當「歷史」碰上「設計」——重看「設計史或設計研究」的爭論，及其背後的歷史思維

When History Meets Design-Re-examining the Debate over 'Design History or Design Studies?' and Their Underling Historical Thoughts

雖然1970年代，設計史作為一門學術領域似乎於焉完成，但是伴隨著設計操作的日新月異，設計史的主體性始終處於流動的狀態，不斷引發質疑和討論。本文回顧了1990年代早期維克‧馬格林（Victor Margolin）與安得列‧霍梯（Andrian Forty）（及其有關學者）對於設計史主體性的辯論，發掘存在於爭議背後，兩者設計思維的差異。馬格林追溯建構設計史主體的早期著作：《現代設計先驅：從威廉‧摩理斯到華德‧葛羅庇斯》，認為派文斯納侷限於現代主義道德式的敘述，羈絆了設計史主體的擴張。因此主張以設計研究來取代設計史，使得新的研究課題、不同的研究取向，都能夠在以設計為中心匯集而成的共同領域上，進行學術研究的對話與積累，引導進一步發展的方向。但是，霍梯認為區分設計的良窳並非瑣碎無益，反而是提升設計品質的根本。其次，設計史經由和其他領域的跨界互動，逐漸浮現了新的研究視野。因此，劃分設計史的領域似乎是庸人自擾。兩人除了對於設計史的認識論和範疇界定有所歧異外，仍有較為正面的肯定之處：馬格林在批判派文斯納式的設計史觀同時，分開了設計與藝術的曖昧關係；霍梯在舉證反駁馬格林對設計史的誤解時，更將設計與社會脈絡接合在一起。兩人共同的焦慮與矛盾乃是來自於期望設計史能夠干預設計操作，所產生的不同考量。循此，吾人可以將後續議題轉向歷史研究和設計實踐兩者關係的討論；藉由反省過去設計發展的軌跡，迎向當下、乃至於未來科技演變所帶來的艱鉅挑戰。

Although design history has been an established academic discipline since the 1970s, its subject matter-'following design practices' is always fluctuating. This paper reviews the arguments between Victor Margolin and Adrian Forty（amongst other scholars） regarding design history in the early 1990s, exploring the disputes of their historical thoughts. Margolin retraced the primary writing, 'Pioneers of Modern Design: From William Morris to Walter Gropius', commenting that the modernist moralistic narration leashed the expanding of the area of design history. He purported that design studies should substitute for design history in order to gather a variety of issues and approaches, and therefore direct new developments. Whereas Forty, on the other hand, considered that judgements were still necessary in order to improve the quality of design; and that after cross-fertilization with other disciplines, many new visions in design history would be produced, deeming it needless to bother with the boundary of design history. Besides the inconsistencies of the epistemology and the category of design history, there are further positive aspects. In Margolin's critique of Pevsner's historical idea, he clarified the ambiguous relationship between design and art; and when Forty refuted Margolin, he articulated design and social contexts. They were both anxious and contradictory about how properly history influenced design. Therefore it is possible to pinpoint the debate of history research and design practice. By reflecting on design history's past trajectory, we can interface with the present and future challenges in design's technological transformation.