室內(nèi)設(shè)計 外文翻譯 外文文獻(xiàn) 英文文獻(xiàn)

《室內(nèi)設(shè)計 外文翻譯 外文文獻(xiàn) 英文文獻(xiàn)》由會員分享，可在線閱讀，更多相關(guān)《室內(nèi)設(shè)計 外文翻譯 外文文獻(xiàn) 英文文獻(xiàn)（8頁珍藏版）》請在裝配圖網(wǎng)上搜索。

1、譯文： 室內(nèi)設(shè)計 室內(nèi)設(shè)計不僅包括裝修及家具的空間，而且還考慮到空間規(guī)劃，燈光，與用戶行為有關(guān)的程序化問題，包括從具體問題的可及性到在空間中的活動的性質(zhì)。在商業(yè)和公共空間顯著的變化后，室內(nèi)設(shè)計如今的標(biāo)志是一個新的彈性類型學(xué)。 室內(nèi)設(shè)計不僅包括方案規(guī)劃也包括室內(nèi)空間的物理治療：預(yù)測其使用的性質(zhì)以及它的家具和表面，包括墻，地面，天花板。在職權(quán)范圍上，室內(nèi)設(shè)計有別于室內(nèi)裝修工程。裝修關(guān)心的是家具的選擇，然而設(shè)計者要把離散的裝飾元素整合成方案關(guān)注的空間和使用。室內(nèi)設(shè)計師在從底層向上的內(nèi)部的空間時間方面與與建筑師合作，但是他們?nèi)匀华?dú)立的工作，尤其在翻修的情況下。歷史上，植根于總體藝術(shù)作品的概念

2、，曾經(jīng)都是建筑師設(shè)計的?？傮w藝術(shù)作品的概念源于十九世紀(jì)末和二十世紀(jì)初的工藝美術(shù)運(yùn)動。其支持者（從弗蘭克勞埃德賴特到凡德羅）在室內(nèi)設(shè)計專業(yè)的起源期間延長其做法以包括內(nèi)飾領(lǐng)域行為并不是偶然的。事實上，這是一個建筑師采取的防御措施，建筑師們把室內(nèi)裝修或設(shè)計師的形式上的干預(yù)看作是對他們完整的藝術(shù)性的一種威脅。 如今，除了像理查德邁耶那樣的非常重視均勻性的現(xiàn)代主義者，扮演室內(nèi)設(shè)計師角色的建筑師（數(shù)量在增長）更有傾向于理論與實踐的折衷，并聯(lián)21世紀(jì)的定價多元化。盡管如此，對室內(nèi)設(shè)計師以及室內(nèi)設(shè)計領(lǐng)域的偏見持續(xù)存在。由于室內(nèi)被視為一個集裝箱的蜉蝣，從而阻礙了對室內(nèi)的批評性的討論。此外，對室內(nèi)的傳統(tǒng)觀點(diǎn)充滿

3、了偏見：階級偏見與百年歷史的協(xié)會商人有關(guān)，性別偏見與把裝飾行業(yè)描述成主要是婦女和男性同性戀的領(lǐng)域。因此，室內(nèi)設(shè)計作為文化價值的表達(dá)的信譽(yù)已被嚴(yán)重?fù)p壞。 然而，對文化大系統(tǒng)的理解在全球化的影響下一直在變化。在一個更寬容的環(huán)境中，鼓勵不同文化間的融合，高文化和低文化的區(qū)別被消除。同樣，有更頻繁的生產(chǎn)性借貸的事例發(fā)生在建筑，設(shè)計，裝修等曾經(jīng)被看作是專有領(lǐng)地的領(lǐng)域。并且建筑，室內(nèi)設(shè)計，室內(nèi)裝修領(lǐng)域仍然有不同的教育協(xié)議以及不同的關(guān)注重點(diǎn)，他們表現(xiàn)出更大的互相的興趣。 另一種考慮這種新興的合成的方法是用現(xiàn)代，技術(shù)和歷史替代建筑，室內(nèi)設(shè)計和裝修的三合一。后現(xiàn)代時代的特征之一是提高了對過去影響現(xiàn)在的角色的

4、認(rèn)識。在室內(nèi)，這表現(xiàn)在一個新的興趣飾品，工藝和重要性以及空間復(fù)雜性，所有平行于正在運(yùn)行的現(xiàn)代化的項目。 更重要的是，有一種新的彈性類型學(xué)。如今，傳統(tǒng)的室內(nèi)類型例如房子，倉庫，辦公室，餐廳等，盡力控制它們的邊界。方案收斂的表現(xiàn)能在公共場合以及商業(yè)空間被清晰的發(fā)現(xiàn)，渴望更加界面友好和有消費(fèi)意識。越來越多的私立醫(yī)院（競爭患者）雇用設(shè)施并形成靈感來自豪華溫泉的語言；同時，許多體育館以及健身俱樂部采用臨床醫(yī)療設(shè)施以向客戶介紹自己服務(wù)的價值。同樣的室內(nèi)協(xié)議能夠在辦公室中發(fā)現(xiàn)，指派非正式的，現(xiàn)場工作理論的藝術(shù)家的倉庫。在旅館使用美術(shù)館的語言。相似的，越來越多的雜貨店和書店包括用于飲食和交際的空間以及家具。

5、 同時，有一種新的舒適的在室內(nèi)風(fēng)格上趨同，從設(shè)計的歷史上私有和重組不同的報價。這些室內(nèi)布局是藝術(shù)的混合，它們不是簡單的混合以及匹配家具和風(fēng)格，而是通過當(dāng)代的鏡頭進(jìn)行過濾?，F(xiàn)代室內(nèi)布局的另一個標(biāo)志是敘事的公開結(jié)合。在零售空間堅持嚴(yán)格的環(huán)境主題，例如拉爾夫勞倫服裝店和像拉斯維加斯的賭場那樣的娛樂場所。然而，更好玩的小線性辦法說明越來越普遍。 在所有的室內(nèi)類型學(xué)中，住宅已經(jīng)被改變所輕微的影響，除了短暫的趨勢，如室外廚房和浴室的魅力。然而，住宅設(shè)計占據(jù)室內(nèi)設(shè)計全面的主導(dǎo)地位。它已經(jīng)成為反思的催化劑，使得一系列空間堅定的從中分離出來，從秘書室到護(hù)士站再到圖書館的閱覽室。辦公室的個人住宿的考慮，醫(yī)院色

6、彩的使用，圖書館提供沙發(fā)正變的很平常，僅僅引用這三個例子。這種環(huán)境（與窗簾，壁紙，除其他住宅要素）為以前的地域提供了更多的舒適性，安心，愉悅，而這是以前慣例所禁止和社會所排除的。毫無疑問的，這些公共領(lǐng)域以及商業(yè)空間的變化是由20世紀(jì)60年代的解放運(yùn)動帶來的。這些運(yùn)動反對種族，階級，性別的障礙，以及作為更大氣候以及好客和住宿基礎(chǔ)的身體能力。 在流行的住宅模式中發(fā)現(xiàn)一個完全不同的議程也是可能的。把國內(nèi)設(shè)施投入到商業(yè)空間，例如辦公室室內(nèi)的娛樂空間也可以解釋為一個更廣泛的嘗試的一部分，嘗試把更容易既接受的氛圍引入自由資本主義市場。從這點(diǎn)上來看，室內(nèi)設(shè)計肩負(fù)著娛樂的任務(wù)，沒有什么新的把戲。每一個室內(nèi)布

7、局都是舞臺設(shè)置的基礎(chǔ)。它也不是特別隱匿-只要自負(fù)是透明的。然而，當(dāng)幻想變成妄想，也就是當(dāng)為疾病的現(xiàn)實而設(shè)計補(bǔ)償過度時，或者當(dāng)由于全天候經(jīng)濟(jì)的無情的要求使得辦公室變成代理人的公寓時，這是危險的表現(xiàn)。在這些情況下，設(shè)計放棄其潛力改變?nèi)粘Ｉ?，金額略多于一個淺顯的重新命名空間。 另外一種力量正在推動室內(nèi)設(shè)計的演化，擴(kuò)大公眾對設(shè)計以及設(shè)計師的認(rèn)識。設(shè)計作為市容和地位的象征的需求在逐漸增長，受住房雜志擴(kuò)散的影響，電視節(jié)目專門討論家庭裝飾以及廣告系列的商業(yè)實體，例如塔吉特和宜家家居。在西方，繁榮再加上媒體的胃口，已經(jīng)全部迷戀室內(nèi)設(shè)計，也反映了自戀的消費(fèi)推動型社會。一方面，越來越多的公眾形象設(shè)計產(chǎn)生出的有

8、正面的民主的成果，這些設(shè)計能夠在DIY網(wǎng)絡(luò)站點(diǎn)上看到，并且像家庭百貨那樣的企業(yè)強(qiáng)調(diào)自力更生。這也可以更普遍的認(rèn)為重新審議美中隱含的定價設(shè)計是一種社會現(xiàn)象，由其傾向去激勵情況有所改善。另一方面，室內(nèi)設(shè)計的通過人物例如菲利普斯塔克，瑪莎斯圖爾特和芭芭拉巴里的流行已經(jīng)鼓勵膚淺理解內(nèi)部的注意力更多地集中在物體而不是對行為和相互作用的對象。 在室內(nèi)設(shè)計方面，所有最近的爆炸事件，仍然存在根本的保守的舞臺設(shè)計，因為它是根深蒂固的安全性與舒適性的觀念中。這種看法由于特殊行動而加劇了，例如，醫(yī)療和盛情款待。雖然這些企業(yè)了深入了解心理學(xué)，力學(xué)和經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)知識的特殊環(huán)境，但是它們還長期區(qū)別阻礙更有機(jī)結(jié)合的辦法，內(nèi)部的

9、延伸架構(gòu)，甚至外面的風(fēng)景。一個顯著的例外是設(shè)計和建筑公司的增加，增加了的支撐材料以及其在室內(nèi)應(yīng)用方面的專門的技術(shù)。同時，設(shè)計公司用持久性標(biāo)識自己，并提升自己為環(huán)保主義者。一場用行動承擔(dān)環(huán)境責(zé)任的活動正在開展。 在過去的四十年間，人們努力使室內(nèi)設(shè)計領(lǐng)域?qū)I(yè)化并給予它與建筑平等的地位。在美國和加拿大，室內(nèi)教育學(xué)會以前叫做教育研究基金會，討論在學(xué)院以及大學(xué)里的室內(nèi)設(shè)計教育以形成實踐的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。此外，國際工業(yè)設(shè)計會議把室內(nèi)設(shè)計包含在其范圍內(nèi)，把它定義為是“智力性的專業(yè)，而非僅僅是交易或者一種娛樂服務(wù)”的一部分。 然而，室內(nèi)設(shè)計人員的教育仍然隨著無標(biāo)準(zhǔn)教育而存在驚人的變數(shù)。因此，室內(nèi)設(shè)計仍然被認(rèn)為是對專

10、家和業(yè)余人員都開放的領(lǐng)域。這種觀念的形成和這個領(lǐng)域較短的歷史以及更廣闊的文化外力相互包含相互作用導(dǎo)致的全球化有關(guān)。 原文： Interior Design Susan Yelavich Interior design embraces not only the decoration and furnishing of space, but also considerations of space planning, lighting, and programmatic issues pertaining to user behaviors, rang

11、ing 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 program

12、matic 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

13、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

14、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 (

15、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 th

16、e 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 ce

17、nturys 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

18、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

19、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 “l(fā)ow” culture are dissipating in a more tolerant climate that encourages the cross-fertilization betwe

20、en 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 differen

21、t 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

22、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, ther

23、e is a new elasticity in typologies. Today, the traditional typologies of the interior—house, loft, office, restaurant, and so on—strain 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 c

24、onsumer-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 service

25、s. 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 a

26、nd 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 P

27、ortuguese 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 thr

28、ough 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 ap

29、proach 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

30、 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

31、 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 a

32、nd 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.

33、 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 workin

34、gs 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 insidious—as long as the conceit is transparent. Danger surfaces, however, when illusion becomes del

35、usion—when 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 amount

36、s 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 m

37、agazines, 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

38、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 reconsidera

39、tion 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 superf

40、icial 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, secur

41、ity, 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 hind

42、er 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

43、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 accor

44、d 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

45、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 desi

46、gn 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. 原文來源： Board of International Research in Design，Design Dictionary Perspectives on Design Terminology，Birkhuser Verlag AG 2008