liubibop

造形美學的第一堂課..老師就播了一小時的蔣勳訪談節目..內容大概是說生活中處處留意用心..不疾不緩處處都是美..其中印象最深的是他說.."閒"這個中國字很有趣..你多久沒有在家門口抬頭看看天空的月亮..這就是閒;另外還有"忙"這個字..心+亡..心死掉了就是忙..訪談中所講的內容幾乎就是他書中所描述的由食 衣 住 行觀點來論美..我覺得對於現代人來說..當然可以照他所說的體會生活周遭不平凡的美..只是要用心.."天地有大美而不言"..但是~~~~~生活呀 !!

上完第一堂課原本以為造形美學是要講這麼虛幻的美..上了三次課之後..老師突然講今天有作業..就發了一份內容密密麻麻的英文報告給我們..說在職班比較忙..給我們兩星期看..以下就是造形美學課教授叫我們看的文章..當然是不會有Dr.eye的紅字翻譯..但是~~沒有翻譯鬼看的懂呀!!

不過~~就算有翻譯~~應該還是只有鬼看的懂吧!!

Abstract Dr.eye: 摘要

This paper reviews how scholars within “aesthetic managment” have critiqued mainstream,marketing-led Design Management. Dr.eye: 在感官的managmenthave內的學人怎樣講評主流，銷售引起的設計管理，這篇文章評論。

The text argues that while this approach does have its merits, it ultimately fails to create the kind of creative economy that it purports to endorse. Dr.eye: 正文表明當這種方法確實有它的優點時，它最後不能建立它聲稱簽署的這種有創造性的經濟。

Rather, by stressing the unique and transcendent creative powers of the auteur, it simply invents yet another authority that yields economic hierarchies. Dr.eye: 相反，透過強調導演/劇作者的獨特和卓越的創造力，它僅僅發明產生經濟階層的又一個權力。

The authors thus propose that the discipline of Design Management ought to follow recent developments within business and the arts, in which innovation and creativity is described in ways that do away with traditional notions of authorship. Dr.eye: 作者如此提議設計管理的紀律應該遵循新近發展在生意和藝術內， 革新和創造性被用廢除寫作的道統的理念的模式描述。

Doing so would enable the discipline to explore how non-hierarchical, “meshworked” economies can be created around the practices of individual designers. Dr.eye: 做如此將使紀律能夠探索多非分級，eshworkedeconomies可以在個別的設計者的慣例周遭創造。

Introduction Dr.eye: 介紹

Mainstream Design Management has been subject to different forms of criticism. Dr.eye: 主流設計管理受不同的批評的形式影響。

One particular type of critique focuses on the ways in which Design Management developed as a sub-discipline of marketing Dr.eye: 一類特別的批評集中於在其裡設計發展成為一種銷售的附屬學科的管理的模式

 (cf. Cooper & Press, 1995; Bruce & Cooper, 1997), reducing the designer to an instrument for product differentiation. Dr.eye: 庫珀和新聞，1995； 布魯斯&庫珀，1997) ,迫使設計者成為產品區別的一份檔案。

Critics have also pointed to the use of management and control techniques that, ultimately, serve to curtail creativity. Dr.eye: 批評家也已經指向使用最後，能縮短創造性的管理和控制技術。

While such criticisms have been presented in different ways, a circle of candinavia-based researchers who are exploring the links between aesthetics and management, “aesthetic management”, have been most eloquent in doing so. Dr.eye: 當這樣的批評已經被用不同的模式提出時， 一圈基於candinavia的正探索在美學和管理之間的連接的研究人員，感官的管理在此過程中非常雄辯。

Among these scholars, Clemens Thornqvist is one of the more explicit critics of mainstream Design Management.在這些學人中，克萊門斯Thornqvist更多明確主流的批評家一設計管理。

In his fascinating study of the creative genius of Robert Wilson and Vivienne Westwood, The Savage and the Designed, he argues that the marketing bias of the discipline has usurped the aesthetic nature of creative work. Dr.eye: 在他的羅伯特‧威爾遜和維文‧韋斯特伍德的有創造性的天才的迷人的研究，野蠻和設計裡， 他辯論這種學科的銷售偏見已經篡奪有創造性的工作的審美本性。

Thus,the fundamental approach of design management sets out from the same [...] Dr.eye: 因此，設計管理的基本的方法從相同開始 [...]  perspective as brand management, in the context of Corporate Design or Corporate Identity, without any consideration to transcendence, virtuality and movement in a fetishized thing-relation called for in a creative relation. Dr.eye: 作為品牌管理的遠景， 鑑於公司的設計或者共同的身分， 如果沒有在有創造性的關係裡要求的對transcendence，在fetishized 事情關係裡的virtuality和運動的任何考慮。   (Thornqvist, 2005: 148)

He therefore calls for a Design Management that puts a greater emphasis on understanding the nature of creativity, as it is actualised in and around designers. Dr.eye: 因此他要求把更大的重點放在理解創造性的性質上的一項設計管理，因為它在設計者裡和在設計者周遭是actualised。  More specifically, there is a need for an approach that focuses on “the exclusive creative powers of the auteur” (136). Dr.eye: 更明確，有一對的需要集中於他導演/劇作者的專有創造力的一方法 ( 136 ) .

This paper will argue that while this “aesthetic management” approach does have its merits, it ultimately fails to create the kind of creative economy that it purports to endorse. Dr.eye: 這篇文章將辯論當這感官的managementapproach確實有它的優點時， 它最後不能建立它聲稱簽署的這種有創造性的經濟。

Rather, by stressing the unique and transcendent creative powers of the auteur designer, it simply invents yet another authority that yields economic hierarchies. Dr.eye: 相反，透過強調導演/劇作者設計者的獨特和卓越的創造力，它僅僅發明產生經濟階層的又一個權力。

Indeed, as we argue elsewhere (von Busch & Palmas, 2008), the great challenge for Design Management is to get away from the view of design as a process that invariably unfolds under the auspices of a hierarchical organisation. Dr.eye: 當我們在別處辯論時，的確(馮‧布希&帕爾馬，2008) ,設計管理的大的挑戰將作為不變地伸展，由一個分級的組織主持的一個過程擺脫設計的視野。

Design Management should indeed shift its focus, but from the current “molar” to a “molecular”perspective. Dr.eye: 設計管理移動焦點的確應該，但是從那裡這當今olarto olecularerspective。

In other words, rather than studying design from the perspective of the unitary organisational hierarchy,it should study various forms in which individual designers can create economies around their work. Dr.eye: 換句話說， 它應該研究個體的設計者能在他們的工作周遭創造經濟的各種各樣的形式，而不是從單位的機構化的階層的視角研究設計。

In the next section, the field of aesthetic management will be surveyed, followed by a section that argues that focusing on the “creative powers of the auteur” is  omewhat anachronistic given the recent debates on authorship, creativity and  innovation. Dr.eye: 在下一部分裡， 審美管理的領域將被調查， 隨後有辯論集中於reative給在寫作，創造發明上的新近的辯論的時代錯誤的auteuris omewhat的權力的一部分。

Following a section that describes some examples of non-auteur creativity in contemporary culture and economy, the text is concluded by a case study of designers who are working within economic ecologies that are not dependent on traditional notions of authorship. Dr.eye: 繼在當代文化和經濟裡描述非導演/劇作者的創造性的一些例子的一個部分之後， 正文因為正在不倚賴寫作的道統的理念的經濟生態學內工作的設計者的案例研究被結束。

These case studies are drawn from Otto von Busch's exhibition “Hackers and Haute Couture Heretics” at Garanti Gallery in Istanbul during the fall of 2007. Dr.eye: 這些案例研究從奧特馮布希展覽會ackers 和新式女裝Hereticsat Garanti 畫廊在伊芳史丹布爾在2007的下降期間那裡拉。

Aesthetic management Dr.eye: 審美管理

The notion of aesthetic management is located in the interstices of artistic and business practice. Dr.eye: 審美管理的理念位於藝術和商業慣例的間隙。

Largely based on the original work of Pierre Guillet de Monthoux, it features descriptive,prescriptive, and critical elements. Dr.eye: 基本上基於皮埃爾Guillet de Monthoux的原先的工作，它以描寫，規定，和關鍵的要素為特色。

First, on the level of description, it proposes that scholars can view companies as works of art  (ie. Dr.eye: 首先，關於描述的水準，它提議學人能認為公司為藝術作品(例如。  “art firms”),that the practice of management can be seen as a form of aesthetics,and that managers (or, more generally, leaders) can be described as artists. Dr.eye: rt 公司，管理的實踐可以被視為一個美學的形式和那經理(或者，更一般，領導人)  可以被描述成藝術家。

These propositions were first put forward by Guillet de Monthoux (1993), and subsequently expanded in Guillet de Monthoux (2004). Dr.eye: Guillet de Monthoux首先提出了這些建議 ( 1993 ) ,並且後來在Guillet de Monthoux裡擴大 ( 2004 ) .

More specifically, the notion of the “art firm” is the merger of two forms of aesthetics. Dr.eye: 更明確，rt firmis的理念美學的兩個形式的合併。

Guillet de Monthoux starts from Kantian aesthetics, in which the artist is seen as an inspired medium revealing or disclosing archetypes [...] Dr.eye: Guillet de Monthoux 從康德的美學開始，其中藝術家被視為揭示或者透露原型的一種鼓舞的媒介 [...]

Thus, intuition, feelings, and imagination play crucial roles in these processes of creation. Dr.eye: 因此，直覺，感覺和想像在創造的這些過程裡扮演決定性的角色。

In the aesthetic experience,then, one reaches “transcendence”. Dr.eye: 在美感裡，然後，一達到ranscendence

The art firm emerges when such an inspired medium is placed in the context of an organisation, as demonstrated by the contextual view of aesthetics proposed by Gadamer. Dr.eye: 當這樣的一種鼓舞的媒介被鑑於一個組織安置時，藝術公司出現， 象以Gadamer提出的美學的contextual 意見證明的那樣。

An effective artist leader is, then, someone who “fuses rational calculative control with a passion for the aesthetic and the sublime” (322). Dr.eye: 一位現有的藝術家領導人是， 然後，誰使用與一酷愛審美和偉大一起的合理計算控制的人 ( 322 ) .

Here, there is a perfect symmetry between the artistic practice of Robert Wilson and the managerial practice of Swedish industrialist Pehr G Gyllenhammar: Dr.eye: 這裡，有一種完美的對稱性在羅伯特‧威爾遜和瑞典工業家Pehr G Gyllenhammar的經理的實踐的藝術實踐之間︰

the great artist and the great manager “share aesthetic leadership talents that hold the key to transforming the ordinary into the extraordinary” (Guillet de Monthoux, Gustafsson & Sjostrand, 2007). Dr.eye: 偉大的藝術家和偉大的經理野兔審美領導才能， 為了把普通事轉變成特別的(Guillet de Monthoux，Gustafsson & Sjostrand，2007)拿關鍵 .

Moreover, the aesthetic management scholars argue that this symmetry is increasingly reflected in the training of artists and corporate leaders: Dr.eye: 而且，審美管理學人辯論這對稱性越來越反映在藝術家和社團領導人的訓練上︰

“thanks to the growing aesthetic awareness of postmodern management scholars”, the “differences between art and business schools” are diminishing. Dr.eye: 束對增長審美在藝術和生意schoolsare 減少之間的ifferences意識後現代主義管理學人。  (Guillet de Monthoux, 2004: 348)

On a prescriptive level, aesthetic management argue that corporations that allow managers to act like “artist leaders” will become more creative and innovative. Dr.eye: 關於審美管理，規定水準辯論公司允許經理表現為rtist leaderswill 變得更有創造性和革新。

Thus, an increased management focus on “passion, playfulness, improvisation, intuitive judgement, beauty, and sensuality” (Guillet de Monthoux, Gustafsson & Sjostrand, 2007) will support long-term profitability of a corporation. Dr.eye: 因此， 一項增加的管理集中於assion，playfulness，即席創作，直覺判斷，美容和淫蕩(Guillet de Monthoux，Gustafsson & Sjostrand，2007)  將支援一個公司的長期的盈利。

This rings particularly true for contemporary enterprises that rely on a strong brand identity. Dr.eye: 特別真實的這戒指適合倚賴一堅固品牌身分的同時代企業。

Indeed, building “brand value” is construed as a matter of forging ties with the transcendent. Dr.eye: 的確，大樓valueis石橋作為與卓越結成關係的問題直譯。  For instance,Guillet de Monthoux describes how the Prada brand is “threatened by banality” (2004: 350) as it grows into a large conglomerate of disparate sub-brands. Dr.eye: 例如，Guillet de Monthoux 描述Prada牌是透過陳詞濫調的hreatened怎樣 ( 2004 : 350 )  當它發展成為一個不同的附屬品牌的大的聯合大企業時。

Nevertheless, by “cleverly” drawing on projects that reconnect the brand with aesthetics, it has managed to “regain some of its earlier transcendence”. Dr.eye: 雖然如此，以leverlydrawing在再接通與美學一起的品牌的工程上，天氣設法egain它的一些更盡快的transcendence

Beyond the level of the corporation, “aesthetic leadership [has a] universal capacity to create an economy mindful of human needs and desires”. Dr.eye: 在公司的水準，感官的領導以外 [有A ]造成注意人類需要的經濟並且想要的普遍的能力

However, organisations in contemporary market economies generally fail to incorporate aesthetics into their practices. Dr.eye: 不過，在當代市場經濟方面的組織一般不能把美學編入他們的慣例。

The critique posited by these scholars thus concerns the tendency for contemporary market societies to head down the slippery slope towards banality. Dr.eye: 批評以這些學人假設如此關係到適合當代市場社會向下降狡猾斜坡向陳詞濫調的趨勢。

As contemporary organisations all too often fail to embrace and harness the exclusive creative powers of great artist leaders, our economy tends to propagate the trivial rather than the extraordinary. Dr.eye: 太的當代組織經常不能擁抱和馬具專有創造力的巨大藝術家領導人， 我們的經濟傾向於傳播瑣屑而不是特別。

It is on this point that the critique towards mainstream Design Management is formed. Dr.eye: 對於主流設計管理的批評形成是在這個點上。

The line of critique presented above, in the quote from Thornquist's The Savage and the Designed, can be traced back to Guillet de Monthoux (1993). Dr.eye: 在Thornquist的那些引語內，產品的批評在上面提出野蠻的和設計，可以被追溯到Guillet de Monthoux ( 1993 ) .

Here, the discipline is denounced as a means to exercise control through organisation – a move that relegates the artist to the “colporteur of the ordinary” (5). Dr.eye: 這裡，紀律作為訓練的一方法告發透過組織控制貶低藝術家到普通事的olporteur的行動 ( 5 ) .

Therefore, Design Management needs to be reformed: Dr.eye: 因此，設計管理為需要被改革︰

In the dominant design management discourse [...] Dr.eye: 在有勢力的設計管理講話裡 [...]  there are few accounts of an approach [...] Dr.eye: 有一種方法的很少賬 [...]  that can fully articulate on the one hand the exclusive creative powers of the auteur and on the other and industrialized design-managed process. Dr.eye: 那完全地一方面清楚地說能專有創造力的那些導演/劇作者和在另一個上和使設計管理過程工業化。

However, as we shall see in the coming sections, the very notion of authorship is under renegotiation. Dr.eye: 不過，當我們將在即將到來的部分裡看見時，寫作的理念是在重新議價下。

In the arts, as well as in business, new perspectives on creativity and innovation are emerging – perspectives that do away with notions of authorship and exclusive creative powers. Dr.eye: 在藝術方面， 以及在生意方面，在創造發明上的新遠景正出現廢除寫作的理念和專有的創造力的遠景。

Before moving on to these perspectives, the text will briefly outline the perils of glorifying the individual genius of an auteur, engineer or manager. Dr.eye: 在移到這些遠景之前，正文將短暫略述讚美一個導演/劇作者，工程師或者經理的個別的天才的危險。

Hierarchical heroes Dr.eye: 分級的英雄

In another paper (von Busch & Palmas, 2008), we deploy Manuel DeLanda's (1991; 1997; 2006) Dr.eye: 在另一篇文章(馮‧布希&帕爾馬，2008) ,我們部署曼紐爾DeLanda(1991； 1997 ; 2006)

Deleuze-informed ontology of the economy in order to discuss the current state of Design Management. Dr.eye: 為了討論設計管理的當前狀態，Deleuze通知的經濟的實體論。

DeLanda describes the past couple of centuries as a shift towards a more hierarchically structured economy; more and more aspects of economic activity have been internalised into corporate entities. Dr.eye: DeLanda對世紀描述過去作為對於更多的僧侶統治集團組織的經濟的變化； 經濟活動的越來越多的方面是進公司個體的internalised。  (DeLanda, 1997: 25-99)

Design Management feeds into this process, as it has focused primarily on how design can be incorporated in large organisational hierarchies. Dr.eye: 設計管理裝入這過程，主要集中於設計可以合併一般機構化階層怎樣當時。

This holds true for mainstream, marketing-derived Design Management, but also – which is the point in this paper – for the aesthetic management scholars mentioned above. Dr.eye: 這對於主流，銷售得到的設計管理保持真實，而且是上述的審美管理學人的在這篇文章裡的要點。

Guillet de Monthoux' object of description is, after all, an “art firm”;aesthetic management is, after all, a tool for corporate managers. Dr.eye: Guillet de Monthoux ' 描述的目標，終究，一項rt firmaesthetic 管理終究是公司的經理的一件工具。

However, these two schools of management feed into the hierarchisation of the economy in different ways. Dr.eye: 不過，這兩所管理學校用不同的模式裝入經濟的hierarchisation。

While mainstream Design Management is concerned with the hierarchical ordering of creative processes, aesthetic management serves to cement hierarchies in a manner that is more related to discursive elements. Dr.eye: 當主流設計管理涉及分級的有創造性的過程的預訂時， 審美管理能用與散漫的要素密切相關的一種模式鞏固階層。

As originally described by Deleuze and Guattari (1988), hierarchisation follows a two-step recipe –first, a collecting and sorting operation, then an operation of “cementing together”. Dr.eye: 象最初透過Deleuze 和Guattari 描述的那樣 ( 1988 ) ,hierarchisation遵循雙級的烹飪法irst，收集和分類的行動， 然後一同一次ementing的行動

This “double articulation” is elaborated upon in Deleuze's (1999) analysis of Foucault's (1977) analysis of panoptic institutions. Dr.eye: 這ouble articulationis在Deleuze內詳細說明 ( 1999 )  Foucault的分析 ( 1977 )  panoptic 機構的分析。

The panoptic prison consists of both material architectures that collect and sort“raw materials” (ie. Dr.eye: panoptic 監獄由聚集的物質建築和sortaw 材料組成(例如。  the prison building, the prisoners etc.) Dr.eye: 監獄大樓，那些已決犯等等) ,

and discourses that cement structures together (ie. Dr.eye: 講話那水泥一同組織(例如。  penal law,the concept of delinquency etc.). Dr.eye: 刑法，失職的概念等等) .

Similarily, the organisational recipe of the modern corporation can be described in terms of a double articulation. Dr.eye: Similarily，現代公司的機構化的烹飪法可以被就雙倍的關節而言描述。

First, it consists of material architectures, such as the M-form corporate form and the ranks of middle managers described by Chandler (1977), and the corporate R&D labs described by Noble (1977). Dr.eye: 首先，天氣由物質建築組成，例如M 形成社團形式和經理雜貨零售商描述的中間的行列 ( 1977 ) ,並且共同的R&D 實驗室貴族描述 ( 1977 ) .

Secondly, it also involves of expressive components, such as the idea of the rational Dr.eye: 第二，也包含有表現力零部件，例如想法的合理

and objective professional, theories of management, the myth of the genius lone inventor, and so on. Dr.eye: 並且客觀專業，管理的理論，天才的神話孤獨的發明者，等等。(Palmas, 2008)

In the above-mentioned paper, we explore how mainstream marketing-led Design Management assists in creating the material, architectural components of corporate hierarchies. Dr.eye: 在上述紙裡，銷售引起的設計管理在創造材料，共同的階層的建築的組成部分過程中幫助主流怎樣，我們探索。

In

this paper, however, we will focus on how the notions of the auteur or the great “artist leader”,celebrated by the “aesthetic management” scholars, serve as expressive components that stabilise organisational hierarchies. Dr.eye: 這幾次文章，不過，我們集中於將怎樣理念的那些導演/劇作者或者巨大rtist這感官managementscholars的leadercelebrated， 作為使機構化的階層穩定的有表現力組成部分。

(It is, however, important to note that the material and the expressive components always work in conjunction – our separation of this double articulation is merely a pedagogical manoeuvre.) Dr.eye: (不過，它重要注意到 材料和有表現力組成部分總是在連接過程中工作我們的這雙倍的發音清晰的分離是僅僅一次教師的調運.)

6

In a review of the historical formation of the modern corporation, heroes with a near-mythical status have played an imperative role. Dr.eye: 在對現代公司的歷史形成進行回顧過程中，有近神話的地位的英雄已經起緊急作用。

Chandler's (1977) account of the rise of the “visible hand” of the modern corporation highlights how large-scale economic organisation is dependent on the separation of ownership and management. Dr.eye: 雜貨零售商的 ( 1977 )  賬的這次升高的那些isible handof這現代公司最精彩場面經濟組織倚賴分離的所有權和管理大規模怎樣。

However, in order for owners to hand over operational control over their assets, a new mythical figure had to be invented – that of the objective, rational, professional manager. Dr.eye: 但是， 擁有人轉交操作的對他們的資產的控制， 一個新神話的數字必須被發明目標的，有理性，頭班的經理。

Indeed, as discussed by Bruno Latour in We have never been modern, the modern economy could only be created through the invention of the idea of a mythical“soulless, agentless bureaucracy”, which “offers the mirror-image of the myth of universal scientific laws”. Dr.eye: 的確， 因為由在我們裡的布魯諾‧拉圖爾討論從未現代， 現代經濟只能被透過mythicaloulless的想法的發明建立， agentless 官僚政治哪ffers 寫照神話的普遍科學法律

Mythical though it may be, this discursive formation has been highly effective: Dr.eye: 雖然它可能是神話的，但是這散漫的形成非常有效︰

it was the ideal of the modern corporate manager – a dehumanised, objective maximiser of profit –that originally made capitalists willing to invest in the new breed of incorporated business organisations. Dr.eye: 這是現代公司的經理的理想dehumanised， 利潤帽子的客觀的maximiser 最初使資本家願意投資合併的企業組織的新品種。

A second mythical figure, just as important to the evolution of the modern orporation, is that of the corporate engineer. Dr.eye: 第2 神話的數字，對現代orporation的演化一樣重要，是公司的工程師的。

In his text on the rise of corporate capitalism, Noble (1977) argues that the rise of the modern corporation also involved the incorporation of knowledge creation, and the rise of a patent system that encourages intra-corporate R&D. Dr.eye: 在他的上升共同的資本主義，高尚的正文裡 ( 1977 )  表明現代公司的升高也與知識創造的結合，以及鼓勵內部的共同的R&D 的一個專利系統的升高有關。

The emergence of structures such as Bell Labs can thus be seen as an early instance of the large-scale commercialisation of knowledge, as well as the starting point of the policing of the spread of productive knowledge. Dr.eye: 象貝拉實驗室那樣的建築物的出現能如此被視為一個知識的大規模commercialisation的早期的實例， 以及多產的知識傳播的維持治安的起點。

As in the case of the separation of management and ownership, this “architectural” development dovetails with the creation of a mythical figure that serves as an “expressive” component that cements the structure. Dr.eye: 例如管理和所有權的分離， 有創造作為鞏固架構的xpressivecomponent的一個神話的數字的這rchitecturaldevelopment 楔形榫頭。

This figure was the engineer in the corporate lab, wearing a white lab coat, possessing a wealth and depth of knowledge unattainable to the layperson. Dr.eye: 這個數字是在共同的實驗室的工程師，穿一件白色的實驗室外套，擁有對外行難得到的知識的財富和深度。

Katherine McCoy (2003) notes that historically, this same “white coat” ideal loomed large within the design profession. Dr.eye: 凱瑟琳‧麥科伊芳 ( 2003 )  注意到歷史上，這相同的hite coatideal在設計頭班內嚴重地威脅。

In the late 1960, the designer was – like the manager or engineer – supposed to be an objective professional: “impartial”, “dispassionate”, and “disinterested” (4). Dr.eye: 在裡1960後期，那些設計者看起來象那些經理或者工程師認為一客觀專業︰ mpartial ispassionate 和isinterested ( 4 ) .

As such, designers were wearing white lab coats at work: Dr.eye: 照此，設計者正起作用穿白色的實驗室外套︰

        These white lab coats make an excellent metaphor for the apolitical designer, cherishing the myth of universal, value-free design – that design is a clinical process akin to chemistry, scientifically pure and neutral, conducted in a sterile laboratory environment with precisely predictable results. Dr.eye: 這些白色的實驗室外套為不關心政治的設計者做一個極好的隱喻， 珍愛普遍的神話， 設計一在化學，科學純和中立國類似的臨床過程的無估價設計，在一不結果實驗室環境內進行與可預測結果的確切一起。   (McCoy, 2003: 3)

6

These mythical figures – the professional manager and the white coat engineer or designer – share fundamental traits with the modern scientist described by scholars within science studies . Dr.eye: 頭班經理和白色的外套工程師或者設計者與在科學研究內學人描述的現代科學家分享基本的特性的這些神話的數字。    (cf. Haraway, 1997; Latour, 1993).

Thus, just like the modern scientist described by Haraway and Latour, the professional manager and the corporate engineer or designer are somehow connected to a transcendent nature – either the natural laws of the market economy, or the laws of physics and technology. Dr.eye: 因此， 正如Haraway 和拉圖爾描述的現代科學家一樣， 頭班經理和公司的工程師或者設計者設法連接卓越的種類兩市場經濟的自然法中的任一， 或者物理學定律和技術。

In both cases, this supposed link to the transcendent realm served not only to cement their position inside a hierarchy, but also to cement the hierarchy as such: Dr.eye: 在兩個情況裡， 這認為卓越王國服務於不僅涂水泥他們的位置在一階層裡面，而且照此涂水泥階層的與的聯繫︰

The hierarchisation of the economy was premised on the fact that capital was better placed, and that knowledge was best turned into innovations, inside corporate hierarchies. Dr.eye: 經濟的hierarchisation是在事實即首都被安置得好，並且知識是最好的變成的革新，在共同的階層裡面上的premised。

Arguably, the auteur or ”artist leader” sketched by the “aesthetic management” scholars may become yet another invented heroic figure that serve to cement hierarchies. Dr.eye: 可爭辯，透過感官的managementscholars的導演/劇作者或者rtist leadersketched 可以成為又一個發明的英雄形象能鞏固階層。

As in the case of the professional manager or the genius corporate engineer, status is claimed from a supposed link to the transcendent realm. Dr.eye: 例如頭班經理或者天才公司的工程師，地位被由於認為的與卓越的王國的聯繫聲稱。

However, rather than professional objectivity or the ability to invent divine products, the artist leader hero supposedly uses exclusive powers to provide imagination, creativity and vision. Dr.eye: 但是， 而不是專業客觀性或者發明神產品的能力，藝術家領導人男主人公根據推測使用專有的權力提供想像，創造性和視力。

This invention does not lead Design Management away from its affinity with hierarchical organisation, but rather reinforces hierarchical modes of creativity and innovation. Dr.eye: 這發明不領導設計管理離開它吸引力與分級組織一起，而是加強創造發明的分級模式。

Fortunately, the auteur model of creation is not the only one around. Dr.eye: 幸好，這導演/劇作者典範的創造並非正在這唯一的在周遭。

Rather, as will be shown in the next section, recent developments in business as well as the arts increasingly lead us towards views of innovation and creativity which have transcended the notion of the auteur. Dr.eye: 相反， 象將被在下一部分裡顯示的那樣， 在生意和藝術方面的新近的發展越來越把我們領導向已經超出導演/劇作者的理念的革新和創造性的意見。

Innovation and creativity without the auteur Dr.eye: 革新和創造性沒有導演/劇作者

The proposition mentioned above – that the “lone genius” model of corporate lab engineer is a myth– has recently been put forward by leading innovation management scholars such as Eric von Hippel (2005) and Sonali Shah (2005). Dr.eye: 上述的建議公司的實驗室工程師的一geniusmodel的那 象艾利克‧馮Hippel那樣的主要革新管理學人最近提出mythhas ( 2005 )  以及Sonali沙 ( 2005 ) .

According to this body of research, many of the innovations that we see coming from corporations are in fact results of users or consumers engaging in the innovation process. Dr.eye: 根據研究的這個身體， 來自公司的我們看見的大多數革新實際上是用戶或者消費者(從事革新過程)的結果。

This kind of “user innovation” has been around for a long time: There are many of examples of not-so-recent innovations – for instance within the automotive and sports equipment industries – that have emerged from users' tinkering with products. Dr.eye: 這種西阿innovationhas來訪很久︰ 例如在已經從用戶胡亂修理的產品出現的汽車和運動設備工業內有不如此新近的革新的大多數例子。

However, as Shah notes, this form of innovation has been hidden from view in the modern economy. Dr.eye: 不過，當沙指出時，革新的這個形式已經被在現代經濟裡遮得看不見。

Citing Noble (1977), she argues that the rise of the modern corporation implied that all innovation was assumed to emanate from corporate labs. Dr.eye: 引用貴族 ( 1977 ) ,她辯論現代公司的升高表示全部革新被假設為從共同的實驗室流出。

7

Firms and entrepreneurs are generally recognized as the primary agents of product change and economic progress [...] Dr.eye: 公司和企業家一般被認為是產品的初級代理人改變和經濟發展 [...]

The consumer's role is a passive one: producers, not consumers, innovate and consumer preferences do not change without producer influence. Dr.eye: 消費者的角色是被動的︰ 生產者，並非消費者，革新和消費者偏好不變化沒有生產者影響。  [...]

In broad and oversimplified terms, this is what is taught to students in management, marketing, economics,and engineering. Dr.eye: 在寬和過於簡單地陳述的學期裡，這是所被教在管理，銷售，經濟學和工程上的學生的。  [...]

The relatively low visibility of user-innovators may have also prevented us from noticing their activities or viewing them as more than mere anomalies: Dr.eye: 用戶改革者的相對低能見度可能也阻止我們注意到他們的活動或者認為他們為超過僅僅的異常︰

while firms are likely to heavily promote their innovations to the mass market, consumer innovations are more likely to be diffused through word of mouth. Dr.eye: 當公司很可能重促進對群眾市場的他們的革新時，消費者革新很可能被透過口頭傳播擴散。 (Shah, 2005)

In this way, the “user innovation” scholars argue that consumers and amateur hobbyists – not the great corporate engineer – are the knowledge-producers that drive innovation. Dr.eye: 以這種方法，西阿innovationscholars 辯論巨大社團工程師駕駛革新的知識生產者的消費者和業餘愛好者不。

Traditional models of understanding innovation – the white-coated professional engineer who creates something out of nothing – underestimate the impact of open (Chesbrough, 2003), democratic, user- and amateur-led innovations. Dr.eye: 道統理解革新的模式白色涂上頭班誰無中生有的工程師低估營業的(Chesbrough，2003)的影響 ,民主，用戶和業餘愛好者領導革新。

However, it is only within innovation management that scholars are attacking the perspective of creativity as something that can be punctualised into a single, individual genius who creates something out of nothing. Dr.eye: 但是， 這只在革新管理內， 學人攻擊作為是可能punctualised 進一單個，個別誰無中生有的天才的東西的創造性的遠景。

Within the arts, particularly in discussions on electronic culture, much has been said about the highly creative cultural scenes that have emerged through the practices of sampling, mixing and “co-creating”. Dr.eye: 在藝術內， 特別是在關於電子文化，很多的討論過程中已經被關於已經透過取樣，混合和創造o的慣例出現的非常有創造性的文化景象說

One eminent art theorist, Nicolas Bourriaud has discussed the notion of “post production” – producing works of art through the reassembly of previous works of art – as key to understanding contemporary arts practices. Dr.eye: 一個聞名的藝術理論家， 尼克勒斯Bourriaud已經為了理解當代藝術慣例透過以前的藝術作品的重新聚集討論ost productionproducing 藝術作品的理念作為關鍵。

Bourriaud (2002) therefore celebrates the“semionaut” – a figure who recognises artistic creativity to be a navigation through the meanings of already existing works, and therefore has let go of the pretensions of being a lone genius who creates something out of nothing. Dr.eye: Bourriaud ( 2002 )  因此慶祝theemionauta數字，承認藝術創造力透過已經現有的作品的意思是航行， 放開一孤獨誰無中生有的天才的聲稱。

We thus see the “emergence of a new cultural configuration, whose emblematic figures are the programmer and the DJ” (35). Dr.eye: 我們如此看見一個新文化構造的mergence，其象徵的數字是程式員和DJ ( 35 ) .

Thus, the traditional notion of the great artistic genius, acting as a medium to the world of transcendence, seems somewhat anachronistic in relation to contemporary culture. Dr.eye: 因此， 偉大的藝術天才的道統的理念，作為transcendence的世界的一種媒介，關於當代文化好像有點時代錯誤。

Following recent discussions on how copyright regimes are stifling creativity (cf. Lessig, 2005; League of Noble Peers, 2007), there are now calls for traditional ideas of authorship to be scrapped. Dr.eye: Lessig，2005； 高尚的貴族的聯盟，2007) ,在那兒現下要求寫作的道統的想法需要被廢棄。 

8

As the Critical Art Ensemble writes, Dr.eye: 因為評論性的藝術樂隊寫，

        the distinguished art object draws its power from a historical legitimation process firmly rootedin the institutions of western culture, and not from being an unalterable conduit to transcendental realms. Dr.eye: 卓越藝術品拉從一歷史合法那裡的它權力堅定地處理rootedin西方文化的機構， 並且不從作為超越的王國的一條不能變更的管道。

This is not to deny the possibility of transcendental experience, but only to say that if it does exist, it is [...] Dr.eye: 這是不否認超越的經歷的可能性，但是只說如果它確實存在，是的 [...]  relegated to the privacy of an individual's subjectivity. Dr.eye: 貶為一個個人的主觀主義者的隱私。  (Critical Art Ensemble, 1997: 87. Italics added.)

In other words, we are not arguing that the romantic notions of authorship – espoused by aesthetic management scholars – have to be abolished. Dr.eye: 換句話說，我們不辯論以審美管理學人擁護的寫作的浪漫理念必須被廢除。

On an individual basis, everyone should be free to worship any designer, artist, or corporate manager that s/he deems to be a genius. Dr.eye: 在一個個人的基礎上，每人應該自由地崇拜她或他認為的任何設計者，藝術家或者公司的經理是一位天才。

However, in a culture based on postproduction, we cannot allow such mythical figures to claim ownership over ever-larger chunks of meanings and knowledge. Dr.eye: 不過，在一種基於postproduction的文化裡，我們不能允許這樣的神話的數字聲稱所有權在一直是大的大量意思和知識上方。

There are several examples of thriving cultural scenes and knowledge communities that have detached themselves from the notion of the auteur with exclusive creative powers. Dr.eye: 有已經有專有的創造力從導演/劇作者的理念上拆下他們自己的繁榮的文化景象和知識社區的幾個例子。

Open source computer programming is one such example: indeed, this was the case that originally attracted the attention of the innovation management scholars mentioned above. Dr.eye: 打開發源計算機程式編製在一這些例子︰ 的確，這是最初吸引上述的革新管理學人的注意的情況。

These communities thus served as laboratories for exploring the “self-organising” logics of user innovation. Dr.eye: 這些社區如此為探索用戶革新的Elf organisinglogics作為實驗室。  (Palmas, 2006: 71)

Regarding the understanding of such logics, it is striking to note that corporations have already started to devise strategies for creating competitive advantages in a business world in which technological development is driven by such swarms of users (Dahlander & Wallin, 2006). Dr.eye: 關於理解這樣的邏輯， 它正向筆記走 那公司已經開始為在一個工商界裡造成競爭優勢想出策略， 這樣的一群群用戶(Dahlander &沃林，2006)驅趕技術上的發展 .

Another example of a setting that functions without traditional notions authorship is the “grime”music scene that evolved in east London in the early years of this century. Dr.eye: 沒有道統理念寫作的功能在倫敦東部在這世紀的早年內逐步形成的rimeusic現場的一背景另一例子。

In this scene, music was made on a Do-It-Yourself-basis, using inexpensive equipment such as Playstations. Dr.eye: 在這個發生地點內，在一自己動手基礎上，音樂被做，使用象遊戲工作站那樣的廉價的設備。

This low barrier of entry created a swarm of producers, who worked together, shared material and sampled each other in a prolific manner. Dr.eye: 進入的這個低的障礙建立一同工作，分享材料並且以大量生產的模式取彼此樣的一大群生產者。

The result was a vibrant scene that evolved quickly and enrolled a large number of users/producers. Dr.eye: 結果是迅速逐步形成並且招收許多用戶/ 生產者的一個震動的景象。

The grime scene represents a perspective on creativity that constitutes a polar opposite of that represented by the “aesthetic management” scholars. Dr.eye: 塵垢現場描述在形成一極地相反的感官的managementscholars 描述的那的創造性上的一遠景。

Here, it is important to note that “grime” –even though it is a DIY scene that does not foster great auteurs – can hardly be denounced as banal. Dr.eye: 這裡，雖然不培養偉大的導演/劇作者，這是一個自己動手做現場，但是注意到那rimeven是重要的幾乎不能被指責為陳腐。

As Leadbeater and Miller (2004) argue, it is becoming difficult to differentiate between amateurs and professionals. Dr.eye: 作為利德比特和米勒 ( 2004 )  辯論，把業餘愛好者和專業人士區分開正變得難。

Professional amateurs – pro-ams, “networked amateurs working to professional standards” (9) – are increasingly making contributions to contemporary culture, economy and science. Dr.eye: 專業業餘愛好者支援上午，對專業標準工作的etworked 業餘愛好者 ( 9 )  正越來越對當代文化，經濟和科學作貢獻。

Thus, if we are to believe Leadbeater and Miller, the coming century will be one in which the influence of pro-ams will increase. Dr.eye: 因此，如果我們相信利德比特和米勒，即將到來的世紀將是支援上午的影響將增加的一。

9

Organisationally speaking, structures such as the grime scene are not arranged through the hierarchy-yielding double articulation mentioned above, but rather through self-catalytic reactions (Kauffman, 1995) among the interacting agents, yielding self-organising “meshworks”. Dr.eye: Organisationally講話， 架構象塵垢現場那樣不透過產生的階層安排加倍上述的發音清晰，而是透過自我催化回應(考夫曼，1995)  在交往的代理人中，產生組織自我的eshworks  (DeLanda,

1997)

Key to the self-organisation of the scene was not only the low barrier of entry, but also –more importantly – the free sharing of (musical) material. Dr.eye: 發生地點的自我組織的關鍵不僅是進入的低的障礙，而且是重要的礦石免費(音樂)的分享  材料。

These twin properties served as a protocol (Galloway, 2004; Galloway, 2006) for the self-organisation of the grime scene. Dr.eye: 這些雙胞胎特性作為一份協議(加洛韋，2004； 加洛韋，2006)  對於塵垢現場的自我組織來說。

As we

argue elsewhere (von Busch & Palmas, 2008), the notion of protocol is crucial for furthering the understanding of how meshworked structures can be triggered in the context of design economies. Dr.eye: 在別處辯論(馮‧布希&帕爾馬，2008) ,理念的協議對促進至關重要理解meshworked 架構可以被鑑於設計經濟引發怎樣。

In the following section, we will study two examples of how these perspectives on creativity and innovation can be brought to bear on Design Management. Dr.eye: 在以後的章節裡，我們將研究在創造發明上的這些遠景怎樣可以被使與設計管理有關的兩個例子。

In what ways is it possible to create design economies based on the meshwork organisational logic, and on the semionautic principle of creation? Dr.eye: 在創造設計經濟基於網路機構化邏輯是可能的，和在semionautic 創造的原則上？

Case studies: Swap-O-Rama-Rama and SHRWR Dr.eye: 案例研究︰ 交換O拉馬拉馬和SHRWR

In the fall of 2007, the Garanti Gallery in Istanbul hosted the exhibition “Hackers and haute couture heretics”, curated by Otto von Busch. Dr.eye: 在2007年秋，在伊芳史丹布爾的Garanti 畫廊在奧特‧馮‧布希旁邊舉辦ackers 展覽會和新式女裝異教徒curated。

One of the events arranged during the exhibition was a Swap-O-Rama-Rama – a public clothes swap and do-it-yourself workshop. Dr.eye: 在展覽會期間安排的事件之一是一件公共衣服交換的一交換O拉馬拉馬和自製的工場。

At these events, participants come to swap clothes and modify them at the spot, assisted by designers and friends. Dr.eye: 在這些事件，參加者來交換衣服並且在點修改他們，被設計者和朋友幫助。

The shared infrastructure – sewing machines and other equipment – is provided by participants, who bring their own resources. Dr.eye: 被分享的基礎設施縫紉機和其他設備由帶來他們自己的資源的參加者提供。

The swaps are big public events, often gathering over a thousand visitors, all sharing clothes, skills and ideas to create new skins out of the old ones. Dr.eye: 交換是大的公眾事件， 經常聚集超過1，000位參觀者，分享衣服，技能和在老的之外創造新皮的想法的全部。

The Istanbul event attracted around 500 visitors. Dr.eye: 伊芳史丹布爾事件吸引大約500位參觀者。

As the inventor of the Swap-O-Rama-Rama events, Wendy Tremayne, could not make it to the workshop, the event followed Tremayne's written method. Dr.eye: 作為交換O拉馬拉馬事件的發明者，溫蒂‧特裡梅因，不能做它到工場，事件遵循特裡梅因的書面方法。

This is constituted by a loose set of instructions, licensed through creative commons and thus open and free to use everywhere and beyond her control. Dr.eye: 這因為鬆散套指示形成，透過有創造性平民批准，，因此打開和免費到處和在她的控制以外使用。

The existence of this method has made the Swaps mobile – they are indeed organised all over the world. Dr.eye: 這種方法的存在已經使交換移動他們在全世界的確被組織。

Tremayne, based in the south of US, does nevertheless assist from a distance: Dr.eye: 特裡梅因，在美國的南部基於，從遠處雖然如此幫助︰

The organisers feed information and images back to Tremayne, who uploads them on the Swap-O-Rama-Rama website. Dr.eye: 那些組織者把訊息和形象背面喂給在交換O拉馬拉馬網站上上載他們的特裡梅因。

The Swap-O-Rama-Rama method follows a very simple procedure. Dr.eye: 交換O拉馬拉馬方法遵循一個非常簡單的程式。

Briefly stated, it consists of the following script: Dr.eye: 被短暫說明，它由下列書寫組成︰

10

1. As visitor, bring at least one bag of your unwanted clothing – this is your  entrance ticket to the event. Dr.eye: 作為參觀者，帶來至少一袋你的不需要的衣服這是事件的你的入口票。

2. When entering, put your clothes into the collective pile of clothing, consisting of all

unwanted clothing of all who attend. Dr.eye: 參加的所有人的不需要的衣服。  This is the raw material of the event, and everyone is welcome to dive in and find his or her next new/used items. Dr.eye: 這是事件的原料， 並且每人可以隨意潛入水中並且找到他或她下一個新/被使用項目。

3. After you have chosen your new clothes slide on over to one of the sewing stations and attend a workshop (sew, embroider, bead, fix, repair, knit). Dr.eye: 你選擇你新衣服到縫紉的車站之一滑動對結束並且參加專題討論會(縫紉， 刺繡，小珠，修理，修理，編織) .

4. Swap-O-Rama-Rama also offers on site DIY (do it yourself) with skilled artists to help you get started. Dr.eye: 交換O拉馬拉馬也在場所自己動手做(自己動手)上出現  由於熟練的藝術家幫助你開始。

You'll find professional designers with sewing machines ready to teach you how to make modifications to your new/used duds. Dr.eye: 你將用準備教你怎樣對你新/被使用廢物修改的縫紉機找到頭班設計者。

5. Prepare yourself for the catwalk that will present the highlights from the Swap. Dr.eye: 為將由於交換提出最精彩場面的狹窄的行人穿越道作思想準備。

At the core of the Swap-O-Rama-Rama is the sharing of material, ideas and skills within a community. Dr.eye: 在交換O拉馬拉馬的核心是在一個社區內的材料的分享，想法和技能。  In these meshworked situations, ideas are cross-pollinated as participants experiment with new forms created out of discarded objects. Dr.eye: 在這些meshworked情勢裡，當參加者做在丟掉的目標之外創造的新形式試驗時，想法十字架受粉。  As such, the Swap is an idea- and skill-expanding

event where people experience a collective empowerment. Dr.eye: 人們經歷集體能力的事件。  Actually, they together form a temporary and complementary fashion scene; the lonely fashionista remaking clothes at the kitchen table is no longer secluded but in the crowd of similar-minded friends. Dr.eye: 實際上，他們一同形成一個暫時和補充的時裝現場； 在廚房桌子重製衣服的孤單的進階時裝迷不再隔離，但是在一群相似頭腦的朋友裡。

The event is organised by a loose group with the aim of triggering an autocatalytic loop, turning the Swap-O-Rama-Rama an actual fashion event (though outside of the hierarchical fashion system). Dr.eye: 為了引發一個autocatalytic 環，一鬆散的組組織事件， 轉動交換O拉馬拉馬一次實際時裝事件(雖然除分級的時裝系統外) .

Instead of focusing on commodities and the exchange of money, the Swap is free, functioning on the basis of an exchange and expansion of skills. Dr.eye: 不是集中於商品和錢的交換，交換是免費的，根據一技能的交換和擴大起作用。

By forming an own scene the people at the Swap can form an own expression, share it and build a congregation with its own format, protocols and doctrine of fashion. Dr.eye: 透過形成一個自己的景象在交換的人們能形成自己的表示， 分享它並且它的時裝的自己的形式，協議和教條地建造一個會眾。

This was intensified as the swap was arranged in conjunction with the ”Istanbul Street Style” party, a monthly club event hosted at various nightclubs in the city showing fashion and street art from unestablished designers and artists. Dr.eye: 當交換被與stanbul街Styleparty一道安排時，這被加強， 一次每月俱樂部事件在各種各樣的夜總會在城市顯示來自unestablished 設計者和藝術家的時裝和街道藝術舉辦。

With models and DJs the event came to be a celebration of small scale creativity but with an glamourous framing, creating a fashion world in itself. Dr.eye: 用模型和DJ 事件開始是一個小的規模創造性的慶祝，但是用一富有魅力的構造，本身建立一個時裝世界。

Another workshop taking place at the exhibition was organised by the Swedish design group SHRWR. Dr.eye: 在展覽會發生的另一專題討論會瑞典組織設計組為SHRWR。

The foundation of their practice is the notion of “Public Domain Clothing”; garments purposefully “liberated” from all forms of ownership, thus subject to sharing. Dr.eye: 他們實踐的建立有目的ublic 領土衣服服裝的理念iberatedfrom 所有權的全部形式，因此以分享為條件。  In their workshop, they liberated clothing by adding a label to them. Dr.eye: 在他們的工場，他們透過給他們添加一個標籤解放衣服。

11

This label read: Dr.eye: 這個標籤讀︰

this is sharewear Dr.eye: 這是sharewear

owned and paid for by no one Dr.eye: 為由沒有人擁有並且支付

do with it as you see fit Dr.eye: 當你認為恰當時，處理它

keep things free Dr.eye: 保持事情免費

because ownership of out of fashion Dr.eye: 因為不合時尚的所有權

The SHRWR group also screen printed garments with their designs and offered open source patterns for visitors to use or copy on paper. Dr.eye: 這SHRWR 組也螢幕與他們的設計一起服裝並且提供打開源頭圖案參觀者使用或者在紙上複製。

The atmosphere in the gallery was however different from the previous workshops. Dr.eye: 無論不同於以前的工場空氣在畫廊內。

The SHRWR group worked somewhat isolated from the gallery visitors, but still offered the outcome from their work for free. Dr.eye: 有點隔離畫廊參觀者，SHRWR 組工作，但是仍然免費提供來自他們的工作的結果。

This strategy had its drawbacks, as visitors proved uninterested in getting garments for free. Dr.eye: 這個策略有它的不利，作為在免費買服裝過程中公平證明的參觀者。

They were nevertheless enthused about doing the printing or re-sewing of garments themselves. Dr.eye: 他們被雖然如此關於親自做服裝的列印或者重新縫紉充滿熱情。

Thus, however well intended, the free clothing of SHRWR did not attract the same kind of wide participation as the Swap event. Dr.eye: 因此，無論很好地打算，免費衣服SHRWR不吸引與這交換事件相同的種寬參與。

For the participants in the workshops, sharing the actual garments created less intensity than the sharing of skills and ideas. Dr.eye: 與技能和想法的分享相比較，對在工場的那些參加者來說，分享實際服裝建立較少的強度。

Whereas the former is a mere gift exchange, the latter builds a community and triggers catalytic reactions. Dr.eye: 鑑於前者僅僅是一個禮物交易所， 後者建立一個社區並且引發催化的回應。

This raises interesting questions regarding what is it is that “wants to be free” – information and skills, or material property. Dr.eye: 這舉起有趣問題關於的螞蟻成為freeinformation 和技能或者物質財產。

It is, then, interesting to note that the Swap event brought out the strongest commitment on the part of the participants. Dr.eye: 是的， 然後，有趣指出交換事件出版參加者的堅固送。

Co-authorship was also more convincing at the Swap, as it facilitated a deeper involvement, with participants engaging in expanding their aesthetic skills. Dr.eye: 公司寫作在交換也更令人信服，它使更深的介入變得容易，與參加者從事擴大他們的審美技能。

Through the sharing of resources and material, the Swap becomes a radical democratic event where all build on an allocated pool of assets. Dr.eye: 透過資源的分享和材料，交換成為全部在資產的一個分發的水池上建造的一次徹底的民主的事件。

This challenges one of the foundations of fashion – the celebration of absolute inequality and exclusivity. Dr.eye: 這挑戰1 的建立製作慶祝的絕對不平等和獨家。

In stark contrast to this, the Swap allows wide participation and the shared luxury of advancing one's aesthetic craft skills. Dr.eye: 與這形成僵硬對比，交換允許廣泛的參與和被合用的提升一個人的審美工藝技能的奢侈品。

As fashion events, both the Swap-O-Rama-Rama and the SHRWR workshop are however interesting inasmuch as they are purposefully designed to function without any reference to great artists or auteurs. Dr.eye: 作為時裝事件， 兩個這交換O拉馬拉馬和SHRWR專題討論會無論有趣因為他們有目的用於沒有任何參考巨大藝術家或者導演/劇作者起作用。

This does not mean that they do not produce creativity, or even economies. Dr.eye: 這不意味著他們不生產創造性或者即使經濟。

In particular, the meshworked structure of the Swap provided new means for designers to create economies around their work. Dr.eye: 尤其，交換的meshworked 架構提供新方法設計者在他們的工作周遭造成經濟。

The Swap is thus one out of several structures that a “molecular” Design Management ought to study. Dr.eye: 交換如此一一項olecularDesign 管理應該研究的幾個架構中。

12

Conclusion Dr.eye: 結論

While we are symphothetic towards the aims of the “aesthetic management” scholars, we fear that a deeper focus on the exclusive powers of the designer auteur would have adverse effects. Dr.eye: 當我們是向感官的managementscholars的目的的symphothetic時， 我們懼怕一更深的集中於設計者導演/劇作者的專有的權力將有反作用。

The invention of yet another mythical figure, supposedly connected to the transcendent realm, simply buttresses the organisational behemoths (Thomas, 2007) that already stifle creativity and innovation in contemporary culture and economy. Dr.eye: 又一個神話的數字的發明，根據推測連接卓越的王國，僅僅支柱機構化的大型車(托馬斯，2007)  那已經在當代文化和經濟裡抑制創造發明。

Unlike the traditional molar perspective on Design Management, shared by both mainstream Design Management and its critics within aesthetic management, a molecular perspective would lead us towards a departure from traditional notions of authorship. Dr.eye: 與關於設計管理的道統的摩爾分子量的遠景不同， 以兩個主流分享設計管理和它批評家在審美管理內，一個分子遠景將把我們領導向一種寫作的違背道統的理念。

With a more realistic perspective on the nature of creation and innovation, we can explore how new economies can be created around design, from a bottom-up perspective. Dr.eye: 由於在創造和革新的性質上的一個更實際的遠景， 在設計周遭經濟可以被建立多新，我們能探索，從一個由下及上的遠景。