资源描述
译文：室内设计室内设计不仅包括装修及家具的空间，而且还考虑到空间规划，灯光，与用户行为有关的程序化问题，包括从具体问题的可及性到在空间中的活动的性质。在商业和公共空间显著的变化后，室内设计如今的标志是一个新的弹性类型学。室内设计不仅包括方案规划也包括室内空间的物理治疗：预测其使用的性质以及它的家具和表面，包括墙，地面，天花板。在职权范围上，室内设计有别于室内装修工程。装修关心的是家具的选择，然而设计者要把离散的装饰元素整合成方案关注的空间和使用。室内设计师在从底层向上的内部的空间时间方面与与建筑师合作，但是他们仍然独立的工作，尤其在翻修的情况下。历史上，植根于总体艺术作品的概念，曾经都是建筑师设计的。总体艺术作品的概念源于十九世纪末和二十世纪初的工艺美术运动。其支持者（从弗兰克劳埃德赖特到凡德罗）在室内设计专业的起源期间延长其做法以包括内饰领域行为并不是偶然的。事实上，这是一个建筑师采取的防御措施，建筑师们把室内装修或设计师的形式上的干预看作是对他们完整的艺术性的一种威胁。如今，除了像理查德迈耶那样的非常重视均匀性的现代主义者，扮演室内设计师角色的建筑师（数量在增长）更有倾向于理论与实践的折衷，并联21世纪的定价多元化。尽管如此，对室内设计师以及室内设计领域的偏见持续存在。由于室内被视为一个集装箱的蜉蝣，从而阻碍了对室内的批评性的讨论。此外，对室内的传统观点充满了偏见：阶级偏见与百年历史的协会商人有关，性别偏见与把装饰行业描述成主要是妇女和男性同性恋的领域。因此，室内设计作为文化价值的表达的信誉已被严重损坏。然而，对文化大系统的理解在全球化的影响下一直在变化。在一个更宽容的环境中，鼓励不同文化间的融合，高文化和低文化的区别被消除。同样，有更频繁的生产性借贷的事例发生在建筑，设计，装修等曾经被看作是专有领地的领域。并且建筑，室内设计，室内装修领域仍然有不同的教育协议以及不同的关注重点，他们表现出更大的互相的兴趣。另一种考虑这种新兴的合成的方法是用现代，技术和历史替代建筑，室内设计和装修的三合一。后现代时代的特征之一是提高了对过去影响现在的角色的认识。在室内，这表现在一个新的兴趣饰品，工艺和重要性以及空间复杂性，所有平行于正在运行的现代化的项目。更重要的是，有一种新的弹性类型学。如今，传统的室内类型例如房子，仓库，办公室，餐厅等，尽力控制它们的边界。方案收敛的表现能在公共场合以及商业空间被清晰的发现，渴望更加界面友好和有消费意识。越来越多的私立医院（竞争患者）雇用设施并形成灵感来自豪华温泉的语言；同时，许多体育馆以及健身俱乐部采用临床医疗设施以向客户介绍自己服务的价值。同样的室内协议能够在办公室中发现，指派非正式的，现场工作理论的艺术家的仓库。在旅馆使用美术馆的语言。相似的，越来越多的杂货店和书店包括用于饮食和交际的空间以及家具。同时，有一种新的舒适的在室内风格上趋同，从设计的历史上私有和重组不同的报价。这些室内布局是艺术的混合，它们不是简单的混合以及匹配家具和风格，而是通过当代的镜头进行过滤。现代室内布局的另一个标志是叙事的公开结合。在零售空间坚持严格的环境主题，例如拉尔夫劳伦服装店和像拉斯维加斯的赌场那样的娱乐场所。然而，更好玩的小线性办法说明越来越普遍。在所有的室内类型学中，住宅已经被改变所轻微的影响，除了短暂的趋势，如室外厨房和浴室的魅力。然而，住宅设计占据室内设计全面的主导地位。它已经成为反思的催化剂，使得一系列空间坚定的从中分离出来，从秘书室到护士站再到图书馆的阅览室。办公室的个人住宿的考虑，医院色彩的使用，图书馆提供沙发正变的很平常，仅仅引用这三个例子。这种环境（与窗帘，壁纸，除其他住宅要素）为以前的地域提供了更多的舒适性，安心，愉悦，而这是以前惯例所禁止和社会所排除的。毫无疑问的，这些公共领域以及商业空间的变化是由20世纪60年代的解放运动带来的。这些运动反对种族，阶级，性别的障碍，以及作为更大气候以及好客和住宿基础的身体能力。在流行的住宅模式中发现一个完全不同的议程也是可能的。把国内设施投入到商业空间，例如办公室室内的娱乐空间也可以解释为一个更广泛的尝试的一部分，尝试把更容易既接受的氛围引入自由资本主义市场。从这点上来看，室内设计肩负着娱乐的任务，没有什么新的把戏。每一个室内布局都是舞台设置的基础。它也不是特别隐匿-只要自负是透明的。然而，当幻想变成妄想，也就是当为疾病的现实而设计补偿过度时，或者当由于全天候经济的无情的要求使得办公室变成代理人的公寓时，这是危险的表现。在这些情况下，设计放弃其潜力改变日常生活，金额略多于一个浅显的重新命名空间。另外一种力量正在推动室内设计的演化，扩大公众对设计以及设计师的认识。设计作为市容和地位的象征的需求在逐渐增长，受住房杂志扩散的影响，电视节目专门讨论家庭装饰以及广告系列的商业实体，例如塔吉特和宜家家居。在西方，繁荣再加上媒体的胃口，已经全部迷恋室内设计，也反映了自恋的消费推动型社会。一方面，越来越多的公众形象设计产生出的有正面的民主的成果，这些设计能够在DIY网络站点上看到，并且像家庭百货那样的企业强调自力更生。这也可以更普遍的认为重新审议美中隐含的定价设计是一种社会现象，由其倾向去激励情况有所改善。另一方面，室内设计的通过人物例如菲利普斯塔克，玛莎斯图尔特和芭芭拉巴里的流行已经鼓励肤浅理解内部的注意力更多地集中在物体而不是对行为和相互作用的对象。在室内设计方面，所有最近的爆炸事件，仍然存在根本的保守的舞台设计，因为它是根深蒂固的安全性与舒适性的观念中。这种看法由于特殊行动而加剧了，例如，医疗和盛情款待。虽然这些企业了深入了解心理学，力学和经济学知识的特殊环境，但是它们还长期区别阻碍更有机结合的办法，内部的延伸架构，甚至外面的风景。一个显著的例外是设计和建筑公司的增加，增加了的支撑材料以及其在室内应用方面的专门的技术。同时，设计公司用持久性标识自己，并提升自己为环保主义者。一场用行动承担环境责任的活动正在开展。在过去的四十年间，人们努力使室内设计领域专业化并给予它与建筑平等的地位。在美国和加拿大，室内教育学会以前叫做教育研究基金会，讨论在学院以及大学里的室内设计教育以形成实践的标准。此外，国际工业设计会议把室内设计包含在其范围内，把它定义为是“智力性的专业，而非仅仅是交易或者一种娱乐服务”的一部分。然而，室内设计人员的教育仍然随着无标准教育而存在惊人的变数。因此，室内设计仍然被认为是对专家和业余人员都开放的领域。这种观念的形成和这个领域较短的历史以及更广阔的文化外力相互包含相互作用导致的全球化有关。原文：Interior DesignSusan YelavichInterior design embraces not only the decoration and furnishing of space, but also considerations of space planning, lighting, and programmatic issues pertaining to user behaviors, ranging from specific issues of accessibility to the nature of the activities to be conducted in the space. The hallmark of interior design today is a new elasticity in typologies, seen most dramatically in the domestication of commercial and public spaces. Interior design encompasses both the programmatic planning and physical treatment of interior space: the projection of its use and the nature of its furnishings and surfaces, that is, walls, floors, and ceilings. Interior design is distinguished from interior decoration in the scope of its purview. Decorators are primarily concerned with the selection of furnishings, while designers integrate the discrete elements of dcor into programmatic concerns of space and use. Interior designers generally practice collaboratively with architects on the interiors of spaces built from the ground up, but they also work independently, particularly in the case of renovations. There is also a strong history of architect-designed interiors, rooted in the concept of Gesamtkunstwerk, the total work of art, that came out of the Arts & Crafts movement of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. It is no accident that its strongest proponents (from Frank Lloyd Wright to Mies van der Rohe) extended their practices to include the realm of interiors during the nascency of the interior-design profession. Indeed, it was a defensive measure taken by architects who viewed formal intervention by an interior decorator or designer as a threat to the integrity of their aesthetic. Today, apart from strict modernists like Richard Meier who place a premium on homogeneity, architects who take on the role of interior designer (and their numbers are growing) are more likely to be eclectic in philosophy and practice, paralleling the twenty-first centurys valorization of plurality. Nonetheless, the bias against interior designers and the realm of the interior itself continues to persist. Critical discussions of the interior have been hampered by its popular perception as a container of ephemera. Furthermore, conventional views of the interior have been fraught with biases: class biases related to centuries-old associations with tradesmen and gender biases related to the depiction of the decorating profession as primarily the domain of women and gay men. As a result, the credibility of the interior as an expression of cultural values has been seriously impaired. However, the conditions and the light in which culture-at-large is understood are changing under the impact of globalization. The distinctions between “high” culture and “low” culture are dissipating in a more tolerant climate that encourages the cross-fertilization between the two poles. Likewise, there are more frequent instances of productive borrowings among architecture, design, and decoration, once considered exclusive domains. And while the fields of architecture, interior design, and interior decoration still have different educational protocols and different concentrations of emphasis, they are showing a greater mutuality of interest. Another way to think of this emergent synthesis is to substitute the triad of “architecture, interior design, and decoration” with “modernity, technology, and history.” One of the hallmarks of the postmodern era is a heightened awareness of the role of the past in shaping the present. In the interior, this manifests itself in a renewed interest in ornament, in evidence of craft and materiality, and in spatial complexities, all running parallel to the ongoing project of modernity. Even more significantly, there is a new elasticity in typologies. Today, the traditional typologies of the interiorhouse, loft, office, restaurant, and so onstrain to control their borders. Evidence of programmatic convergences can clearly be seen in public and commercial spaces that aspire to be both more user-friendly and consumer-conscious. Growing numbers of private hospitals (in competition for patients) employ amenities and form languages inspired by luxury spas; at the same time, many gyms and health clubs are adopting the clinical mien of medical facilities to convince their clients of the value of their services. The same relaxation of interior protocols can be seen in offices that co-opt the informal, live-work ethic of the artists loft, and in hotels that use the language (and contents) of galleries. Similarly, increasing numbers of grocery stores and bookstores include spaces and furniture for eating and socializing. Likewise, there is a new comfort with stylistic convergences in interiors that appropriate and recombine disparate quotations from design history. These are exemplified in spaces such as Rem Koolhaas Casa da Musica (2005) in Porto, Portugal (with its inventive use of traditional Portuguese tiles), and Herzog & de Meurons Walker Art Center (2005) in Minneapolis, Minnesota (where stylized acanthus-leaf patterns are used to mark gallery entrances). These interiors make an art out of hybridism. They do not simply mix and match period furnishings and styles, but refilter them through a contemporary lens. Another hallmark of the contemporary interior is the overt incorporation of narrative. Tightly themed environments persist in retail spaces such as Ralph Laurens clothing stores and in entertainment spaces like Las Vegas casinos. However, a more playful and less linear approach to narrative is increasingly common. Of all the typologies of the interior, the residence has been least affected by change, apart from ephemeral trends such as outdoor kitchens and palatial bathrooms. However, the narrative of the residence dominates interior design at large. It has become the catalyst for rethinking a host of spaces once firmly isolated from it, ranging from the secretarys cubicle, to the nurses station, to the librarians reading room. Considerations such as the accommodation of personal accessories in the work space, the use of color in hospitals, and the provision of couches in libraries are increasingly common, to cite just three examples. The domestication of such environments (with curtains and wallpaper, among other residential elements) provides more comfort, more reassurance, and more pleasure to domains formerly defined by institutional prohibitions and social exclusions. Unquestionably, these changes in public and commercial spaces are indebted to the liberation movements of the late 1960s. The battles fought against barriers of race, class, gender, and physical ability laid the groundwork for a larger climate of hospitality and accommodation. It is also possible to detect a wholly other agenda in the popularity of the residential model. The introduction of domestic amenities into commercial spaces, such as recreation spaces in office interiors, can also be construed as part of a wider attempt to put a more acceptable face on the workings of free-market capitalism. In this view, interior design dons the mask of entertainment. There is nothing new about the charade. Every interior is fundamentally a stage set. Nor is it particularly insidiousas long as the conceit is transparent. Danger surfaces, however, when illusion becomes delusionwhen design overcompensates for the realities of illness with patronizing sentiment, or when offices become surrogate apartments because of the relentless demands of a round-the-clock economy. In these instances, design relinquishes its potential to transform daily life in favor of what amounts to little more than a facile re-branding of space. Another force is driving the domestication of the interior and that is the enlarged public awareness of design and designers. There is a growing popular demand for design as amenity and status symbol, stimulated by the proliferation of shelter magazines, television shows devoted to home decorating, and the advertising campaigns of commercial entities such as Target and Ikea. In the Western world, prosperity, combined with the appetite of the media, has all but fetishized the interior, yielding yet another reflection of the narcissism of a consumer-driven society. On the one hand, there are positive, democratic outcomes of the growing public profile of design that can be seen in the rise of do-it-yourself web sites and enterprises like Home Depot that emphasize self-reliance. It can also be argued, more generally, that the reconsideration of beauty implicit in the valorization of design is an ameliorating social phenomenon by virtue of its propensity to inspire improvement. On the other hand, the popularization of interior design through personas such as Philippe Starck, Martha Stewart, and Barbara Barry has encouraged a superficial understanding of the interior that is more focused on objects than it is on behaviors and interactions among objects. For all the recent explosion of interest in interior design, it remains, however, a fundamentally conservative arena of design, rooted as it is in notions of enclosure, security, and comfort. This perception has been exacerbated by the growth of specialized practices focused, for example, on healthcare and hospitality. While such firms offer deep knowledge of the psychology, mechanics, and economies of particular environments, they also perpetuate distinctions that hinder a more integral approach to the interior as an extension of architecture and even the landscape outside. One notable exception is the growth of design and architecture firms accruing expertise in sustainable materials and their applications to the interior. At the same time that design firms are identifying themselves with sustainability and promoting themselves as environmentalists, a movement is building to incorporate environmental responsibility within normative practice. Over the past four decades, efforts have intensified to professionalize the field of interior design and to accord it a status equal to that of architecture. In the US and Canada the Council for Interior Design Accreditation, formerly known as FIDER, reviews interior design education programs at colleges and universities to regulate standards of practice. Furthermore, the International Council of Societies of Industrial Design (ICSID) embraces interior design within its purview, defining it as part of “intellectual profession, and not simply a trade or a service for enterprises.” Yet, the education of interior designers remains tremendously variable, with no uniformity of pedagogy. Hence, interior design continues to be perceived as an arena open to the specialist and the amateur. This perception is indicative of both the relatively short history of the profession itself and the broader cultural forces of inclusion and interactivity that mark a global society. 原文来源： Board of International Research in Design，Design Dictionary Perspectives on Design Terminology，Birkhuser Verlag AG 2008
展开阅读全文