Nanjing Tech University

毕业设计英文资料翻译

Translation of the English Documents for Graduation Design

原文：Meanings of designed spaces

Since the accession of design knowledge to the ranks of modern university departments, the built environment, which represents one of the main areas of study of this knowledge, has endured a huge fragmentation according to the analytical model of modern inquiry. It too finds itself fragmented into several disciplinary fields,most often erected into competing silos:product design, graphic design, interior design, architectural design, urban design, landscape design, and so on. This parceling of logic in itself can be quite beneficial to the extent that it ensures a certain depth of thinking when the time comes to consider objects of limited and very specific knowledge. Nonetheless, in its most basic and essential aspects, there is one object of knowledge that continues to elude the understanding and reasoning of all these disciplinary silos. it continues to stand as an obstacle and challenge to all the leak ages of what Henri Raymond (1984) calls'spatial rationality.' We refer, of course, to the occupant, the individual who is commonly called the user of the built world:

The occupant remains at the heart of architecture: as a negative, refusing to dwell in theory, and as obstinacy,attaching himself obstinately to housing models that architectural reason has condemned. But he is also at the heart of the problem of spatial rationality:Should we plan without the occupant?How should we plan with him? In all of this, the occupants situation and skill can play a major role; we may be permitted to think that this is one the future adventures of reason. (pp.252-253)

The Users Obstinacy Refusal to Dwell in Theory

For the purposes of this essay, consider a very ordinary urban occurrence: An individual, a city dweller, strolls along Sainte-Catherine Street in Montreal, Canada, on a sunny autumn afternoon and, every so often, stops in front of a store window to examine and admire the objects displayed.Two questions, existential at the very least,challenge design disciplines. First, in which disciplinary or professional boundaries does this person find himself? Is it in the product designers, the graphic designers,the interior designers, the architects, the urban designers, or the landscape architects? Each of these professionals would seem to have a right to claim that this person is truly within his field of expertise:Each would say,Hes my user.' But does the person in front of the store window really care about knowing which disciplinary field he finds himself in, or at what moment he crosses over from one to the other? Yet, at that very moment, that actual experience or slice of life that the person in our example is undergoing in front of the store window is not fragmented into various experiences. The person is not telling himself, Im living an architectural experience, now suddenly /171 going through a manufactured object experience, and now Im off on an urban experience, and so on.

These same questions can be asked in the same way for many other situations:a person seated at a table on a bistro terrace, or in an office at the top of a high-rise m New York City or Singapore with an inverted view of the city; a driver of a car or a city bus who manoeuvres through the streets of the city every day; a person waiting for the bus in a bus shelter; or a glazier working to repair part of the stained glass in a church, or perhaps even to repair the outside of a shop window on Sainte Catherine Street in Montreal. In fact,these very ordinary urban occurrences in which our city dweller, or Homo Urbanus(Paquot, 1990), engages constitute a comprehensive or a total situation, according to the meaning of the concept advanced by Maurice Merleau-Ponty in his famous phenomenology of the body (Merleau-Ponty,1962). The experience that this city dweller lives is not fragmented at all; conversely,it is integral and whole. In an editorial on an issue of the journal Urbanisme devoted specifically to the theme of the user, Thierry Paquot readily points out and drives home this whole and total condition: He explains that the user 'is first and foremost a human being, a mortal who exists,there, and tries to enable the plurality of his ego to express itself without accepting to have his personality parcelled out and broken down into tiny fragments. The user remains whole and refuses to divide himself up and play an infinite number of roles. This unity confers on him his identity and enables him, at all times and in all places, to be a user of the world' (Paquot,1999, p. 51).

If our users life experience is a total one,what idea have all these design disciplines come to respectively about this person who still lays no claim to any disciplinary field? Do they have or share a common conception of the users human condition?(Arendt, 1958) Or instead do they hold different but complementary views? I would venture to say here that the user constitutes a phenomenon that, in essence, escapes disciplinary logic: The user is a transdisciplinary phenomenon, crossing all these disciplines without any one of them being able to claim complete right of ownership to understanding and acquiring all the issues that might flow out of each of the professional design practices. This complexity,which characterizes the phenomenon of the user, is the true difficulty and presents an obstacle and a challenge to understand know: The object of thought is, by principle,always superior to the thought process that attempts to un

剩余内容已隐藏，支付完成后下载完整资料

Nanjing Tech University

毕业设计英文资料翻译

Translation of the English Documents for Graduation Design

学生姓名： 鲍争远

学 号： 1715160120

所在学院： 艺术设计学院

专 业： 环境设计

指导老师: 张安华

2019年 12 月 15日

原文：Meanings of designed spaces

Since the accession of design knowledge to the ranks of modern university departments, the built environment, which represents one of the main areas of study of this knowledge, has endured a huge fragmentation according to the analytical model of modern inquiry. It too finds itself fragmented into several disciplinary fields,most often erected into competing silos:product design, graphic design, interior design, architectural design, urban design, landscape design, and so on. This parceling of logic in itself can be quite beneficial to the extent that it ensures a certain depth of thinking when the time comes to consider objects of limited and very specific knowledge. Nonetheless, in its most basic and essential aspects, there is one object of knowledge that continues to elude the understanding and reasoning of all these disciplinary silos. it continues to stand as an obstacle and challenge to all the leak ages of what Henri Raymond (1984) calls'spatial rationality.' We refer, of course, to the occupant, the individual who is commonly called the user of the built world:

The occupant remains at the heart of architecture: as a negative, refusing to dwell in theory, and as obstinacy,attaching himself obstinately to housing models that architectural reason has condemned. But he is also at the heart of the problem of spatial rationality:Should we plan without the occupant?How should we plan with him? In all of this, the occupants situation and skill can play a major role; we may be permitted to think that this is one the future adventures of reason. (pp.252-253)

The Users Obstinacy Refusal to Dwell in Theory

For the purposes of this essay, consider a very ordinary urban occurrence: An individual, a city dweller, strolls along Sainte-Catherine Street in Montreal, Canada, on a sunny autumn afternoon and, every so often, stops in front of a store window to examine and admire the objects displayed.Two questions, existential at the very least,challenge design disciplines. First, in which disciplinary or professional boundaries does this person find himself? Is it in the product designers, the graphic designers,the interior designers, the architects, the urban designers, or the landscape architects? Each of these professionals would seem to have a right to claim that this person is truly within his field of expertise:Each would say,Hes my user.' But does the person in front of the store window really care about knowing which disciplinary field he finds himself in, or at what moment he crosses over from one to the other? Yet, at that very moment, that actual experience or slice of life that the person in our example is undergoing in front of the store window is not fragmented into various experiences. The person is not telling himself, Im living an architectural experience, now suddenly /171 going through a manufactured object experience, and now Im off on an urban experience, and so on.

These same questions can be asked in the same way for many other situations:a person seated at a table on a bistro terrace, or in an office at the top of a high-rise m New York City or Singapore with an inverted view of the city; a driver of a car or a city bus who manoeuvres through the streets of the city every day; a person waiting for the bus in a bus shelter; or a glazier working to repair part of the stained glass in a church, or perhaps even to repair the outside of a shop window on Sainte Catherine Street in Montreal. In fact,these very ordinary urban occurrences in which our city dweller, or Homo Urbanus(Paquot, 1990), engages constitute a comprehensive or a total situation, according to the meaning of the concept advanced by Maurice Merleau-Ponty in his famous phenomenology of the body (Merleau-Ponty,1962). The experience that this city dweller lives is not fragmented at all; conversely,it is integral and whole. In an editorial on an issue of the journal Urbanisme devoted specifically to the theme of the user, Thierry Paquot readily points out and drives home this whole and total condition: He explains that the user 'is first and foremost a human being, a mortal who exists,there, and tries to enable the plurality of his ego to express itself without accepting to have his personality parcelled out and broken down into tiny fragments. The user remains whole and refuses to divide himself up and play an infinite number of roles. This unity confers on him his identity and enables him, at all times and in all places, to be a user of the world' (Paquot,1999, p. 51).

If our users life experience is a total one,what idea have all these design disciplines come to respectively about this person who still lays no claim to any disciplinary field? Do they have or share a common conception of the users human condition?(Arendt, 1958) Or instead do they hold different but complementary views? I would venture to say here that the user constitutes a phenomenon that, in essence, escapes disciplinary logic: The user is a transdisciplinary phenomenon, crossing all these disciplines without any one of them being able to claim complete right of ownership to understanding and acquiring all the issues that might flow out of each of the professional design practices. This complexity,which characterizes the phenomenon of the user, is the true difficulty and presents an obstacle and a challenge to understand know: The object of thought is, by principle,always superior to the thought process that attempts to un

剩余内容已隐藏，支付完成后下载完整资料

资料编号：[245489]，资料为PDF文档或Word文档，PDF文档可免费转换为Word