)會，并且是真正批判和反省。正如科恩和斯諾德格拉斯總結(jié)的那樣：“哪里有謎，那么設(shè)計(jì)就會從有效的對話中消失。

52、設(shè)計(jì)理念是個(gè)人的，無法進(jìn)行一般的審查。設(shè)計(jì)師成為浪漫主義運(yùn)動的另一個(gè)偉大主題-被壓迫和誤解的英雄。代替這個(gè)科恩和斯諾德格拉斯提出了對設(shè)計(jì)的對話或“解釋學(xué)”理解，其中設(shè)計(jì)過程涉及與設(shè)計(jì)情境的互動對話。這一立場的價(jià)值在于，科恩和斯諾德格拉斯認(rèn)為，設(shè)計(jì)知識的生產(chǎn)與其他領(lǐng)域的知識生產(chǎn)之間存在相當(dāng)程度的連續(xù)性。我相信，連續(xù)性的想法是一個(gè)特別重要的想法。盡管語言與設(shè)計(jì)活動之間的關(guān)系非常復(fù)雜，但最近關(guān)于協(xié)議研究</p><p>

53、;　　為了回答Frayling的一系列獨(dú)特的藝術(shù)設(shè)計(jì)研究實(shí)踐，我認(rèn)為有可能爭辯說，藝術(shù)設(shè)計(jì)研究的發(fā)展不僅僅取決于促進(jìn)一個(gè)或所有類別的研究，而是看待藝術(shù)設(shè)計(jì)研究如何實(shí)際上可以解散，什么可能是制度化的知識分裂，而不是智力上合理的分裂。最好的藝術(shù)設(shè)計(jì)研究似乎促進(jìn)不同的研究傳統(tǒng)，實(shí)踐和學(xué)術(shù)之間的互動。</p><p>　　鑒于這個(gè)國家的大多數(shù)執(zhí)業(yè)藝術(shù)家與教育部門有著密切的聯(lián)系，似乎沒有必要再阻止這種互動，這兩種傳統(tǒng)都有很

54、大的收獲。</p><p>　　兩個(gè)例子，一個(gè)是完成的博士論文，另一個(gè)是正在進(jìn)行的研究學(xué)位，提供了我在這里想到的一個(gè)例子。第一個(gè)例子是TomGilhespy的博士論文，該論文結(jié)合了書面論文和實(shí)際工作展覽，題目是“對蘇聯(lián)紀(jì)念雕塑的理論評估和藝術(shù)反應(yīng)”。本文的貢獻(xiàn)在于重新評估蘇聯(lián)紀(jì)念雕塑的發(fā)展和藝術(shù)意義。有趣的是，我的論點(diǎn)是個(gè)人、直覺和感官對主題的反應(yīng)之間的互動，雕塑研究和更傳統(tǒng)的學(xué)術(shù)和歷史研究。Gilhespy指的

55、是“積極的互動交流”?？紤]Gilhespy關(guān)于雕塑作品的實(shí)踐如何影響論文方向的評論：簡單地使用俄羅斯指針機(jī)器，雕刻列寧的頭像并結(jié)合其他信息和閱讀，列寧的雕像和他的“紀(jì)念宣傳計(jì)劃”成為提交的核心。同樣，這種互動也朝著相反的方向進(jìn)行，有利于實(shí)際的藝術(shù)作品:</p><p>　　盡管研究期間所產(chǎn)生的雕塑在思想上有所轉(zhuǎn)變，但仍然是追溯歷史影響的元素。在研究開始時(shí)，我按照我理解的建構(gòu)主義語言的軌跡，引用了Boccioni，

56、Popova和Tatlin，他們沒有收集到我所獲得的信息。我相信列寧的觀念影響著紀(jì)念碑。形式和材料的文體變化和更傳統(tǒng)的使用也歸因于研究的影響和主題的需求。</p><p>　　這份提交文件并不適合任何一個(gè)Frayling的類別，而是依靠所有三個(gè)類別的知識和研究方法。無論是書面論文還是實(shí)際提交都是成功的和連貫的，在各自的條件下都做出了貢獻(xiàn)，并且被博士獎和伯明翰Ikon畫廊的雕塑作品展覽所認(rèn)可。當(dāng)Frayling提到

57、自文藝復(fù)興以來不得不授予榮譽(yù)博士學(xué)位的幽靈時(shí)，他就會向往每一位藝術(shù)家授予榮譽(yù)博士學(xué)位，但向前看，進(jìn)一步促進(jìn)不同研究傳統(tǒng)之間的富有成效的互動可能同樣有價(jià)值。正如Oxman所指出的那樣，“設(shè)計(jì)研究現(xiàn)在已經(jīng)成為研究的跨學(xué)科研究重點(diǎn)”，其中有幾個(gè)“星座”的研究方法正在出現(xiàn)，這些研究方法正在開始相互補(bǔ)充。</p><p>　　第二個(gè)例子是一項(xiàng)旨在為希臘化和羅馬馬賽克玻璃生產(chǎn)提供新理論的研究。這個(gè)提議的起點(diǎn)是，考古學(xué)家提出的

58、有關(guān)這一時(shí)期馬賽克玻璃制作的理論，從玻璃制造者的角度來看，并非如此，正如這位學(xué)生所說的那樣：“這不是一個(gè)玻璃制造者怎樣做到這一點(diǎn)的問題”。研究過程涉及到對這種直覺的考驗(yàn)，并在實(shí)踐實(shí)驗(yàn)的基礎(chǔ)上發(fā)展一種新的生產(chǎn)理論。根據(jù)Frayling的分類考慮到這一點(diǎn)，有可能認(rèn)為研究可以放在三者中的任何一個(gè)中，并且實(shí)際上至少從其使用方式中獲得部分原創(chuàng)性，并有助于不同的研究傳統(tǒng)。這項(xiàng)研究清楚地涉及藝術(shù)設(shè)計(jì)，從技術(shù)角度來看，它試圖挑戰(zhàn)對手工藝實(shí)踐的既定考古學(xué)

59、解釋。它也是通過藝術(shù)設(shè)計(jì)進(jìn)行的研究：實(shí)踐工作既是研究的載體，也是實(shí)踐過程中的反復(fù)試驗(yàn)，并且在過程階段的文檔中，傳達(dá)結(jié)果的手段。最后，這也是對藝術(shù)設(shè)計(jì)的研究：激勵(lì)學(xué)生的是她致力于制作玻璃的做法。成品玻璃本身具有美學(xué)價(jià)值。根據(jù)我的猜測，這項(xiàng)研究從來沒有像純粹的解決問題那樣開始，沒有一些對最終產(chǎn)品固有價(jià)值的理解。這項(xiàng)研究完成后，將被授予研究學(xué)位，當(dāng)然應(yīng)被視為對知識的貢獻(xiàn)。雖然所制作的玻璃的任何美學(xué)價(jià)值都可能與獎項(xiàng)有關(guān)，但對知識的貢獻(xiàn)顯然會從理

60、論工作中從實(shí)踐中獲得。</p><p>　　顯而易見的是，藝術(shù)設(shè)計(jì)研究的特點(diǎn)在于藝術(shù)設(shè)計(jì)實(shí)踐的動力。無論是工業(yè)設(shè)計(jì)還是美術(shù)研究，知識的應(yīng)用往往都處于研究的前沿。要爭辯說，研究藝術(shù)設(shè)計(jì)以及通過藝術(shù)設(shè)計(jì)進(jìn)行研究，應(yīng)該與制作藝術(shù)設(shè)計(jì)的研究保持體制上的分離，以堅(jiān)持藝術(shù)家的浪漫主義觀點(diǎn)，這種觀點(diǎn)已經(jīng)失去了實(shí)用價(jià)值。藝術(shù)設(shè)計(jì)研究文化的發(fā)展顯然是一個(gè)雙向的過程，這既導(dǎo)致了對藝術(shù)設(shè)計(jì)的更清晰的理解，也導(dǎo)致了藝術(shù)設(shè)計(jì)作品的發(fā)展。我