And to Think I Saw It @ MoMA!

And to Think I Saw It @ MoMA!

 http://cn.tmagazine.com/design/20131220/t20moma/en-us/

The DetailsBy JULIE LASKYDecember 20, 2013

Bellflower lamp by Wieki Somers (2007).

Courtesy of the Museum of Modern Art, New York

Posted above the doorway of an exhibition at the Museum of Modern Art is a question raised in 1911 by the painter Wassily Kandinsky: “Must we not then renounce the object altogether, throw it to the winds and instead lay bare the purely abstract?”

The quote introduces “Inventing Abstraction: 1910-1925,” about the birth of nonrepresentational art. But it could easily migrate downstairs three floors to “Applied Design,” a show of works from MoMA’s design collection that opened on Saturday and will be on view through January 2014.

Organized by Paola Antonelli, senior curator of architecture and design at the museum, with Kate Carmody, a curatorial assistant, and Paul Galloway, supervisor of the museum’s Study Center, “Applied Design” is a bold bracketing of furnishings, tools, graphics and games that challenge what we imagine design to be. Unlike the streamlined chairs, automobiles and utensils that are staples of MoMA’s collection, most of the roughly 100 items displayed here will never be found on eBay. But you can see them in video arcades and biotechnology labs and even on the keypads of communications devices.

Ms. Antonelli has roamed this unconventional turf in previous MoMA shows. “Design and the Elastic Mind” (2008), for instance, explored the productive partnership between design and science in works like BioWall, a lacy fiberglass partition by the London design studio Loop.pH, which was formed from mathematically derived shapes and woven with living plants. “Talk to Me” (2011) opened a window onto the increasingly complicated relationship between people and machines; its many engrossing examples included the Artificial Biological Clock designed by Revital Cohen, a prototype for a device that collates online data from a woman’s doctor, therapist and bank manager to determine the right time for her to have a child.

Artificial Biological Clock by Revital Cohen (2008). The object collates a variety of data to determine a woman’s optimal time to bear a child. 

Courtesy of the Museum of Modern Art, New York

Both of these works can be found in “Applied Design,” where they are cleanly displayed and easier to study than in the rich thickets of their prior installations. They are joined not just by companions from those earlier shows but also by other recent additions to the permanent collection.

In an audacious stroke, Ms. Antonelli acquired 14 video games for the museum last fall, including Pac-Man, Tetris, Myst and Canabalt. They’re installed in housings of utter sobriety along three walls of this exhibition. Visitors are invited to play several of the games and watch samples of the elaborate digital worlds constructed over time in others.

And posted at the rear of the gallery is the “@” symbol, which Ms. Antonelli brought to MoMA with much fanfare two years ago. The mark dates at least from the Middle Ages and was long used by merchants notating orders of commercial goods sold at a particular price. What MoMA “owns” is a typographical version of the symbol adopted by Ray Tomlinson in 1971 while he was designing the first e-mail system developed by the United States government.

Ms. Antonelli is less interested in the form of the mark than its role in creating global networks. Like video games, the @ symbol is our passport to enter the digital realm, at the border between flesh and technology. Ms. Antonelli sees design potential in “the space between human and digital,” she noted last week. This is the frontier of science fiction where bodies are augmented by empowering prosthetics — the scenarios of “The Six Million Dollar Man” and the 1999 David Cronenberg film “eXistenZ.” Except Ms. Antonelli believes that such clumsy enhancements will ultimately evolve into a seamless interface between human and digital, with the mind as controller.

If only the label “Applied Design” communicated the excitement of that vision. Usually, Ms. Antonelli dreams up inspired titles for her shows, but the name “Applied Design” is mysteriously drab and even redundant: design by almost any definition serves some practical end. What does “applied” mean for work that was always presumably intended for use?

Ms. Antonelli said she was thinking about a future when the design field will be subdivided, like physics, into theoretical and applied branches. (That future is within sight, one should add; even now, designers once known for creating cold, hard objects are rebranding themselves as “innovation strategists” who produce ideas rather than things.) At the same time, she said, she was riffing on an old term for design: “applied art.”

Fundamentally, however, the title refers to the many arenas in which designers are active. Ms. Antonelli hasn’t abandoned the object, but she is keen to show it as an outgrowth of open-ended technologies like 3-D printing and conceptual models like biomimicry, where design is patterned on nature.

On view, for example, is the Lily Impeller, a flowing hunk of stainless steel that Jayden D. Harman, an inventor and entrepreneur, modeled on the Fibonacci spiral. The shape, which curls like a nautilus shell, allows the device to circulate millions of gallons of water efficiently in municipal water systems.

Lily Impeller by Jayden D. Harman (1996). 

Courtesy of the Museum of Modern Art, New York

It’s a gorgeous object. “I want to remind people of the importance of elegance: the fact that beauty should not be costlier or harder to find than nonbeauty,” Ms. Antonelli said of the many visually compelling displays in the show, including lacy textiles from the Dutch studio Freedom of Creation made by rapid-prototyping technology and a floor lamp by the British designer Paul Cocksedge that is effectively a big fiber-optic strand. People who stop to admire such objects will be poised to think about “a world of very serious manufacturing and materials considerations,” she said. “They seduce you with their form, then transport you into the future of design.”

And what if those seductions lead not to the future but to a dead end of artistic self-indulgence? The kind of object that looks better on paper (or in a museum setting) than in practice?

That’s the charge against one of the star exhibits, Mine Kafon, an instrument designed to float across fields and detonate buried land mines. Created by Massoud Hassani, an Afghan, as a student project at Design Academy Eindhoven in the Netherlands, Mine Kafon would seem above reproach: it’s made inexpensively of recycled materials; it’s powered by a renewable energy source, the wind; it promises to save lives; it can be easily repaired when damaged; and with its resemblance to a fluffy dandelion, it’s a visual poem. Sitting in the corner of an exhibition space, it commands serious attention, even without the accompanying video that shows it in action.

But Marc Vlemmings, a journalist in the Netherlands, is a critic of the invention. Debating its merits in the Dutch design magazine Items, he argued that Mine Kafon is a prototype that hasn’t been tested and refined sufficiently to earn its plaudits (not least of which is a place in MoMA’s permanent collection). He was rankled by the premise of a minesweeper following an erratic, wind-driven path rather than a systematic program for clearing the weapons. “The Mine Kafon provides inhabitants of a mine-infested area with a false sense of security,” he said.

When told of the objection, Ms. Antonelli countered: “Sometimes there are hero objects that sensitize the world. I never thought that it was tested and ready to be deployed, but I thought that the concept was so strong, so convincing and so powerful, even because of the connection to the designer’s personal history, that it was enough for us.”

Still, the idea of heroic yet possibly ineffective design would have disturbed some of Ms. Antonelli’s predecessors at MoMA. Much modern design is based on the principle that objects that perform wonderfully (whether paper clips or BMWs) can’t help looking wonderful, whereas objects that fail to work bear the aesthetic mark of their ineptitude.

Mathieu Lehanneur, Andrea Air Purifier (2009).

Courtesy of the Museum of Modern Art, New York

History has proved this maxim wrong many times, but never so persuasively as in the age of the computer chip, when the relationship between appearance and performance has become increasingly irrelevant. Now, tiny microprocessors govern the effectiveness of many designs. Form and function have undergone a rancorous divorce and frequently occupy separate quarters of the same objects.

But no matter what activity churns in the silicon brain of a design, a museum exhibition is still compelled to make it appealing. If there are heroics in this show, they lie in Ms. Antonelli’s willingness to pursue design down slippery corridors into challenging places like molecular biology and five-dimensional space. Her interest in design as a response to new technologies and social conditions — a promoter of experience rather than an object to be passively considered, even in the formal precincts of a museum — is in step with the way design is being executed in the world.

Ultimately, she may expand the definition of design so far that it explodes, but will that matter? She’s calling a messy, restless, enthralling discipline exactly as she sees it. Maybe it’s time to think of another name for design — or several.

MoMA大無畏地重新定義「設計」

應用設計JULIE LASKY2013年12月20日

維奇·薩默斯設計的風鈴草檯燈（2007）。

Courtesy of the Museum of Modern Art, New York

在紐約現代藝術博物館(the Museum of Modern Art, MoMA)一間展廳的大門正上方，貼着畫家瓦西里•康定斯基(Wassily Kandinsky)在1911年時提出的一個問題：「難道我們必須同所有現實之物絕裂，將其徹底拋棄，轉而去揭示純粹的抽象意象嗎？」

這一問題，將我們帶入一場關於非寫實藝術誕生的展覽：「發明抽象之物：1910-1925」。不過，它又很容易讓人聯想到三層樓之下的另一個展覽：「應用設計」。展覽於周六（3月23日——譯註）開幕，直到2014年1月，都可看到這批MoMA收藏的設計作品。

「應用設計」的策展人，包括博物館內建築與設計館的資深館長葆拉· 安東內利(Paola Antonelli)、館長助理凱特·卡莫迪(Kate Carmody)和博物館研究中心主管保羅·加洛韋(Paul Galloway)策劃。展覽中包括了一系列大膽的設計：傢具、工具、圖畫和挑戰我們想像力的遊戲。與流線型的椅子、汽車和器皿這些MoMA藏品中的主流 設計不同的是，「應用設計」展出的這大約100件藏品，大部分都是在易趣網(eBay)上買不到的。不過，你可以在投幣式錄像遊戲廳、生物技術實驗室甚至 通訊裝置的小鍵盤上看到它們。

安東內利仔細梳理了一番博物館此前在這片非傳統領域舉辦的展覽。例 如2008年的「設計與彈性思維展」，探索了設計與科學之間富有成效的夥伴關係，其中有像由倫敦設計工作室Loop.pH設計的生態牆(BioWall) 這樣的作品。這面帶花邊的玻璃纖維隔斷上纏繞着植物，其形狀還是通過數學推導計算出來的。而2001年舉辦的「對我說」則開啟了一扇窗，讓我們得以一窺人 類與機器之間日益複雜的關係，其中引人入勝的藏品包括萊維塔·科恩(Revital Cohen)設計的人造生物鐘。這款裝置雛形通過整理某位女士的醫生、治療師及其銀行經理提供的在線數據，就能分析出她的最佳孕期。

萊維塔·科恩設計的人造生物鐘（2008）。這款裝置通過整理某位女士的各項數據，就能分析出她懷小孩的最佳時間。

Courtesy of the Museum of Modern Art, New York

這兩件藏品，都可以在「應用設計展」上找到。與其之前錯綜複雜的展位相比，現在它們被簡單利落地展示在這裡，更加便於觀摩。與它們一道展出的不僅有此前展覽上露過面的作品，還有最近才被納入永久性收藏的其他藏品。

去年秋天，安東內利突發奇想，為博物館購置了14款電子遊戲，包括 吃豆人(pac-man)、俄羅斯方塊(tetris)、神秘島(myst)和屋頂狂奔(Canabalt)。這些遊戲在每個傳統展廳里都佔據了三面牆的 位置。參觀者會被邀請來試玩其中一些遊戲，並觀看另一些遊戲里逐漸展現出來的精巧的數字世界。

展廳的後方貼着一個「@」的標誌，兩年前，安東內利在熱熱鬧鬧的歡 迎儀式中把它迎了回來。這個標誌的歷史至少可以追溯到中世紀，那時的商人們用此標誌記錄某些特定售價商品的訂單。現代藝術博物館「擁有」的這件印刷品，是 1971年美國政府開發第一個電子郵件系統時，雷·湯姆林森(Ray Tomlinson)為他們設計的。

比起該標誌的外形，安東內利對其在創建全球網絡的過程中所扮演的角 色更感興趣。跟電子遊戲一樣，@標誌是我們進入數字王國的通行證，是現實社會與數字王國間的邊境線。上周，安東內利說她看到了「人類和數字之間」存在的設 計潛能。這裡是科幻小說的前沿陣地，人體可以通過修復術不斷被強化，就像《無敵金剛》(The Six Million Dollar Man)和大衛·柯南伯格(David Cronenberg)1999年執導的電影《感官遊戲》(eXistenZ)中表現的那樣。不過安東內利相信，那種笨拙的強化方式最終還是會逐漸演變成 由思想控制的自由轉換。

要是「應用設計」這個意象也能像她的上述構想一樣激動人心就好了。 通常，安東內利都會藉助靈感，為自己的展覽取個引人入勝的名字，可「應用設計」這個詞實在單調，甚至還有些多餘：無論在哪種定義下，「設計」幾乎總是有一 定實用性的。那麼，將這些本來就是要被人使用的東西為「應用」，有什麼意思呢？

安東內利說，她在思索的是，未來，設計領域將會進一步劃分，就像物 理學產生出了理論分支和應用分支一樣（應該補充一句，這樣的未來指日可待；即便是現在，那些曾經以冰冷堅硬的作品而聞名的設計師們如今也在重塑自己的形 象，向著創造理念而非實物的「創新型設計師」去轉型了）。同時她還說，她所再現的不過是一個設計界的老詞：「實用美術」(applied art)。

然而在根本上，這個名字還是能體現出很多設計師們活躍的領域的。安東內利並沒有拋棄實物，但她也渴望展示那些具有「開放式結尾」的新技術所衍生出的作品，比如3D打印，和以自然為範例的生物擬態概念模型。

比如說，展覽上一件叫「莉莉葉輪」(Lily Impeller)的作品。這是一塊平滑無瑕的鋼製品，是發明家兼創業家傑登·D·哈曼(Jayden D. Harman)模仿斐波納契數列做出來的。在城市供水系統中，其酷似鸚鵡螺殼的外形可以讓該裝置有效地循環數百萬加侖的水。

傑登·D·哈曼設計的「莉莉葉輪」。（1996）

Courtesy of the Museum of Modern Art, New York

這是件非常迷人的作品。「我想提醒大家，優雅的外形也是很重要的： 事實上，美的東西不應該比丑的東西更昂貴，或更難尋。」 關於展覽上許多外觀極具吸引力的展品，安東內利說出了這番話。這樣的展品包括荷蘭Freedom of Creation工作室用快速成型技術(rapid-prototyping technology)做出的蕾絲花邊紡織品，以及英國設計師保羅·考克斯基(Paul Cocksedge)設計的落地燈。其實，這盞燈就是一大束光學纖維。駐足欣賞這些展品的人，其思緒都將沉浸在「一個充滿對製造與材料的嚴肅思考的世 界，」她說，「它們會先用外形吸引你，然後再將你帶入設計的未來世界。」

要是這些吸引力沒有將我們帶入未來，卻反而走進了藝術肆意妄為的死胡同怎麼辦？要是這種東西放在紙面上（或博物館裡）看起來遠比在實際中好得多怎麼辦？

Mine Kafon就是這樣一件備受爭議的裝置。它由阿富汗人馬蘇德·哈桑尼(Massoud Hassani)設計，可以滾過某片地區，引爆其間所埋的地雷。這件完成於荷蘭艾恩德霍芬設計學院(Design Academy Eindhoven)的學生習作看起來似乎十全十美：它由便宜的可再生材料製成；利用的是可再生能源——風能；它可以拯救生命；一旦損壞，也很容易修理； 而且，它酷似毛絨絨的蒲公英，美好得如同一首視覺詩篇。即便沒有同步錄像，靜置於展廳一角的它還是吸引了強烈關注。

不過，荷蘭記者馬克·弗萊明(Marc Vlemmings)是這個新發明的批評者。他在荷蘭設計雜誌《物件》(Items)上，就其優點展開了爭辯，說Mine Kafon是件沒有經過測試和足夠改進的樣品，當不起如此盛讚（尤其不應躋身MoMA的永久收藏品）。一想到這台掃雷裝置利用的是一種不穩定的風力驅動， 而不是一套系統的武器清除程序，他就難受得要死。「Mine Kafon帶給雷區內的居民一種安全錯覺。」他說。

得知這一反對意見後，安東內利反擊道：「有時，一些大無畏的設計一經問世就令全世界觸動。我從不認為它已經測試完畢，隨時可以投入使用。但我覺得，這個理念太強大、太有說服力了，即便設計者資歷尚淺，對我們來說，它的分量也已足夠。」

不過，這種大無畏卻很可能沒什麼功用的設計，可能會困擾安東內利在MoMA的某些前輩。許多現代設計遵循着這樣一個原則：性能好的東西（無論是曲別針還是寶馬車）外形都不會不好看，而無法發揮功用的東西往往看起來也同樣蠢笨。

馬修·雷漢尼設計的Andrea空氣凈化器。（2009）

Courtesy of the Museum of Modern Art, New York

歷史已經多次證明了這條「定理」的錯誤性，但都從未像這個電腦芯片的時代一般有說服力。在這個時代，外表和性能已經越來越不相關。如今，小小一個微處理器就可有效地控制許多設計。形狀和功能在經歷了一場積怨頗深的決裂之後，常常會各自佔據同一物品的不同部分。

但是，無論一件設計的「硅腦」如何運轉，博物館裡的一場展覽還是不 由得要讓它看起來引人入勝。要說這場展覽有什麼大無畏的元素，那就是安東內利在具有挑戰性的領域內追尋設計靈感的意願，比如分子生物學和五維空間等領域。 她在設計上的興趣所在，是其對新科技和社會狀況的一種回應，它與設計在現實世界中如何被實踐，總是步調一致的。即便在博物館這樣一個刻板保守的區域里，她 也希望設計能夠成為一個激發人們獲得體驗的契機，而非一件被動的展品而已。

最終，她或許會將設計的定義拓展得過了頭，但那又有什麼關係呢？她所呼喚的也是她所深信的——一個凌亂、躁動又迷人的秩序。也許，是時候給設計再想一個、或者幾個新名字了。

本文最初發表於2013年3月7日。
翻譯：梅靜